Yes, the police were unsure about how to handle this matter, because the situation is preposterous. The halfwit security guard wants to follow the letter of the law, while ignoring common sense. Yeah, sure Wyatt Earp, that uniformed officer qualifies as a "taxpayer with a gun". Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Just itchin' to play Starsky and Hutch all by your lonesome. You're a freakin' hero and an imbecile, you jackwad.
As the article states, this dangerous fool was fired and charged and has a court date on the 26th. He's fortunate he did not get shot or did not shoot the uniformed officer. You know, Wyatt? The officer? The REAL cop in that exchange? Jackass. You just had to pull it, huh? First time was the last time, buddy boy.

https://www.toledoblade.com/lo.../stories/20190801146



I see that some people online are trying to make this about race. That's no surprise, since American society in general is making everything about race, but that's not what I see in this incident. I see a cop-wannabe fool trying to fulfill the fantasies in his pointy head. Utterly ridiculous.

A sworn law enforcement officer with thirty years on the job versus a freakin' rent-a-cop.

There was a discussion of this at another forum I frequent, and in more profane terms folks came to the same conclusion as Para.

My take is this is what you might encounter any time you and armed security come into contact.

What's with the gloves, little Johnny Rambo? That tells you a lot, right there. He's wearing them because he thinks it makes him look like some kind of LEO badass. They look SO COOL when he's standing in front of the mirror and talking to himself like Travis Bickle.

The look on the officers face at 1:50 or so when he says "Ok" as he looks aside.....

The security guard clearly took it too far and it's good that he was terminated. He showed a complete lack of common sense and basic judgement.

However, the deputy was breaking the law and I'm sure he'd have no problem arresting someone else in a similar situation.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
What's with the gloves, little Johnny Rambo? That tells you a lot, right there. He's wearing them because he thinks it makes him look like some kind of LEO badass. They look SO COOL when he's standing in front of the mirror and talking to himself like Travis Bickle.

Surprised he isn’t tucking his pant legs into his boots and blousing them.

Thse who are trying to defend the security guard seem to be ignoring the fact that not only did guard deny the officer entry into the IRS offices, he also refused to allow him to leave!

Also, the officer pulled out his phone and tried to take a picture of this asshole pointing a gun at him, but the asshole put his gun away, only to take it right back out after the officer put his phone away.

Think about this for a second- Can you imagine a sworn police officer doing such a thing? The idiot guard knew that what he was doing was wrong, but forged ahead, and that's one sign of a genuinely stupid person.

When this asshole called the police, he described the officer only as a black male. He failed to mention that this was a man in full uniform. Yet another clue that this jackass fool knew that what he was doing was wrong. Otherwise, why did he omit this key detail? If you had to call into the police and they asked you to describe the person in question, and said person was wearing any kind of a uniform or distinguishing clothing, you would mention it right up front, but not this Braniac.

I love the reaction of the officer after listening to the Rocket Scientist explaining his actions, starting at 1:45 min.

As close to a Barney Fife moment as one can get. Wow.

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:
The security guard clearly took it too far and it's good that he was terminated. He showed a complete lack of common sense and basic judgement.

However, the deputy was breaking the law and I'm sure he'd have no problem arresting someone else in a similar situation.

Show me where the deputy is breaking the law. As far as I know armed LEO can enter IRS and SS buildings. Fed Courthouse is another story. Lot of assumptions on your part especially the part of your crap about the deputy would be glad to arrest anyone doing the same thing. There is always one of you guys in a crowd.....

I'd sure like to see a copy of their hiring qualifications for security guard, because it is obvious that whoever did the hiring, dropped the ball. Also, throw in a copy of their rules and procedures and what their training is prior to their being allowed to carry a gun.

Judgeing from the guards actions and mannerisms he was excactly what they were looking for. Cop wannabe and if they say sit, and he sits. Stand, and he stands....!

Oh, and the deputy filing a law suit for severe emotional and psychological distress. Good luck with that! He looks like a, tough, veteran deputy and he had that security guard pegged the minute he saw him.

I was hoping to see them arrest Blart.

When I taught school, we had police officers coming to the records department every day, armed. I felt better with them on campus.

Darn. Fired before he could even get his Segway.



.

quote:

Originally posted by 357fuzz:
Show me where the deputy is breaking the law.

From the article: The U.S. General Services Administration, which sets the rules and regulations governing conduct on federal property, says: “Federal law prohibits the possession of firearms or other dangerous weapons in Federal facilities and Federal court facilities by all persons not specifically authorized by Title 18, United States Code, Section 930. Violators will be subject to fine and/or imprisonment for periods up to five (5) years.” Armed law enforcement officers conducting personal business are not specifically listed as “authorized” persons under the law.

From Title 18, United States Code, Section 930, subsection d: “Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;”

So, was the deputy breaking the law? From the way the code is written it appears so as he was not on official business but personal business. Of course I’m not a judge so that’s just my opinion. Regardless, the security guard pulling his gun on a uniformed deputy is completely ridiculous. And omitting that information from the 911 call is clearly intentional and suspect. Clearly he took his interpretation of the law way out of proportion.

Just as ridiculous is the officer filing a lawsuit. My opinion is him playing the race card is as much a revelation of his character as pulling the gun was for the guard. Not sure which is worse, a Johnny Rambo wanna be or a self-made “victim” of racism.

quote:

As far as I know...

As far as you know.

Para is dead on point here. This guy is a wanna-be. Imagine his power trip if he ever were to wear a sworn badge. Somebody would get shot in his first month.

This incident also illustrates the stupidity of Congress. It is ridiculous for a law enforcement office, or any CCW holder for that matter, to be prohibited on federal property. My brother is a FBI special agent, but it’s still illegal for him to stop by the post office after work. Dumbest thing ever.

I’m glad they fired him. Not so sure I see the point of the deputy suing, but that’s his right I guess.

Very familiar with this issue as a retired manager of a SS office who also had contract armed security contracted by the Federal Protective Service. The guard used appallingly bad judgement, especially when he drew his weapon. Even with armed security, we wound up having to call the police a few times a year to deal with mentally ill irate individuals, people released from jail who thought they could get the benefits reinstated immediately, and other problem visitors. Even once had a guy who had escaped from the state prison and came in to get his benefits reinstated. Since we depended on them to respond and protect us, the last thing we want to do was to piss off local law enforcement. All of the contract guards that I ever worked with (except one ex-military) were retired law enforcement themselves. So they were hardly inclined to challenge uniformed law enforcement. The issue came up just once when I was a manager. A new guard who only showed up once to cover a guy on vacation asked if he should challenge an armed uniformed officer who had stopped by on personal business at the end of his shift. My answer was simple. No. While I did not directly supervise the contract guard, any good manager should develop a relationship with the contract guard. While a manager is not a security guard, ultimately it's the manager's responsibility to insure the safety of the staff and the public. At SS in my area the policy was not to make an issue of armed uniformed police officers visiting the office for any reason. The most obvious reason for that was to insure good relationships with local law enforcement. I never worked in an office that didn't find it necessary to call the police for assistance on occasion.

quote:

Originally posted by mojojojo:
...So, was the deputy breaking the law? From the way the code is written it appears so as he was not on official business but personal business. Of course I’m not a judge so that’s just my opinion. Regardless, the security guard pulling his gun on a uniformed deputy is completely ridiculous. And omitting that information from the 911 call is clearly intentional and suspect. Clearly he took his interpretation of the law way out of proportion...

I think some departments make it mandatory that an officer remain armed while on duty or in uniform. I think some require even off-duty officers to carry at all times. The Deputy entering the IRS office is probably a gray area.

Playing the devil's advocate, I suppose he could have been distraught over his taxes and there to do something foolish, but he was acting normally and professionally, and when he agreed to leave, it should have been over. And Paul Blart should have never drawn on him. That was idiotic.



.

Stupidity sees no skin color.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
when he agreed to leave, it should have been over. And Paul Blart should have never drawn on him. That was idiotic. .

I couldn’t agree more

Security guard, although technically correct on the issue, was completely out of line.

Police officer left when asked, despite the fact that he shouldn't have really been there in the first place, no big deal.

The officer suing for emotional distress? Really?

quote:

I think some departments make it mandatory that an officer remain armed while on duty or in uniform.

Policy doesn't override laws or personal property rights.


Although no weapons were drawn, I was at a business about a month back. I'm always armed. They have a security guard at the door that is apparently pretty observant. He notices that I'm printing a bit and (correctly) assumes I have a holstered pistol under my shirt.

I conduct my business and I am walking to the door to leave. 10 feet from the door he steps between me and the door and asks if I'm carrying a firearm. I politely tell him it's none of his business, he explains that firearms aren't allowed on the property, and I explain that he's the only thing preventing me from exiting the property.

Not a big deal, but I thought it was a pretty stupid way to start that conversation.

Haven't we seen that guy before?
_