America the Absurd

Remove all ads!

This pretty much speaks of itself

And...

Whatever happened to common sense?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40820892/ns/technology_and_science-security/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40817952

 

The first one is shameful. You can sue anyone for anything in the US. It's just plain silly.

The second one I can understand to some extent. I mean, if he was carrying the weapon for his job why wasn't he licensed to use it? That seems a bit fishy. Granted, I haven't read the full stories yet as I don't have time for that at the moment.

 

dmc, excuse my faulty semantics regarding criminal proceedings vs. lawsuit. I did note that this was being handled as a felony. But that only makes things all the more jaw-droppingly unbelievable!

Let's send this criminal to prison! While we're at it, I'll send myself. I know my wife's email password, and I'm sure I've had reason to get into her email before. Never because of an issue of mistrust, but she only checks it 4 or 5 times a week, and sometimes she receives emails that are important for both of us.

 

My problem with both of those is that it appears that they will file charges against an individual at the drop of a hat. In the instance of the security guard, they probably did not have to actually arrest him and take him to jail. Unless, they were pissed because he was doing the job that they were supposed to be doing, and doing it better.

I do as well, DMC But he is a security guard trying to prevent a crime, which is his job. Much like in this instance:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...ywood-liquor-store-owner-remains-unclear.html

 

I don't have a problem with the second case. What was the warning shot for? Was he seriously going to progress to shooting a man for trying to break into a car? I'd reserve the use of deadly force for cases where individuals are at risk, not for common thefts.

 

It's completely absurd. If anyone needs to carry a gun it is a person who has the job of protecting property and lives (like a security guard). It is perfectly legal for me to carry around a loaded gun in Texas and I don't need a license to carry a gun, not in Texas. If I attempt to conceal the weapon, then yes, I need a license to carry a concealed weapon. But typically no one here needs a license. Unless, it seems you are a security guard attempting to prevent a crime -- in which case they arrest you for doing your job successfully it appears.

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/part1/gunside1.html

 

I don't know what the punishments will be but I really have no issue with pointing out that it is wrong to use other people's various internet accounts without their express consent just as I think it is wrong to run around shooting. Security guard with a gun? The mere thought makes me shudder.

 

Both are a bit silly. The first one is a bit of bad taste too- but the one with the Sidearm I understand.

AFAIK the licenses for carrying Arms issued to Guards or Security-Forces, are only valid at the Object/Firm/Compound they are Guarding and those licenses are only valid for one day (or the duration of a set period), and have to be re-newed every shift. So that makes running around ( as in leaving the place that is to be guarded ) with the gun oh the person a big no no!

At least our company does it like that. They have contracted a third party firm with that job.

And I agree too, a Guard with the John Wayne streak in him is bad. He is just a Guard, and not the Law-Enforcement!

There is a reason for that!

 

Interesting how differemt countries view the world. Here in New Zealand, there's no way a security guard is even allowed to carry a gun, let alone go around shooting it.

 

I wouldn't expect a policeman to carry a gun, except in exceptional circumstances. But I'm not looking at it from that view. I'm wondering what the security guard thought he was doing firing the weapon. The clear suggestion was that he would shoot the thief if he did not surrender. Shooting someone for a common burglary is completely excessive. I certainly don't think this case warrants the use of deadly force.

 

Just look at the excuses that the police use for shooting first and asking questions later when they find themselves in that situation. That is the reason I posted the link in which they shot up a building that was across from where the robbery happened, besides shooting at the actual victim of the crime by mistake (who was unarmed).

If you can think for a moment of a security guard patrolling a parking lot at night, with no one else around, and he is trying to prevent a crime, what are his options? Of course, he can just call the crime in and report it to the police. And how much good will that do? They would probably tell him to post his report online, like they tell a lot of others. That would be pretty typical for the way in which business is done here. In this case he actually prevented a crime, something you don't see much of around here, unless it is a traffic violation.

But a lot of security guards don't carry guns here. Generally, they are in pairs, or teams, like at the mall. And they are able to directly link with the police in places that are open and have people in them (again, like the mall).

Let me ask all of you: Would YOU get out of your car at 2 AM at night, with no one else around, without a weapon to confront a crook? All of you are smarter than to answer, "yes." But you are probably thinking it's not your problem -- unless it's your car. Right.

 

Exactly. It's easy for everyone to critique ("he shouldn't have shot," "guards are always unqualified," etc.) when they haven't worn the shoes and/or don't know all the details.

 

I think both arrests were absurd. I have looked at my wife's e-mail, but she has told me her password, and has actually asked me to check for her at times. I suppose that wouldn't count as a felony use, as I have been given permission to look. I also question the logic of the woman who left a list of her passwords next to the computer if she didn't want the husband to ever use them. That doesn't lessen his culpability (if this actually is even a crime), but it does not speak well for her intelligence.

 

I don't know if it was mentioned specifically in the linked article, but the guy that the hacker guy's wife was having an affair with (her second husband) had previously assaulted her in front of her child (the child of the woman and her first husband - the guy charged in this case is the woman's third husband). The charged guy felt that the child was at risk and therefore notified the first husband (father of the child) that the child was now exposed to the guy who assaulted its mother in front of it again. (I say 'it' because I don't know the child's sex.)

 

Well, this woman sounds like a real winner. Sure, let's make this all about the (third) husband. Surely the woman who is on her third marriage and hasn't learned yet not to cheat should be afforded all kinds of rights here. I mean, my heart's breaking for her.

 

Taking this attitude though, would you be prepared to shoot a guy for trying to burgle a car? If not, why are you waving a gun around and firing off shots?

 

I think the better question is, does the law permit such extreme use of force. Chandos I'm sure wouldn't shoot a man for auto theft, but there are MANY potential security guard applicants out there who would love to.

So it boils down to, what does the law allow and what are the defined requirements of the job this guy had? If he has broken a law and/or gone beyond the statutes of his position as a security guard, then some consequences may well be warranted. It seems that the issue here is that the gun wasn't licensed, and if he's using this gun in an official capacity, again, I wonder why it wasn't licensed.

We know that he was arrested, but do we know if he was charged with a crime? Perhaps he gets off with a slap on the wrist only.

 

The first case is, well, just odd. As for whether there's grounds for any charges or not, I'd say follow the example of mail. If a husband opened a letter addressed to his wife and only his wife, under similar marital conditions as in this case, would he be committing a felony. If so, then the man should be arrested and charged, though probably under a different law. If not, neither should he be charged with anything here.

For the second case, I think it's perfectly reasonable. First of all, any officer, police or security, shooting at a fleeing man should be charged with attempted murder unless that man is shooting back. Secondly, anyone, police, security, or civilian, shooting into the air should be charged with reckless endangerment, because the bullet that goes up with lethal velocity will also likely come down with lethal velocity, and you have no idea where, or on whom.

For the third case being mentioned, it's iffy. The description isn't great, but if the situation was dark, a black man waving his hand with something pointed (black gun or black hand may be hard to tell in the dark) at the police responding to an armed robbery should expect to be shot at, especially if he refuses to stop and be identified. On the other hand, if he were running away, he'd only need to be chased and stopped. Shooting would be criminal.

On the other hand, if he were standing under a street light or something, and the police could see that his hand was just a hand, then they should be charged themselves.

Generally speaking, police are not supposed to shoot at a suspect unless they have reason to believe the suspect will shoot them. If the suspect is waving a gun around and pointing it at police, lethal force is acceptable. If he's trying to jimmy a lock, it's not. Add to that the fact that police are safest assuming a worst reasonable case (i.e. anyone can potentially be armed, but unless they're pointing the gun at someone, they're not a current threat; anyone pointing a gun at someone may be about to commit murder; anyone pointing a gun (or maybe gun) at you may be about to commit murder against you, etc.), and shooting a man charging them in the dark waving his hand, maybe with something in it, especially when they know that an armed suspect is in the area, is reasonable.