Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

My Dangerous Encounter With a Supermarket Security Guard & His Gun

By Linda Milazzo, AlterNet. Posted December 31, 2008.


'For the first time in my life, I experienced overwhelming, palpable fear.' Was it a Brink's guard or a Blackwater mercenary pointing his gun at her?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

For years, since the United States invaded Iraq, I've witnessed countless photo and video images of innocent civilians -- men, women, teens and children -- being rudely and aggressively threatened by hired uniformed militants (mostly men), wielding guns. I've seen these images from Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti, Palestine and more. Whether they be armed American military threatening Iraqis, armed Israeli soldiers threatening Palestinians, or armed Ethiopian troops threatening Somalis, the images have always disturbed me. There's an inherent injustice to such blatant imbalance of power. An injustice I suffered recently myself.

The oddity here is that unlike those less-fortunate innocents in war zones who faced the guns of hired aggressors, I was not in a war zone when I faced mine. I wasn't even in a high-crime zone. I was in a gentle middle-class suburb, where my aggressor, an armed Brink's, Inc. security guard, was in full combat mode performing his non-war-zone duty. My aggressor more typified the machismo of a Blackwater guard than the demeanor of community-minded Brink's, when he flailed his loaded gun at me, as though he'd done it often before. My armed Brink's aggressor was not merely disrespectful. He was downright hostile and dangerous. He treated me as his enemy and freely showed me his force.

Here's how it happened:

On Nov. 6, at approximately 12:45 p.m. on a sunny afternoon in Los Angeles, I walked through a parking lot en route to my neighborhood Albertsons market to pick up a prescription. I paid no mind to the Brink's armored truck to my right, as it waited alongside the store. The second I reached the store entrance, the uniformed Brink's guard emerged from the market with his gun outstretched, pointing in my direction. His face was turned away from his gun, leaving him unaware of my presence. Before I knew it, I'd walked right up to his gun, stopping inches before colliding. The suddenness of my stop thrust me slightly forward. I was so close to his gun that I saw its every groove -- from its "sexy" color and shape -- to its perfect fit in his hand. Its glimmer still glares in my mind.

Just then the guard turned and saw me and completely lost his cool. He flinched at my proximity just as I flinched at his. He became more aggressive despite my obvious fear. Instead of assessing that I was no threat and pulling back to allay my fear, he took the opposite tact. He became more aggressive and waved me off with his loaded gun, shaking it threateningly to move me away. I responded without hesitation, believing that if I hadn't, I might end up dead. In that one brief encounter, my entire 59 years of believing I was fearless evaporated in air. For the first time in my life, I experienced overwhelming, palpable fear and a vulnerability I'd never known.

I entered the market and went immediately to customer service to tell the store director what happened. I was clearly upset as I entered, as the store video would later show. Without going into further detail on what transpired in the store, let me just say that the store director at Albertsons couldn't care less. That part of my investigation is continuing, and has direct impact on why this article is being published today rather than closer to the date of the incident. Suffice it to say, Albertsons-Supervalu has steadily dropped the ball and is only fully coming on board now. Brink's, after all, is contracted by Albertsons. I'm Albertsons' customer -- not Brink's.

To be fair to this Brink's guard, and to those who work in armed-security services, I've learned quite a bit about the mind-set and dangers of being an armed guard. In fact, it's a highly dangerous profession, and in many ways, as underscored by a veteran LAPD officer with whom I spoke, more perilous than traditional law enforcement. In the realm of private security, where guards are transporting items of value, attackers hit directly at them. This differs from traditional law enforcers, who are commonly the pursuers and rarely the pursued. Thus Brink's guards and all private security who protect high-value targets must be hypervigilant and aware of their surroundings at all times. In fact, numerous Brink's and other security guards have been killed and wounded on the job.

Nonetheless, as I've also learned, Brink's guards have the option to unholster their weapons or to keep them in place as each situation demands. The guard who flailed his loaded firearm at me, unholstered it (as shown in the store video) and brandished it threateningly even though there was no imminent threat to his safety. His combat-style overzealous use of his weapon, his extreme edginess and his failure to accurately gauge his surroundings, resulted in a near collision between me and his gun that could have easily ended my life.

