On-Duty use of force. When do you draw?

[VaughnT]

"hypothetically"

You're working an ATM. Your partner is attending the machine and you are standing at his back, watching the surroundings.

A dozen or more cars pass by. You see a primer-grey, low-rider pickup approaching from the west at a very low rate of speed. As the vehicle approaches, you note that the driver's window is down and the driver is staring hard at you and your partner as his vehicle coasts by. Estimated speed of vehicle is under 5mph.

Moving past your position approximately 100yds (west to east), the driver executes a 180* turn and accerlates through a barren parking lot. When approximately 40yds west of your location, the driver executes another 180* turn and approaches your position, again at a very low speed.

When the vehicle's driver-side window is due south of your position, no more than twenty yards away, the driver comes to a dead stop. At this time, hypothetically, the driver asks, "Is there a problem?"

You respond, "No problems, sir."

Driver, "Then why where you eyeballing me as I went past? There has to be a problem."

Guard, "It's my job to watch people, sir. Please move along."

Driver, upon seeing the guard's hand move to the grip of a fantastic Ted Yost custom 1991, "What's up with the gun? You don't scare me! I'm not afraid of you."

Guard, "I'm not trying to scare you, sir. I'm trying to do my job. Please move on."

Driver, "Or what? What are you going to do?"

Guard, "Sir, please move on or we will have to call County for a cruiser to respond."

Driver, "mumble....mumble.....piece of s#*t....mumble....mumble."

Guard, "Sir, move on NOW!"

Driver, "mumble......mumble."

Vehicle proceeds slowly in an easterly direction approximately 100yd and executes yet another 180* turn, returning to your position.

Your partner is on the radio/phone requesting a cruiser asap. The vehicle turns off of the frontage road into the parking lot of the bank you are servicing. The vehicle stops due east of your position, no more than fifteen yards from you.

Driver, "mumble....mumble....need some money?"

Guard, "Sir, move on now. County is en route and you are about to be in very big trouble. Leave now. Drive away, now."

Driver stares at you for a few minutes and then pulls on to the highway traveling east towards the interstate.

Questions:

While you are licensed in SC with the full power of a sherriff's deputy so long as you are on company/customer property, would you have fealt authorized to execute an arrest/detainment of this person based solely on his odd behavior and his interfering with your duties? Would such an arrest/detainment be worth the hassle?

At what point could you have legally drawn your weapon out of the holster and held it at your side, not pointed at the threat? At was point does the SC brandishing law cease to be?

When the vehicle returned for the third time, would you have been justified in drawing your weapon and covering the vehicle/driver?

Was deadly force justified even though you didn't see a pistol/shotgun/nuclear device in the driver's hand? Both guardsmen were in the open, exposed to fire or a ram attempt.

Where does the threat begin? Is it when the driver returns the second time to verbally challenge the guard? At this point, can the guard draw his weapon? If you cannot see the driver clearly, small window/dark interior, how can you see if he has a weapon or not? Can you hedge your bet legally by holding your weapon in hand but pointed in a safe direction? In this instance, I don't think clearing leather would have helped the situation, but.....

The end of the parking lot where the vehicle executed two turnarounds, there are two exits the driver could have used to gain access either to the highway or a secondary road that leads into a bunch of restaruants and the highway. There was no need to turn the vehicle around and return to the ATM location.

Given this fact, a fact known by the guardsmen, would an elevated risk assessment be warranted? Could lethal force be justified when the driver of the vehicle made that turn? A moving vehicle if a far more powerful weapon than a pistol and the driver has already exhibited a lack of clear thinking.....was this a potential danger that didn't materialize?


Notes:

Verbal Judo is a skill you cannot have too much of.

Confidence is a must. You must know what your are going to say and say it with strength. There cannot be any poor delivery. You must believe in your position, that you are in the right.

