Only in Massachusetts...

[06LemansC6]

Read:

I'm done.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The guards at that $12/hour job have another HUGE problem - if there is a robbery, and the miscreants get away, guess who are the #1 and #2 suspects for the job?

Hint: Brinks trucks typically carry two guards with the money.

 

[stinx]

another thing most people dont know is if you make a citizens arrest for a felony your on your own if the guy gets found not guilty in Court.Unlike the Police who are indemnified by there agencies citizens have no protection against a civil suit should the party be found not guilty and then file a civil suit for false arrest.

 

[seanc]

Aren't guards like this authorized to use force to protect property?

 

[terraformer]

Aren't guards like this authorized to use force to protect property?

It would be the height of hypocrisy if it is true.

 

[drgrant]

Problem is, if he is charged, you'd never find twelve people on a jury in Ma**h***chusetts that think that way.

Every once in awhile we get surprised- there was that cab driver that got
let off after shooting the perp who had tried to rob him, while the perp was fleeing.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Another thing to factor in... if nobody got injured by the guards actions, it's going to be that much harder to actually convict him of anything.

A "Non Event" is lower on the scale than if someone actually got hit by a
bullet.

-Mike

 

[CrossFrire]

While I do not think charges are warranted I can see the logic in not having the Guard, or even an Officer, fire at a feeing vehicle in a public situation.
They were no longer a direct threat to him and a missed shot could be tragic.
But Mass is such a Liberal crap-hole (I have an interview in VA next week! I can SMELL Freedom!)they'll probably charge the guy and Brinks will can him.

 

[Titan]

Does anyone know, what armed guards are told by their employers regarding the use of deadly force?


I wonder if the companies tell them not to use their guns to prevent a robbery/protect the property.

Something tells me that the companies wouldn't take on all the risk and exposure of employing armed guards if they believed the only reason for carrying was to protect the life of the employee.


I'm not arguing what others have said about the legality of it all, just suggesting that I bet there's a big disconnect between what guards believe about their carry responsibilities and what the law is.
.

 

[seanc]

Does anyone know, what armed guards are told by their employers regarding the use of deadly force?


I wonder if the companies tell them not to use their guns to prevent a robbery/protect the property.

Something tells me that the companies wouldn't take on all the risk and exposure of employing armed guards if they believed the only reason for carrying was to protect the life of the employee. .

Agreed. I was under the impression that guards like this were somehow authorized to protect the property. Otherwise, what is the point of arming the guards at all?

 

[weekendracer]

A tough call.....Although a violation of most every agencies use of force policy, I can see them not charging him. One could easily make an argument that based upon their heinous and brazen actions that they were a continued threat to others.

Tough decision for the investigators and DA. I would say no charges.

Legally justified use of force and violation of agency policy are two different things.

Ok, the way things post here are different than I'm used to.

I can engage a vehicle, but I have to be firing at the driver (assuming he's attempting to ram me or others) or other threat (ganster hanging out passenger window). We can not shoot at tires or just for the hell of it, there has to be a legitimate threat at the time. The air wing of Customs can technically fire at vehicles, they only do it to boat motors for the most part.

I won't mention the chances of him actually doing any real damage unless he was using a .357. 9mm and .40 have a hard time penetrating a vehicle compartment, from personal experience.

Either way, he's lucky he didn't hit anything important.

 

[greycar]

DA: No charges against Brinks guard in shooting

"HAVERHILL — There will be no criminal charges against a Brinks guard who shot at two teenagers driving away from an attempted unarmed robbery, District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett said.

Blodgett said after discussing the matter with his office's lawyers, he made the decision not to prosecute the armored truck guard, who police said was the victim of the attempted robbery.

"We reviewed all the facts and circumstances and felt that it would not be in the interest of justice to bring any action against the guard," Blodgett said yesterday."
SNIP
http://www.eagletribune.com/punewshh/local_story_070234934.html

 

[Half Cocked]

"We reviewed all the facts and circumstances and felt that it would not be in the interest of justice to bring any action against the guard," Blodgett said yesterday."

Agreed!

 

[Palladin]

Good deal!

 

[matt1956]

he hit his target (the car)

and I am soo sick of this, "they were running away" bs. they are f***ING DIRT BAG CRIMINALS.

but yeah, we wouldnt want to do that, someone (like the f***ing dirtbag) might get hurt.

sorry i dont agree with the crowd on this one, (puts on flame suit) but bashing the guard is not the right way

 

[BBQ.Uncle]

I really didn't expect the guard to get off...but I'm sure glad he did. Now if we can just get lengthy sentences for those 2 pukes I'll feel even better.

 

[SteelShooter]

"We reviewed all the facts and circumstances and felt that it would not be in the interest of justice to bring any action against the guard," Blodgett said yesterday."
SNIP
http://www.eagletribune.com/punewshh/local_story_070234934.html

I don't believe it, "in the interest of justice", I didn't think the PRM knew what that meant, I'm gonna have to check SNOPES on this

 

[Len-2A Training]

My only problem with that decision is this:

- If it were John Q. Citizen who just came out of a bank with $5K in cash who was held up by the same/similar situation and then shot at the fleeing dirtbags . . . he WOULD be prosecuted!

I have no problem letting the guard off the hook. I just wish they would do the same for normal, everyday citizens taking the exact same action.

A security guard uniform does not give you any more legal authority (in accordance with MGLs) than a regular citizen.

 

[TomH]

Agreed. I was under the impression that guards like this were somehow authorized to protect the property. Otherwise, what is the point of arming the guards at all?

I would hope not, why should they be treated any differently? It shouldn't matter if you're defending property worth $100 or $100,000. By the way, I'm not agreeing with MA law, I'm just saying according to it you have no right to use lethal force to defend property. It would be pretty messed up if you could get by this by having a "company" that is protecting "cargo" by way of armed guards. If this was true you could hire another CCW in MA and have them use deadly force in protection of your house for you.

 

[Climbnsink]

My brother worked on armored cars in NY for years and they weren't allowed to use deadly force to protect the money. It is sort of odd, you need to put people there to defend property but the
people can only defend themselves. His company had a similar situation where someone fired on fleeing robbers and missed. Local cops wanted to crucify the guy, lucky for the employee there were some FBI agents that told the locals to let it slide. Smart law enforcement understands that you have to give these guys some latitude.

 

[Kicker96FS]

I wounder if they will charge the two meatheads with transporting a bullet without a FID card?