View Full Version : Security Guard points gun at uniformed deputy because gun free zone
Zundfolge
07-11-2019, 13:41
source (https://www.13abc.com/content/news/Security-guard-pulls-gun-on-Lucas-County-Sheriffs-deputy-512552471.html) (video at source)
Security guard pulls gun on Lucas County Sheriff's deputy
TOLEDO, Ohio (WTVG) - Scary moments caught on tape. A Lucas County Sheriff's deputy in uniform has a gun pulled on him by a security guard.
Now that security guard is facing criminal charges as the deputy wraps his head around almost being killed in what should have been a very basic situation.
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.
"Basically preparing myself to be shot at that moment. Bracing for a shot in my back," said Gaston.
The whole thing caught on security cameras, as the guard follows deputy Gaston to the elevator with the gun out and it appear his finger very close to the trigger.
The guard then tries to take Gaston into custody, once again with the gun drawn.
"There's really no way to know how you're going to act when there's a gun pointed at you and when you think you're going to lose your life," said Gaston.
Gaston works as a defensive tactics instructor. He says he felt the best way to de-escalate the situation was to walk away. Eventually Toledo police arrived after getting a 911 call. But the caller from inside the IRS office never tells 911 the man with the gun is a uniformed deputy sheriff.
Gaston's biggest concern as this incident unfolded were the other people in the office.
"If I'm going to get shot, like I thought I was, it's not fair. They came in there to do their business," said Gaston.
Gaston and his wife have now filed a civil lawsuit against that security guard Seth Eklund and the security company seeking compensation after Gaston allegedly suffered emotion and psychological distress and lost wages.
He's currently on medical leave from the Lucas County Sheriff's department. Gaston has a message for the guard.
"I would say "Clearly your training is lacking and the fact that you went 0 to 100. Lethal force is unacceptable," said Gaston.
That guard, Eklund, is facing one charge of aggravated menacing. He's set to be in court next week.
I agree the security guard should be fired (and he's facing aggravated menacing charges) ... but the civil suit for "emotion [sic] and psychological distress and lost wages..." is idiotic ... if you're that psychologically damaged over some excitable, fat fuck with Punisher gloves pointing a gun at you, you need to find another line of work.
Is an IRS office a Federal building?
If so, are county LE allowed to have firearms in a federal building; if so, even when not on official business in an LE capacity?
Do they have jurisdiction there otherwise?
In the grand scheme of things, does a security guard in said building "outrank" anyone other than Federal LE?
Excellent questions.
If the IRS building is on fire, are county fire services allowed to put out the fire, or must they wait for a federal fire dept? [panic]
I would think LEOSA provisions would cover the Deputy. The security guard, on the other hand, was presumably authorized to carry under the provisions of his company's contract. Either way, the security guard is a total dumbass.
Bailey Guns
07-11-2019, 15:18
Ho. Lee. Fuck.
But the civil suit and the "emotional distress" is over the top BS. Shame on the cop for that.
Generally off duty LEO etc don't get to carry in most federal buildings. Uniformed doing their duty yes. This guy was kinda in grey area because he was coming for personal business but otherwise fully uniformed. If he'd had any kind of longer business hanging around on personal stuff, locally he'd probably have had it explained and asked to come back unarmed. That he was there on a quick question which should have been apparent after more than a brief exchange in any sensible situation would have been answered and him merrily on his way.
This is bananas.
But I think local LEOs realizing they are potentially not the supreme authority and can be subject to GFZs and other gun control (especially when off duty) is a good thing. It will help show the insanity of the policies. That LEO was an asset in that building. His presence doubled the amount of violence they could project against an attacker. But security guard saw "gun!" and freaked.
There are some who works at federal buildings.
I wanna know if on duty/off duty can pass the check points.
This is bananas.
