3 ms·

On the contrary even individuals have the lawful right to defend themselves up to and including using lethal force. It’s a peculiar argument you are making att

by kyleee 3y ago

On the contrary even individuals have the lawful right to defend themselves up to and including using lethal force. It’s a peculiar argument you are making attempting to make it seem like only only law enforcement officers are allowed to use lethal force.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> individuals have the lawful right to defend themselves up to and including using lethal force But not to run into a room to dispense it. If the armed guard happens to be under threat, yes, they can shoot to kill. But if someone starts shooting inside while they’re at the door, their legal rights are typically restricted to apprehension.
- prepend 3y ago
  > But if someone starts shooting inside while they’re at the door, their legal rights are typically restricted to apprehension. This is simply not true. Most states that regulate armed security guards have a duty to protect. It’s part of the training they receive and licensure to be able to carry a weapon for their job as an armed security guard. Also, in most states, a private citizen carrying a weapon can who is just a bystander is legally allowed to use lethal force to protect other people and even if that means to run into a room and dispense it. I think what may be confusing you is that guards can’t just blast for anything (like cops can). But if there’s someone with a gun drawn (or other lethal weapons) then it’s basically open season for anyone to kill that person to eliminate that threat. Most people won’t seek out danger if they hear gunshots or see something. But armed guards have that as their job. If I hire a security guard who is licensed to carry a gun and they don’t intervene if some psycho is waiving a gun around then that guard is doing a bad job. Guards with guns are very different from the mall cop type people who you see as loss prevention officers that can’t do much. But they aren’t there to protect you from harm, they are there to reduce shoplifting.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > states that regulate armed security guards have a duty to protect Source? Duty to protect doesn’t even apply to cops in America. > it’s basically open season for anyone to kill that person And if they miss and hit someone else? There is no liability shield for them as there is for cops. This is why there are virtually no examples of armed security subduing a shooter. It’s randos or cops. Maybe I’ve fallen for cops’ marketing. But when hiring for events in four states, moonlighting LEOs come with an advertised advantage of being able to pull a trigger without thinking twice.

by kyleee 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> individuals have the lawful right to defend themselves up to and including using lethal force But not to run into a room to dispense it. If the armed guard happens to be under threat, yes, they can shoot to kill. But if someone starts shooting inside while they’re at the door, their legal rights are typically restricted to apprehension.

prepend 3y ago
> But if someone starts shooting inside while they’re at the door, their legal rights are typically restricted to apprehension. This is simply not true. Most states that regulate armed security guards have a duty to protect. It’s part of the training they receive and licensure to be able to carry a weapon for their job as an armed security guard. Also, in most states, a private citizen carrying a weapon can who is just a bystander is legally allowed to use lethal force to protect other people and even if that means to run into a room and dispense it. I think what may be confusing you is that guards can’t just blast for anything (like cops can). But if there’s someone with a gun drawn (or other lethal weapons) then it’s basically open season for anyone to kill that person to eliminate that threat. Most people won’t seek out danger if they hear gunshots or see something. But armed guards have that as their job. If I hire a security guard who is licensed to carry a gun and they don’t intervene if some psycho is waiving a gun around then that guard is doing a bad job. Guards with guns are very different from the mall cop type people who you see as loss prevention officers that can’t do much. But they aren’t there to protect you from harm, they are there to reduce shoplifting.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > states that regulate armed security guards have a duty to protect Source? Duty to protect doesn’t even apply to cops in America. > it’s basically open season for anyone to kill that person And if they miss and hit someone else? There is no liability shield for them as there is for cops. This is why there are virtually no examples of armed security subduing a shooter. It’s randos or cops. Maybe I’ve fallen for cops’ marketing. But when hiring for events in four states, moonlighting LEOs come with an advertised advantage of being able to pull a trigger without thinking twice.