• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Who needs a gun at Wal-mart in Houston?

Hollowpoint38

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
387
Location
A sandwich made of knuckles, Hoover, Alabama
imported post

I can see where you're coming from, but a security guard should not be held responsible for injuries someone receives when they stop a crime. If I ran from the police and tackled me which sprained my ankle, I can't sue them because I was committing a crime when I was hurt. Unless the security guard acting unlawfully and recklessly, then he should be able to stop such events without him or the company fearing legal trouble. This is so wrong!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

Hollowpoint38 wrote:
I can see where you're coming from, but a security guard should not be held responsible for injuries someone receives when they stop a crime. If I ran from the police and tackled me which sprained my ankle, I can't sue them because I was committing a crime when I was hurt. Unless the security guard acting unlawfully and recklessly, then he should be able to stop such events without him or the company fearing legal trouble. This is so wrong!
The standard I would apply is "acting in good faith." As long as the security guard is reasonably trained and is trying to help, the legal system should take note that bad things sometimes happen when we try to do good things. Hold the BG liable.

Unfortunately, BGs tend not to have deep pockets. Wal-Mart and security companies do.
 

SmithD

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
16
Location
Portland ,ME, ,
imported post

I have read, and agree with, most of this thread. However, what the hell is up with a bunch of folks standing around watching a girl get stomped like that. SG or not, why the F didn't someone just pick the kid up to stop the madness?? I have 3 young kids, 2 girls, and if i had been there you bet I would have done something. Just being an adult male in that situation and stepping up could have prevented not all, but a good portion of that poor girls pain....I hold everyone on that platform guilty on inaction!!
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
imported post

I venture to say that if a white male -- you (?)or I -- were there and decided to help the girl, which most likely would require somebitch-slapping of theassailants at the very least to stop the attack, you (or I) would have to consider the possibility that the "security guards" would havegone from "observers" to "responders" -- on YOU (or I) and soany spontaneous "rescuer" would need to be prepared to deal with the assailant girls -- and 3 "men" (term used loosely).

Despite that possiblity, I'm not sayinga bystandershould not get involved-- quite the contrary asI would have intervened myself -- but that's just how upside-down, sick androtten this "great country" is at its core.Incidents like this are justmore reminders of that. And more are to come.

But as we all here know, it's also just another reason to be armed at all times...you never know when you'll need it.

-- John D.
 

sraacke

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
1,214
Location
Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Hollowpoint38 wrote:
I got into an argument with hospital security today about carrying a gun because it was printing on my shirt. He said I don't need a weapon because there is security in the building. I said, "there are no posted signs, you don't have a copy of your policy, and I don't trust you to protect me."

As an unarmed hospital security officer let me address this.

First, when you are on hospital grounds, wether as a guest, patient, visitor or employee you are on private property. By being there you agree to abide by the rules of that facility. I would never tell someone they don't need a weapon because there's security in the building. I would inform them that the hospital has many policies, one of which is a policy banning any weapons on the property.

We don't have to post signs and I don't walk around with a copy of the policy printed out for you to read. I am there to act as a proxy for the administration. I don't have to debate or argue with you .

If I inform you of our policy and you fail to comply I can tell you to leave theproperty. If you fail to leave I canradio my Supervisor and then have dispatch call the Sherriffs Office. When the Deputies arrive we will tell them we have a visitor, guest, patient, employee or whatever who is failing to follow the campus rules and refuses to leave the property. The nice Deputies will then force you to leave or they will cuff you and take you away from my place of employment. I've seen patients Tazed in the emergency room and I've seen family members pepper sprayed in the parking lot. When the cops show up they aren't going to play games.

IF you disagree with a policy, the person to argue with is not a Security Officer. Take your problem to the administration. Please, do me a favor and complain that I was doing my job and enforcing the policies the higher ups typed up and put in a binder for me to read. Hell, I havn't been awarded Officer of the Month in over a year. Your complaint may bet me another nice award to hang on my wall.
 