But I think local LEOs realizing they are potentially not the supreme authority and can be subject to GFZs and other gun control (especially when off duty) is a good thing. It will help show the insanity of the policies. That LEO was an asset in that building. His presence doubled the amount of violence they could project against an attacker. But security guard saw "gun!" and freaked.
The LEO was *potentially* an asset, just like every other person who carries.
Caveat: Guard is definitely an idiot.
Devils Advocate: (In slightly different circumstances).
A guy walks in wearing clothing that represents him to be a SWAT officer, with an assumed SMG on a sling on his back. Are you relaxed because his mere clothing proves he is an officer, or are you aware that knock offs are commercially available and people occasionally pretend to be LEO?
Basically, how can you trust, 100%, that someone is what they claim to be. That said, the guy is an idiot for pulling a gun on him.
TLDR: LEO really should be subject to disarmament in gun free zones for all the reasons previously stated, but also under liberal logic of we're one mass shooting away from bad actors realizing they can just dress up as LEO. The liberal dilemma might make their eyeballs explode in rage.
Zundfolge
07-11-2019, 17:40
Devils Advocate: (In slightly different circumstances).
A guy walks in wearing clothing that represents him to be a SWAT officer, with an assumed SMG on a sling on his back. Are you relaxed because his mere clothing proves he is an officer, or are you aware that knock offs are commercially available and people occasionally pretend to be LEO?
If he's not acting in a threatening manner but he has a gun on his hip or slung across his back, you're not justified in pointing a gun at him. Doesn't matter if he's a real cop or not.
The suit is utterly ridiculous too. I don't think anyone believes for a moment that the deputy believed he was going to get shot. (e.g. that the probability of getting shot was anywhere near the probability of not getting shot).
If I was a judge on the case, I'd love to ask a few questions of the prosecution's attorneys:
a) Your client is a trained law enforcement officer, correct?
yes
b) Your client has been trained with handling emotionally charged and potentially violent situations, and with deescalation techniques, correct?
yes
c) Your client has on multiple occasions, pointed his firearm at members of his community, correct?
yes
d) And on average, those members of the community don't have training in handling emotionally charged and potentially violent situations, do they?
....
e) Do you have anything to say to the public at large regarding the emotional trauma and physical suffering a person deals with when a firearm is held on them while asked to disarm themselves? I'm sure several members of the community you've interacted with are interested in your admissions, sorry, I mean your "opinion" on that matter.
Zundfolge
07-11-2019, 17:44
The suit is utterly ridiculous too. I don't think anyone believes for a moment that the deputy believed he was going to get shot.
Deputy smells money. I think this is a hail Mary hoping that the security company will just settle and he gets a new boat or something.
hollohas
07-11-2019, 19:57
Security guard was nuts. The deputy was very clearly not emotional during the confrontation, it's going to be very hard convincing anyone it messed him up in the head.
SideShow Bob
07-11-2019, 20:15
Ho. Lee. Fuck.
Hey Now,
No need to get personal, that was my Grandfather?s name on my Mother?s side....... Except he spelled it without the ?C?...........
But the civil suit and the "emotional distress" is over the top BS. Shame on the cop for that.
From listening to the wifes past experience with lawyers while working as a car insurance claims adjuster, the emotional distress claim was probably just the lawyers idea because it's hard to prove otherwise.
But, theres really nothing else that the deputy could file suit again the security guard for, so this probably was the only option to get a suit out there to at least make the story known and not just swept under the rug.
No?
Bailey Guns
07-12-2019, 08:47
It's certainly his option to file a civil suit if that's what he wants to do. But if that's the worst experience he's ever faced as a cop he's led a charmed life on the street. And the security guard has already been arrested so that doesn't seem to qualify as being "swept under the rug".
If I'd filed a civil suit against everyone that caused me "emotional distress" while on the job I'd still be in court every day...and I retired 18 years ago.