It's legal in California for a licensed private security guard to unholster his or her firearm if he or she perceives danger. Should the gun be unholstered, it must be pointed down. In my case, this gun was pointed toward me. At the time and date of my incident, no report of anything unusual in or around Albertsons was called by this guard, or by his team, in to the San Fernando headquarters where they're housed. Nor was anything out of the ordinary reported to the staff at the Albertsons before the guard left. The guard's clear view of the parking lot through the exit-way window, which would have shown me approaching, along with the full view of the parking lot for the driver of the armored vehicle, indicated no impending danger. Yet this guard unnecessarily and dangerously withdrew his weapon and launched into full combat-mode. He entered the parking lot with a brandished loaded firearm, and thus he endangered innocent civilians. 


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: security guards, armed guards, brinks, linda milazzo

Linda Milazzo is a Los Angeles writer, educator and activist. Since 1974, she has divided her time between the entertainment industry, government organizations & community development projects and educational programs.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I'd wonder...
Posted by: adp3d on Dec 31, 2008 3:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...how much training and compensation the company invests in their guards and drivers. I would also wonder about the psychological states of mind that these guards have, including if they are ex-military and how much post-traumatic stress they have experienced. I also question the wisdom of moving large amounts of cash like that using the same entrances that customers use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'd wonder... Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» RE: I'd wonder... Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
» RE: I'd wonder... Posted by: wolfgangmo
Bits missing?
Posted by: maestra on Dec 31, 2008 3:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where was the manager's response? Where was the list of employment criteria? Were there bits missing form this article? It was quite interesting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bits missing? Posted by: cordas
» RE: Bits missing? Posted by: Linda Milazzo
Welcome to Bushco Amerika
Posted by: melloe on Dec 31, 2008 4:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Expect more to come.

The mode is set. It will take a while to recover, if ever, and with the economic crisis, may get worse.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

HL Menckin

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A single annecdote Posted by: suprmark
» good point Posted by: wolfgangmo
Simon Baddeley
Posted by: sibadd on Dec 31, 2008 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's difficult to guage the mismatch between the view of the US in the media and the actuality. All I know is the difference between my expectations (long ago) when I worked in Detroit and Ann Arbor in the 60s and 70s, also Phildelphia at U of Pennsylvania. Detroit was called 'murder city' then. I taught for four years at Michigan U at Ann Arbor and at Wayne State deep in Detroit. I never saw violence and never saw a gun except holstered on a police officer. All rather disappointing (:)). Not. I don't for a moment deny the crime statistics, just that violence (unless you are in certain categories of the population) is seen rarely - and then it may be fatal, very nasty and traumatising - even when it is just to look down the barrel of a loaded gun. The difference between the real and what is constantly fed us in the media is very great - the more so because for most of us the former is so rare as to be a once in a lifetime experience. Perhaps everyone should be reminded early on of Conrad's observation in Almayer’s Folly that ‘few men realise that their life, the very essence of their character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in the safety of their surroundings’ and ‘the reliability of their police'. That said I don't want everyone being exposed to those things that will remind them of the precariousness of social order amid 'casino capitalism' (a phrase borrowed from a banking bro-in-law), though it might make people more aware of those duties of citizenship we've delegated to mercenaries - and I'm not trying to protect the 'sacred' right to bear arms!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Albertson's has some responsibility here
Posted by: cactus on Dec 31, 2008 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Albertson's hired Brinks to transfer their monies therefore they have a responsibility to their customers to insure that they are not endangered by a 'contract' employee. At the very least Albertson's should have initiated the inquiry into the incident and requested that the guard in question be evaluated and/or not work their route again until he had been evaluated and taken a refresher course in gun safety.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The guard might have been justified
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Dec 31, 2008 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't care for gun nuts. Anyone reading some of my previous posts would have seen some of my obvious hostility, but in this case, look at it from the guard's point of view.

If you were going to rob an armored car, the first thing you would do is to create a distraction. The easiest way to do this is to use an "innocent looking woman" who just happens to bump into the guard. I would have reacted the same way.

