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

[Doctor Amadeus]

This is a tough one, but no the security guard in this is in a lot of trouble. Yes it has been pointed out that in some cases such as an off duty officer,"in other words an officer not dressed in uniform and clearly identified with badge and identification such as this one," is subject to the same laws concerning carrying a fire arm as everyone else.

But again this isn't the case here. This guard is drawing his weapon on a police officer, he is a moron, and if he isn't charged which is likely because it can be argued in his defense what was stated before, I wouldn't be surprised he gets fired. This was extremely stupid.

[cubby]

We've seen time and time again officers not arrested nor charged after breaking a law and people arrested that are innocent, being charged is proof of nothing in of itself.

Edit: Theres literally a thread in off topic about a police officer choking a man to death with no charges.

Indeed. But this wasn't a case of that. The Uniformed Deputy did nothing wrong, and in fact more than likely should be commended for saving lives. If that asshat of a security guard had started opening fire, who knows what would have happened.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a tough one, but no the security guard in this is in a lot of trouble. Yes it has been pointed out that in some cases such as an off duty officer,"in other words an officer not dressed in uniform and clearly identified with badge and identification such as this one," is subject to the same laws concerning carrying a fire arm as everyone else.

But again this isn't the case here. This guard is drawing his weapon on a police officer, he is a moron, and if he isn't charged which is likely because it can be argued in his defense what was stated before, I wouldn't be surprised he gets fired. This was extremely stupid.

Precisely - and good clarification re Uniformed vs non-Uniformed. To me that is the crux of the entire event. By all rights the guard should be dead.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Precisely - and good clarification re Uniformed vs non-Uniformed. To me that is the crux of the entire event. The guard should be dead.

It would be for a Judge also. There was no confusion here.

[Ghostpanther]

This is a tough one, but no the security guard in this is in a lot of trouble. Yes it has been pointed out that in some cases such as an off duty officer,"in other words an officer not dressed in uniform and clearly identified with badge and identification such as this one," is subject to the same laws concerning carrying a fire arm as everyone else.

But again this isn't the case here. This guard is drawing his weapon on a police officer, he is a moron, and if he isn't charged which is likely because it can be argued in his defense what was stated before, I wouldn't be surprised he gets fired. This was extremely stupid.

Hey, welcome back. And I agree on the bold part.

[Citizen T]

This is a tough one, but no the security guard in this is in a lot of trouble. Yes it has been pointed out that in some cases such as an off duty officer,"in other words an officer not dressed in uniform and clearly identified with badge and identification such as this one," is subject to the same laws concerning carrying a fire arm as everyone else.

But again this isn't the case here. This guard is drawing his weapon on a police officer, he is a moron, and if he isn't charged which is likely because it can be argued in his defense what was stated before, I wouldn't be surprised he gets fired. This was extremely stupid.

The LAW

(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;

and

Department of Homeland Security FAQ

I am a state or local law enforcement officer. Can I bring my service weapon with me?
No. It is unlawful for armed state or local law enforcement officers to possess a firearm in a Federal facility unless there is an official law enforcement purpose for the visit.

disagree with your assessment. The deputy is not allowed to enter a federal facility for personal reasons while armed.

[Doctor Amadeus]

The LAW
and
Department of Homeland Security FAQ
disagree with your assessment. The deputy is not allowed to enter a federal facility for personal reasons while armed.

See this is where the letter of the law and ones own actual ability to use critical thinking skills and problem solving comes into play. We are talking about context here, did you click the link, did you read what happened.

This security guard is an idiot, as someone who cares about prudent gun ownership, that should be just as important to you as the letter of the law.

This man is a police officer, whether he is on duty or not is irrelevant. This security guard now has an incident due to his lack of professionalism and ability to obviously think clearly.

The security guard is a walking liability.

[Citizen T]

See this is where the letter of the law and ones own actual ability to use critical thinking skills and problem solving comes into play. We are talking about context here, did you click the link, did you read what happened.

This security guard is an idiot, as someone who cares about prudent gun ownership, that should be just as important to you as the letter of the law.

This man is a police officer, whether he is on duty or not is irrelevant. This security guard now has an incident due to his lack of professionalism and ability to obviously think clearly.

