As of this writing, the aforementioned case is still pending court proceedings. While there are some details about this case that are not yet publicly known, from the details we do know, we can certainly draw some conclusions around what “could” or “should” have happened.
Starting at the beginning, the most concerning piece of information in this case is the prior criminal background of the armed security officer (Mr. Fulton). According to Courthouse News, Fulton was convicted of carrying an illegal firearm and his girlfriend had a restraining order against him following threats of burning down her house. While it is not clear if Fulton underwent a criminal background check prior to being hired, usually legal issues of this magnitude are caught in background checks. Had this been the case and he had not been hired in the first place, this incident likely could have been avoided entirely. Security companies need to ensure they do their due diligence when making hiring decisions.
Security officers need to be able to handle hectic situations and know what to do if a crowd suddenly becomes unruly. Security needs to remain impartial in these situations and not feed into the “mob mentality” and certainly not join the crowd themselves. In these situations, it is best to notify law enforcement immediately.
The Courthouse News article reported the victim, Mr. Lara, may have been involved in an altercation inside the store, potentially in an act of self-defense or misdemeanor battery. It is not clear if Fulton witnessed the incident himself so it cannot be said for certain if Fulton would have been legally justified in detaining him until law enforcement arrived. What is known, is Lara exited the store and made it to his vehicle in an attempt to leave the area. Fulton then fired his weapon at Lara as he was driving away, striking him in the back of the head and killing him.
Assuming there were no additional circumstances that could have justified the shooting, Lara posed no threat to Fulton or to the angry mob of bystanders. Based solely off the facts in the news article, Fulton would not have been justified in using deadly force.
This bears a remarkable similarity to a case discussed in our CT Guard Card course, State (CT) v. Ghiloni. In this case, Ghiloni fired a pistol from his third floor window at a group of individuals whom he had just witnessed assaulting another individual. By the time he retrieved his pistol and fired, the attackers were already walking away and no longer posing a threat to anyone. The court ruled the discharge of his firearm was unlawful. Ghiloni claimed he had a right to effect an arrest after witnessing an individual commit a felony or misdemeanor. The court agreed with such right, but stated the use of deadly force in order to effect an arrest was not justified.
How would you have handled this situation? Move on to the lesson quiz next to test your skills.