Weaponskill is critical. This is not because you might have to shoot someone under less-than-optimal conditions, but because I firmly believe that confidence carries through in your body language. If you don't believe you can beat him to the draw or hit him at whatever range, that doubt will come through in how you act verbally and physically. This goes to confidence.

Hypothetically, scary as hell and glad nobody's dead. Remember to plan ahead to keep your head.

 

[Watchman]

Ill do my best here. Tell me how you feel about it. As a part time deputy I'll give you my take on it...

While you are licensed in SC with the full power of a sherriff's deputy so long as you are on company/customer property, would you have fealt authorized to execute an arrest/detainment of this person based solely on his odd behavior and his interfering with your duties? Would such an arrest/detainment be worth the hassle?

No.Was the law broken ? No. Nothing that the suspect did is against the law. Technically, he did not interfer with your duty.

At what point could you have legally drawn your weapon out of the holster and held it at your side, not pointed at the threat? At was point does the SC brandishing law cease to be?

Legally, any time that you truly felt threatened. As a quard with powers of an LEO , "brandishing" is not something you need to worry about as there are specific exemptions for such.

When the vehicle returned for the third time, would you have been justified in drawing your weapon and covering the vehicle/driver?

From a legal standpoint, probably not. Although the behavior was suspicous, no law was broken.

Was deadly force justified even though you didn't see a pistol/shotgun/nuclear device in the driver's hand? Both guardsmen were in the open, exposed to fire or a ram attempt.

No. No deadly force was exhibited. No unlawful behavior was observed.Had a gun been observed, that would have changed the whole equation.

Where does the threat begin? Is it when the driver returns the second time to verbally challenge the guard? At this point, can the guard draw his weapon? If you cannot see the driver clearly, small window/dark interior, how can you see if he has a weapon or not? Can you hedge your bet legally by holding your weapon in hand but pointed in a safe direction? In this instance, I don't think clearing leather would have helped the situation, but.....

If you are suspicious of any activity and you reasonaly beleive that you may need to defend yourself you could have drawn your weapon and held it behind you so as not to escalate the situation.This is a tactic commonly used by cops on traffic stops that are approaching suspicious vehicles.

In your situation as a guard, the best thing that you can do is to be aware. Untill some sort of violence is actually displayed againt you, your lethal force options are extremely limited. It may be that the suspect simply wanted to get money out of the ATM and felt somewhat intimidated. He may have felt some anger at being told to move on without getting the money he needed.

Legally speaking, until the law had been broken there is little that you can do.
Of course, this is just one mans opinion...

 

[TacticalSquirrel]

Ok, as a FT Deputy, my answer would be to first ask the jursidiction's DA and Sheriff, as its their opinions you're going to be basically working under. In my opinion, the van coming back for the third time would have been the last straw so to speak and I would have detained at that point so long as you are a deputized for the ground on which you stand. Under Terry Doctrine, he can be detained due to reasonable suspicion (key legal term here). What that means is that you have to be able to articulate why you felt that a normal person would feel that: a) A crime has been committed; b) is being committed or c) is GOING to be committed. B&C are the keys here, and from the information you presented I'd say it falls enough into that catagory for a stop and detain to gather ID and check into the behavior.
Again, contact your District Attorney for the best legal advice on a course of action. WI law may be different that SC law in that regard. As to when to draw, I'm a little looser with when I choose to draw. Hand would have been on the gun with a slow moving vehicle. Van keeps coming by, it would have been in the hand behind the leg. Just because you can't see a weapon doens't mean it isn't out of sight, and the van is considered a weapon once it begins to make an advance towards your safety.

 

[VaughnT]

Squirrel, thanks for reminding me of the Terry Doctrine. I had studied on that in a class being taught for another job, but it was two-three years ago. That could have been used to detain the driver for questioning, if the crews thought such a thing was worth the hassle.