The security guard is a walking liability.

I've never said that what the security guard did was intelligent. I just said that it was within the scope of his authority. These are two completely different things.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I've never said that what the security guard did was intelligent. I just said that it was within the scope of his authority. These are two completely different things.

LOL I don't disagree with the bold. The problem was and obviously I wasn't there, but yeah nothing in the incident suggest pulling out a gun was anything other that a critically stupid thing to do. That is likely what the issue is open to now.

Because my question if I worked with him would be. What if the police officer decided to pull his gun, or this situation escalated even more. I am less concerned with just the facts and no context. Which is why what he did was not only stupid, but likely calls into question what I said about him. The guard at the very least should be fired, and some serious questions about what happened here.

[Citizen T]

LOL I don't disagree with the bold. The problem was and obviously I wasn't there, but yeah nothing in the incident suggest pulling out a gun was anything other that a critically stupid thing to do. That is likely what the issue is open to now.

Because my question if I worked with him would be. What if the police officer decided to pull his gun, or this situation escalated even more. I am less concerned with just the facts and no context. Which is why what he did was not only stupid, but likely calls into question what I said about him. The guard at the very least should be fired, and some serious questions about what happened here.

Oh I absolutely believe he should be fired - I'm not sure he will due to likely union protections. But he should not have been arrested. Acting within his scope of authority, federal preemption takes affect. Yes, seeing as how federal preemption is a positive defense and doesn't exempt him from arrest, state/local agents can still arrest him but then they are wasting taxpayer money to prosecute him to ultimately become a waste of time and money.

My main problem on the part of the deputy is his clear lack of understanding federal firearm laws. I - as a responsible gun owner - am required to know and follow them so therefore should the deputy. Sure he was in uniform but he was just as illegal as I would have been walking in with a open carry firearm. What do you think would have happened to me in this case? Especially if I tried to argue that I didn't have to disarm as the deputy tried to do? Either of us would have been wrong in th assumption of not needing to disarm.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Oh I absolutely believe he should be fired - I'm not sure he will due to likely union protections. But he should not have been arrested. Acting within his scope of authority, federal preemption takes affect. Yes, seeing as how federal preemption is a positive defense and doesn't exempt him from arrest, state/local agents can still arrest him but then they are wasting taxpayer money to prosecute him to ultimately become a waste of time and money.

My main problem on the part of the deputy is his clear lack of understanding federal firearm laws. I - as a responsible gun owner - am required to know and follow them so therefore should the deputy. Sure he was in uniform but he was just as illegal as I would have been walking in with a open carry firearm. What do you think would have happened to me in this case? Especially if I tried to argue that I didn't have to disarm as the deputy tried to do? Either of us would have been wrong in th assumption of not needing to disarm.

Should security guard have been arrested?

Should should security guard have pulled his gun?

Because arresting his ass is also within the scope of the police authority, and this is exactly why as I said along with the letter of the law and how, context is important. If you think pulling a gun on a cop, especially one who is clearly identified ever ends well, then and only then him being arrested isn't expected.

I do agree with you about the deputy, it isn't my assertion that isn't a important detail. But again I wasn't there maybe the cop was being a complete ass, maybe the security guard was likely more diplomatic at first.

I mean police like to park where they aren't supposed to at no point have I called to have a car towed or confronted firefighters not on official business and I damn sure haven't pulled my gun on any of the mentioned. I mean I can legally and technically do so, but I have no doubt my ass would be fired almost immediately after.

On personal note, I have lived long enough to know people do stupid shit, but I have also comes to expect more of people who know better to act better. Because if those who are capable won't then what hope is there for those who don't know if they are able.

You are a gun owner likely because of many reasons, but I assume because you understand you can follow all the rules and the system of society and that shit can break down and fail.

This shit right here is a prime example of evidence as to why that sentiment is justified. Which is not a good thing

Just because I can do a thing doesn't mean I do right?

The reasons for not pulling a gun on a clearly identified police officer whether this deputy was also being an idiot should be clear, and obviously it is to you because you agree.