In my opinion this guy smells money, plain and simple. This officer wouldn't sue some shitbag on the street that threatened him with a gun, or even assaulted him, because he's not gonna get anything from Joe Shitbag. This security guard, on the other hand, works for a big, fat security company. So, lawyer says, "Name the company, name the guard, name anyone else even remotely connected to either in a civil suit." $$$ is the only motivation.
It's certainly his option to file a civil suit if that's what he wants to do. But if that's the worst experience he's ever faced as a cop he's led a charmed life on the street. And the security guard has already been arrested so that doesn't seem to qualify as being "swept under the rug".
If I'd filed a civil suit against everyone that caused me "emotional distress" while on the job I'd still be in court every day...and I retired 18 years ago.
In my opinion this guy smells money, plain and simple. This officer wouldn't sue some shitbag on the street that threatened him with a gun, or even assaulted him, because he's not gonna get anything from Joe Shitbag. This security guard, on the other hand, works for a big, fat security company. So, lawyer says, "Name the company, name the guard, name anyone else even remotely connected to either in a civil suit." $$$ is the only motivation.
Yup, nailed it.
No difference from the factory of auto-claims pursued by degenerates.
3mph fender bender?
Quick, get in a neck brace! Start acting like you're handicapped for life!
There's no way to cast it as legit.
The LEO was *potentially* an asset, just like every other person who carries.
He was also potentially someone who was upset with the IRS that was coming in armed. After all, he did receive a letter and wanted to discuss it.
How do you know which one he was?
Not that anyone ever gets upset with the IRS....
Zundfolge
07-12-2019, 11:37
How do you know which one he was?
His weapon was holstered and his demeanor was calm. Ergo, not a threat.
OneGuy67
07-12-2019, 12:13
Yet so many on this forum will jump on the "sue them!" bandwagon when there is a perceived misdeed by law enforcement, but are not so when its the LE who filed suit. The "I should carry anywhere I want" crowd wanting the LE to keep his firearm in the vehicle. I find the dichotomy interesting.
ChickNorris
07-12-2019, 12:17
There's a bandwagon here?
Both should just get 90 day suspension without pay and move on.....
Yet so many on this forum will jump on the "sue them!" bandwagon when there is a perceived misdeed by law enforcement, but are not so when its the LE who filed suit. The "I should carry anywhere I want" crowd wanting the LE to keep his firearm in the vehicle. I find the dichotomy interesting.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Any cop worthy of the badge should understand and believe in that.
He has no more right to life or duty to protect than anyone else. The only difference is he gets paid to do it as a job.
Aside from Fitz’s quasi answers, I haven’t seen anyone answer the questions I asked, so I’ll leave my comments to what I have written.
Zundfolge
07-12-2019, 14:09
There's a bandwagon here?
I could care less about the bandwagon ... I'm still looking for the funnel cake vendor.
Yet so many on this forum will jump on the "sue them!" bandwagon when there is a perceived misdeed by law enforcement, but are not so when its the LE who filed suit. The "I should carry anywhere I want" crowd wanting the LE to keep his firearm in the vehicle. I find the dichotomy interesting.
He should have his weapon with him. He is an asset.
CCWers should have their weapons with them. They are assets.
If there is gun control limiting the ability for good guys to have guns, it should apply equally, so we can have "an honest conversation" about the stupidity of gun control.
How are these things inconsistent?
ChickNorris
07-12-2019, 15:18
I could care less about the bandwagon ... I'm still looking for the funnel cake vendor.
Wait.... there's funnel cakes?!
I could care less about the bandwagon ... I'm still looking for the funnel cake vendor.
https://media.giphy.com/media/12ma6Nkb30lx3a/giphy.gif
Side note: OFC we all agree drawing a weapon is stupid in the circumstance. My comment was more to encourage critical thinking... when an officer demands special accommodations for being an officer, but doesn't prove it (or provide time to verify it), what is the appropriate course of action? Obviously not holding a gun on them. Looking the other direction is more acceptable. But, what's the ideal resolution?
