It depends. It depends on the suspects. Some may be looking to attack security. Cops get killed. People willing to kill cops aren't afraid of security. Cops get attacked in riots. People willing to attack cops in riots, won't be deterred by security. I agree with @CaptainObvious that most sane security guards aren't looking to be the subject of more riots and news broadcasts. They will shoot as a very last resort to save their own lives ... not to save property, etc. How much are they getting paid? The U.S. really needs to stop pretending that there is no excessive-force policing problem in this country, because I doubt this won't escalate beyond bricks, mace and Molotov cocktails...especially if the election goes "badly." (And I'm not just referring to a knee-jerk reaction.) It takes the whole village to end the madness.
People are failing to take one thing into consideration regarding the U.S. police currently -- they have been told by local politicians to stand down and just let the rioters do as they please. Police also are regulated to use escalating force when dealing with a situation -- as per their training guidelines, etc. Armed security guards hired to protect property generally do not carry non-lethal tools (spray, batons, etc.) to deal with violent invaders of private property. They pretty much have only one switch -- when confronted with violent non-compliance on private property they are being paid to protect in a riot situation -- it is straight to deadly force --- and the law in most states backs them in doing this. They are after all protected under Castle laws in most states. If you are proposing that hired armed security will desert their posts and let violent rioters do as they please -- well I don't think their firm is going to be paid or ever hired again if they do this. Depends on the quality of who they hired-- if it is the $15 per hour chaps from Securitas or some other similar "rent a mall cop" firm then they are probably going to run away. I will agree that hired armed security guards are generally looking to avoid trouble - their best avoidance seems to be very visible on the property but not aggressive while guarding property and the rioters leave them alone. The smart ones will engage rioters in a polite conversation from a distance and urge them to move on.
They have said that; then they later shut it down later that night. They want them to blow off some steam. Lessen, hopefully, the desire to "engage." Throw them a bone. Imo ... CHAD/CHAZ?/ETC. was an exception. But I didn't fail to take it into account. Riots in this country aren't new. My point was that people will get hurt/killed ... "on both sides," including innocent civilians. And there will be vast property damage/loss, imo. Riots are one thing. Asymmetrical tactics are another. You misunderstood me. I never questioned that the law is on their side. My point was that criminals and killers don't care about Castle laws. I'd "love" to see a scenario where one or more security guards fired into a mob of would be looters. But like I said, it depends on the people involved. Before guards care about Castle laws, they care about being killed in a shootout with a mob. The question in their mind is not, "can I legally shoot to defend this castle?" The question is more likely, "if I lawfully shoot to defend this castle, will I go home tonight?" A sane guard will wonder how many in the mob are armed, and will they return fire. A guard like @jem will just shoot, without thought. Maybe it works out for him, maybe not. It depends on the people involved. There is no set result or outcome. You roll the dice as a guard if you shoot into a mob. We mostly agree. I'd say it depends on the situation, and the heart (absence of fear-based reactions) of the guard, regardless of qualifications and pay. Some will run, and not want to risk it. Others will calculate that they'll come out ahead, and go home that night, and engage. Others will engage, on general principle ("GP," as we say)...regardless. Agree. Some people have a certain je ne sais quoi for particular situations. What works in one situation with one mob; may not work with a different mob (or the same mob), in a different situation, in a different neighborhood. And even if the guard is cool and engaging the mob, all it takes is one outlier individual in the mob to "set it off." There was no good solution in Vietnam, but to have avoided it all together. And that fight was on foreign soil. "This" can be avoided by fixing the police. After acknowledging that "it" needs fixing, of course.
In related news -- Walmart is expecting election unrest... Walmart pulls guns, ammo displays in US stores, citing civil unrest Retailer says move is a safety precaution but customers can still purchase firearms and ammunition https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifesty...mmo-displays-in-us-stores-citing-civil-unrest Walmart Inc. has removed all guns and ammunition from the sales floors of its U.S. stores this week, aiming to head off any potential theft of firearms if stores are broken into amid social unrest. The retail giant, which sells firearms in about half of its 4,700 U.S. stores, said customers can still purchase guns and ammunition upon request even though they are no longer on display. “We have seen some isolated civil unrest and as we have done on several occasions over the last few years, we have moved our firearms and ammunition off the sales floor as a precaution for the safety of our associates and customers,” a Walmart spokesman said. The company hasn’t decided how long the items will stay out of view, he said. There have been days of violent protests and looting this week in Philadelphia after police fatally shot a Black man holding a knife in the city Monday. In a letter to store managers Wednesday, Walmart asked staff to pull guns from shelves “due to the current unrest in isolated areas of the country and out of an abundance of caution.” Walmart also removed firearms and ammunition from stores this summer in the wake of George Floyd’s killing by police when several of Walmart’s stores were damaged. The country’s largest retailer is still a big seller of guns and ammunition even though it has pared its offerings. Last year, it stopped selling ammunition that can be used in semiautomatic rifles and handguns after a shooting at a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas, left 23 people dead. In 2018, the company raised the minimum age to purchase guns or ammunition to 21 after a deadly shooting at a high school in Parkland, Fla. In 2015, it stopped selling assault-style rifles and it stopped selling handguns, except in Alaska, over two decades ago. It stopped selling handguns in Alaska last year. Walmart Chief Executive Doug McMillon said last year that stores would continue to sell firearms and ammunition that appeal to hunters. Demand for firearms has skyrocketed this year as measured by Federal Bureau of Investigation background checks, a proxy for sales. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a firearms industry trade group, estimated a record 12.1 million gun checks for January through July, up 72% from the same period a year ago.
I'm just waiting for someone to pop up and claim that Walmart is violating their second amendment rights.
Well... it didn't take Walmart long to reverse their decision... Walmart returning guns and ammo back to its stores https://www.cbs17.com/news/national-news/walmart-returning-guns-and-ammo-back-to-its-stores/
LOL ... I can hear a would-be rioter now ... talking to his buddies, "Hey guys ... I just got an idea ..." And, They'll have a major lawsuit on their hands if someone gets killed with a gun or with ammo provably looted from that location, after they returned the guns/ammo, imo.