Hollowpoint38

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
387
Location
A sandwich made of knuckles, Hoover, Alabama
imported post

There was not a policy against carrying concealed. The security officer was explaining to me there was no need to carry because the building has security. I explained to him that I don't trust anyone to defend me except for myself. He asked me if I would put the weapon in my car and I asked if there was a company policy baning weapons and he said "no, you just don't need one here". I kindly told him I prefer to be armed since there was no anti-gun policies and we went our separate ways.

The only reason he know I had a weapon was because I was slightly printing on my shirt and he must have known what to look for. No one else seemed to realize.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

The next time someone at Wal-Mart says they have security, tell them, "No, you have observe-and-reportity. I carry my security."
 

sraacke

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
1,214
Location
Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
imported post

Hollowpoint38 wrote:
There was not a policy against carrying concealed. The security officer was explaining to me there was no need to carry because the building has security. I explained to him that I don't trust anyone to defend me except for myself. He asked me if I would put the weapon in my car and I asked if there was a company policy baning weapons and he said "no, you just don't need one here".
That cleared things up some. If there isn't a policy against it then the SO had no business bothering you. Carry On.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
imported post

eye95 wrote:
I am sure we all know why security guards do not proved security.

It is still morally wrong.

There needs to be a legal definition of words "security" and "guard." When those words are emblazoned on an employee, that employee should be trained and authorized to act to provide security to people and property on the premises of the person who hires the employee or the service.

That young lady in the bus tunnel had a reasonable expectation that she could walk up to someone with "Security" on his back and receive at least an attempt at protection.

On that basis, she should sue, and she should win. IMO.

I agree. I am just saying that there are other constraints on company's and security guards that the general public may not be aware of.

Personally, myself, I would have intervened whether I was a security guard or not. What is also not generally known is that security guards do have the powers of arrest and detainment. This is where I believe those particular SG's failed in their duty to the employer and to the victim. They most certainly witnessed a misdemeanor taking place in their presence which satisfies most state's minimum requirement for a citizen's arrest. Since they didn't do it, I would suggest that either they didn't understand the rules of conduct from their employer, or they didn't want to test the local laws governing citizen's arrest. (These laws do vary from state to state, andthere may be limitations that are not immediately apparant.)
 

OPS MARINE

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
391
Location
, California, USA
imported post

Just my .02, I think it's despicable that the security officer did nothing. He should have announced himself at the very least. There is absolutely no reason, including fear, that he would do nothing. A person's life was at stake. Even if you fail at stopping the threat, you tried.

I would like to think that if I witnessed something like that, taking all other options into consideration, I would have shot him. But of course if he ran when he saw the firearm, that would be unnecessary. I would do SOMETHING. COnfronting him would be the very least of my actions.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

If Wal Mart apparently advertises security in the form of conspicuously visible uniformed security officers, is it not deceptive, even malicious, that these same people calling themselves your security, will do nothing to secure you? Even when they ask and expect you to be helpless yourself?

Forget suing the cops.... Wal Mart is asking for it.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

OPS MARINE wrote:
Just my .02, I think it's despicable that the security officer did nothing. He should have announced himself at the very least. There is absolutely no reason, including fear, that he would do nothing. A person's life was at stake. Even if you fail at stopping the threat, you tried.

I would like to think that if I witnessed something like that, taking all other options into consideration, I would have shot him. But of course if he ran when he saw the firearm, that would be unnecessary. I would do SOMETHING. COnfronting him would be the very least of my actions.
I, personally, would say screw the policy.

But in hard times like these, losing your job is not much different from being summarily executed by your employer. And how does a Security Officer get another Security job after being fired for violating a policy on Security Officers that every store has?

The man would be in a much worse place than this woman was, and what of his family? One chick who chose to be helplessly disarmed, vs his whole family being homeless and starving?

Sucks to be her, but the path of least harm done was exactly what he did; nothing.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
OPS MARINE wrote:
Just my .02, I think it's despicable that the security officer did nothing. He should have announced himself at the very least. There is absolutely no reason, including fear, that he would do nothing. A person's life was at stake. Even if you fail at stopping the threat, you tried.