OneGuy67
07-12-2019, 15:59
Is an IRS office a Federal building?
Possibly. Also could be a smaller office within a public office building. In viewing the video, it looks to be the latter.
If so, are county LE allowed to have firearms in a federal building; if so, even when not on official business in an LE capacity?
Depends upon the building and who is in it. I can carry in the FBI, DEA, SSA, USSS and all the other alphabet agencies, but not the US Marshals office downtown as it houses the courthouse as well.
Do they have jurisdiction there otherwise?
If the city police were called on 911, it appears the Deputy was out of his working jurisdiction, but it would depend upon the laws of that state. He may have still been in his county, which he would still have lawful authority.
In the grand scheme of things, does a security guard in said building "outrank" anyone other than Federal LE?
The $10/hr rent-a-badge doesn't outrank anyone.
To many fucking rules. Its going to be a shambles.
so.. if I quote your quote^2 will something start a thread?
Is that you John Wayne, is this me?
Why doesn't the rent a bbq outrank anyone? Are some pigs more equal than others, a la Orwell? (no offense to those who do the shit for real; I respect you, but the system is definitely going to visit its aunt for the next 9 months).
Who is this deputy sheriff? How does homeboy punisher gloves know he isn't the next Akim Abdul Al-Jabar shoot-em-up false flag that the Flubs.. err. FBI has had on their radar for the last year? Why does a uniform mean anything? (tip: search stolen valor. My favorite is the dude who'd cause a T-10 to rip its shit like Taco Bell was its midnight snack, aka 2/75 in the mall but looking like the local Reserve component).
I don't buy the "calm demeanor; weapon holstered" schtick. Any true believer can be calm when needed.
Either way, why is this dude special?
Who is he? He claims Sheriff Dept.? So what?
Like all social norms, generally people in full uniform should be treated like they are who they are saying they are. Does that create a potential weakness? Sure, but it's an important part of maintaining a functional society. MOST people in normal situations aren't psychopaths and shouldn't be treated such, or society would fall into shambles.
That doesn't mean just letting police do what they want just because they are police, and that doesn't mean the security guard abandoning his duties just because a guy happens to be a cop either. As long as cop want trying to storm the castle, guard could have just as easily stalled him out at the door without elevating the situation.
While I mostly agree, I don't think it's necessarily best to "teach" that, as it does create an exploitable weakness, but I'm not talking about this situation (especially for e.g. daughters). I think my passing take for the moment is people should have their local dispatch #'s memorized. Not for this situation, but there are a lot of other cases where you don't have time to look that up. How many times have off duty officers been pulled over by people impersonating LEO in the news? It's very rare, but not entirely irregular, and for every off duty officer they happen to have pulled over, there is probably a good 200 regular joes. [many of these impersonators don't have malicious intents, but still] I think the best approach is to treat uniformed LEO as LEO only when their behavior, equipment, vehicle, etc. match fully with what you know the department has. If there's any irregularity, then be more aware, and if they are confrontational (pulling you over, etc.) make a quick call to dispatch (non emergency) and state that you want to confirm an officer contact is from their department.
In this case, if rent-a-rambo was legitimately suspicious, he could've informed the officer to wait while he called dispatch to verify his employment. If a real officer didn't comply with that and barreled in (outside of emergency situations or plain sight doctrine) I'm pretty sure it would have serious implications.
Zundfolge
07-13-2019, 10:01
I don't buy the "calm demeanor; weapon holstered" schtick. Any true believer can be calm when needed.
You can believe whatever you want, but this is what should be (and likely is) the standard for the law.
You don't get to use lethal force against some one because you "think" they "might" become a threat, you only have that right when they actually do. Otherwise we'd all be justified in shooting anyone wearing a gun anywhere under any circumstances.
What I do know is that none of us was there. That's about it.
The rest will play out in court. We don't know what was said from either side or how the entire shituation escalated.
On another note, don't LEOs have ID in addition to the uniform/badge?