The guys not going to be charged or at least I doubt it will go anywhere because of some of the specifics of what you said and a good attorney to argue, however his job and the union, uh yeah even some that might not completely disagree with him, are likely not going to cover for him.

I suppose if it just becomes a political football he might come out alright socially, but the fact is he is a liability, that and being stupid is going to hurt him in the end.

[Noradin]

Sorry I think I'm confused. Is the situation that the officer was inside the IRS office with his firearm, told he can't be armed and refused to leave? Or that he was told he can't be armed there and left?

He only left after being told that he was under arrest because he refused to leave.

[Agrotera]

Because the person that was responsible for detaining/arresting the deputy for the federal violation was summarily ignored and then arrested for doing his job.

He was also fired (same day), which tells you exactly what his security firm thought of his actions. The thing is, he was doing his job up until he escalated the situation and that escalation is the reason he was ignored, arrested, fired and sued (too bad this kind of swift retribution doesn't occur every time a LEO escalates a situation by acting like lunatic).

What do you think would have happened to me in this case? Especially if I tried to argue that I didn't have to disarm as the deputy tried to do? Either of us would have been wrong in th assumption of not needing to disarm.

That's a harder point to debate because in your scenario, you have no reason to not disarm. You also don't have the luxury of having LEO status, which is obviously what Deputy Gaston was banking on because according to him, past guards never had issue with him being armed while in a federal office. So using yourself as an example is kinda moot. I know thats your main problem with all this but Deputy Gatson walking into a federal office armed isn't what lead to all this, it was Eklunds escalation. He exceeded his authority, and thats why he was arrested.

[Citizen T]

Should security guard have been arrested?

Should should security guard have pulled his gun?

Because arresting his ass is also within the scope of the police authority, and this is exactly why as I said along with the letter of the law and how, context is important. If you think pulling a gun on a cop, especially one who is clearly identified ever ends well, then and only then him being arrested isn't expected.

I do agree with you about the deputy, it isn't my assertion that isn't a important detail. But again I wasn't there maybe the cop was being a complete ass, maybe the security guard was likely more diplomatic at first.

I mean police like to park where they aren't supposed to at no point have I called to have a car towed or confronted firefighters not on official business and I damn sure haven't pulled my gun on any of the mentioned. I mean I can legally and technically do so, but I have no doubt my ass would be fired almost immediately after.

On personal note, I have lived long enough to know people do stupid shit, but I have also comes to expect more of people who know better to act better. Because if those who are capable won't then what hope is there for those who don't know if they are able.

You are a gun owner likely because of many reasons, but I assume because you understand you can follow all the rules and the system of society and that shit can break down and fail.

This shit right here is a prime example of evidence as to why that sentiment is justified. Which is not a good thing

Just because I can do a thing doesn't mean I do right?

The reasons for not pulling a gun on a clearly identified police officer whether this deputy was also being an idiot should be clear, and obviously it is to you because you agree.

The guys not going to be charged or at least I doubt it will go anywhere because of some of the specifics of what you said and a good attorney to argue, however his job and the union, uh yeah even some that might not completely disagree with him, are likely not going to cover for him.

I suppose if it just becomes a political football he might come out alright socially, but the fact is he is a liability, that and being stupid is going to hurt him in the end.

I mentioned earlier in the thread that I really wish that we had audio as well as video of the event. This would tell us exactly what happened and when. If everything is as the deputy says (we have not hear anything from anyone other than the deputy) then the moron should be fired, but at a minimum the deputy should have some of reprimand at the very least as he was the determinate cause of the event by violating federal law.

If however the even did not happen as told by the deputy (this is where audio would be useful), then the severity of all reprimands are up in the air. For instance, what if the deputy said something along the lines of "I'm a copy I don't have disarm. Don't make me shoot/beat/arrest you" By no means am I saying this happened. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in between. Based on my own interaction with police in several states (and military and federal) I wouldn't be surprised by some kind of smart ass off hand comment made by the deputy.

[Noradin]

You also don't have the luxury of having LEO status, which is obviously what Deputy Gaston was banking on because according to him, past guards never had issue with him being armed while in a federal office.

And that is exactly the problem, that LEOs are excused when they overstep federal law where other citizens would be arrested.
LEOs should be held to a higher standard not to a lower one.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I mentioned earlier in the thread that I really wish that we had audio as well as video of the event. This would tell us exactly what happened and when. If everything is as the deputy says (we have not hear anything from anyone other than the deputy) then the moron should be fired, but at a minimum the deputy should have some of reprimand at the very least as he was the determinate cause of the event by violating federal law.

Within the scope of the law? It's for sure going to come down to the greater harm. Otherwise cops likely would get in more trouble for things like parking in no parking spots in their cruisers, or using sirens as I said to go through traffic lights.

The main issue is going to be the guard pulling his revolver. Keep in mind the literal context. The guard didn't know for sure the cops was legit even if he looked it, but then the next question might be if he wasn't why would he be lying.

Are there targets in the building he could be after, if not then who, what is his business. It seems pretty clear he was on it "personal business" which I agree with you about him for sure being reprimanded. Especially when that likely seems to be the case

But again the cops an asshole, a jerk, a dick thinks he has some kind of special privilege, yeah, could be. But as I said, pulling a gun, was that absolutely required?

I wasn't there I do Not know, I am just one more person with an opinion but based on the elements and what I read, it sounds like he over reacted to a situation, whatever it may have been including the above. That is why I am saying this guard was a stupid.

If however the even did not happen as told by the deputy (this is where audio would be useful), then the severity of all reprimands are up in the air. For instance, what if the deputy said something along the lines of "I'm a copy I don't have disarm. Don't make me shoot/beat/arrest you" By no means am I saying this happened. The truth is almost certainly somewhere in between. Based on my own interaction with police in several states (and military and federal) I wouldn't be surprised by some kind of smart ass off hand comment made by the deputy.

Agreed on everything you said in bold.

When I read a headline or situation, especially one that seems salacious or provocative like this where people are acting crazy, I don't like to automatically assume there is no possible reason for them to act crazy, unless an individual is known for that kind of behavior or there is evidence for such.

I don't assume before the guard pulled his gun it was a polite conversation, lets face it people are assholes, and someone hired both of these guys, so I am going to assume for the moment both are qualified and demonstrated the ability to act as professionals.

So in the end I am going to agree with you, especially what you said about your experience concerning reasoning. I am sure we both have our own biases as well. But I am standing by my statement that this guard pulling his gun was seriously stupid.

If evidence comes forward that the deputy did go off the rails the with audio then yeah I agree fuck the reprimand he should be fired also.


Maybe it was the security guard acting like a bad ass and mouthing off. As a Deputy you are right, he also has the obligation to use his critical thinking skills and training to read, "OK, This guys is losing his shit" maybe I should back off!

Over all as I said this comes down to who knew better as to where responsibility lay. Because to me in all of this aside from the embarrassing press, is the the fact this shit could have escalated to something far far worse because something went really wrong.


These are common citizens, they aren't unaware, both should have maintained their established training acted in that profession.

But as it sits now, I am going with the security guard pulling a gun on a deputy, because he was possibly too arrogant to take off his fire arm.

The security guard seems to have won the stupid prize.

[Citizen T]

Within the scope of the law? It's for sure going to come down to the greater harm. Otherwise cops likely would get in more trouble for things like parking in no parking spots in their cruisers, or using sirens as I said to go through traffic lights.

The main issue is going to be the guard pulling his revolver. Keep in mind the literal context. The guard didn't know for sure the cops was legit even if he looked it, but then the next question might be if he wasn't why would he be lying.

Are there targets in the building he could be after, if not then who, what is his business. It seems pretty clear he was on it "personal business" which I agree with you about him for sure being reprimanded. Especially when that likely seems to be the case

But again the cops an asshole, a jerk, a dick thinks he has some kind of special privilege, yeah, could be. But as I said, pulling a gun, was that absolutely required?

I wasn't there I do Not know, I am just one more person with an opinion but based on the elements and what I read, it sounds like he over reacted to a situation, whatever it may have been including the above. That is why I am saying this guard was a stupid.




Agreed on everything you said in bold.

When I read a headline or situation, especially one that seems salacious or provocative like this where people are acting crazy, I don't like to automatically assume there is no possible reason for them to act crazy, unless an individual is known for that kind of behavior or there is evidence for such.

I don't assume before the guard pulled his gun it was a polite conversation, lets face it people are assholes, and someone hired both of these guys, so I am going to assume for the moment both are qualified and demonstrated the ability to act as professionals.

So in the end I am going to agree with you, especially what you said about your experience concerning reasoning. I am sure we both have our own biases as well. But I am standing by my statement that this guard pulling his gun was seriously stupid.

If evidence comes forward that the deputy did go off the rails the with audio then yeah I agree fuck the reprimand he should be fired also.


Maybe it was the security guard acting like a bad ass and mouthing off. As a Deputy you are right, he also has the obligation to use his critical thinking skills and training to read, "OK, This guys is losing his shit" maybe I should back off!

Over all as I said this comes down to who knew better as to where responsibility lay. Because to me in all of this aside from the embarrassing press, is the the fact this shit could have escalated to something far far worse because something went really wrong.


These are common citizens, they aren't unaware, both should have maintained their established training acted in that profession.

But as it sits now, I am going with the security guard pulling a gun on a deputy, because he was possibly too arrogant to take off his fire arm.

The security guard seems to have won the stupid prize.

Absolutely the guards wins the stupid prize. The deputy wins the arrogance prize (at a minimum he assumed he was an exception to the rule just because he was a cop). The event wouldn't have happened without both though.

[cubby]

It would be for a Judge also. There was no confusion here.

Absolutely not. Agreed.

Moreover, some people in this thread are pushing the lie that it was a federal facility, which it was not. Likewise, they are pushing a separate lie that the Deputy "broke federal law", which of course he did not. Had he done so, he would have been arrested or at least it would have been mentioned.

But yeah - the guard is lucky he's still alive. That Deputy deserves a medal.

[draynay]

For instance, what if

Better to deal with what we know rather than imagine things that might have been. If they conduct an investigation and find it merits a reprimand, so be it, but I was not there and am not part of the investigation so I will lay my trust on those involved to carry it out correctly.

As for the guard, his actions constituted a potentially deadly escalation of what should have been a routine encounter and will likely cause his company some expensive legal fees and has already caused public embarrassment. His arrest seems warranted, his expected firing seems warranted, but I don't think he should be charged either. He made a mistake and I don't condemn him for it, I just wouldn't want him in a position to make that mistake again.

[cubby]

Absolutely the guards wins the stupid prize. The deputy wins the arrogance prize (at a minimum he assumed he was an exception to the rule just because he was a cop). The event wouldn't have happened without both though.

Actually, the more info that comes out the more it becomes clear this was all the guards fault. The building wasn't a federal facility. Period. Had it been so, the Uniformed Deputy would have been appropriately disarmed by the FPS while initially entering the building.

The Uniformed Deputy broke no law and made no assumption. I'm sorry to keep banging this drum, but your assumptions have been incorrect from the start. It's not right nor fair that you can continue to push wrong information and conclusions.

Nothing in any of the news articles is saying the building was a federal facility.

[Captain N]

Absolutely not. Agreed.

Moreover, some people in this thread are pushing the lie that it was a federal facility, which it was not. Likewise, they are pushing a separate lie that the Deputy "broke federal law", which of course he did not. Had he done so, he would have been arrested or at least it would have been mentioned.

But yeah - the guard is lucky he's still alive. That Deputy deserves a medal.

I was looking at some more recent stuff on this even going so far as to look into how Right-Wing Media Outlets are portraying this. The following is not right-wing media but covers a lot more than the initial reports.

According to recent news Gaston has worked as a county sheriff for over 35 years coupling that with the fact he's been allowed to carry in that building before by guards indicates that his presence was well known. This also means that every other guard but Eklund was disregarding a federal law.

When Eklund tells Gaston to disarm Gaston claims he asked if there was a security box available and was told no. If that box had been available than the violation Gaston spoke of about leaving his weapon unattended would not have been a thing. A GSA protected building should have one of these for any police officer not on "official business"

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...guard-n1030796