Watchman, SC most definitely does not allow you to clear leather unless there is an imminent threat. I got busted by this little quirk when I followed the company's regs and held my pistol in hand as I left a customer with a good-sized load. You never get used to that polygraph machine!

Truthfully, I think this is a case for continuing the education of guards. We/they might not be cops, but they should still be well-versed in the laws of their state and what they can and should do. It would have been legal to detain the driver for questioning by the county sheriff, but it would also have opened the guards to a lot of problems with the company (don't stir the pot).

The second pass didn't bother the crew as the guy might have wanted directions. Once he displayed a hostile nature, stating that he wasn't scared of the guns, his third pass and entering the bank's lot could have been interpreted as possible drive-by shooting about to happen. That's when it got hairy.

 

[JPM70535]

I think you did the right thing in not drawing your weapon as nothing the vehicle occupants did was illegal. Not smart, but not an act that warrants pulling your weapon. The act of driving slowly through a public parking lot at a low rate of speed is not a criminal act. Curiosity at the sight of uniformed guards servicing an ATM could have been a factor in explaining more than one pass by your location. Also possible is that they intended to use the ATM and were waiting for you to finish. ( Some folks just don't like being close to Uniforms carrying guns) Still nothing illegal on their part. Had they exited the vehicle and approached your position, you may have been justified in discretely drawing your weapon and holding it behind your leg in a non-threatening manner, (based solely on the comments made by the occupant) until their purpose manifested itself. However, even at this stage, they have committed no crime, and AFAIK, there is no prohibition against walking through a public area in the vicinity of an ATM. Had you drawn down on them, or attempted to detain, the possibility of you becoming embroiled in a lawsuit are almost assured.

While you may have the powers of a Deputy Sheriff when working for your company, John Q Public may not know this. To him you are just a Rent-a-cop with an attitude, and human nature being what it is, that attitude requires a response in order to preserve his manhood. When he asked "Whats going on here " a more proper response than "Move on", would have been something like "just servicing this ATM sir, be done in a few minutes", which would have served to satisfy his curiosity and not challenge his "Manhood" Any action taken should be geared towards easing the situation and speeding its conclusion with the least possible contact.

 

[WT]

In the case above I don't think anything warranted drawing a firearm or using deadly force. The driver did nothing illegal.

 

[VaughnT]

If abililty, jeopardy and opportunity must all be present for the use of deadly force, didn't the driver's third confrontation do it? He ignored two exits at the east end of the parking lot that could have led him on his merry way.

The second confrontation where he asks why the guard was "eyeing" him the whole time he drove by goes to show hostility towards the guardsmen. At no time did he ask about the machine's status or when he could expect to use it. His sole concern, as he expressed it, was that the guard was disrespectful and that he wasn't afraid of the guard or the guns.

On the third confrontation, the driver had to, again, ignore two exits from the parking lot and returned to the ATM. Also, instead of staying on the road, the driver pulls into the parking lot of the bank and stops his vehicle so the driver's door is directly opposed to our position. At maybe fifteen yards, he had a perfect broadside firing position. In the time it took for him to travel to the far end of the lot and back to the ATM, he could have easily fished for a pistol or shotgun.

On that third confrontation, it would seem to me that the driver brought the three key elements together. Granted, you didn't see a pistol and it was only at the last milisecond that you saw that the vehicle's trajectory was not aimed you. The upside is that you know, at the very last possible moment, that he's not going to ram the machine. The downside is that as soon as he came about broadside, it wouldn't have taken anything for him to nail you with that 12g load of birdshot.

I'm not saying that deadly force was authorized, but it seems that a very good case could have been made for covering the driver with your weapon. On the second confrontation, he's just a punk trying to look tough. On the third pass, he's a threat. Sound right?

 

[Watchman]

If abililty, jeopardy and opportunity must all be present for the use of deadly force, didn't the driver's third confrontation do it? He ignored two exits at the east end of the parking lot that could have led him on his merry way.

