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

[Tactical Panda]

Without repeating the points that have already been made in this thread, did anyone else find something "off" with the Deputies body language during the incident? For an LEO self-described as a "defensive tactics instructor," he failed to display any in the video. He seemed rather nonchalant the whole time, constantly turning his back to the guard. He seemed more annoyed than alarmed. I don't know, just thinking out loud.

 

[Hoji]

The people inside them do. For example: theft or murder is still illegal inside an IRS office.
.

Are you absolutely sure about that one?

 

[Bithabus]

Are you absolutely sure about that one?

On cue

 

[Younggun]

Cops are always on the job.
If he witnessed a crime at the IRS office, he would intervene even if in his “lunch break”.

This thread is ridiculous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

That doesn’t have anything to do with what the law that regulates where he can carry.


Multiple things can be true at once.

“The law sucks” can be true.

“The security guard acted poorly” can be true.

“The LEO acted poorly” can be true.

“The person who called 911 acted poorly” can be true.

IMO, these are all truths with the situation and no one truth makes any other irrelevant. Most of the arguing in this thread seems to be about ignoring one truth because some other truth is more relevant to a specific user.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sublime]

That deputy came here to 4 Seagate to ask a question at the IRS office. A step that nearly cost him his life.

As Lucas County Sheriff's deputy Alan Gaston enters the IRS office, he's in full uniform with his badge with his firearm visible.

He was on duty May 31st but says he stopped at the office for a phone number to ask about a letter he got from the IRS. Deputy Gaston says the guard told him he needed to put his gun in his car. Gaston said he couldn't do that. The conversation ends with a gun pointed at the deputy's back. Gaston vividly remembers "that" moment.

So where did the LEO act poorly (granted this is from the news story)? If you look at the main screen on the video, the deputy looks to already clearly be in the IRS office. How did that happen? Should the officer have known he wasn't allowed in a Federal Ofc. armed? Maybe, maybe not but that doesn't mean he acted poorly. In fact, him turning his back and leaving seems to indicate he defused the situation and acted properly. If I was on duty in my county, I would have said the same thing.

 

[Younggun]

That deputy came here to 4 Seagate to ask a question at the IRS office. A step that nearly cost him his life.

As Lucas County Sheriff's deputy Alan Gaston enters the IRS office, he's in full uniform with his badge with his firearm visible.

He was on duty May 31st but says he stopped at the office for a phone number to ask about a letter he got from the IRS. Deputy Gaston says the guard told him he needed to put his gun in his car. Gaston said he couldn't do that. The conversation ends with a gun pointed at the deputy's back. Gaston vividly remembers "that" moment.

So where did the LEO act poorly (granted this is from the news story)? If you look at the main screen on the video, the deputy looks to already clearly be in the IRS office. How did that happen? Should the officer have known he wasn't allowed in a Federal Ofc. armed? Maybe, maybe not but that doesn't mean he acted poorly. In fact, him turning his back and leaving seems to indicate he defused the situation and acted properly. If I was on duty in my county, I would have said the same thing.

Yes, he should have known that. Just as I’m expected to know where it’s legal to carry with my LTC.

If you were on duty in your county I would say the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BillFairbanks]

Too bad the Sheriff’s Deputy didn’t arrest everyone in the IRS office because....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[majormadmax]

So where did the LEO act poorly (granted this is from the news story)? If you look at the main screen on the video, the deputy looks to already clearly be in the IRS office. How did that happen? Should the officer have known he wasn't allowed in a Federal Ofc. armed? Maybe, maybe not but that doesn't mean he acted poorly. In fact, him turning his back and leaving seems to indicate he defused the situation and acted properly. If I was on duty in my county, I would have said the same thing.

He should have never stepped foot in the office in the first place. Every Federal facility or office I have ever been to--to include Air Force bases here in San Antonio--has a USC 18 Sec 930 sign posted at the entrance, he most likely walked right by it. Secondly, he should have already known he cannot carry in Federal facilities, every LEO I know in the SA area is aware of that. I believe because he was on duty he felt his personal errand fell under that, which it clearly doesn't. Lastly, I doubt the security guard elevated the situation; most likely the deputy argued with him which escalated things. I highly doubt if he had he complied with the original request to put his weapon in his vehicle the situation would have risen as it did.