The writer here is a bit clueless. If I saw a Brinks truck I would have taken care to avoid the guards. Robberies are always a threat, and they can happen anywhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» To be fair... Posted by: BreeMass
» RE: To be fair... Posted by: steven w
» RE: Interesting... Posted by: oregoncharles
» You find me cowed by authority? Posted by: ReallyBearish
» No way dude. Not justified. Posted by: zenbruder
» Justified????? Posted by: TruthBeTold
Get Over it!
Posted by: HomerScarborough on Dec 31, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can recall many times seeing uniformed Brinks and Wells Fargo guards enter and leave establishments with drawn guns, although normally held at their sides. I, and most others, stay out of their way knowing why and what he was doing. I am sorry that the guard didn't hold his gun as safely as he could have, but drawn guns in this fashion and under similar circumstances is something that I have gotten used to over the years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Get Over it! Posted by: DeWriter
» RE: Get Over it! Posted by: steven w
» RE: Get Over it! Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Get Over it! Posted by: sanitysojourner
» Comments from a former officer Posted by: wolfgangmo
» RE: Where do you live? Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Get Over it! Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Get Over it! Posted by: EinMD
» RE: Get Over it! Posted by: HomerScarborough
testing should be an absolute requirement
Posted by: aislinnluv on Dec 31, 2008 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know someone who was, for a time, a driver for a similar company in the Houston area. While I like this person, I don't know that I would want him loose on the street with a gun. Had the company taken the pains to require a psychological assessment, it might have discovered the anti-authoritarian streak that perhaps would have led to his not having been employed in this capacity. Do the police departments in this country give psychological tests to their applicants? We deserve for everyone who wants the "right" to "bear arms" to undergo such testing, for our safety and for the safety of the applicants. Perhaps if this were standard, there would be fewer incidents such as this one and fewer regrettable deaths.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry Linda
Posted by: 2dogarage on Dec 31, 2008 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You obviously weren't looking where you were going. Just because you live in some tony suburb of L.A. doesn't mean you're immune to danger, in fact I wonder when the truly poor will start amassing in the neighborhoods of the truly wealthy instead of slaughtering each other.
It's L.A., for crying out loud.

And what if you had accidentally run into someone with a loaded gun who was in the process of robbing the place instead of guarding the transport of very large sums of cash legitimately? You may have been shot and even killed.

I wish no one in the world ever had to fear the near occasion of violence under any circumstances but I wonder at the complacent mindset of Americans who have compartmentalized the daily routine of violence in other countries but who are self-righteously horrified when it comes home to our own soil.

I'm sure Albertsons in L.A. has the same electric doors that are ubiquitous across the nation, that open when you step up to the entrance. If you nearly collided with someone with a loaded and brandished gun at one of these intersections I can only suppose you may have been caught in some writer's reverie that disabled your personal responsibility to look where you were going.

Personally I find your outrage laughable. Try walking into a store in Watts with your defenses similarly down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sorry Linda Posted by: steven w
» RE: Sorry 2dogarage Posted by: VZEQICVA
» Happy New Year Anna Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: Sorry Linda Posted by: kamcallen
» RE: Sorry Linda Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Sorry Linda Posted by: greenknight
naoma
Posted by: Naoma on Dec 31, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last week I visited the Light Rail installation
in Phoenix. It was crowded on the platform
because the rides were FREE. I was somewhat
frightened by the presence of four men wearing
vests that said "homeland security" and carrying guns. What were they expecting?

