GLP Standard
New member
Ah...how I love these scenarios. This shouldnt be a tough one. I was discussing with a co-worker last night what we would do in a situation like this. I'm an Air Force contractor for Security Forces at the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range in southern Arizona. Granted, we are nothing more than certified "Security Guards" (I prefer the term Security Officer, it sounds less degrading) but we do carry AR-15s when we have aircraft on the ramp, as well as Taurus PT92AR's.
Now for my question: We drive down SR-85 between Gila Bend and Ajo a lot (a 40 mile stretch) when we are working Range Patrol. Say we are driving along, and we see a DPS Officer with a vehicle pulled over on the side of the road. As we're driving up, we see that the Officer is fighting with the driver, who is now out of his vehicle, and has struck the Officer, knocking him to the ground. The Officer is helpless, as the driver takes his gun from his duty holster, and points it at the Officer, attempting to finish the job. Would it be justified to stop the truck, and drop the suspect?
The guy I was discussing this with asked our Chief of Security Forces the same question, and he was leaning towards a "no" answer, but said that its ultimately a decision he would have to make on the spot. I was trained that to have a clear case of justifiable self defense, 4 questions must be answered correctly. The questions, and answers are as follows:
1. Was I or someone else in imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death?
Yes
2. Would a person of ordinary firmness agree with my actions?
Yes
3. Was I the instigator or aggressor who provoked the conflict?
No
4. Was the amount of force used excessive?
No
Seems pretty cut and dry to me, but couldnt they try and argue that just by showing up, I was an instigator or an aggressor? I mean, my supervisor (even as full of sh*t as I think he is sometimes) always tells us that just showing a presence in our uniforms is considered a use of force.
One more question: Everyone there is pretty much under the agreement that if we ever had to use our weapons to defend ourselves, we would be terminated without question, whether it were justified or not. What are your thoughts on this? Its a contracted company who is only in it for the money, not for the safety of their employees unfortunately. Everyones logic behind this, is that they would from that point on see you as a loose cannon, and they would feel that having you as an employee is a liability. Can a contract company like this even legally terminate someone for doing their job, and defending someone or themselves when a court found it to 100% justifiable?
Now for my question: We drive down SR-85 between Gila Bend and Ajo a lot (a 40 mile stretch) when we are working Range Patrol. Say we are driving along, and we see a DPS Officer with a vehicle pulled over on the side of the road. As we're driving up, we see that the Officer is fighting with the driver, who is now out of his vehicle, and has struck the Officer, knocking him to the ground. The Officer is helpless, as the driver takes his gun from his duty holster, and points it at the Officer, attempting to finish the job. Would it be justified to stop the truck, and drop the suspect?
The guy I was discussing this with asked our Chief of Security Forces the same question, and he was leaning towards a "no" answer, but said that its ultimately a decision he would have to make on the spot. I was trained that to have a clear case of justifiable self defense, 4 questions must be answered correctly. The questions, and answers are as follows:
1. Was I or someone else in imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death?
Yes
2. Would a person of ordinary firmness agree with my actions?
Yes
3. Was I the instigator or aggressor who provoked the conflict?
No
4. Was the amount of force used excessive?
No
Seems pretty cut and dry to me, but couldnt they try and argue that just by showing up, I was an instigator or an aggressor? I mean, my supervisor (even as full of sh*t as I think he is sometimes) always tells us that just showing a presence in our uniforms is considered a use of force.
One more question: Everyone there is pretty much under the agreement that if we ever had to use our weapons to defend ourselves, we would be terminated without question, whether it were justified or not. What are your thoughts on this? Its a contracted company who is only in it for the money, not for the safety of their employees unfortunately. Everyones logic behind this, is that they would from that point on see you as a loose cannon, and they would feel that having you as an employee is a liability. Can a contract company like this even legally terminate someone for doing their job, and defending someone or themselves when a court found it to 100% justifiable?