Security Guard Hold Ups - Easy Weapons

[Tysonboss1]

The guns are strictly as a deterrent. You are only allowed to use 'appropriate force' which does not include shooting somebody who is trying to steal a few quid.

Not much of a deterrent unless you are prepared to use it. I wouldn't recommend any body carry a weapon that they have no intention of using.

As for not shooting some body for stealing money, unless they threaten your life. How exactly is it possible for an offender to steal the money without threatening your life.

I mean it's the guards job to stand between the offender and the cash, Now I am sure the guard will not just let the offender polite enter the vehicle and walk away with the loot, the offender by default must threatin the guards life in order to do the robbery, the first thing the offender will probally do is point a weapon and say, " give me the cash or I will shoot you". at this point I believe the guards should have the right to engage the offender/s.

If some pointed a gun at one of my mates I would put 2 in his chest with out even thinking, I am a soldier though, not a chubb security guard.

 

[Ageo]

NSW Crimes Act 1900 + case law.

It's not a very funny comic book!! You should read it some time.




Apparently NSW law disagrees with you.



I also said a gun at your head is not enough in the eyes of the law, the offender must be causing actual bodily harm where life is in danger.

Krusty acording to my sources, the shooters party pushed thorough a bill which is called the home invasion act (99 i think) and the workplace safety act (2002) which allows the individual to use whatever means necessary to protect themselves (that includes firearms etc..) if they think their life is at danger. It doesnt say they need to be shot before they can act, nor does it say you need to use an equal amount of force.

A lawyer would need to clear this up thow as the law is a very grey area for certain things.

 

[Happy]

Good evening Happy,
"Surely some use legally owned guns improperly"

Could you please supply me with one case, one situation, here in Australia, where a 'hold-up' was conducted with firearms legally owned?

Or is it a simple case of talking without knowing the facts correctly, maybe ?

Nothing personal of course,

Army or police person or security guard going ballistic.

I have one example from Europe, would that be good enough?

 

[Happy]

I know bit difficult, but new shopping centres, new banks could have some secure docking arrangements incorporated in design stage, so security guard does not have to open van in public area.

 

[Krusty the Klown]

Krusty acording to my sources, the shooters party pushed thorough a bill which is called the home invasion act (99 i think) and the workplace safety act (2002) which allows the individual to use whatever means necessary to protect themselves (that includes firearms etc..) if they think their life is at danger. It doesnt say they need to be shot before they can act, nor does it say you need to use an equal amount of force.

A lawyer would need to clear this up thow as the law is a very grey area for certain things.

Grey area is spot on, each self defence case is decided individually on its own unique circumstances by a judge or judiciary.

Again, talking about NSW only, defence of property is not a legal defence against an unlawful death. Threatening someone with death is assault, but it does not justify killing them in the situation of a bank or armoured car robbery. Like I said earlier, the offender must be actually causing harm endangering life.

Alot of this comes from case law handed down by judges.

The grey/murky area is this - an offender in the act of committing a crime still has the same legal rights and protections as anybody else - including not being killed unlawfully.

I don't actually agree with all this by the way, but I think it is to stop people turning in to vigilantes.

Scenario:

Lets say you are in a grog shop, just you and the cashier. You are facing the shelves, an offender comes in and sticks a gun in your back and says "this is a hold up, do as I say or I will kill you". You happen to have a pistol in your jacket. Somehow, you turn around and shoot him between the eyes, killing him. When you examine his weapon, it turns out only to be a piece of pipe.The FACT is your life was NEVER actually in danger, but you believed it was - is that self defence? Against a piece of pipe???

If the law sided with you and said "self defence", then it sets a legal precedent. The danger then is that every murderer would use this as a legal defence and try and escape punishment. " I "believed he wanted to kill me, that's why I poisoned him".

I used to work in the security industry and was involved in an armed hold-up, and this is all the legal stuff we had to go through, during training and after the hold-up.

If it was up to me, I'd recommend the Dirty Harry method of law enforcement, shoot first, ask questions later, but this is my understanding of NSW law.

 

[Tysonboss1]

I know bit difficult, but new shopping centres, new banks could have some secure docking arrangements incorporated in design stage, so security guard does not have to open van in public area.

Why not go all out,

Have front and rear escort cars with a four man assualt team in each car ready to secure the area prior to the armoured van opening,

Mount both escort cars and the amoured van with 30cal machine guns and 40ml grenade launchers that can be fired while the vehicle is in lock down,

Assualt team should ideally be in full body armour and armed with m4 assualt rifle with 40ml grenade attachment, Hand grenades, pistol and one member of each team should have a mag 38 machine gun.

The van should also be under constant watch by a drone aircraft, with two reserve assult teams on standby to be delivered by black hawk and one black hawk to hover with a sniper team.

Artillery should be placed in various locations around sydney to offer fire support, and two aircraft in a constant holding pattern ready to drop fast air support.

Maybe this is a bit over board though,

 

[Krusty the Klown]

Now your're talking.........

 

[Uncle Barry]

Good morning,
Happy,
"I have one example from Europe, would that be good enough?"

None for Australia, if there was good old anti gunner Roland would have poured it out by now.
Mate, it rather proves the point, doesn't when you consider the amount of hold-ups per year, here in this country, does it.

Because the bad guys always forget to buy a licence, before buying a 'hot' firearm and then stealing.
And the poor silly fellow who always does the right thing, gets the blame and rules placed on him.


Tysonboss,
Mate, you just made my day, you should be able to hear my laughter from where ever you are

Yep, a bit over board.

Kind regards,
UB

 

[Krusty the Klown]

Nice come back Krusty! But how about provide an excerpt and source URL to back up your assertion.

The offender could have a knife and if he went at the security guard the guard would be quite justified in shooting him. No different.

Thanks ColB

For the Crimes Act:

www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/act+40+1900+FIRST+0+N

I can't put my fingers on the individual case law however.

If the guy brandishing the knife lunged at you, then you have justification. If he was just holding it then you have no justification.

That's the same with a gun, if he's just holding it you can't shoot, if he is shooting at someone, you can. If he is just shooting in the air you cannot respond.

 

[Tysonboss1]

That's the same with a gun, if he's just holding it you can't shoot, if he is shooting at someone, you can. If he is just shooting in the air you cannot respond.

Lets say an offender has fired a shot in the air,

He then looks accross and sees a bank teller attempting to run away,

You see him turn,... drop to one knee,.. level his weapon,... take a sec to get a sight picture through his scope,... his finger moves to the trigger,.. he breaths in, out, in, out then holds,... you see slight movement in his trigger finger,..

At this point you some how happen to have a weapon pointed at him,... do you wait for him to shoot this 19 year woman down before you act,

 

[Happy]

Good morning,
Happy,
"I have one example from Europe, would that be good enough?"

None for Australia, if there was good old anti gunner Roland would have poured it out by now.
Mate, it rather proves the point, doesn't when you consider the amount of hold-ups per year, here in this country, does it.

Because the bad guys always forget to buy a licence, before buying a 'hot' firearm and then stealing.
And the poor silly fellow who always does the right thing, gets the blame and rules placed on him.
...
Kind regards,
UB

Suicide could be another one

As to use of firearm by police and security guards?
It almost looks that they are told not to shoot.

(it is only money - and it is insured so just do not resist, give it away problem solved - if you ask me? Big joke)

 

[Krusty the Klown]

Lets say an offender has fired a shot in the air,

He then looks accross and sees a bank teller attempting to run away,

You see him turn,... drop to one knee,.. level his weapon,... take a sec to get a sight picture through his scope,... his finger moves to the trigger,.. he breaths in, out, in, out then holds,... you see slight movement in his trigger finger,..

At this point you some how happen to have a weapon pointed at him,... do you wait for him to shoot this 19 year woman down before you act,

Good question! From my understanding of the law yes. He still did not try to kill her. His gun might not have been loaded - it happens sometimes in robberies.

Talk about a grey area! The actions you describe of the offender tends to illustrate intent to use the weapon not just threatening someone with it, that's what would have to be argued between prosecution and your defence lawyers if you did take the shot.

If it was a cop in your position, they would be authorised to shoot. A security guard has no more authority than any other member of the public though.

Put it this way, I had a shotgun actually touching the skin between my eyes during a hold-up, and I was still not allowed to do anything. My employer and the lawyers said that was not justification enough to discharge a weapon, because no-one actually incurred any physical injury.

That was about 10 years ago (I got out of the industry after that - funny about that, hey), and laws are constantly being updated as Ageo pointed out earlier, so I must admit there could have been changes since then.

So you may be right - take the shot!!!!!

 

[awg]

speaking to security, there are really good reasons why they are not to use their firearms, as to do so greatly increase the risk of harm to them.

In regard to being charged, the police are not keen, and wont charge you unless they have to.

I was personally advised by a police officer regarding a case I had some involvment in, that if retribution is to be inflicted on a wrongdoer, a balaclava should always be worn.

If the wrongdoer is a person known to the police, they wont even bother to investigate, if some scum is bashed, as ID cannot be made, if you are clad in a balaclava. (leave yr mobile phone at home)

If however ID can be made, you will be charged.

This is contrary to what they say publicly of course

 

[Happy]

...
This is contrary to what they say publicly of course

I can believe that, more and more organisations have real-internal policy and policy available to public.


Similar to :
No quota for traffic offences
Or no quota for parking tickets


As somebody said: try to pull the other leg this one is not responding.