Hurley's Gold

Ohio IRS Security Guard Draw Gun in Uniformed Sheriff’s Deputy

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,613
    96
    hill co.
    Now that's funny! You are saying I am expected to abide by the laws, but LEOs aren't?!?

    And you keep avoiding the fact that the deputy was the cause of this situation in the first place. There is no excuse for his entering a Federal facility armed and then failing to comply with the law once notified.

    Now, after reading this article, that deputy has lost all credibility he may have had whatsoever...

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/security-guard-pleads-guilty-pulling-gun-ohio-sheriffs/story?id=64346648

    Notice how he fails to mention he was at fault as well?!?

    Pretty sure at this point most LE or security would act by drawing their weapon.

    “Instead of getting an answer, Gaston got an order from Eklund to leave his gun in his car. Gaston refused.”

    I know I wouldn’t want to test that theory.





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Venture Surplus ad
     

    majormadmax

    Úlfhéðnar
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Aug 27, 2009
    15,839
    96
    San Antonio!
    Pretty sure at this point most LE or security would act by drawing their weapon.

    “Instead of getting an answer, Gaston got an order from Eklund to leave his gun in his car. Gaston refused.”

    I know I wouldn’t want to test that theory.

    Yep, that syncs with the tactics I've seen trained. An armed, non-compliant individual is always addressed as a threat until placed under control.

    During one of the first cadet training sessions I participated in as a role player many years ago, there was a similar scenario where an armed suspect refuses to comply with orders. The individual (being played by a FTO) initially puts his hands up, but then turns around and brings his hands down at which point the officers opened fire on him (using simunition, of course!).

    He was hit a couple of times (as usual, even at close ranges the cadets were lousy shots!), and to be honest I was a bit taken back by the fact that they essentially shot him in the back; but as one FTO explained to me, "action before reaction!"

    Still, do I think this situation warrants the security guard drawing his weapon? No, but I wasn't there.

    The deputy was told he had to disarm, whether that included the fact that he was in violation of Federal law I also don't know; but ignorance of the law is never a justification. He was duly informed and still failed to comply, and now he's whining about emotional distress. If that is the case, then he was in the wrong line of work in the first place; and if it's simply an opportunity to capitalize on the incident (which I believe it is for him, given how he's responding to it), it only deepens my belief that he is fully to blame for what happened.

    Much like the chief of police who lost her duty weapon in a public bathroom, we have to look beyond all the emotion and excuses, and focus at the facts on hand. The deputy was in the wrong, either knowingly or unknowingly. Either way, he is responsible and should be the one held accountable for his actions.

    It is just the same as if someone is speeding down the road and another person pulls out in front of them and causes an accident. While speeding is a contributing factor in the accident, the root cause is the failure of the second driver to yield right-of-way. Had they done that--much like had the deputy complied when informed he could not bring his duty weapon into the IRS office--the entire matter would have been avoided. However, he failed (twice in my mind, first now knowing the law and secondly not complying when told to do so by a competent authority) thus all responsibility should fall on his shoulders.
     

    Sublime

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 24, 2019
    768
    76
    Dallas
    Pretty sure at this point most LE or security would act by drawing their weapon.

    “Instead of getting an answer, Gaston got an order from Eklund to leave his gun in his car. Gaston refused.”

    I know I wouldn’t want to test that theory.





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Are you saying Gaston's refusal authorized the guard to draw his weapon?? Since when do LEOs take orders from contract guards? I am betting Gaston didnt say he was at fault because he wasn't?


    Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk
     

    Sublime

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 24, 2019
    768
    76
    Dallas
    Yep, that syncs with the tactics I've seen trained. An armed, non-compliant individual is always addressed as a threat until placed under control.


    During one of the first cadet training sessions I participated in as a role player many years ago, there was a similar scenario where an armed suspect refuses to comply with orders. The individual (being played by a FTO) initially puts his hands up, but then turns around and brings his hands down at which point the officers opened fire on him (using simunition, of course!).

    I think some of you'll need to review use of force laws and how the suspect needs Ability, Opportunity, and Intent to consider them a deadly threat. Your cadet training session in NO WAY compares to the officer and the guard but here is an example that closely mirrors the IRS scenario - When CHL was first passed here, we actually had recruits go thru a short class on dealing with CHL holders and the reason why was we didn't want them drawing down on a lawful legal citizen just because he was armed. Duh.

    The deputy was told he had to disarm, whether that included the fact that he was in violation of Federal law I also don't know; but ignorance of the law is never a justification. He was duly informed and still failed to comply, and it only deepens my belief that he is fully to blame for what happened.

    We've covered this already. "Technically" the deputy was in violation but even BenEnglish stated if FPS was there, he most likely would not have been arrested (I know, disappointment). That in no way justifies the guard to draw down on a uniformed LEO. Jesus. I imagine that you have technically violated more traffic laws than you have been cited for. Why is that? ONLY the guard is fully to blame for drawing down on a uniformed LEO, period.


    Much like the chief of police who lost her duty weapon in a public bathroom, we have to look beyond all the emotion and excuses, and focus at the facts on hand. The deputy was in the wrong, either knowingly or unknowingly. Either way, he is responsible and should be the one held accountable for his actions.

    Again, another unrelated incident. Don't compare an admin weenie losing her duty gun with a true patrol deputy that answers calls for service. The deputy was "maybe" in the wrong technically but not by the spirit of the law. How do you want this deputy to be held accountable? Cited? Jail Time? Termination?

    It is just the same as if someone is speeding down the road and another person pulls out in front of them and causes an accident. While speeding is a contributing factor in the accident, the root cause is the failure of the second driver to yield right-of-way. Had they done that--much like had the deputy complied when informed he could not bring his duty weapon into the IRS office--the entire matter would have been avoided. However, he failed (twice in my mind, first now knowing the law and secondly not complying when told to do so by a competent authority) thus all responsibility should fall on his shoulders.

    You just like comparing apples and oranges don't you. A cause of a MVA is not related in any way to the story. You cite ALL responsibility falls on the deputy so you don't find the guard liable at all? Wow.
     
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Aug 17, 2010
    7,576
    96
    Austin
    The deputy was "maybe" in the wrong technically but not by the spirit of the law.

    How can you be so blinded by your "blue wall" prejudice? Being employed as a Cop does not mean you can carry anywhere you want. This is a fact, whether you like it or not. A state or local LEO may carry in a fed facility ONLY on official business. This Deputy's presence in that IRS office had nothing to do with his job as a LEO. Therefore, he was intentionally or unintentionally breaking the law. Wearing his uniform does not magically change his personal business into official business. The letter and spirit of 18 USC 930 is very clear.
     

    popper

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 23, 2013
    3,000
    96
    Since when do LEOs take orders from contract guards? When the guard is on Federal property! As the 'perp' in this case refused to leave immediately, drawn weapon is the proper response. And the gun is drawn until the situation is resolved! state and local authority ENDS at the Fed property and the 'perp' is now a normal citizen. Don't agree? Walk armed into your local SS, VA or airport and see what happens. You think they are there you say hi to you? Any judge or jury that gives that cop a dime should be tossed. You want service in a Gov. building? Wear a green ball cap with Border patrol written on it. Or walk into an active AF base hanger with locked and loaded aircraft and meet Mr. 1911!
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    Thanks for the additional info. Unfortunately, we still don't have any statement from anyone about what the guard said to the deputy other than the summary provided by the deputy.

    In tiny offices like that, there's usually an IRS employee within earshot so there may be a witness. I'll be interested to see what comes from the FPS investigation into this incident.
    Since when do LEOs take orders from contract guards?
    That's sort of a minor, peripheral issue and I hate to waste a bunch of words on it, but, well, the answer is "All the time." There are places where the contract guard is in charge of a scene and LEOs don't get to automatically disregard them.

    Two examples on point for this thread:
    • I've seen a manager at a small satellite IRS office who took a hard line about uniformed LEOs coming into the office. She expected the security guard to keep them out if they were armed. Well, the guard didn't like it but he had to work with that manager every day so some sort of accommodation had to be reached. The solution? The security guard talked to the counter workers and they reached an agreement. When a uniformed LEO showed up to ask a question or pick up a form, the security guard would order the LEO to stay in the hall outside the office. A counter worker would then come outside, talk to the LEO, figure out what they needed, answer questions, and then retrieve any forms they needed from the office. The LEOs were, by order of the security guard, never allowed inside. Some really didn't like it but when informed that there was a violation of federal law involved, however minor and technical, they all followed the orders of the security guard.
    • I've also seen LEOs take orders from contract guards to not enter the premises when the LEO showed up in full uniform, armed, for an audit. That's a miserable trick where the LEO is just trying to intimidate the office auditor (and, yes, if you're clued in to tax enforcement, feel free to point out that "office auditor" has been the wrong job title for a couple of decades). I've seen LEOs severely dressed down by a joint effort of both the security guard and group manager on duty. Again, they don't like it but they really have no choice but to obey. Their audit gets re-scheduled. They show up in civilian clothes. There's usually a Special Agent out of the Office of the Inspector General there to screen them before they go into the audit. They get an explanation of the law and a chance to take any concealed weapons back to their car before entering the office. If the SA feels it necessary (and it's entirely up to the judgement of that SA), the LEO may be subject to search before being allowed inside. Where an LEO is being an unrepentant ass, I've seen an office audit moved out of the auditors office into a conference room where an SA can sit in on the audit to provide security.
    I'm sure other folks can come up with other circumstances where, by default, the security guards are in charge and LEOs don't give orders but take them. Nuclear security officers, whether we're talking power plants or fuel storage sites, come to mind. Some CDC sites have specially trained contract security that should remain in control of most situations and any LEO that disregards their orders does so at his/her serious peril. I suppose other folks could provide other examples but I tend to think that's a rabbit hole not worth exploring.
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,613
    96
    hill co.
    Are you saying Gaston's refusal authorized the guard to draw his weapon?? Since when do LEOs take orders from contract guards? I am betting Gaston didnt say he was at fault because he wasn't?


    Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

    I don’t know what was said between them.

    I know that if I walk in to a prohibited area armed and I refuse an order to leave the premises and disarm I will likely have a firearm pointed at me.

    If I’m allowed to simply leave and disarm because I didn’t decide that I’m above their silly federal laws I will consider myself lucky to have only been asked to leave.

    You seem to be stuck on the fact that the guy was in uniform. In this case the uniform is irrelevant. He was ordered to leave because he was in violation of federal law and he refused.

    I haven’t defended the actions of the guard in drawing his weapon. I think it was probably unnecessary.

    I also think the LEO felt he was above law and wasn’t gonna be ordered around by some pissant mall cop. He violated a federal law and now wants to cash in on the experience. If he’d walked away when informed he was in violation of federal law he woulda been just fine.

    Kinda like someone claiming they go arrested for accidentally passing an 06/07 sign when in reality they passed it and refused to leave the premises.


    Were/are you LE? If so, how do you deal with someone who is armed that refuses to disarm or leave a premises which prohibits the carry of firearms?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Sublime

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 24, 2019
    768
    76
    Dallas
    I don’t know what was said between them.

    I know that if I walk in to a prohibited area armed and I refuse an order to leave the premises and disarm I will likely have a firearm pointed at me.

    If I’m allowed to simply leave and disarm because I didn’t decide that I’m above their silly federal laws I will consider myself lucky to have only been asked to leave.

    You seem to be stuck on the fact that the guy was in uniform. In this case the uniform is irrelevant. He was ordered to leave because he was in violation of federal law and he refused.

    I haven’t defended the actions of the guard in drawing his weapon. I think it was probably unnecessary.

    I also think the LEO felt he was above law and wasn’t gonna be ordered around by some pissant mall cop. He violated a federal law and now wants to cash in on the experience. If he’d walked away when informed he was in violation of federal law he woulda been just fine.

    Kinda like someone claiming they go arrested for accidentally passing an 06/07 sign when in reality they passed it and refused to leave the premises.


    Were/are you LE? If so, how do you deal with someone who is armed that refuses to disarm or leave a premises which prohibits the carry of firearms?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    We don't know all that was said but we do have the video and again, he was already in the office. The guard told him to disarm and the LEO rightfully stated he can't do that.

    I dunno why you are stating the officer refused to leave when he left. He refused to disarm and there is a difference. You keep ignoring the "intent" of the officer. He had no intent to threaten the guard or do him harm so there was no justification to draw the gun, NONE.

    I'm not stuck on the uniform since I stated many times in this thread that the guard should not draw down on a legally armed individual BUT the uniform is very relevant. The unifrom marks him clearly as a LEO and despite some here not liking it, it does him buy him more credibility. I like how you think the guard drawing his gun was "probably" wrong. It was clearly wrong and hence he went to jail. You do get there are stages of wrong right? Again, the deputy was technically wrong but that doesn't justify a guard threatening to use deadly force. I mean come on, really?

    What you "feel" is of no value there and of limited value here. It's like you and others "Feel" that once the guard gave the order, the LEO should have immediately left and not said anything at all. He walked away and the guard went after him with a drawn gun....to do what exactly? Arrest him, then why didn't that happen?

    Yes, I was LE and what you are asking is not the same as the situation here. I am just surprised you and others do not get it. I had arrest powers, the guard didn't. Actually, I can say I never answered a call where someone was armed and refusing to leave but I left the uniform a long time ago and OC was not even an issue.

    Oh, BTW, you replied and didn't answer my initial question I asked that you quoted. Hopefully I answered the questions you asked.
     

    Sublime

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 24, 2019
    768
    76
    Dallas
    In tiny offices like that, there's usually an IRS employee within earshot so there may be a witness. I'll be interested to see what comes from the FPS investigation into this incident.
    That's sort of a minor, peripheral issue and I hate to waste a bunch of words on it, but, well, the answer is "All the time." There are places where the contract guard is in charge of a scene and LEOs don't get to automatically disregard them.

    Two examples on point for this thread:
    • I've seen a manager at a small satellite IRS office who took a hard line about uniformed LEOs coming into the office. She expected the security guard to keep them out if they were armed. Well, the guard didn't like it but he had to work with that manager every day so some sort of accommodation had to be reached. The solution? The security guard talked to the counter workers and they reached an agreement. When a uniformed LEO showed up to ask a question or pick up a form, the security guard would order the LEO to stay in the hall outside the office. A counter worker would then come outside, talk to the LEO, figure out what they needed, answer questions, and then retrieve any forms they needed from the office. The LEOs were, by order of the security guard, never allowed inside. Some really didn't like it but when informed that there was a violation of federal law involved, however minor and technical, they all followed the orders of the security guard.
    • I suppose other folks could provide other examples but I tend to think that's a rabbit hole not worth exploring.


    • Ok, I mispoke. I was speaking in generalities and not specifics. I'm not sure I would consider a Paragon contract guard on the same level as a Nuclear Security Guard. My buddy knew a guy at the Pantex Plant and he hosted a shoot school for about 10 of us. THAT guy was squared away. You are right, it is a rabbit hole not worth exploring because I don't recall a recent story of a uniform officer trying to bypass security to get on a nuclear site.

      Let's discuss your first example. Just as I am ex LE, it appears you are an ex IRS employee? Don't you think it was chicken s**t and elitist of the manager to do that?
      We spend an average of 50K to train each LEO, We background check them, piss test them, make them complete a personal history statement, and we give them a badge and a gun and tell them to go out and answer dangerous calls but they can't come into an IRS office to get a form or speak to an auditor of their taxes because why exactly?

      Meanwhile that same manager either had none of that or way less and outside of the office is probably just another POS lacking common sense. I saw it all the time with lawyers, judges, and teachers. Speaking of common sense, that is really what all this about, a lack thereof.
     

    Sublime

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 24, 2019
    768
    76
    Dallas
    Everyday. Heck, lately they take orders orders from Barristas too.

    In this case, the second he left his jurisdiction and entered the jurisdiction of the guard.

    You get the policing you clamor for.

    Again, why didn't the guard arrest him in his jurisdiction or if he lacked arrest power (which they don;t have) detain him with his drawn gun or used physical restraint to detain him?
     

    Sublime

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 24, 2019
    768
    76
    Dallas
    Since when do LEOs take orders from contract guards? When the guard is on Federal property! As the 'perp' in this case refused to leave immediately, drawn weapon is the proper response. And the gun is drawn until the situation is resolved! state and local authority ENDS at the Fed property and the 'perp' is now a normal citizen. Don't agree? Walk armed into your local SS, VA or airport and see what happens. You think they are there you say hi to you? Any judge or jury that gives that cop a dime should be tossed. You want service in a Gov. building? Wear a green ball cap with Border patrol written on it. Or walk into an active AF base hanger with locked and loaded aircraft and meet Mr. 1911!

    Geez, overdramatize much? Now the deputy is a perp? Now we throw out use of force laws to prove a point in a forum? Please tell me you don't carry a gun for work and enforce laws or policies. You don't see a difference between a Federal Facility and an office the IRS leases out of a Commercial building? Buddha damn, some of you'll are just really dense. God forbid a uniformed officer enters the local HUD office. Do I want service in a govt. building?? I've learned to lower my expectations expecting something from the Feds (the exceptions would be USM and SS) So which Federal Office do you work for? All you are doing is promoting a continued separation between Local, State, and Federal departments.

    Most Feds are jacked up. I could tell you story after story working with them. Recently I worked PT with TSA on a contract (Even have a security clearance but still can't walk into the local IRS office) and the f'ked up policies they have is unbelievable. My buddy is a FAM and it's the same thing so take a step down or two from your lofty perch. Funny how the DEA would constantly file state charges since it was way easier than getting the Federal prosecutor to take it.
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    Don't you think it was chicken s**t and elitist of the manager to do that?
    I'll give that a qualified yes.
    ... they can't come into an IRS office to get a form ... because why exactly?
    Because a Congress said so and a President signed off on it. This isn't the first time a Congress has said something and a President signed off on it even though it could be stupidly interpreted.

    Please note that I have not stated my position on whether making all federal offices (or even specifically IRS offices) into gun-restricted zones is good or bad. That's kinda beside the point. The law is the law. I'm just trying to say that the application of the law to any particular circumstance is best done with a little flexibility, humanity, and common sense.
     

    Sublime

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 24, 2019
    768
    76
    Dallas
    How can you be so blinded by your "blue wall" prejudice? Being employed as a Cop does not mean you can carry anywhere you want. This is a fact, whether you like it or not. A state or local LEO may carry in a fed facility ONLY on official business. This Deputy's presence in that IRS office had nothing to do with his job as a LEO. Therefore, he was intentionally or unintentionally breaking the law. Wearing his uniform does not magically change his personal business into official business. The letter and spirit of 18 USC 930 is very clear.

    You are right, I don't like it but I accept it that I can't carry everywhere but hey, I can carry in more places than you so there is that. Pffft, the "Blue Wall" you speak of is non-existent. Most cops I worked with would drop a dime on another if they thought it would get them out of trouble. Most cops can't keep their mouth shut any more than the criminals we arrested. The good ones can though, both cops and criminals.

    I get it we keep rehashing this official business nonsense. Riddle me this - How did the guard know the deputy was not on official business? The story is about a guard drawing a gun on a uniformed deputy. Psst, the story is not about a deputy that violated federal law at the local IRS office. The letter of the federal law you reference is clear but you seem to be confused with the spirit of the law. Let me ask you, other than the actual written law prohibits it, why should a armed uniformed officer be banned from entering the local IRS office? I am truly honored to be around such law abiding civilians (well except for the interpretation of use of force laws) even if they want cops arrested for stupid reasons.
     

    Sublime

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 24, 2019
    768
    76
    Dallas
    Ok, I've spoken my last word here. Everyone here that disagrees with me feel free to have the last word. No sense repeating myself again and again. I guess I find satisfaction in that the guard was arrested and now caught a case just as you'll would have found satisfaction if the deputy was arrested for violating federal law. Make sure you ask that the officer NOT give you a break next time you are stopped because you know you'll are so law abiding.
     
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Aug 17, 2010
    7,576
    96
    Austin
    Psst, the story is not about a deputy that violated federal law at the local IRS office.
    I disagree. The story to me is a cop carrying into a gun free zone and refusing to disarm, then being a butthurt douchenozzle about it.
    The letter of the federal law you reference is clear but you seem to be confused with the spirit of the law.
    No, you are confused. The Feds don't want local and state LEOs entering their facilities armed unless on official business. That's the spirit of the law.
    Let me ask you, other than the actual written law prohibits it, why should a armed uniformed officer be banned from entering the local IRS office?
    He should not, but neither should anyone else. I don't think you'd be defending Joe LTC holder in the same scenario. All Americans enjoy an uninfringable right to keep and bear arms.
     
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Aug 17, 2010
    7,576
    96
    Austin
    I'm not stuck on the uniform since I stated many times in this thread that the guard should not draw down on a legally armed individual

    The security guard drew down on an armed criminal. When you worked as a LEO, how did you react when you encountered an armed criminal?
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom