Armed security guards

[ham385]

I'm not in the security business, and I'm not looking into getting into the security business, but I have a question about armed guards. I've been curious about this for a few years, but since it doesn't really effect me, I've never bothered asked before.

I'm a bit confused about the law as it pertains to armed security with respect to the protection of property. In fact I wouldn't even know where to start a google search.

I do know that citizens can't use deadly force to protect property, and as I understand even police can't. Don't get me wrong, if I was a security guard, I'd feel alot more comfortable with a sidearm to protect myself. So what exactly does an armed guard have over an unarmed guard with respect to the use of force to protect property?

For example, an armored car with armed guards. What would be the limits of a legal response for an armed guard if an unarmed man were to just start shoving (not wrestling or hitting) the guards out of the way, grab a bag of money and run? In this situation, it's possible sombody could get a bump on the head and die, but not probable, so I'd venture to say that lethal force would not be justified.

Silly question, I know, and no, I'm not thinking about doing this, I'm too slow to run away I've just always wondered.

[ChrisF4i]

...What would be the limits of a legal response for an armed guard if an unarmed man were to just start shoving (not wrestling or hitting) the guards out of the way, grab a bag of money and run? In this situation, it's possible sombody could get a bump on the head and die, but not probable, so I'd venture to say that lethal force would not be justified...

Of course not. Lethal force would not be justified for anyone in that scenario.

[ByblosHex]

Of course not. Lethal force would not be justified for anyone in that scenario.

Uhhh... shove back?

[Patracker]

As a former armored truck driver I will give you my opinion.
It is not a wise decision to approach any armored truck employee for any reason. We are taught to be suspicious of everyone. If your intent is to commit a robbery, armed or not, you will be met with severe/deadly force.
Try to look up the Lumis Armored Robbery, I do not know what you will find on the web,but it was a very violent incident. Yes, these were armed felons, but should it really matter.
Another horror story involved a inocent man sitting on a bench reading a newspaper. When the guard returned to his truck the man walked over and shot him in the head, took the money and walked away.
Oh when I worked as a guard, we made 8.50 an hour. Supervisors made 10.
Equal pay for equal work, right.
Like I said these are my opinions, and feelings.

[ChrisF4i]

Of course not. Lethal force would not be justified for anyone in that scenario.

Uhhh... shove back?

Shoving back is not lethal force buddy

[ByblosHex]

Shoving back is not lethal force buddy

Yeah. No Shit shoving isn't lethal force. That's why I suggested you shove back instead of using lethal force. :/

[ChrisF4i]

Yeah. No Shit shoving isn't lethal force. That's why I suggested you shove back instead of using lethal force. :/

Ok good, I just assumed that you were anserine with that comment.

[PAsig229]

Armed security officers cannot use lethal force to protect property, just as police officers and civilians cant. But because the property that armed security officers protect is typically highly valuable, the temptation for criminals to steal said property can, theoretically, be much higher. That being said, some criminals who decide to attempt to steal property of high value may decide to do so with a gun or other deadly weapon. While security officers cannot shoot to defend property, they can still shoot if someone attempting to steal that property puts the life of the security officer in danger. The sheer nature of the property they protect can be enough to threaten their lives.

Basically, shooting to defend property = NO

Shooting dangerous assailant who threatens life over the property at hand = YES

[Iraqvetwpb]

As with anything, there are always exceptions. Armed security officers can use deadly force for their own defense or the defense of another. For example an armed officer patrolling a community comes across an armed assault in progress. Yes deadly force is authorized.

For the most part deadly force can not be used to protect property. Here is where the exception comes in; Unless the property in question effects and can be a danger to the general population or national security.

You will only have this authorization on federal government accounts. These include, military bases, military (guard /reserve) armories and of course Nuclear Power Plants.

Even when it is private security there and not military they still have that authority. If you go look at any vault outside the door at any military armory, there is a nice big red sign that reads ( US Government - Deadly Force is Authorized ) You’ll find the same sign at nuclear facilities also. Plus the officers carry M-4’s and 40 cal. Pistols. Their not carrying them for the looks.

With any account, know your limits and what authorizations you have prior to working the post. If it it a post that is outside your training or experience, save yourself a possible problem and pass on working it.

An Armed Security Agency Owner.

[ByblosHex]

It's simple. If your job is to protect property. Make it impossible for anyone to take/damage that property without applying deadly force on you. You can respond then, with deadly force.

As with anything, there are always exceptions. Armed security officers can use deadly force for their own defense or the defense of another. For example an armed officer patrolling a community comes across an armed assault in progress. Yes deadly force is authorized.

For the most part deadly force can not be used to protect property. Here is where the exception comes in; Unless the property in question effects and can be a danger to the general population or national security.

You will only have this authorization on federal government accounts. These include, military bases, military (guard /reserve) armories and of course Nuclear Power Plants.

Even when it is private security there and not military they still have that authority. If you go look at any vault outside the door at any military armory, there is a nice big red sign that reads ( US Government - Deadly Force is Authorized ) You’ll find the same sign at nuclear facilities also. Plus the officers carry M-4’s and 40 cal. Pistols. Their not carrying them for the looks.

With any account, know your limits and what authorizations you have prior to working the post. If it it a post that is outside your training or experience, save yourself a possible problem and pass on working it.

An Armed Security Agency Owner.