What I do know is that none of us was there. That's about it.
The rest will play out in court. We don't know what was said from either side or how the entire shituation escalated.
On another note, don't LEOs have ID in addition to the uniform/badge?
True.
I don't even think the proper identification of the LEO was in question. This security guard wasn't letting anyone slow down his acceleration from 0 to retard in three seconds. Now had the LEO actually been a threat and his ID was in question, then I guess that's a factor to consider. He kept his weapon holstered and was fairly calm.
Sidetrack: This is my fear with "POLICE" windbreakers and carrier patches in home invasions. That stuff is really to come by.
Snowman78
07-13-2019, 11:28
What I do know is that none of us was there. That's about it.
The rest will play out in court. We don't know what was said from either side or how the entire shituation escalated.
On another note, don't LEOs have ID in addition to the uniform/badge?
Yes, mine has a photo And description - looks like a driver license.
His weapon was holstered and his demeanor was calm. Ergo, not a threat.
So calm demeanor and holstered weapon means someone is not a threat?
Should police take guns from people who they are investigating (aka the 2A audit) if they have a calm demeanor and have the weapon holstered or in a sling while they are invistagating since they are not a threat?
Zundfolge
07-13-2019, 15:37
So calm demeanor and holstered weapon means someone is not a threat?
Should police take guns from people who they are investigating (aka the 2A audit) if they have a calm demeanor and have the weapon holstered or in a sling while they are invistagating since they are not a threat?
Yes, I'm saying unequivocally that someone with a calm demeanor and a holstered weapon is not a threat (assuming there aren't other extenuating circumstances ... like them calmly making a threatening statement). To accept anything less than this means that anyone can use lethal force against anyone who is in possession of a firearm regardless of the circumstances.
When police are investigating someone with a calm demeanor and weapon holstered they should not be pointing guns at them. Doesn't mean they shouldn't take their gun during the duration of the contact.
Yes I'm saying officers that draw down on someone just for the "crime" of possessing a firearm should lose their jobs (if not their freedom).
Think of how many hunters would be murdered every year during interaction with wildlife officers.
Aloha_Shooter
07-14-2019, 02:16
I generally hate the litigiousness of modern society but SJWs use the whole "emotional distress" thing to hammer away at anything they don't like. Good for the deputy for using their own weapon against them. The security guard and his company were idiots and deserve to pay through the nose.
I generally hate the litigiousness of modern society but SJWs use the whole "emotional distress" thing to hammer away at anything they don't like. Good for the deputy for using their own weapon against them. The security guard and his company were idiots and deserve to pay through the nose.
#1: It's a crazy argument to say abuse of the courts is acceptable if "the thin blue line" is doing the abuse, but unacceptable if it's anyone else.
#2: The officer apparently doesn't have litigation experience. Even if he gets a judgment against the rent-a-cop, it's almost guaranteed an noncollectable judgment. It's highly unlikely to get one against the security company. I hope he enjoys paying his attorney an ass-ton.
PS: Remember this guy? https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/13/fired-shooting-an-unarmed-man-officer-was-rehired-so-he-could-collect-lifetime-pension/?utm_term=.fa0f15193979
He got off without any prosecution of any kind, and got rewarded with a lifetime pension of $30,000 for murdering somebody. LEO already have a different standard than the rest of us - and I'm not arguing bias, their legal standard makes them much, much, much harder to be convicted for lethal force / be sued. Top that off with the likelihood of getting a polarized jury (almost a guarantee) and they can count on their being at least one juror that will tow the line all the way to hell if need be. If we agree that our society is litigious and the emotional distress thing against officers is usually generally bullshit, then maybe we should even the playing field in all regards.
I generally hate the litigiousness of modern society but SJWs use the whole "emotional distress" thing to hammer away at anything they don't like. Good for the deputy for using their own weapon against them. The security guard and his company were idiots and deserve to pay through the nose.
I want to agree with this, but why the assumption that the security guard is a SJW? Just his job and his actions show me he'd be more likely to post on a forum like this than Democratic Underground.
#1: It's a crazy argument to say abuse of the courts is acceptable if "the thin blue line" is doing the abuse, but unacceptable if it's anyone else.
#2: The officer apparently doesn't have litigation experience. Even if he gets a judgment against the rent-a-cop, it's almost guaranteed an noncollectable judgment. It's highly unlikely to get one against the security company. I hope he enjoys paying his attorney an ass-ton.
PS: Remember this guy? https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/13/fired-shooting-an-unarmed-man-officer-was-rehired-so-he-could-collect-lifetime-pension/?utm_term=.fa0f15193979
He got off without any prosecution of any kind, and got rewarded with a lifetime pension of $30,000 for murdering somebody. LEO already have a different standard than the rest of us - and I'm not arguing bias, their legal standard makes them much, much, much harder to be convicted for lethal force / be sued. Top that off with the likelihood of getting a polarized jury (almost a guarantee) and they can count on their being at least one juror that will tow the line all the way to hell if need be. If we agree that our society is litigious and the emotional distress thing against officers is usually generally bullshit, then maybe we should even the playing field in all regards.
Heard Gerigos talking about this. The video is heart breaking.
Aloha_Shooter
07-15-2019, 12:29
#1: It's a crazy argument to say abuse of the courts is acceptable if "the thin blue line" is doing the abuse, but unacceptable if it's anyone else.
What I'm saying is the inverse. The others are already abusing the courts so why hamstring the officer in this case? At least his lawsuit may result in a overall positive by restraining some of the knee-jerk anti-gun reaction already out there.
I want to agree with this, but why the assumption that the security guard is a SJW? Just his job and his actions show me he'd be more likely to post on a forum like this than Democratic Underground.
I'm not assuming the guard in question is an SJW but I AM saying the SJWs are already abusing the courts to change societal norms with the idea of "emotional distress". We've had some pretty far-out people post in this forum so the idea of anyone -- SJW or not -- being "more likely" to post here than anywhere else is a non-sequitur.
What I'm saying is the inverse. The others are already abusing the courts so why hamstring the officer in this case? At least his lawsuit may result in a overall positive by restraining some of the knee-jerk anti-gun reaction already out there.
It's not the inverse, it's a different point of view of the same fact. You find it unacceptable that others do it, but find it acceptable here because the plaintiff is LEO, with your reasoning being non LEO have done it previously. I cannot connect in any way how his EIED suit would have any bearing on public anti-gun reaction either, or to the extent it would have any fraction of a minute difference, it would seem to give them ammunition more than anything... (e.g. non LEO can't be trusted with a gun, and they hurt LEO by emotionally damaging them). But really, it's not going to have any bearing as there are no middle-fences in that debate.
At any rate, there's really nothing for me to debate here either.... https://www.fallacyfiles.org/twowrong.html
Aloha_Shooter
07-15-2019, 23:19
Yes it is the inverse: http://www.nativlang.com/logic/logic-conv-inv-contrapos.php
You were claiming my argument was that it's acceptable for A but unacceptable for not A. I was saying not A already exists so it shouldn't be unacceptable for A. That's an inverse condition of the logical statement you were trying to insert in my mouth. As I stated explcitily ... since the the anti-gunners and other SJWs are already using "emotional impact" in the courts to drive their agendas, why hamper the officer from using the same tactic against those who would disarm even someone in the performance of his duties? Your argument about "two wrongs" is a logical fallacy in itself because the argument of "emotional impact/emotional damage" has already been accepted by the courts as valid. As much as I disagree with how it has been used, his lawyer isn't inventing something new or untested.
You are the one here who is making this a case about him being a LEO. My argument holds for anyone who had a petty tyrant point a gun at their back while exercising their legally-sanctioned rights (or in this case, legally-mandated duty).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.