Interesting…
1 Like
What a moron. Following the “security” guards reasoning, then, when an Officer stops for lunch he is on personal time and should disarm. The Officer may have been running a personal errand, but was on the clock, subject to an emergency call he may have needed to respond to at any time, including in that building. Disarming him would actually have a been a public safety concern. Not to mention that, in many (if not most or all) cases when an Officer is in uniform he is still considered on duty and required to be properly armed. The reasoning there is that a citizen that sees the Officer in uniform has no way of knowing if the Officer is on duty or not and has a REASONABLE EXPECTATION that (s)he is.
IF the guard was arrested and this went to a trial, I believe his attorney would have a difficult time proving to the jury that it was REASONABLE for the guard to believe his life was in danger.
My 2 pennies.
3 Likes
Yeah, that right there. There are times and places where seeing an armed officer might mean your life is at risk even if you are doing nothing wrong. But that surely wasn’t one of them. 
3 Likes
someone wasn’t read in on status of forces agreements
1 Like
I’m thinking they weren’t read in on status of common sense either!
3 Likes
He was arrested and charged wtih aggravated assault on a police officer since they couldn’t find a statute addressing aggravated stupidity under color of law.
4 Likes
now THAT’s a law I could endorse 
2 Likes
well… maybe while he’s on lunch he should not only disarm, but disrobe so he’s not in uniform either.
1 Like
Many departments actually require their officers to carry whether they are officially on or off duty.
3 Likes
Retired trooper here, and…
Wow. What a dumbass. 
Reminds me of an employee I ran into at the dump while trying to properly dispose of some used tires from two of my cars. “Only 5 tires per annum! If you want to get rid of eight, you have to bring the other three next year.”
Yeah, he knew the rules, but no freaking sense at all.
2 Likes
Although, after doing some more searching for the actual law, it turns up this:
§930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
© A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
Kind of long, but even if he was not there on “official business,” section d(3) would seem to be a catch-all for otherwise lawful carry as long as the purpose is, well, lawful.
3 Likes
Whomever has been putting the stupid in the water for the last 25 years can stop already.
It appears that the training for a CCW permit is more thorough than that of an armed security guard.
4 Likes
It’s been debated whether this applies to CCW and if “self defense” is a lawful purpose. Most lawyers say to error on the side of caution.
2 Likes
I understand the caution, as apparently they are training to ignore that part of the law.
Which is pretty bad, considering that lawful concealed carriers are not a problem.
1 Like
It was unexpected to see all of the responses supporting the sheriff and denigrating the security guard. This is a jurisdiction and entitlement issue. The rules and laws are clear. The security guard was doing his job and the sheriff was standing on his perceived privilege . He did have his hands on his weapons. If someone had legal weapons on them like he had and the were in his posture during an official stop he would have given the same commands. Would we be saying something different if this was an FPS officer, or and FBI agent, what about secret service. When that sheriff heard take your hands off your weapons he should have complied with the same level of respect he would expect when he gives the commands.
I’d really love to debate anyone trying to make the argument that self defense is not a “Lawful purpose or activity”.
You’d really need an entirely biased judge and jury not to accept it is both.
He’s a sworn LEO and at no time was any of his behavior threatening.
The guard had no lawful use of force much less deadly force against him particularly when the officer tried to leave.
He has been fired and will be convicted and lose his state commission as a security officer and most likely even with a plea is going to do some prison time.
The SO was just being stupid and trying to assert his own authority over the cop and was wrong in every way for doing so. At most the first thing he should have done is to call for a supervisor to come down and resolve the issue.
1 Like
WildRose, I agree that the guard was not acting in a reasonable fashion, but the issue with the law is, at least to the guard, clear. He was trained that only while on official business could even a sworn police officer carry a firearm.
So, in this case, it would seem that d(3) would specifically apply as he, the officer, was carrying for “other lawful purposes.”
I am interested to see how this plays out, as if the guard argues that he upheld the law exactly, and the officer admitted that he was on a break from normal duties, then the exception in d(3) may be the difference in a decision.
With, potentially, all that entails for all other “lawful purpose” carriers.
1 Like
The SG is going to be SOL both under state law and Federal Law.
He had drawn his gun before ever even asking the deputy what his status was and the deputy being in uniform on his lunch break was certainly within the law.
If there was any question as to his legality he blew it by aiming at the officer who was trying to leave with his back turned.
At a minimum he’ll have to plead out to a lesser charge if they can dream one up, he’ll lose his job, lose his state commission, and never work in the field again.
I could certainly be wrong in the end if there are some facts we have yet seen particularly but if I am it will be the first time in reviewing literally thousands of use of force incidents.
I just simply see no way he walks away from this short of some massive pressure put on the DA by the fed’s and I sure don’t see that happening here.
2 Likes
So lawfully carrying concealed is an affirmative defense?
1 Like