The bottom line is the deputy is to blame. He should have immediately left the facility after being informed, but most likely he felt because he was in uniform he was acting in an official capacity (which he knew he wasn't) and he probably felt he had more authority than the security guard. Turns out he was wrong.

Now, do I believe all that justified the security officer drawing his weapon? No, but he had a right to when the deputy failed to comply. Essentially, since the deputy was not authorized to be there armed, he should be treated no differently than an average citizen who entered the facility with a weapon.

So while I don't condone the actions of the security guard, the culpable individual is the deputy who should have known better or acted accordingly when informed.

 

[Bithabus]

Should the officer have known he wasn't allowed in a Federal Ofc. armed? .

Yes he should have. It's not too much to ask that LEOs have a basic knowledge of State and Fed law. Especially weapons law, since usually their right to bear arms is less infringed than ordinary citizens.

"Where can I carry"? is drilled into LTC holders. There are many gun free zones and we are expected to know them all. This cop has maybe one gun free zone, and he can't be bothered to comply?

 

[Sublime]

Yes he should have. It's not too much to ask that LEOs have a basic knowledge of State and Fed law. Especially weapons law, since usually their right to bear arms is less infringed than ordinary citizens.

"Where can I carry"? is drilled into LTC holders. There are many gun free zones and we are expected to know them all. This cop has maybe one gun free zone, and he can't be bothered to comply?

Most local LEOs don't have an inkling of Fed. Law because they do not enforce it. I do think you touch on something that I see quite common. It's almost like the one's complaining about this deputy being the cause of the problem just resent that fact that they are not subject to a lot of things civilians are or treated like civilians. We have you complaining about the discrepancy of police and civilians in regard to gun free zones and we have jetcycles complaining about him conducting personal business on duty.

You'll are completely missing the subject of the story. If the deputy had been arrested for this suposed breaking of the law, then at least I could understand some of the comments but that is not the subject of the story. I guess my viewpoint is further verified in that the guard was arrested and the deputy wasn't.

I asked the Q and no one blaming the deputy ever answered it at least directly. Should you a legally armed citizen have a gun drawn on you (threat of deadly force) simply because you entered a prohibited place? THAT is the subject of the story.

 

[Sublime]

He should have never stepped foot in the office in the first place. Every Federal facility or office I have ever been to--to include Air Force bases here in San Antonio--has a USC 18 Sec 930 sign posted at the entrance, he most likely walked right by it. Secondly, he should have already known he cannot carry in Federal facilities, every LEO I know in the SA area is aware of that. I believe because he was on duty he felt his personal errand fell under that, which it clearly doesn't. Lastly, I doubt the security guard elevated the situation; most likely the deputy argued with him which escalated things. I highly doubt if he had he complied with the original request to put his weapon in his vehicle the situation would have risen as it did.

1. It appears he did walk right by it because the screenshot of the video shows him already inside. Some secure federal facility huh? 2. We already discussed the difference between a stand alone Federal Facility and a federal office leased in a commercial building. 3. You mention the deputy was on a personal errand but again I will ask you how did the guard know he was not on official business. (either way it does not justify the guard drawing a gun)
4. Uh when the guard draws his gun it elevates the situation. You are just speculating now the deputy argued with the guard but let's go with that - again, does that justify the guard drawing his gun? 5. I already stated early on why a local LEO is not going to put his duty weapon in his car. Federal Courthouse or Correction facility? I disagree still but get it but at a office in a commercial building? C'mon.

The bottom line is the deputy is to blame. He should have immediately left the facility after being informed, but most likely he felt because he was in uniform he was acting in an official capacity (which he knew he wasn't) and he probably felt he had more authority than the security guard. Turns out he was wrong.