I left shortly thereafter and did not get the
free ride. That many men with guns was rather
scary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: naoma Posted by: Erin
» RE: naoma Posted by: blitzmesser
Rights of Property vs Life
Posted by: jleman on Dec 31, 2008 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Guns and money. So, how much is a life worth? Is an "innocent" life worth more than another's driven to survival by unhampered crooked bankers and capitalists? Think of life of crime as a capitalistic "trickle down effect" of unharrnessed greed. Yes, yes, maybe the guard was just trying to protect himself but clearly the situation exists where the fabric of society is beginning to return to "Bonny and Clyde" scenerios. When obvious criminals get away with the loot and are even then rewarded with more loot "at the top" and the chief executive of the country resides over the most lawless administration not seen for countless decades, one at the bottom or in the middle of society might get the idea they have been had and laws are only there for the rich to fleece the rest of us? Duh? Property over the life of humans? Whose property? Corporate property? The same psychopathic companies who own the lawmakers? Isn't Brinks a corporation?
If one is unfortunate enough to become a footsoldier for the corporations through trying to serve one's country, are they less culpable than the corporation? Does their ignorance give them a shield to be used as, "I was just doing my job" Nuremberg plea when turned back towards society and given another weapon to "guard" property?
And these fabricated "wars" creating all of these "footsoldiers"??? Who has benefited from these wars? Certainly not the footsoldiers. Did they get unbid contracts for their "service"? Have they gotten a cut or guaranteed million dollar retirement like Cheney for a few years "service"? Or, do they end up having to work as a security guard? At least Cheney has proven he could be drunk and shoot a friend in the face and get away with it. Would one want a "Cheney" to be a security guard? Actually, hasn't Cheney proven that he is the ultimate corporate security guard?
Expect more of the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Rights of Property vs Life Posted by: johnnyfarout
I totally disagree with you
Posted by: steven w on Dec 31, 2008 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just because you live in a worser place does not make OK for someone who is not law enforcement to point a gun. You just want to complain about how tougher you have it and tell all of us non-Watts people how bad you have it, so accept because it is really not all that bad? Give me a break.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Whoa. Stand down soldier. Posted by: wolfgangmo
» Ummm, no. Posted by: wolfgangmo
» RE: Correction: Posted by: steven w
Another Misleading Title for an Alternet Article
Posted by: EncinoM on Dec 31, 2008 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article has nothing to do with Supermarket guards being armed, but Armed Guards for armoured cars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i've never seen a guard with a gun drawn either
Posted by: somegirl on Dec 31, 2008 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in all my years living in nyc and philadelphia, i have never seen an armored guard with a gun drawn, and believe me, in nyc, they are all over the place. i've seen many of them.

don't they always say, don't point a gun unless you're planning on using it?

i do wonder though too...sorry...how did the author walk into this guard that way? doesn't make sense, but it doesn't really mitigate the fact that the guard shouldn't have had the gun drawn.

and it does freak me out a bit, and has for years, the thought of all these ptsd soldiers returning home, having little to no support, and getting jobs like this.

there has been a concerted effort during the bush years to inure us to this kind of thing...get ready for the police state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grammatical correction
Posted by: susanhathaway on Dec 31, 2008 8:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You state, "Instead of assessing that I was no threat and pulling back to allay my fear, he took the opposite tact." The word is "tack," originally a sailing maneuver. "Tact," whose meaning is more akin to circumspection, politeness, or diplomacy, is obviously not the word you were looking for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Next thing you know... Posted by: 2dogarage
Brinks guards
Posted by: Archie1954 on Dec 31, 2008 10:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have never run up against a Brink's guard with a drawn weapon but several years ago at the local mall a Brink's guard was killed in a botched robbery. This was the first murder in our municipality in over 20 years. We live in one of the wealthiest and quietest areas in the country and this death was tragic and a complete shock to us all. Since then I've passed by many a Brink's truck at the mall servicing the many banks there and have never once seen a drawn gun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

content aside, this article is poorly written
Posted by: boonestock on Dec 31, 2008 11:03 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I dont think the quality of writing is up to the usuaul standards of Alternet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Spell check? Posted by: wolfgangmo
GREAT piece
Posted by: DaBear on Dec 31, 2008 11:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sure the result will be utterly the same as the craptasm of stoopid has rendered in more the 50 years of Republikraat rule and Corporate malfeasance.

I had lots of fun reading the silly commentary too... best shit Alternet's had in days. Things must be gettin' slow.

Well, off to Trader Joe's to get some milk with my bottle return money... I'll be sure to go well armed, brandishing my weaponry and hypervigilant since that's the new standard of care apparently. That way while in my writer's reverie and I run over a Brink's guard we can be certain to ensure mutual destruction and mass carnage just so no one will be confused later.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: GREAT piece Posted by: shedreamsofpeace
Where Was the Guard's Attention?
Posted by: Rochelle_Weber on Dec 31, 2008 11:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just read a comment to the effect that maybe the driver wasn't holding his gun in the safest way possible. But your account says that he was looking in another direction, which is why the two of you almost collided. You may have been sightly distracted an not realized he was in front of you, but when a person is carrying a loaded gun which is aimed anywhere but the floor, aren't they supposed to be looking in the direction in which their gun is pointing?

Also, having lived with a veteran who suffered from PTSD, I agree that giving guns to returning vets without some major screening processes is utterly ridiculous. If this guard was so worried about his own safety, why wasn't he watching where he was going and where his gun was pointed.

