7/11 robbery with robbers shot

[Aguila Blanca]

The robber he fired at with his last shot was not the one we saw with the gun, was not the one who said "It's fake," and the video doesn't show us what the other robber was doing when the guard shot him. The kid in the blue hoodie was the one who said "It's fake," and the guard didn't shoot at him again after he said that.

That said, if I'm facing two robbers, at least one of whom was flashing a gun, I'm not likely to just say, "Oh, okay then" if he tells me his gun is fake. That's a good way to get yourself shot.

[Marco Califo]

"The problem — for the crooks, at least — was that the store’s armed security guard was sitting in his vehicle and saw the whole thing going down."
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/0...-the-best-part
Sitting in your vehicle at a post, on-duty, only is appropriate at construction sites, or warehouses (when they wont give you inside access), or for supervisors in marked vehicles. I cannot think of other circumstances where thay want to pay you to sit in your car. Cell phones, burgers, radios are inherent distractions. Being inside a vehicle negates the intended deterrent effect, and enables this needless chain of events.
The BSIS investigation normally run 6 months to over a year, longer if he wont file the required shooting incident report. That happened when a white BART guard shot a black "patron", and said he reached for his tazer, but . . . His attorney advised 5th amendment/do not report. The security company also requires the report, and he never worked again. His credentials were revoked. There were protests, demonstrations, public uproar galore.
Details and legal aspects will trickle out.
I believe the perps deserved to die. However, I also believe the guard could be legally and correctly charged with attempted homicide. The 3rd shot is current a "leader", was it avoidable? Simply moving on the floor is not an active threat, certainly not on the level of raising a gun (which would be justied)
every minute detail will be examined repeatedly by experts. Without a doubt there will ramifications.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Marco Califo

Sitting in your vehicle at a post, on-duty, only is appropriate at construction sites, or warehouses (when they wont give you inside access), or for supervisors in marked vehicles. I cannot think of other circumstances where thay want to pay you to sit in your car.

Except perhaps at my bank. A few years ago the branch I use was robbed twice within six months. Shortly thereafter they started having a guard posted -- but they didn't want him inside. His assignment was to alternate between sitting in his car in the parking lot, and to wander around the parking lot.

Another bank across town had an armed guard posted outside the front door. He was always there when I went to the post office, which is two doors down the street. I never saw him enter the building.

For the past year or so, neither my bank nor any other bank in town (small town) has had any security presence other than cameras. I suppose if there's another robbery we'll see guards posted again ... for awhile.

[Drae]

*scratches head*
Guy did his job. Someone will presumably whine for him opening fire first or something.

[Marco Califo]

I worked one bank, allegedly robbed 3 times. But the bank company (not the branch employees) wanted me inside and behind the teller line. That unusual directive was because, they suspected, correctly it turned out, that there really had been no robberies, but the bank employees themselves were stealing money and making up the robberies. Unfortunately, that is very common. I was wearing a bullet resistent vest, and giving customers the evil eye, because they did not tell me that the reason for my presence was to prevent the branch employees from "robbing" their employer. It worked. Whatever the need for cash was, got stymied by me. The staff turned over 100% in one day, and I started my next semester in day classes.
Years later, working as a corporate bank branch auditor (and unarmed), I was in a branch (Wilshire and Fairfax in LA). I was about to leave, heard noise, turned to see someone jumping the teller line, and other persons of intetest in the lobby. This was about to turn into a hostage situation that I did not want to participate in. I calmy walked/snuck out the back door, and down the ramp to the parking booth, I got on the phone to LA's finest dispatch, and followed their instructions. They did NOT send SWAT. Seemed like 10 minutes before one cop walked around and peeked into windows. Turns out they did not want to create a hostage situation if there was not one already. In retrospect I now believe their actions and mine were prudent. I called audit chief. And he immediately told me to audit the post robbery procedures. Yes, they did exist, and the objective was to prevent employee lo$$e$.
The point is the armed guard business is about deterence/prevention. The 7/11 guy did not deter/prevent. His actions allowed and caused a needless shooting. He got his 15 minutes of fame.
He may end up getting 15 years. That is where the game is won or lost. Guards are never free to do as they please

[johnwilliamson062]

I know of multiple posts where armed guards are stationed out of sight. It isn't that uncommon. Armed guards are not always used for deterrence. The same behavior that deters criminals will often make customers uncomfortable.

and giving customers the evil eye

7/11, bank, gated type residential, corporate office, club, and many more places armed guards are used. All are different.