No, no he is not and I think the guard being arrested in validating my argument. We can all say that "technically" the deputy should have not been armed there but there is the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. IF the guard had a "reasonable" belief that the deputy violated this law, why the hell wasn't the deputy arrested? I am betting many a LEO let you slide on several violations of the law when stopped. He does have more authority than the guard since the guard was arrested.

Now, do I believe all that justified the security officer drawing his weapon? No, but he had a right to when the deputy failed to comply. Essentially, since the deputy was not authorized to be there armed, he should be treated no differently than an average citizen who entered the facility with a weapon.

So the deputy had Ability and Opportunity to do harm with his holstered gun BUT he did not show Intent and therefore there was NO justification to draw his gun. It really is that simple. Disagreeing with a guard to disarm does not justify drawing of a weapon. I don't know Ohio's use of force law especially as it applies to guards but it can't be too different than TX use of force law. Again as I replied to Bithaus, your last sentence just seems to show the resentment that LEOs are sometimes treated differently than civilians.

So while I don't condone the actions of the security guard, the culpable individual is the deputy who should have known better or acted accordingly when informed.

He did act accordingly, he left to defuse the situation. What more were you expecting from him? We can not have security guards drawing guns on deputies unprovoked any more than we can have protesters removing an American flag and putting up a Mexican flag at a ICE facility.

 

[benenglish]

I asked the Q and no one blaming the deputy ever answered it at least directly. Should you a legally armed citizen have a gun drawn on you (threat of deadly force) simply because you entered a prohibited place?

Ok, direct answer.

Generally, no.

In this case, no, unless there was off-camera conversation that took place that we haven't heard about that justified it.

In my experience at the largest federal building at which I worked for decades, I saw plenty of people enter the building armed when they weren't supposed to. This is just a single sample and the results varied depending on who was handling the situation and how that situation felt to them at the time.

• For all cops, the story was the same. As long as they were mannerly about it, they were asked to take the firearm out of the building; no harm, no foul.
  
• The security forces for foreign heads of state were given free run of the place. Those Italian Secret-Service-equivalent guys were so obvious with their full-size Uzis under photographers vests but they got into more trouble for smoking in the lobby than for being obviously armed.
  
• I've seen civilians do the same thing and seen them given the same deference as LEOs.
  
• I've also seen civilians do the same thing and seen them asked to accompany the security guard to their office where they were either sternly warned or arrested by FPS officers on the site. They were NOT always arrested.
  
• I wasn't there, but I've heard of just a couple of times when someone was arrested at the security checkpoint because the situation set off enough alarm bells in someone's head. Things got tense but I don't know of any guns being drawn.

In this case, the security guard (AFAIK) did not have FPS backup and overreacted. I think we all agree with that. Everything the security guard tried to do by drawing his gun could have been done verbally.

That doesn't change the fact that the Deputy screwed up. In fact, if I were to speculate on why the security guard drew his weapon, I could easily come up with a scenario where the Deputy could have screwed up a couple of ways making the guard completely justified in drawing. Unfortunately, such speculation is pointless. Without a recording of what was said between the two, we can't know if the guard was justified or not.

 

[benenglish]

We can not have security guards drawing guns on deputies unprovoked...

Agreed. But neither the silent video I watched nor the fact that the guard was arrested proves that the guard was unprovoked.

We do not know all the facts in this case.

Now, if someone tells me there's a version of the video that has a clear recording of the conversation between the deputy and the guard, I'd love to know where to go to see and hear that.

 

[majormadmax]

1. It appears he did walk right by it because the screenshot of the video shows him already inside. Some secure federal facility huh? 2. We already discussed the difference between a stand alone Federal Facility and a federal office leased in a commercial building. 3. You mention the deputy was on a personal errand but again I will ask you how did the guard know he was not on official business. (either way it does not justify the guard drawing a gun)
4. Uh when the guard draws his gun it elevates the situation. You are just speculating now the deputy argued with the guard but let's go with that - again, does that justify the guard drawing his gun? 5. I already stated early on why a local LEO is not going to put his duty weapon in his car. Federal Courthouse or Correction facility? I disagree still but get it but at a office in a commercial building? C'mon.

First, nothing in the law states the facility has to be secure. Most VA offices are in commercial strip malls, but the law still applies.

