Agree that this isn’t a “liberal vs conservative” issue at all. It’s more of a case of whether the jury tends to favor police-type action (security is not police, however they are likely to fall under a similar microscope in a jury trial) or whether they sympathize with the “victim”. In my mind, unless the officer does something that is a gross violation of law and procedure, any court action is more likely to be a civil matter brought by the “victim” or their family. So maybe you’re not going to jail, but you’re still at serious risk of life-altering financial losses and doing so with a lower burden of proof.
Aside from the Hollywood action movie scenarios provided by a couple in this thread, the real world and more likely scenario I’m speaking of is a workplace violence event. So we’re talking about an employee smuggling a firearm into work and going on a shooting spree with an armed security response that is likely to be only one officer with any backup a long, long way off and probably no police response until after the fact (due to remote settings). Your rifle “self-defense” response could be anywhere from muzzle to over 100 yards due to the size of the facilities we’re talking about. And in such a scenario, we’re probably talking about someone who would be known to the officer and a shooter who likely knows, at least in a general sense, what the security response will be when they “go loud”. The concern here is in the aftermath with accusations of “excessive use of force”, which has become a very common reaction in today’s society. As with any use of force, AOJ applies as the test to whether it was justified or not. I have heard a lot of concern from the officers about how they can satisfy AOJ at 100 yards. I think you can, however I also feel you’re entering some tricky legal landscape where things start going into grey areas. And I completely understand and empathize with these guys when you start meshing a legal grey area into your job. Who wants to work in a profession where doing exactly what your job is asking of you could have you sitting in court facing the potential for severe punishment or penalty?
As to the capabilities of the security officer, the reason this has come up in the last year is due to a change in the rifle qualification requirements. Previously, rifle qualifications were fired at ranges between 5 and 50 yards, with over half the course of fire being from 25 yards and just a small portion being at the 50 yard range. A new qualification course was put in place last year and it covers a span of 3 to 100 yards with about a quarter of the course fired from 50 and 100 yard ranges. There were several other changes to the course, most notably a tightening of all the time limits throughout the course. I’ve shot the course a few times now and personally have no problem hitting a 97% score, so I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the qualification requirements. As with all security officer qualifiers in this state, the course is “borrowed” from well-established state or big city police department qualifications, so it will stand up just fine in court.
I have my opinions on the matter, but I thought it was a topic worthy of hearing a few 3rd party comments, just to get a feel for some sentiment from other shooters.