I would like to think that if I witnessed something like that, taking all other options into consideration, I would have shot him. But of course if he ran when he saw the firearm, that would be unnecessary. I would do SOMETHING. COnfronting him would be the very least of my actions.
I, personally, would say screw the policy.

But in hard times like these, losing your job is not much different from being summarily executed by your employer. And how does a Security Officer get another Security job after being fired for violating a policy on Security Officers that every store has?

The man would be in a much worse place than this woman was, and what of his family? One chick who chose to be helplessly disarmed, vs his whole family being homeless and starving?

Sucks to be her, but the path of least harm done was exactly what he did; nothing.
That's the path of least harm for him. The path of least harm for all the law-abiding folks in the vicinity would be for observe-and-reportity to have become security and stepped in.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

eye95 wrote:
ixtow wrote:
OPS MARINE wrote:
Just my .02, I think it's despicable that the security officer did nothing. He should have announced himself at the very least. There is absolutely no reason, including fear, that he would do nothing. A person's life was at stake. Even if you fail at stopping the threat, you tried.

I would like to think that if I witnessed something like that, taking all other options into consideration, I would have shot him. But of course if he ran when he saw the firearm, that would be unnecessary. I would do SOMETHING. COnfronting him would be the very least of my actions.
I, personally, would say screw the policy.

But in hard times like these, losing your job is not much different from being summarily executed by your employer. And how does a Security Officer get another Security job after being fired for violating a policy on Security Officers that every store has?

The man would be in a much worse place than this woman was, and what of his family? One chick who chose to be helplessly disarmed, vs his whole family being homeless and starving?

Sucks to be her, but the path of least harm done was exactly what he did; nothing.
That's the path of least harm for him. The path of least harm for all the law-abiding folks in the vicinity would be for observe-and-reportity to have become security and stepped in.
For all associated. You're assuming too much.

All in the vicinity? Explain how a clearly specific and targeted attack would effect 'all in the vicinity.'

Also, "all in the vicinity" is probably nobody. Some guy attacking a chick in a crowd; he'd have himself a serious ass-kicking from total strangers.

Still, even worst case. One Dead Chick < Whole Dead Family.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
eye95 wrote:
ixtow wrote:
OPS MARINE wrote:
Just my .02, I think it's despicable that the security officer did nothing. He should have announced himself at the very least. There is absolutely no reason, including fear, that he would do nothing. A person's life was at stake. Even if you fail at stopping the threat, you tried.

I would like to think that if I witnessed something like that, taking all other options into consideration, I would have shot him. But of course if he ran when he saw the firearm, that would be unnecessary. I would do SOMETHING. COnfronting him would be the very least of my actions.
I, personally, would say screw the policy.

But in hard times like these, losing your job is not much different from being summarily executed by your employer. And how does a Security Officer get another Security job after being fired for violating a policy on Security Officers that every store has?

The man would be in a much worse place than this woman was, and what of his family? One chick who chose to be helplessly disarmed, vs his whole family being homeless and starving?

Sucks to be her, but the path of least harm done was exactly what he did; nothing.
That's the path of least harm for him. The path of least harm for all the law-abiding folks in the vicinity would be for observe-and-reportity to have become security and stepped in.
For all associated. You're assuming too much.

All in the vicinity? Explain how a clearly specific and targeted attack would effect 'all in the vicinity.'

Also, "all in the vicinity" is probably nobody. Some guy attacking a chick in a crowd; he'd have himself a serious ass-kicking from total strangers.

Still, even worst case. One Dead Chick < Whole Dead Family.
I have no idea what the point you are making is.

In the event that my point was unclear: "All the law-abiding in the vicinity" was referring to the female victim and the "security" guard, specifically excluding the BG. Including the perpetrator in any calculation of the path of least harm would be silly.

My point was that a path of least harm that only considered the "security" guard would only take into account his selfish POV. If paths of least harm are going to be considered, consider the least harm to all law-abiding citizens involved in the event.

That was a lot of words. I prefer the economy of words in my preceding post. However, that economy came at the expense of understanding.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

As foolish as it may sometimes be, I believe an assumption will grant us both an economy of headache.
 
Top