You cant use deadly force for something that "may" happen. There was no violence. Nothing he did was illegal. You gonna tell the judge you shot somebody because they ignored two eixts ?

The second confrontation where he asks why the guard was "eyeing" him the whole time he drove by goes to show hostility towards the guardsmen. At no time did he ask about the machine's status or when he could expect to use it. His sole concern, as he expressed it, was that the guard was disrespectful and that he wasn't afraid of the guard or the guns.

Its possible that he thought the guard was being disrespectful. Im not afraid of guns ethier. Point one at me and I might be. Still, nothing that he said or did warranted anything other than a hieghtened state of awareness.

On the third confrontation, the driver had to, again, ignore two exits from the parking lot and returned to the ATM. Also, instead of staying on the road, the driver pulls into the parking lot of the bank and stops his vehicle so the driver's door is directly opposed to our position. At maybe fifteen yards, he had a perfect broadside firing position. In the time it took for him to travel to the far end of the lot and back to the ATM, he could have easily fished for a pistol or shotgun.

Yep. Since we are not in a war zone, people can and will have "perfect broadside firing positions" all of the time. You will always be at a disadvantange, its one of the things that make being a cop dangerous. Fact of the matter is, if he had wanted you he could have done it at the time of his choosing.

On that third confrontation, it would seem to me that the driver brought the three key elements together. Granted, you didn't see a pistol and it was only at the last milisecond that you saw that the vehicle's trajectory was not aimed you. The upside is that you know, at the very last possible moment, that he's not going to ram the machine. The downside is that as soon as he came about broadside, it wouldn't have taken anything for him to nail you with that 12g load of birdshot.

Still, nothing illegal. The guy may be guilty of being stupid by making an armed guard nervous, but that aint against the law either.

I'm not saying that deadly force was authorized, but it seems that a very good case could have been made for covering the driver with your weapon. On the second confrontation, he's just a punk trying to look tough. On the third pass, he's a threat. Sound right?

Nope. Look at it this way. If you had covered him with your gun, and he filed a lawsuit against you, how do you think his lawyer would make you look ? You saw no weapon. He had a right to be there...all he had to say was that he wanted to draw from the atm. He might say that he didnt know you were an armed guard. He might say that you looked at him like you might want to rob him. He might say that he circled the parking lot to make sure that you were supposed to be there. The point Im trying to make here is that you cant ASSUME anything when dealing with the public. A laywer can and will make you look like you were way out of line by your actions. He could make it sound like you were too intimidating looking. How would that sound to your bosses or the one owners of the ATM?

There is always more to this than meets the eye. So far, out of all that youv've presented, nothing meets the criteria of justifing lethal force or even that of clearing leather. Just because someone looks intimidating or has an attitude doesnt make them dangerous. As a guard you are pretty much in a reactive mode, meaning that you basically have little aurhority over anyone unless they break the law on the property that you are charged to protect. As a guard you dont have the options that the Police do to react to a potentially serious situation. In this case about all you could do is get to cover if you assumed the worse. Until a gun is produced there is little that you can do. Legally, and I mean in a court of law where you had to defend your actions, you must do what any reasonable person might do in the same situation. Do you think that you could make a jury beleive that is was in your bests interests to cover somebody with a gun because you felt threatend ? I think you might have a very hard time with this one.

 

[VaughnT]

Thanks for that, Watchman. I guess the worst part is maybe over-analysing the situation. Can't speak for everyone, but I definitely don't want to shoot someone on the job or off and was curious where the line should have been drawn.

He acted weird, for sure, but there wasn't anything that could have been done better on the part of the guards, except, maybe, moving to a position of better cover and communicating more with eachother and the authorities.

Another one put to rest.

 

[12-34hom]

Deadly force.

License plate # on vehicle = 1st pass - visual check of occupants.

Second time around, give my partner a heads up about vehicle coming back.

Third time, duty weapon out - low ready position & pbx to local S.O.