[Marco Califo]

https://www.facebook.com/pg/ComptonS...=page_internal

A press release or article is here. Only on Facebook. They post there, but not on the LASD website. Nothing new in the LASD article (dated i/19/18), but confirms the guard was sitting in his car, and an investigation is ongoing. I also commented on the LASD Facebook article with my concerns, and sent it to the Station.

I could not make out any company insignia on guards jacket patches. If I could I would call the company, and ask them if he was supposed to be in his car, and why.

[JohnKSa]

I also commented on the LASD Facebook article with my concerns, and sent it to the Station.

I could not make out any company insignia on guards jacket patches. If I could I would call the company, and ask them if he was supposed to be in his car, and why.

Hopefully they'll be able to handle the investigation without your assistance, but I'm sure they appreciate your willingness to help.

[johnwilliamson062]

It takes a village...
No, it is every village has a..
IDK, something about a village.

I haven't read every article, but what I have read does not clearly state the guard was even posted to the 7/11. Possible he was just stopping before or after his shift?

[Marco Califo]

In Calif. Guards are NOT authorized beyond their client. Armed guards in uniform, not on their post, get arrested. They are not sworn public servants authorized to act beyond wht thay are paid to do. So no, he was not off duty passing by. If that were the situation he would be behind bars. It really fascinates me how people without knowledge or experience love to opine or argue about things they know nothing about, and cannot add anything other than noise.
I got my coffee at my hometown 7/11, and talked to the longtime employees. They had heard of "Avalon". BTW 7/11's are often owned and operated by extended south asian families who often own sevetal stores. 1. "No, not sit in car." 2. Cash in drawers are controlled. 3. They did not express any interest in being involved in a shootout, want to meet that guard.

[Drae]

I'm either retarded or just thinking differently but... uh... i agree with the half of the comments on youtube under this vid... the guard did his job, the idiots who tried robbery kiiiiinda deserved to get shot. *waits for getting flamed upon, duh*

[Double Naught Spy]

In Calif. Guards are NOT authorized beyond their client. Armed guards in uniform, not on their post, get arrested. They are not sworn public servants authorized to act beyond wht thay are paid to do. So no, he was not off duty passing by.

You don't know this. You simply opined it based on your perception of the law and what went on. All you know is that the guy has a job as a security guard and that he intervened in the robbery. You don't know if he was on duty or not.

If that were the situation he would be behind bars. It really fascinates me how people without knowledge or experience love to opine or argue about things they know nothing about, and cannot add anything other than noise.

Me, too! Last I checked, California still allowed for the use of lethal force to protect in defense of others (such as during an armed robbery). That this guy was a security guard may only account for why he had a gun.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Marco Califo

In Calif. Guards are NOT authorized beyond their client. Armed guards in uniform, not on their post, get arrested.

So you're saying that in California armed guards must drive to and from their duty stations in "civvies," then change into their uniform, bring out the bat belt, and load their firearm only after they arrive at the duty location -- and then have to reverse the process before leaving the client's property to drive home?

Doesn't sound right. California Penal Code:

Originally Posted by CPC penal code 12031

(5) Uniformed security guards, regularly employed and compensated
in that capacity by persons engaged in any lawful business, and
uniformed alarm agents employed by an alarm company operator, while
actually engaged in protecting and preserving the property of their
employers or on duty or en route to or from their residences or their
places of employment, and security guards and alarm agents en route
to or from their residences or employer-required range training.
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit cities and
counties from enacting ordinances requiring alarm agents to register
their names.

[joed]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

I love a story with a happy ending.

Another example of a failure in the victim selection process. Not quite as bad as trying to hold up a barroom full of off-duty cops, but close.

Hapy ending? They're still alive, should be dead.

[Marco Califo]

Civvies are not required. Most drive their cars. Armed guards riding buses in uniform have caused issues. That is a grey area. My point is you cannot walk into Walmart and start shooting. This guard workef for 7/11 to comply with a city ordinance. Since the question was, maybe the guard stopped on his way to work. No. That is NOT this case here.
Also, tou need to be very aware of the different "roles" you just cited. Each has different rights and rules. Armed guard is one catogory. Armored car guards is a completely different with different rules (from transportion bodies (they are authorized to draw on you if you approach an ATM they are servicing). They also get killed more often. The relevant group here is Private Patrol Operators which are security guard companies who employ armed and unarmed guards. Alarm services and is another, and locksmiths, and repossessors.
Perhaps he was allowed to sit in his car. IMO that is stupid and led to the shooting, which did not need to happen. I do applaude his calmness and shooting skill. I do not agree with his strategy or tactics.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Marco Califo

Also, tou need to be very aware of the different "roles" you just cited.

In the context of this discussion, I don't need to be aware of the different roles in the section I cited, because it's an exception to a general rule and ALL the categories listed fall under the exception. They ALL may be armed when traveling to or from their place of work, and when traveling to employer-required range training.

[johnwilliamson062]

Since the question was, maybe the guard stopped on his way to work. No. That is NOT this case here.

There have been a number of linked stories and I may have missed one or you may know because you are in the area, but I can't remember seeing anything to indicate positively the guard was assigned to this location.
The only hint I see is:

As the security guard approached the entrance to the store, he saw both men had jumped over the front counter and began to rummage through the cashier's pockets.

https://patch.com/california/los-ang...ine-real-video

The article you cited, from blaze.com, is, I believe, simply providing amateur analysis of the video and the statement the 'stores armed guard' is simply an assumption based on the video. It may also be possible the guard had just arrived to post and had not entered as his shift had not yet started. There are many reasonable explanations for him being in his vehicle with the limited information I have provided. I am not entirely convinced he was in his vehicle. He may have been walking an exterior patrol. None of the sources on this seem that credible or to be reporting any more than assumptions based on the video.

[johnwilliamson062]

In my state everyone who gets paid to wear a gun gets lumped together. In some ways it is very stupid, in others it is nice. Working a nice job as an armed driver and need some extra money? Easy to find a few hours standing around a waffle house making half-way decent money.

Not surprised Californian's saw fit to complicate things.

[Metal god]

I did armed security in CA for several years when I was younger . I have two different opinions on this whole thing . First is Marco in general is correct in what he's been saying . When in security guard training they emphasize over and over you are to observe and report only . Your firearm is there to protect your self and not anyone else . As a private security guard you do not have the same protections as LEO . I only worked for one company but it was clear they did not want us confronting any armed robbers at any time unless we are selves were in harms way and we were to do everything in are powers not to let that happen . Also , you know how you here about states that have stand your ground laws . CA is actually the opposite , It's my understanding as a victim in CA you are first obligated to do everything you can to deescalate the situation to include running away . How this thinking effects this case time will only tell .

I don't think the clerk has a claim but in CA the robbers may have good ones . Not only against the security guard but the company he works for . Remember this happened in CA where guns are taboo . I don't think for a second 2/3 of a jury wont find that the guard escalated the incident .

That all said when it comes to did the guard do the morally right thing ? I say heck yes he did . Should he have said stop or put the gun down before shooting ? Maybe but I've done enough self defense classes now over the years to know that when the bad guy's gun is already out and ready to fire the 21 foot rule goes out the window . At that point there's only a split second between living and dying . Not sure in that circumstance you want to be advertising you're there or what you're about to do . Then again the guard really should have never went into the store .

I'd be very surprised if the guard and security company don't get sued . Not saying the robbers are going to win but the law suite just seems like a given to me . Especially if it can be shown the other robber was unarmed which at this point we don't know . So if he was unarmed and it appears the clerk was no longer in danger . It would appear the guard just leaned over and shot the other guy for no specific reason . As I stated before , private security does not have the same protections LEO do in those types of circumstances . They call the badge a shield for a reason .

[hdaackda]

cool dude. a job well done,

[Lohman446]

I'm of the overall general opinion that bad actors should be given ample opportunity to avoid the loss of life. With that being said once you have "cleared leather" with a deadly weapon the margin of error is extremely low and if I make an error in this case it is going to be in favor of the defense of myself or others or, if I'm a security agent, the "innocent" party.

Why waive around a plastic toy gun? If you are going to use a fake gun to rob someone your much better off just showing the gun in your belt and then keeping your hand away from it. Obviously you don't have the intent or means to shoot someone. Don't waive around a gun if you are not willing and able to carry through with its use.

[Double Naught Spy]

Why waive around a plastic toy gun? If you are going to use a fake gun to rob someone your much better off just showing the gun in your belt and then keeping your hand away from it. Obviously you don't have the intent or means to shoot someone. Don't waive around a gun if you are not willing and able to carry through with its use.

Simple, waving it around looks a lot more threatening/intimidating and makes it look like you are willing to use it, versus something tucked in your pants. It is all about presentation and intimidation to get compliance. It works on a regular basis.

[SaxonPig]

I got fired by 7-11 in 1975 for shooting an armed robber.

[briandg]

Omg, dude, you're old!

Where did that take place?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by briandg

Omg, dude, you're old!

Either that, or you're young, dude.

Everything is relative.