As for the person who said you should have avoided the guards--they were not near their truck. As you entered the store, you likely did not have reason to expect them to be coming out with guns drawn. As far as you knew, they could have been in the back of the store or wherever the safe is kept.

Oh, and speaking of PTSD--you probably now suffer from it, too. If you're suing them, I fervently hope you win. And I certainly hope they've fired that guard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Come On
Posted by: Uriahz on Dec 31, 2008 1:56 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh gosh, someone pointed a gun at you! Oh heavens! Not that! You must have PTSD! How awful! Sue them! Sue! Sue! Sue!

Seriously, how sheltered and privileged are you people?

The guard overreacted while doing a dangerous job. Having a legitimate fear for his safety, he unholstered his gun. In these heightened circumstances, he pointed it at the person who had invaded his space. Him not being aware of her until the last moment only increases the adrenaline and fear involved on his part.

This guy is not a street thug pulling this move. He's a professional armed guard. He might not be well trained, but he's just trying to do his job without getting himself killed. He is, as the author points out, rightly afraid for his life. He overreacted by pointing the gun at her, but quite frankly just the act of him acting all military towards her while holding a gun would have been just as scary for her.

In a world where there are a million grave injustices in the world, acts of REAL VIOLENCE against innocent people not just by evil criminals but by the police we pay to protect us, a world where acts of genocide are going on THIS VERY SECOND, AlterNet presents us with THIS article. She researches the circumstances that led up to her being frightened, but never once does she stop to consider all the lives that have been unbearably impacted by violence.

I'm sorry to be all negative, but this article is offensively privileged. The 12yo girl who was beaten and arrested for prostitution on her front lawn by plainclothes police officers? That's a reason to get up in arms. That's a reason to sue. That's grounds for PTSD. That's real injustice. That is a violent act. Not this.

You are so incredibly lucky if this is what amounts to a brush with violence in your life. And rather than being thankful for that fact or trying to put a stop to the real violence that's going on at the hands of police and military forces in this country and the world at large, or even just using this example as a personal story to lead into a more deep commentary to make all of us more aware of the REAL VIOLENCE that goes on, it's all about the author and her harrowing and uncivilized experience.

While she was writing this article, while we were reading it, while we wrote comments, your government and governments around the world KILLED PEOPLE. They put hoods over their faces and beat them with sticks, they intimidated people just as you were intimidated, sure, but they did it with the weight of law, and worse, they ACTED on that intimidation. While we sat here smugly complaining about an easily startled security guard your government TORTURED PEOPLE. Governments and other organized groups of armed individuals around the world systematically raped dozens, hundreds of women. They burnt down entire villages and killed all those who were not lucky enough to escape. Our own government is targeting free speech activists and locking them in prison. Our own government is building concentration camps and making lists of free-thinkers to systematically arrest in the event of economic or political turmoil. The list of recent injustices, violent acts, and threats to freedom in the world is so long and so weighty that the oxford dictionary would seem terse by comparison!

I have had guns pointed at me by men a hell of a lot more likely to pull the trigger than a lowly security guard. I have also lost my footing over a long fall and only narrowly escaped death or serious injury. And you know what? Losing my footing was not less scary. Seriously. You might as well write an article about the time you didn't look both ways crossing the street and were nearly run over by a bus. Oh the injustice! We let these drivers run around with their 10,000 lb death machines and it takes all of a six week course to get the license!

There are better uses of your time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hear, hear! Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: Hear, hear! Posted by: wal55
» Another reactionary Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: Another reactionary Posted by: kegbot1
» Calm yourself Posted by: Uriahz
» RE: Come On Posted by: blitzmesser
» Au Contraire Posted by: 2dogarage
» RE: Come On Posted by: Uriahz
» Oh, Come On, Come On Posted by: Jeanne
» RE: Oh, Come On, Come On Posted by: Uriahz
Armed Security Officers
Posted by: morgan1 on Dec 31, 2008 7:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have worked security detail armed and unarmed over 30 years. I have never encountered the incident you have described, or been told of an officer doing what he did. The only incident I ever witnessed was the second man in an armored vehicle arguing with the driver, attempting to leave the vehicle at a signal with weapon drawn to argue with the driver of a car who had been cut off by the driver, and that driver was attempting to stop the armored vehicle. The local office and district manager for the firm did nothing when I made a written and verbal report. I had the name of the driver, the second man and the vehicle number, time and location of incident as well as the name of the man cut off by the driver. It was necessary to contact the Florida State Department and the corporate office of the armored car service. Eventually the man's license was revoked and the second officer was fired. This incident was an exception to the rule. Ron L. Harwell, Miami, FL

