search
top

He Did the Right Thing

It might surprise Robb, but I don’t think this incident that SayUncle linked to is an example of why open carry is a bad idea. The gist is that a store security guard attempted to remove a man’s openly carried gun from its holster. While I think the possibility of being disarmed is real, based on the account, this guy appears to have responded quickly and correctly to the attempt. The security guard is guilty of assault, and the open carrier used reasonable force to defeat the assault against him. He did everything right. This isn’t an example of open carry being a bad idea, but it is an example of the importance of retention training if you’re going to open carry.

10 Responses to “He Did the Right Thing”

  1. Wolfwood says:

    …and the importance of having a lawyer willing to sue the pants off those with the deep pockets to ensure that these companies tell their guards not to do it again.

    People get angry about McDonalds having to pay a woman millions of dollars for getting scalding coffee, but their coffee was so hot it ate through the cup and scarred the woman. After this decision, McDonalds stopped serving such hot coffee. This would be the same. If guards were told not to take matters into their own hands, and this were backed up with especially harsh sanctions, I think such reports would drop dramatically.

  2. Papa Foxtrot says:

    “but their coffee was so hot it ate through the cup and scarred the woman”

    Actually, no it didn’t. The 79 year old woman tried to hold the styrofoam cup between her knees while she removed the lid. Very predictably, she crushed the cup, putting the entire contents in her lap.

    Can’t post url’s in comments here, but Google “McDonalds scalding coffee case” for the facts. Mickey D’s biggest mistake in the case was not settling for $640K when they had the chance.

  3. “Google “McDonalds scalding coffee case” for the facts.”

    If I recall correctly, McDonald’s lost because they used high temperature as a way to control the number of free refills a customer could make use of. As served, their coffee was supposedly so hot that it was not safe for human consumption. Her settlement was so high because it was 1 day of coffee revenue from the entire franchise.

  4. “but their coffee was so hot it ate through the cup and scarred the woman.”

    Um, that’s the first I’ve ever heard of the coffee eating through the cup. I’ve always heard she spilled the cup. And have long held against that decision. Many liked how hot McD’s coffee was because it stayed warm in thermoses.

    As for this case, I believe the security guard was wrong. He should have first approached and questioned.

    a) He didn’t know if the man was a police detective. Not sure what type of crime disarming a police officer is.

    b) He didn’t even approach the man to find out intentions.

    c) How many criminals open carry in a holster? Heck, how many criminals even use a holster.

  5. Papa Foxtrot says:

    “If I recall correctly, McDonald’s lost because they used high temperature as a way to control the number of free refills a customer could make use of.”

    Please, go do some reading before posting recollections. McD’s did a host of things wrong, but the above statement is incorrect. Again, a simple Google search yields a large number of legal sites and law firms reprising the case.

    I’m pretty sure that Sebastian didn’t make this post with the intent of it devolving into a discussion of the McDonalds Coffee Case.

  6. Sebastian says:

    I allow URLs, it’s just that sometimes they get picked up by the spam filter. If you want to include one, go ahead. If it gets caught, I can free it.

  7. Wolfwood says:

    Apologies for the misrecollection, and shame on you for useless nitpicking that sidesteps the still-valid conclusion: hitting those responsible for causing harm in their pocketbook can be a very effective method of encouraging that such harm doesn’t occur again. An apology isn’t enough and firing the guard isn’t enough. Suing the guard alone isn’t enough, as it doesn’t do much in practice to dissuade others. Any decent lawyer should be able to argue liability here under respondeat superior, and win.
    IANALy, TINLA

  8. Papa Foxtrot says:

    Thanks Sebastian. I think the one time I tried to post a link, the Spam-eater got it.

    Back to the original subject, either the security guard got no training at all or is totally out of his mind. I cannot fathom the thought process where anyone(except a thief) would try to disarm someone from behind by surprise. The excuse: “He said he thought I was going to shoot the place up and was just trying to “control the situation”.” is lunacy. If he really believed that, then he just tried to commit suicide as he would have been the first victim.

    Apparently, the victim has been advised by his attorney to speak no more of this, so we’ll likely never get any additional details. I’d like to know more, but definitely understand the lawyer’s advise.

  9. Papa Foxtrot says:

    “Apologies for the misrecollection, and shame on you for useless nitpicking that sidesteps the still-valid conclusion”

    So, posting false information to validate your conclusion is acceptabe? Are you Dan Rather?

  10. Robert says:

    I didn’t comment on Uncle’s post (more from lack of time than anything) but my first thought on reading it was, “Guard is lucky he didn’t get shot.”

    I think the snatch was a big mistake and that it was appropriately dealt with. I hope the man pursues criminal charges against the guard, along with a civil suit against the guard and his employer.

top