On duty black police officer held at gunpoint by racist security guard

[Citizen T]

So, if everything the Security Guard did was Legal and Right and everything the Deputy did was Illegal and Wrong...why is the Security Guard facing criminal Charges while the Deputy is pursuing civil action against both the Guard and his employers?

Do you think local police forces never arrest anyone mistakenly? As for civil action, anyone can sue anyone - that doesn't mean anything.

If this security guard gets a decent lawyer, my bet is that he makes money from the city of Toledo.

I've linked the actual law as evidence. What evidence do you have? Please show me where there is an exemption in federal law that allows a police officer not on official duty to enter a federal facility. If you show me this statute, I will readily admit that I've been incorrect in this discussion.

As a responsible gun owner and conceal carry permit holder, I make myself become knowledgeable about federal firearms laws, my state and local laws, and the laws of any state that I plan to travel to. I would expect that you would require law enforcement officers to do the same.

[Flarelaine]

Despite the inflammatory OP, the thread has developed nicely around legal issues, (mostly) avoiding race. Keep it up.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Do you think local police forces never arrest anyone mistakenly? As for civil action, anyone can sue anyone - that doesn't mean anything.

If this security guard gets a decent lawyer, my bet is that he makes money from the city of Toledo.

I've linked the actual law as evidence. What evidence do you have? Please show me where there is an exemption in federal law that allows a police officer not on official duty to enter a federal facility. If you show me this statute, I will readily admit that I've been incorrect in this discussion.

As a responsible gun owner and conceal carry permit holder, I make myself become knowledgeable about federal firearms laws, my state and local laws, and the laws of any state that I plan to travel to. I would expect that you would require law enforcement officers to do the same.

So your assertion is that:

The Deputy was wrong.
The Police Officers that arrested the Security Guard were wrong.
The Prosecutor that filed the charges against the Security Guard was wrong.


But Thwart is right.

But there is an alternative

Maybe Thwart is wrong.

See, you may be correct that the Deputy did not have the right to bring his weapon into the building. Captain N has linked information that somewhat counters your position however. The other side of it, as the Deputy explained to the Security Guard, is that he cannot leave his weapon in his car while he is on duty.

So, The Security Guard would not allow entry while the deputy was armed, the Deputy could not disarm himself while on duty. At this point neither is making any threatening actions towards the other. The Deputy is pleading his case...but he is not trying to force his way past the guard. That's when the Guard draws his weapon. This escalated the situation. The Deputy, now in fear of his life, simply decides it's in his best interest to leave. The guard pursues...weapon still drawn and pointing at the Deputy. This is where the legal problem pops up for the Security Guard. At no point was there a need for him to draw his weapon and point it at the Deputy. You can clearly see on the video that the Deputy never made any hostile actions toward the Guard.

[Citizen T]

So your assertion is that:

The Deputy was wrong.
The Police Officers that arrested the Security Guard were wrong.
The Prosecutor that filed the charges against the Security Guard was wrong.


But Thwart is right.

But there is an alternative

Maybe Thwart is wrong.

See, you may be correct that the Deputy did not have the right to bring his weapon into the building. Captain N has linked information that somewhat counters your position however. The other side of it, as the Deputy explained to the Security Guard, is that he cannot leave his weapon in his car while he is on duty.

So, The Security Guard would not allow entry while the deputy was armed, the Deputy could not disarm himself while on duty. At this point neither is making any threatening actions towards the other. The Deputy is pleading his case...but he is not trying to force his way past the guard. That's when the Guard draws his weapon. This escalated the situation. The Deputy, now in fear of his life, simply decides it's in his best interest to leave. The guard pursues...weapon still drawn and pointing at the Deputy. This is where the legal problem pops up for the Security Guard. At no point was there a need for him to draw his weapon and point it at the Deputy. You can clearly see on the video that the Deputy never made any hostile actions toward the Guard.

If one discounts the actual event that caused the problem then sure all of those people are correct. The deputy's felonious actions are what triggered the event. The deputy then escalated the situation by not immediately complying but instead wanted to argue either A) the guard was wrong, or B) he should be given a pass because he's a cop even though federal law prohibits even cops from entering federal facilities armed for other than official reasons. The DA that filed the charges has only what is in the police report so I don't know what he has, so I cannot say he is wrong but perhaps misinformed. Now if you think police don't back other police over a security guard, then nothing I will say will make any difference.

All I can say is that the original deputy was wrong. The other officers only had what they were told by the original deputy (and the "thin blue line") to guide their actions. If I had to guess, I bet a large percentage (probably over 50%) of law enforcement officers think they are allowed to carry a firearm into a federal facility any time they want - particularly just because they are on duty. On duty does not equal official business.

When the deputy did not immediately leave but instead decided to debate the issue with the security guard. The guard then attempted to arrest the deputy for committing a federal felony - this was even mentioned if the very first paragraph of the original extremely biased article. When arresting an armed person it is quite reasonable to draw your weapon. The deputy is also guilty of resisting arrest as the security guard had ample authority to arrest him. Any civilian in theory could arrest him as he was committing a felony violation.

[ShmooDude]

I've linked the actual law as evidence. What evidence do you have? Please show me where there is an exemption in federal law that allows a police officer not on official duty to enter a federal facility. If you show me this statute, I will readily admit that I've been incorrect in this discussion.

Listed under the exemptions

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

An on duty law enforcement officer required to carry their firearm could easily fall under this exemption as it's pretty broad.

[Citizen T]

Listed under the exemptions

An on duty law enforcement officer required to carry their firearm could easily fall under this exemption as it's pretty broad.

You might want to look at what that means. Using that broad of use, anyone with a concealed license could carry a firearm into a federal facility. It's purpose is to allow carry in national parks, and other federal areas that allow hunting, sport shooting, etc. These type of facilities would include trap clubs on military bases, hunting for game on federally controlled lands, etc.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

If one discounts the actual event that caused the problem then sure all of those people are correct. The deputy's felonious actions are what triggered the event. The deputy then escalated the situation by not immediately complying but instead wanted to argue either A) the guard was wrong, or B) he should be given a pass because he's a cop even though federal law prohibits even cops from entering federal facilities armed for other than official reasons. The DA that filed the charges has only what is in the police report so I don't know what he has, so I cannot say he is wrong but perhaps misinformed. Now if you think police don't back other police over a security guard, then nothing I will say will make any difference.

All I can say is that the original deputy was wrong. The other officers only had what they were told by the original deputy (and the "thin blue line") to guide their actions. If I had to guess, I bet a large percentage (probably over 50%) of law enforcement officers think they are allowed to carry a firearm into a federal facility any time they want - particularly just because they are on duty. On duty does not equal official business.

When the deputy did not immediately leave but instead decided to debate the issue with the security guard. The guard then attempted to arrest the deputy for committing a federal felony - this was even mentioned if the very first paragraph of the original extremely biased article. When arresting an armed person it is quite reasonable to draw your weapon. The deputy is also guilty of resisting arrest as the security guard had ample authority to arrest him. Any civilian in theory could arrest him as he was committing a felony violation.

Even if you are correct, and I still have doubts that you are....what pressing threat was the Deputy posing that required the security guard to draw his weapon? There was no call to arrest the Deputy...he was not attempting to force his way through. He was simply stating that, as a Deputy, he cannot disarm himself while on Duty. Had he attempted to force his way past security...than I would agree with you 100% that the security guard did the right thing. But that isn't what happened here.

[Citizen T]

Even if you are correct, and I still have doubts that you are....what pressing threat was the Deputy posing that required the security guard to draw his weapon? There was no call to arrest the Deputy...he was not attempting to force his way through. He was simply stating that, as a Deputy, he cannot disarm himself while on Duty. Had he attempted to force his way past security...than I would agree with you 100% that the security guard did the right thing. But that isn't what happened here.

I never said that the guard should have done what he did, only that he had the authority and was within his legal rights to do so. I don't know the tone of voice that the deputy used when confronted, but his body language to me is dismissive and/or condescending. None of us can determine if he should have, but he did have the authority to do so. Would this same deputy draw his weapon if a citizen walked into the precinct house with a firearm? You bet your butt he would! He would do it before he even knew what the person wanted.

The security guard was "in 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 therefore could be armed. This statement also means that the guard had the authority to arrest anyone in violation of such law.

He can disarm himself while on duty. LEOs do it all the time at jails, mental health facilities, etc.

Consider it from an angle of the average Joe walking in. The guard tells them they need to put their gun in their car. Joe then starts trying to explain why he can't do that. What would you expect the guard to do? Should he wait until Joe decides to draw his weapon?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Consider it from an angle of the average Joe walking in. The guard tells them they need to put their gun in their car. Joe then starts trying to explain why he can't do that. What would you expect the guard to do? Should he wait until Joe decides to draw his weapon?

Yes, he should wait until there is a reason to draw his weapon before drawing his weapon. Acting "dismissive and/or condescending" as you put it is not a valid reason to draw your weapon. If he had tried to force his way past...yes, absolutely draw your weapon. If the Deputy had made any hostile actions or threats...draw your weapon. A Deputy trying to explain why he can't just leave his weapon in his car is not a valid reason to draw a weapon.

[Citizen T]

Once he decided an arrest was required do you expect him to just politely ask the deputy lay face down on the floor?

The decision to arrest is what I can't be sure of, but he had the authority to do so.

[wheresmywoft]

Once he decided an arrest was required do you expect him to just politely ask the deputy lay face down on the floor?

The decision to arrest is what I can't be sure of, but he had the authority to do so.

That's a really odd question. Do you have to draw your gun to do that in the US?

[Citizen T]

That's a really odd question. Do you have to draw your gun to do that in the US?

Generally no, but when arresting an armed individual it's probably a good idea.

[Agrotera]

If one discounts the actual event that caused the problem then sure all of those people are correct. The deputy's felonious actions are what triggered the event. The deputy then escalated the situation by not immediately complying but instead wanted to argue either A) the guard was wrong, or B) he should be given a pass because he's a cop even though federal law prohibits even cops from entering federal facilities armed for other than official reasons. The DA that filed the charges has only what is in the police report so I don't know what he has, so I cannot say he is wrong but perhaps misinformed. Now if you think police don't back other police over a security guard, then nothing I will say will make any difference.

There's no way to sincerely argue that the security guard acted in a professional manner and was 100% justified in his comportment. You've tried, but dying on the hill of "the officer broke federal law therefore this was justifiable on the security guards part" won't get you too far as its impossible to tell whether that was the actual case or if this was just a rent-a-cop on a power trip. And lets be honest, the fact that you haven't addressed the private citizen's actions kinda of gives it away that you're acting in bad faith here.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Once he decided an arrest was required do you expect him to just politely ask the deputy lay face down on the floor?

The decision to arrest is what I can't be sure of, but he had the authority to do so.

The point being is there was no reason to attempt to make the arrest...even if, as you say, he had the authority to do so. The Deputy did not attempt to force his way past the guard and made no hostile action towards the guard or anyone else.

[strongyp]

people keep throwing around federal building but according to google it ISNT a federal building its a private building thats rented out to multiple people with the IRS having rented 1 suite they dont have juristication over the whole building.

[Captain N]

people keep throwing around federal building but according to google it ISNT a federal building its a private building thats rented out to multiple people with the IRS having rented 1 suite they dont have juristication over the whole building.

Thank you for posting this. I also did check Google and saw the building in question was the Four Seagate building located in Toledo Ohio. It's a Local Government Office which means that Gaston is fully within his right to be armed while on the premises.

[Jotaux]

Listed under the exemptions

An on duty law enforcement officer required to carry their firearm could easily fall under this exemption as it's pretty broad.

That is an insanely broad exemption, the officer would easily fall under that, especially if he is legally required to carry the firearm with him at all times.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you for posting this. I also did check Google and saw the building in question was the Four Seagate building located in Toledo Ohio. It's a Local Government Office which means that Gaston is fully within his right to be armed while on the premises.

What exactly qualifies a premises as a federal building?

From wikipedia "A federal building is a building housing local offices of various government departments and agencies in countries with a federal system, especially when the central government is referred to as the "federal government". "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_building

Is one office enough to qualify?

[strongyp]

it actually lists the federal buildings on that page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_building#Ohio this particular building is not listed.

https://www.eyde.com/commercial-prop...e/four-seagate

you can rent a suite yourself, if the Police Department, Secret Service and CIA rented a suite what happens then?

i would think that guards juristiction ends at the suite entrance if any.

[Captain N]

What exactly qualifies a premises as a federal building?

From wikipedia "A federal building is a building housing local offices of various government departments and agencies in countries with a federal system, especially when the central government is referred to as the "federal government". "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_building

Is one office enough to qualify?

I would guess a Federal Building would constitute a building where a majority of the things going on inside of it are related to the Federal Government.

But Four SeaGate is listed as Local Government/Public Use -- the only 2 Government organization that are present in the building are the IRS Office and a Social Security Office.

https://www.realtytrac.com/property/...ate/183342921/

Nothing declares it a Federal Building.

[Nurasu]

Of course the Toledo PD/Prosecutor's office is going to side with the cop; just because they arrested the Security Officer doesn't mean he was wrong. The cop violated federal law. And why the fuck are so many officers doing their personal business "on duty"?