Secondly, discuss it all you want, but USC 18 Sec 930 is clear on what is considered a Federal facility, which includes leased office space.

Thirdly, it is clear he is not there on official business.

Fourth, not that agree the situation warrants the drawing of his weapon; but the security guard is performing his duties as instructed. He has an armed individual who is refusing to leave the facility even after being told to do so. Doesn't matter what uniform that individual is wearing, he is in violation of the law and failure to abide has consequences...

Fifthly, I don't care of the deputy or anyone else agrees with the law or not, the fact that it IS law is all that he needs to understand. The fact that he felt he could ignore it is what caused the situation.

No, no he is not and I think the guard being arrested in validating my argument. We can all say that "technically" the deputy should have not been armed there but there is the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. IF the guard had a "reasonable" belief that the deputy violated this law, why the hell wasn't the deputy arrested? I am betting many a LEO let you slide on several violations of the law when stopped. He does have more authority than the guard since the guard was arrested.

The guard will not be charged, he was doing his job; but I agree, the deputy is the one who should be charged as he clearly violated Federal law.

So the deputy had Ability and Opportunity to do harm with his holstered gun BUT he did not show Intent and therefore there was NO justification to draw his gun. It really is that simple. Disagreeing with a guard to disarm does not justify drawing of a weapon. I don't know Ohio's use of force law especially as it applies to guards but it can't be too different than TX use of force law. Again as I replied to Bithaus, your last sentence just seems to show the resentment that LEOs are sometimes treated differently than civilians.

Read USC 18 Sec 930 again and tell me he is not in violation. If that same deputy had a suspect that refused to disarm after being directed to do so, I bet he would draw his firearm.

And state law on use of force does not apply on Federal property or in Federal facilities. Nice try, but swing and a miss.

He did act accordingly, he left to defuse the situation. What more were you expecting from him? We can not have security guards drawing guns on deputies unprovoked any more than we can have protesters removing an American flag and putting up a Mexican flag at a ICE facility.

No, he didn't. He was in violation of Federal law the second he stepped foot in the IRS office, and even after he was informed to disarm he refused to do so. Even if he is ignorant of Federal law, that doesn't make him exempt. What I and any reasonable person would have expected is the same response any one of us would have made after being informed that we are in violation of the law. He just felt he was above it because he was a deputy, but he was wrong. As armed citizens, we are expected to know and abide by the law; and the same is true for officers of the law.

The bottom line is he had no excuse, and despite the overreaction of the guard, the deputy is the one who broke the law. Now he is trying to gain sympathy due to "emotional" reasons. I put this guy in the same category as the Californian chief of police who left her service weapon in the bathroom then claimed it was "stolen" when someone found it. It's the same tactic of shifting blame to distract from the true culprit. I am not anti-police, in fact I am a very active volunteer with the SAPD; but I also believe that officers have to act within the laws that apply to them as much as anyone else. He does not get special treatment when it comes to Federal laws because he is a county deputy, and if he doesn't get charged with violating USC 18 Sec 930 for his illegally bringing a weapon into a Federal facility, he should consider himself to be very
lucky and hope the whole matter goes away quietly. Suing is idiotic because 1) it is baseless and 2) it may just draw enough attention to what really happened which may not be to his benefit. If he was smart he would just shut up and let the entire matter go...

 

[Hoji]

He has an armed individual who is refusing to leave the facility even after being told to do so.
..

Did we watch the same video????

The video I watched showed non aggressive body language from the deputy, the deputy turning to leave the office, and a shit eating retard chasing him to the elevator with a gun drawn, his butthole scratcher on the trigger, and making a feeble, one handed attempt to grab the deputy while finger banging the trigger of his gun in the other.

 

[Bithabus]

Most local LEOs don't have an inkling of Fed. Law because they do not enforce it.

He is still subject to it. A LEO should know where he may legally carry. I bet he expects the "civilians" in his jurisdiction to know.

 

[Bithabus]

Should you a legally armed citizen have a gun drawn on you (threat of deadly force) simply because you entered a prohibited place? THAT is the subject of the story.

Not by a security guard. If a Fed LEO drew on him to make an arrest that would be different.

 

[candcallen]

This whole convo is getting ridokulost. Yes that's now a word as stupid as the situation.

If there was a call for help could the officer enter armed?
If the officer was chasing a subject could he enter armed?
Are there a gaggle more instances where one or both are right and wrong? Yep you could list em for days. Some are relentless at doing just that cause, well, someone is wrong on the internet and we cant have that. Ya I know we all fall for it sometimes.

If you gotta pick a person to blame it's the barny fife who over reacted. As said before just give the guy his number and say you cant enter on personal buisness armed. If he was there in official capacity he could enter armed and you would be an idiot to say otherwise. No matter how many lines of law ordinances policy proceedure or regulations you Quote on either side of the mess the bottom line is common sense has to prevail at some point.

Common sense would clearly say the officer never disarms in uniform unless escorting a prisoner into a secured facility or part of like prison jail or parts of courthouses or medical facilities. Peroid. So the officer most likely never gave it a thought. I wouldnt.

By the way you can be on duty and not in service. Just saying for those looking for any reason to blame the officer. Please dont pick that apart now.

The security guard would clearly be used to this or should at least be informed about this as I'm sure it happens thousands of times a day if it's a formal government building shared by multiple agencies. If hes in a strip mall or other non formal federal building he should be used to or trained that this also happens in less formal areas. If not trained then we get to low IQ common sense.

Hell I know dozens of people who took guns inside prisons, yes fed prisons too, on accident because frankly when in and out of vehicles checking weapons in and out etc sometimes you forget. Some private prisons dont even have an armory or lock box or pass thru to a secured control room. Some medical jail facilities dont either. Point being Sometimes officers dont know or think about it because it's their job to be armed.

So now we have a conflict between a rule and a situation and from the video we see the guard has no basis for feeling threatened based on anything the officer did or acted like. How do we solve this problem? Escalating a calm discussion between supposed professionals into a shootout in an IRS office? Phuck no, and if your thinking leans any way towards the security guard being right here you need to seriously reevaluate your training, conflict resolution and avoidance skills because he most certainly did not have any reason to act that way. Being in the right still doesn't mean he can or should act that way.

Like I said, if anything was required past you cant be armed here on personal buisness should happen above his pay grade. I would seriously doubt even writing it down would have been needed if he didnt go full retard. Beyond that who the phuck does he think is coming to his aid if a real bad guy decides it's open season on the IRS office? Why jeopardize that relationship for something so stupid.

Everyone was wrong to some extent. The officer probably had no clue till he was told. Barney should be out of a job and never allowed to do armed security again at least. His arrest is justified as he clearly committed reckless endangerment and IMHO agg assault.

Oh, just so some einstein doesn't try to argue the point, too many police officers point weapons at people for no real reason too. Start another thread if you want to argue that point to the death.

What did the security guard think he was going to accomplish? Much like when police sometimes present needlessly he just destroyed any other options he had to handle his problem and painted himself into a bad corner. The cop called his bluff and walked away and he looks like the retard he is. He got no return on his high risk play except fired and will go to jail.

Continued square dancing seems stupid but you all do what you think is best. Nothing good is no tv right now anyways.

 

[Pops1955]

The guard is a flaming imbecile.
The 911 caller added fuel to the fire.

Serious lack of brains going on in this situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

It is the IRS after all. Common sense cannot cohabitate the same space.

 

[Sublime]

Agreed. But neither the silent video I watched nor the fact that the guard was arrested proves that the guard was unprovoked.

We do not know all the facts in this case.

Now, if someone tells me there's a version of the video that has a clear recording of the conversation between the deputy and the guard, I'd love to know where to go to see and hear that.

True, we do not know. We only know what the story reports and that is what I am going off of. Let's say the deputy was an arumentative pain in the ass. That does NOT justify the threat of deadly force and that is exactly what we are talking about. IF the deputy was an argumentative a..hole, do you think they would have still arrested the guard? I don't think so from my experience.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk