Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisseaton | Hacker News Reader

Why would anyone shoot an intruder on commercial premises? Is that ever legal? I know homes are different in the US, but would a security guard ever literally see someone they didn’t recognise, draw their gun, and just execute them like that?

View on HN

They wouldn't shoot someone because that person is an intruder. They would shoot that person because they think that person has a weapon and is about to harm them. The article says there was suspicion that the men's backpacks contained pressure cooker bombs, and they were doing it on September 11.

Consider Daniel Shaver, he was crawling on the floor with no weapon, but the police suspected he had a gun and was about to shoot them, so they shot him. The courts found the police not guilty.

> Why would anyone shoot an intruder on commercial premises?

The article is about government property (a courthouse) not commercial property.

It happens regularly enough that searching 'security guard shoots man' turns up applicable stories on the first page.

For example: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/06/20/security-guard-shoots... (slightly more elaborate, but still a man shot in the back and and killed when peacefully leaving an area)

There is no basis for use of lethal force other than self defense against a threat to life. That seems to get lost in the US all too frequently.

I think US law considers being on someone else’s property to be an inherent threat to life, in cases like a home.

Also defending another person against a threat to life is a basis for the use of legal force everywhere - that’s pretty uncontroversial I think.

Defence of others is indeed covered in self defence. But the threat response has to be proportional -- you can't shoot someone in the head because they look menacing or said you had an ugly dog.

The 'castle doctrine' you refer to is a perversion peculiar to some US states, but it still has to be your home and you still have to have a reasonable belief your life is threatened. Strangely, although you can use lethal force on an intruder/trespasser, if you shoot a police officer about to conduct a lawful no-knock raid, I think you could get convicted.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/a-no-knock-raid-in-houston...

"Lawful no-knock raid" is a basic contradiction. If there is no notice that the home invaders are police, then they're actually just home invaders. It's unfortunate that so many will have to die before a sympathetic enough casualty comes along to end the practice.

It is certainly the case that, statistically, no-knock raids are unjustified. The idea that losing a dime bag of drug evidence is sufficient basis seems absurd. If it's a Hell's Angels clubhouse full of weapons or a Sinaloa cartel abduction site I can see the necessity, i.e. to reduce the risk to the community of high powered weapons use by the suspects. But judges in the US see to give out no-knock warrants like candy.

> I think US law considers being on someone else’s property to be an inherent threat to life, in cases like a home.

Only a few states have castle doctrine laws in effect, and there are restrictions on when they apply.

> Why would anyone shoot an intruder on commercial premises?

When all you have is a gun, everything is a nail that can be shot at.

people panic -- if you've got a gun and are having an emotional response of some kind, anger, fear, what-have-you, someone could easily get shot when otherwise they wouldn't

This is why mall cops and speeding fine issuers should not be armed like they are about to raid an organised crime hiding spot. It's astounding that some countries allow random security guards to have guns. Unless you are highly trained and entering a very dangerous situation you should not have any guns at all.

https://americangunfacts.com

NRA website with some questionable and some nonsensical info graphics.

Not NRA. Sources are hyperlinked at the bottom. Which do you question?

Just to take one example: The UK records violent crimes that are not violent crimes in the US. So yes, violent crimes are higher in the UK. But they’d soar in the US if they’d use the same definition.

Possible! Source please.

Ref:

https://americangunfacts.com/pdf/www-telegraph-co-uk.pdf

"2034[1] vs 466 Violent Crimes UK vs US per 100k people"

[1] The July 2009 Telegraph article says "over 2000"

https://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checki...

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... (section 5.1)

Excellent, thank you.

Generally speaking commercial security will not shoot you unless they have no other option. When you start talking courthouses and other government facilities where the people carrying guns more or less have government granted immunity if they use them in questionable circumstances all bets are off. You could get a normal security guard or you could get the ex-police officer who got kicked out of real policing for being too violent too often (whereas that guy would never be able to maintain employment in private security).

If security were perfect, we wouldn't need pentesters in the first place.

Armed responders are human. Humans make mistakes. Drop guns aren’t unheard of when a bad officer decides to cover up a mistake.

Why do they arm normal police officers and security guards? Why not leave the armed response to specialist officers with much higher levels of training and accountability?

Violent criminals don't break for tea time while everyone waits for the "armed response" people to show up. Cops and security guards are armed because they encounter situations where they have to defend themselves against someone who wants to kill them. If a criminal is pulling a gun out of his waistband, suggesting that the cop or security guard should have to be a defenseless sitting duck while screaming into the radio for "armed response" is an utterly silly proposition.

Are most criminals really carrying guns? It seems like a bad trade-off to arm everyone all the time just for the one in a billion case that a criminal is armed.

First of all, there are more ways than just guns for a criminal adversary to kill someone, including knives, hammers, baseball bats, pounding a person's head into the sidewalk using bare hands only, etc. Secondly, a cursory glance at crime statistics ought to dispossess you of the notion that criminals are only armed every "one in a billion" cases. Thirdly, if you really think this only happens "one in a billion" cases, why would you bother standing up an armed response team at all?

Police and security in the UK manage just fine without guns. I think arming the police means criminals feel the need to be armed in response.

The United States isn't the UK. That aside, considering the UK's recent surge in knife violence, I'm not sure your assertion that armed police cause criminals to arm themselves can be substantiated.

In my current state almost everyone has a weapon. My neighbor (legally) owns a fully automatic gun. I have had a gun pointed at me twice during two separate crimes when I lived in another state. That state has extremely harsh gun laws, one year minimum for every bullet in a illegal weapon.

Just last week there was a home invasion robbery and the mans guard dog was shot and killed in my current city.

Slightly more than one in a billion chance.

Guns can’t be taken out of citizens’ hands. Teach responsible use and double down.

They only make mistakes when the other party isn’t white.

Police murder plenty of white people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com