Florida Concealed Carry banner

Standoff Between Deputy and Security Guard at IRS Office

3K views 12 replies 8 participants last post by  BrianB 
#1 ·
#2 · (Edited)
That security guard was a D*ck! He needed to be arrested, stripped of his so-called credentials and his man-card. :doh The sworn LEO was in full uniform and drawn on, then detained against his will by an armed rental wannabe? I'm questioning the 911 call from the wannabe-tard that was dishonest at best. They never stated they detained a LEO in uniform when asked.
 
#3 ·
Ay, ay, ay! Dumbassery!

The LEO was VERY restrained, IMO. Maybe too much.
 
#6 ·
This story broke back on 10 JUL and although I could have sworn we discussed it here, my research reveals that the discussion I was remembering occurred on the FloridaCarry FaceFart page.

The security guard in this IRS/federal building was actually right that the sheriff's deputy should is prohibited by federal statute from being armed in a federal building and had asked the deputy to return his firearm to his vehicle while conducting his personal business. IMHO, the security guard was stupid to draw down on the deputy, who perhaps didn't draw his own firearm because he knew he was in violation of federal law. According to 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.440, state and local law enforcement, just like regular citizens, are prohibited from carrying their firearm in a federal facility UNLESS they're in said federal facility in an official law enforcement capacity. Violators are subject to fine and/or imprisonment for periods up to five (5) years.
 
#8 ·
:dunno
 
#10 · (Edited)
As BH pointed out, the security officer here was on the right side of the law with regard to ordering the deputy to leave and remove his firearm. The security officer could legally arrest the deputy, and apparently intended to. Now I'm not saying it was or wasn't reasonable for the security officer to draw on him. Once the cop went to leave the security officer should have just escorted him from the building.

Perhaps the security officer was just power tripping, but his post orders said nobody brings a gun in except police on official business. He asked the cop if he was there on official business and the answer was "no", so he has to leave.

I find it amusing that the security officer was arrested but the deputy was not. I further find it amusing that the deputy is now saying he has PTSD from the incident, blah blah blah. Funny how cops point their guns at people all the damn time, in situations which do not legally warrant it, and that's just fine, but a cop committing a felony gets drawn on and it's the end of the world.

I think there was error on both sides but I guess I won't hold my breath waiting for the deputy to be charged.
 
#12 ·
As BH pointed out, the security officer here was on the right side of the law with regard to ordering the deputy to leave and remove his firearm. The security officer could legally arrest the deputy, and apparently intended to. Now I'm not saying it was or wasn't reasonable for the security officer to draw on him. Once the cop went to leave the security officer should have just escorted him from the building.
I can guarantee you that the security officer's use of force fell well outside the policy directives for his post and likely outside the law as well; he was not threatened by the deputy in any way, so even if he was going to attempt to take him into custody, what reason did he have to pull his gun? You can't really handcuff somebody with a pistol in your hand, so what was he going to do? Shoot the deputy and then handcuff him? At the very least, the security officer has monumentally poor judgement.

Perhaps the security officer was just power tripping, but his post orders said nobody brings a gun in except police on official business. He asked the cop if he was there on official business and the answer was "no", so he has to leave.
And the deputy was attempting to do just that when Paul Blart decided to fill his hand.

I find it amusing that the security officer was arrested but the deputy was not. I further find it amusing that the deputy is now saying he has PTSD from the incident, blah blah blah. Funny how cops point their guns at people all the damn time, in situations which do not legally warrant it, and that's just fine, but a cop committing a felony gets drawn on and it's the end of the world.
I agree that the PTSD claim is BS. But why would the responding officers have arrested the deputy? He wasn't breaking any laws that they have jurisdiction to enforce.

I think there was error on both sides but I guess I won't hold my breath waiting for the deputy to be charged.
Why would he be? There was no mens rea on the part of the deputy. Hell, I bet most non-federal LEOs deputies have no idea that it's illegal for them to enter a federal facility, especially one with no security screening, under these circumstances. Apparently every uniformed cop I've ever seen in a post office was breaking the law too.
 
#13 ·
I can guarantee you that the security officer's use of force fell well outside the policy directives for his post and likely outside the law as well; he was not threatened by the deputy in any way, so even if he was going to attempt to take him into custody, what reason did he have to pull his gun? You can't really handcuff somebody with a pistol in your hand, so what was he going to do? Shoot the deputy and then handcuff him? At the very least, the security officer has monumentally poor judgement.
I don't know what the SO's post orders are so I can't say. I don't know if he is supposed to apprehend violators or not. You don't use your gun to handcuff someone, but you do use it to keep an armed person from leaving if you want them to stay put and surrender.

And the deputy was attempting to do just that [leave] when Paul Blart decided to fill his hand.
Yep, and regardless of post orders or anything else the sensible thing for the SO to do here would have been to simply tell the deputy he had to leave, and then escort him from the building.

I agree that the PTSD claim is BS. But why would the responding officers have arrested the deputy? He wasn't breaking any laws that they have jurisdiction to enforce.
It doesn't come up often so I haven't previously given much thought to whether state and local police officers can arrest for violations of Federal law. Florida statutes seem to permit them to make such arrests, but Federal law cannot compel them to, and I don't know what the common practice is. If the situation involved a non-LEO committing a federal felony and local LE were called to the scene I suspect they would at least hold the person until the appropriate federal LE arrived.

I can arrest for federal felonies and so can you, so it would seem odd if state and local police can't, right? Maybe they don't, but I doubt that they legally can't.

Why would he be? There was no mens rea on the part of the deputy. Hell, I bet most non-federal LEOs deputies have no idea that it's illegal for them to enter a federal facility, especially one with no security screening, under these circumstances. Apparently every uniformed cop I've ever seen in a post office was breaking the law too.
I wish we lived in a world where mens rea was still a universally required element of criminal offenses. If you or I went strolling into the IRS office carrying concealed and were somehow spotted, and our defense was "I had no mens rea, I have a concealed weapons permit and I didn't know it was illegal", do you think we'd be in the clear because we didn't have mens rea? Or you forgot you had a gun in your bag before you passed the metal detector to board a plane? You don't even know the gun is there, how can you have mens rea?

Mens rea has become almost meaningless anymore unfortunately.
 
#11 ·
^^^^
Agree Brian! :clap
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top