As far as speaking to the driver, When he asks if there is a problem? Answer given is fine. But that's as much as i would have said to him during entire incident.

Buy this time called S.O. or local P.D. with vehicle Plate # & description of people inside vehicle.

Deadly force is not warranted in this situation.

12-34hom.

 

[VaughnT]

12-34hom, don't you think that not speaking with the driver could have escalated the situation? By ignoring him you could set him off. Giving clear and concise orders after determining that his questions weren't innocent, you establish who is in charge and who is going to be faced with severe repurcussions.

Other than that, things went pretty much like you suggested. It the third pass that really got under my skin. Maybe I'll sleep better tonight having discussed the matter here.

 

[12-34hom]

VaughnT, No sir i don't.

If those subjects had already made up thier minds to rob, my polite answers would have made little difference.

My eye contact and posture would have told them all they needed to know as far i would be concerned.

12-34hom.

 

[airborneranger]

first let me say that i totally agree with watchman, that the occupant of the truck broke no laws, made no physical threat to u (didnt show weapon or attempt to exit his vehicle) so at no time in the scenario presented was the use of deadly force nescasary or would it have been justified. The hand on the pistol is a personal prefrence, as a SC state trooper when I aproach a vehicle on the first contact with the violator my hand is on my firearm, once I see they are no threat to me or passerbyers I relax a little not to much but a little and remove my hand but only after I asses the situation thouroughly. Ive had complaints from motorist for doing this, (only 1 in the past 13 years) but I do it. The guard in this situation did nothing wrong by placing his hand upon his weapon, It may have eaven prevented a attempted robbery by showing the drive that he knew he was there and his actions made him feel a little threatend and that by placing his hand on his weapon he was doing a show of force so to speak( saying hey if u have any bad intentions im ready to defend myself and my partner). I have taken the verbal judo class and to me it was basiclly hilarious, the guy was more of a comedian to me and many others that were there. I think the class is a waste of my time and the states money but if it makes them fell better by sending me then so be it. Just treat people the way you would want to be treated if u were the violator then you should have no problems, but some people no matter how u talk to them the only thing they understand is a swift kick in the a** to get their attention.

 

[artherd]

On-Duty use of force. When do you draw?

"hypothetically"

You're working an ATM. Your partner is attending the machine and you are standing at his back, watching the surroundings.

A dozen or more cars pass by. You see a primer-grey, low-rider pickup approaching from the west at a very low rate of speed.

I'm not any kind of LE other than a private citizen, but If I had seen you pull your gun out and place it behind you at THIS point, I would have aplauded.




The very instant he hesitated to comply with your directions:

Guard, "It's my job to watch people, sir. Please move along."

Driver, upon seeing the guard's hand move to the grip of a fantastic Ted Yost custom 1991, "What's up with the gun? You don't scare me! I'm not afraid of you."

I think you could have placed him under arrest or at least detainment at this point, he failed to immediately comply with verbal instruction from a peace officer. I would expect that to get me detained or arrested.




Certinly when he executed a 180* turn after being TOLD to leave, at that point, I as an armed civillian may have reached for my weapon and gone to either low ready or hidden it behind me.

I think at that point you would have been able to order him from the car at gunpoint, told him to lie face down while you cuffed him.


Never, during any of this, would you have been justified in the *use* of deadly force. The only crime that was commited was failure-to-comply, and that's not much of one.

But it is enough to excelate a situation, and I am of the opinion that you would be justified in de-escelating it with a detainment.


One question, did you identify yourself as a Peace Officer?

 

[VaughnT]

Art, we are not Peace Officers and that is where a lot of the trouble comes from. With a decided lack of instruction in legal issues, you are treading some very dangerous waters. A licensed armored car employee is considering a Security Officer, armed or otherwise, but only has power of arrest while going about his job and on company/customer property.

Because it costs money, there is very little training at all, weapons or otherwise. If the state allows you to affect an arrest, you'd better have every single duck in a row before you do. It's very easy for the manager to tell you to draw and shoot if you 'honestly' feel that you are at risk of death or grave bodily injury, but you're the one that has to kill that guy and live with the repurcussions. Just because you think you were justified doesn't mean the police or courts will agree with you. And even if they do agree with you, you still have to deal with the family of the victim in civil court. Here's where I give big thanks to the State of North Carolina for insisting that all armed officers receive annual legal and weapons training!

In this particular instance, I honestly, deep down, believed we were about to get shot at when he made that final turn in to the bank's parking lot. That we didn't get shot at is a miracle, in my opinion, because this guy gave every indication, to me, that he wasn't playing with a full deck and was looking for a fight.

Big ARMORED truck painted white with Huge Red Letters on the side. Man in uniform with a shining shooter on his hip and a silver badge upon his chest. Why are you pestering me? Helloooooo?

 

[Penforhire]

I dunno. I'm no LE either but... as described those guys did absolutely nothing wrong. Threatening? Yeah, probably, since you're working a cash machine, but only because of your awareness. He's allowed to eyeball you just as much as you eyeball him, and his speaking is no interference to your duties.

Putting your hand on your gun escalated the situation (though I'd imagine I'd have it unsnapped by then myself). I'm inclined to suggest you could have mentioned your legal authority to the driver well BEFORE placing a hand on your firearm.

 

[gunsmith]

I am an armed security officer

I pay for all my own training, I would have been concerned about
the car being used as a weapon.
My gut feeling is the S/O was being sized up for a hold up.
I would have had my hand on my sidearm as soon as he came into the lot.
the 2nd time I would have it out and looking for cover.
I'm sure the idiot has prior arrest and doesn't want to deal with the police.
Be sure to make an incident report and let the other guards know to BOLO

 

[4v50 Gary]

Looks wrong, but no law broken per se...

While I would not have drawn, I would have bladed my body so that the firearm could not be seen and yet still have my holster unsnapped. Once you've drawn, they've got the moral advantage over you. "Whatcha gonna do? Shoot me?" You don't want to get into that predicament or get a reputation of being trigger happy. What I suggested should be done discretely so as to avoid confrontation and yet be very prepared.

 

[Goldendog]

Seems like a shotgun as standard operating procedure while doing your job would be nice, that way, you already have it out.

There is no law keeping me from walking or driving slowly past you. There is a law against me shooting you. Chances are when that line is crossed it is too late for you.

The best defense is a good offense, however covert it may be.

Just some thoughts,
MF

 

[Weimadog]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guard, "It's my job to watch people, sir. Please move along."

Driver, upon seeing the guard's hand move to the grip of a fantastic Ted Yost custom 1991, "What's up with the gun? You don't scare me! I'm not afraid of you."

I'll never get used to gunnies using this style of writing.

Remember, primates often consider eye contact a challenge. Lowrider lowlife probably felt challenged by your intent gaze. People may notice you staring at them from a long distance away.

From his perspective, you could have been the one who initiated this confrontation.

On the third confrontation, the driver had to, again, ignore two exits from the parking lot and returned to the ATM. Also, instead of staying on the road, the driver pulls into the parking lot of the bank and stops his vehicle so the driver's door is directly opposed to our position. At maybe fifteen yards, he had a perfect broadside firing position.

If the broadside firing position is truly a concern, you should be doing everything you can to run/crawl/fly to cover, or concealment. Just standing in the open bantering with the lowlife is o.k. only as long as he doesn't start shooting at you, and being shot at was a possibility.

 

[JShirley]

"Please move along, sir."

"Please move along."

"Move away."
...

 

[The Rabbi]

"BLAM BLAM BLAM"

"I swear, officer. He told me to give up the money or he would blow the car up."

In some states, "he needed kiling" could be a valid defense.