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IT WAS THE PINKERTONS AND THE COLORADO NATIONAL GUARD THAT DID THE LUDLOW
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Dec 31, 2008 10:29 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
massacre. Exchange Rockefeller for Albertsons. The Rockefeller family still owns over 40 percent of Exxon-Mobile. Wealth and greed never change. The danger is that we seem to forget.

I can't drive 20 blocks from my house without passing one or more policemen doing just absolutely nothing. To see four or five police cars at a restaurant is nothing extraordinary. Now lets get to it. Did you ask for all of these policemen? I didn't. Did Albertson ask for them? Did Exxon-Mobil? Did big money and big power ask for them? Who did?

Is the purpose of big police to keep us from re-creating the generation of the 60's? Is it to keep us cowed and afraid of "them"? Over the last 8 years any time any one tried a public demonstration, what happened to the "right to peaceably assemble"?

The purpose of heavy duty policing is to intimidate. They want us obedient. They have not changed since Rockefeller hired the Pinkertons to break the Ludlow mine strike. They just use different tactics.

Its about their money. Its about their power. Is there going to come a time when we are going to stand upon our own hind legs or are we just going to keep crawling?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

L4cro1x
Posted by: JJohnson on Jan 1, 2009 3:17 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms Milazzo appears to have the fantasy that a right exists to "be safe" - i.e. to sleep-walk through life, the responsibility for one's wellbeing and comfort automatically imposed upon anyone whose presence one wanders into.

It's a wonderful notion, and not surprising that she's part of the entertainment industry. I imaine she'd find it ironic that next to her article on Alternet was a large advertisement for "Front Sight" - a firearms training company...

The silly rhetoric, overly-focused on the presence of an arbitrary inanimate object (literally, a phobia) does not help her cause.

Her chief complaint seems to be that everyone else in the world didn't stop what they were doing to make-way for the entertainment-industry celebrity: her exhalted obliviousness.

The event she describes could otherwise be titled "Fool Meets Fool", for anyone over the age of 10 or so has the sense to associate armored cars with armed men - and, having a normal instinct of self-preservation - to AVOID such things as one would an open manhole - rather than bumbling obliviously onward.

She seeks to blame others for her daydreams.

The fool in the Brinks uniform is neither unusual nor special in his ineptitude. His job is "in fact" NOT statistically dangerous - and "numerous" Brinks gaurds have not "in fact" been killed in the line of duty - unless one counts all the way back to start of the company, taking things way out of context.

It's a stupid, banal job - often employing such fools, and there's not much one can do about it.

Ms Milazzo paints an overly-dramatic, over-sexed picture worthy of a BAD television pilot (surprise from a hollywood writer).

I have no doubt that for someone so sheltered and pathetically oblivious to her surroundings - and so utterly heretofore passive with regard to her own welfare - even the over-dramatized version of events must have been quite frightening.

How sad that her response, rather than becoming educated about the nature of security, firearms, the world, or her own awareness - she kicks and crys and complains - all toward naught - ZERO practical "solution" for better facilitating her exhalted obliviousness to shop in the unbursted dream of utter safety.

Wake up.

The world is a violent place - always has been. Look both ways before you cross the road, don't you? WATCH for police cars - or other signs that armed men may be doing their jobs.

And, shut up about interfering with the inalienable rights of those who care enough about their children to have functioning emergency equipment available to save lives. They life they save may be your own, grass-eating though it may be.

And, DO NOT get me started on the "entertainment" that Hollywood writers are getting rich from - as they contribute to the society of violence that further necessitates the hardware of which that writer has a phobia.

Sheesh!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: L4cro1x Posted by: kegbot1
» Great response! Posted by: LeeAnnG
» RE: L4cro1x Posted by: NigelSimpson
For What It's Worth
Posted by: slaird46 on Jan 1, 2009 3:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't patronize businesses that employ armed guards. And I make a point of telling the manager why. Any business that believes that its money is more important than my life is not for me.

I'd never thought about this issue until Menard's (a midwest based version of Lowes or Home Depot) opened its first store in my town.

They had two armed guards in the store and another on the exit gate from their lumber yard. I didn't think a whole lot about it until I purchased some stuff that I had to drive into the lumber yard to load into my back seat.

When I got to the gate to exit, the guard stepped out of his booth, checked my receipt and looked at the merchandise in the back seat. Fine so far. Then, he asked me to open my trunk. I refused, and the sob put his hand on the butt of his gun! I told him that if he removed the gun from the holster I was going to call 911 (cellphone in hand).

He backed down on the gun, but he refused to open the gate until I opened the trunk, and I refused to open the trunk. We sat there for about 10 minutes with cars and trucks lined up behind me honking their horns.

Eventually a manager came out, and I explained Illinois law to him. The gate was opened (but not the trunk) and I drove to the front of the store, parked, and went inside where I explained to the general manager that I would never shop there again and why. And I've never been back, although I've been told by others that the armed guards are all gone now.

Since then, when I see an armed guard in a store, I find the manager, explain that I don't do business with companies that believe their money is more important than my life, and leave.

Call me a crank, but the odds on there being random flying bullets in a place where there's already an armed guard is one hell of a lot greater than when there isn't and it's not a risk I care to take for myself or my family.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: For What It's Worth Posted by: shedreamsofpeace
» RE: For What It's Worth Posted by: HiTech RedNeck
» RE: For What It's Worth Posted by: HiTech RedNeck
wow
Posted by: dealmeinfo2 on Jan 1, 2009 5:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thats crazy, definitely will make me think twice next time I see those trucks pulled up places.


--------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Home Loan
Long Term Care

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Armed guards
Posted by: dkm on Jan 1, 2009 8:38 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in a major Mexican city where bank robberies are common. On numerous occasions I have walked up to the ATM's while they were being filled by the armed guards. Absolutely on no occasion have I ever been met with anything but a polite assurance that they would be done in a few minutes and I could withdraw money then. They have never, ever said or done anything that could have been interpreted even by the most paranoid rightwing knuckledragger as hostile. What does that say about the mentality of this chickenshit who felt the need to threaten an older woman with an assault weapon? If that is the type of protection we have against the "evildoers" around us, I'll take my chances with the evildoers, thank you very much. They are much more likely to be human beings.

That this jerk felt the need to threaten someone obviously not a threat speaks more for his lack of masculinity and humanity than it does anything else. When juvenile jerks like that get into positions where they can threaten the lives of decent people, then our society is on a steep downhill slope. And that there are people who defend this behavior is even more evidence for the US being in that famous handbasket.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Armed guards (Amen) Posted by: slaird46
Blackwater: any of several diseases (as blackwater fever) characterized by dark-colored urine
Posted by: cstalberg on Jan 3, 2009 4:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blackwater, a private army and mercenary headquartered in Moyock, NC with over $1 billion in federal contracts (primarily no-bid) since 2001, operates with impunity, not subject to either military or civilian law. Blackwater is expert at using inside-the-beltway influence peddlers and cronyism with the White House administration to remain free from harm and open for business. Witness the renewal of its lucrative contract with the State Department, the stonewalled investigation into the Nisour Square massacre, and now the loopholes in the SOFA.

A Bush administration appointed federal judge recently forced the city of San Diego to allow a shell company created by Blackwater to open a training facility inside the city limits, within a mile of the Mexican border. The Bush administration has hinted at militarizing our border with Mexico and Blackwater is positioning itself for future federal contracts to provide border security. Blackwater also has a facility in Idaho near the Canadian border.

Blackwater is associated with tax evasion, gun running, weapons stockpiling, recruiting death squad paramilitary personnel from Latin America and defrauding US taxpayers. Blackwater operates without oversight, transparency or accountability.

Blackwater is a menace, a threat to democracy and scourge upon civil society. Private armies and mercenaries are dangerous. Why someday they could even bite (rather kill) the hand that feeds them! To learn more visit Blackwater Watch at http://blackwaterwatch.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our guards are not armed here
Posted by: anok on Jan 3, 2009 3:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And we have rather strict laws with regards to carrying a weapon. To those who woefully commented about how "he was just doing his job" or "you should avoid the truck/guards/store because they might draw a weapon on you" are ludicrous and ridiculous.

The guard's job is to ensure the safety of the cargo, themselves, AND the other people around them. That means knowing how to handle a weapon.

I seriously doubt this guard was military, because anyone who has been trained in the military knows that you do not, under any circumstances raise a loaded (or unloaded) gun unless your intent is to shoot. You point the gun down to the floor, at all times until you are ready to discharge said weapon. This is basic military and police training protocol.

It is also basic gun safety and licensing protocol. You can't get a license to carry (at least in my state) without knowing these basic safety measures and legalities.

If your gun is unholstered in a public space, and out in the open you are *required* to pay attention to where your gun is pointed, and your immediate surroundings - considering he walked into you, or allowed you to walk into him, he was obviously not paying attention.

This kind of negligence, and apparent run around with regards to your legitimate complaint to the company are why people like me worry about the privatization of security and military services.

Add to that, vigilante employees like those at Walmart who caused an older man's death when they tackled him to the ground for suspected shoplifting (later to be realized that he was totally innocent, after he was dead) and what you have are hyper violent, hyper aware, and uber vigilante styled security, all in the name of protecting a greasy buck.

News flash folks, those trucks and the cargo and the items in stores are covered by insurance so long as an effort has been made to protect the items from theft or damage to the best of the company's ability. There is no need to draw loaded weapons during routine transports, and furthermore, the irresponsibility displayed by a guard like the one in this article would have guaranteed his death or the death of others if an actual armed robbery had taken place.

For the safety of customers and co-workers, this guy should lose his job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shh
Posted by: xmvince on Jan 3, 2009 4:44 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's just another stupid power hungry individual who can't control himself. Don't let it bother you unless you really want the fool to get the best of you. Just walk it off and ignore him which would probably make him even angrier :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Invisible Wounds of War ...
Posted by: rewinn on Jan 4, 2009 12:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I have no idea whether the guard had PTSD or not; you'd expect someone suffering from hypervigilance to align their weapon with their eyesight instead of in a random direction. However, the issue remains that, according to
RAND's Invisible Wounds of War study: Since October 2001, approximately 1.6 million U.S. troops have been deployed for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq. Early evidence suggests that many returning service members may be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Traumatic brain injury is also a major concern. But there is limited evidence about the scope of the problem or the most effective treatments.

They deserve our help; they've earned it but they're having to launch a class-action lawsuit to get it.

Another aspect of this case is the general militarization of our society; Paul Richmond's documentary Urban Warrior shows the increasing use of force in place of policing. Perhaps a militarization of private security firms is just the "logical" extension.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Accept your responsibility
Posted by: darter22 on Jan 4, 2009 1:02 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The writer should have avoided the Brinks truck instead of acting like the decoy on the robbery team. Security guards already have a difficult and dangerous job without idiots like you trying to make it harder.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guard not Focused
Posted by: kiwibill44 on Jan 5, 2009 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing I note in your description of the incident that you didn't elaborate in depth, and which I find most worrying, is in relation to the guard having his gun unholstered. One would imagine that any guard who felt that he should unholster his gun would at the same time be in a state of heightened awareness of his surrounding environment. Instead he appeared blind to your presence, which was a major factor in why the situation turned ugly. There is a real disconnect here...one the one hand the guard could claim that it was necessary for him to treat a situation as being potentially dangerous, thus the unholstered gun....however, on the other hand, any security guard expecting trouble (as he appeared to do) should at the same time have a heightened awareness of his surroundings and maintained a level of awareness to the extent that he should have seen you coming. If you had actually been that type of person who was capable of causing real trouble, he could have been easily overcome as he could have been taken down unawares by any serious adversary. He should lose his job on grounds (at least) that he was not properly in control of the situation and thus placed the security of his mission in danger. This also assumes that the guard had gone into an attack mode with no focused aim. In other words he was in a confused combat mode for no reason and his cognitive state could easily have been out of touch with reality

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OMG, like, she was scared....
Posted by: rickiey on Jan 7, 2009 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like, seriously...this was a big deal, cuz this like, street political actvist was like, seriously scared for like, a whole couple minutes...

Like, you can totally tell on the security footage that she was actually upset...

I mean, c'mon......bottom line, you were scared by a security guard for about a minute. Where's the damage? Who was hurt? What was broken?

in short:

WHERE IS THE HARM?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement