Full Version: Profesionalism
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Aug 3 2005, 04:15 PM) |
| Nezumi: loyalty is a non-starter. Corps have in-house teams and company men. The only reason the job will hit the street in the first place is if anonymity is more important than loyalty. The Johnsons aren't looking for it, the runners aren't giving it. |
That's generally, but not always true. Smaller corps certainly need help regularly. Larger corps want 'disposable assets' (which may just mean the odds of casualties * cost of life insurance > cost of runners) or just more creative professionals. Sometimes it's inter-corp or personal, so corp assets aren't allowed. Sometimes the Johnson has enough of a relationship that you can say 'yeah, that guy with the short hair and green eyes' but you couldn't say who he works for (or you can say who he works for and it's really J's enemy). Sometimes the cost of deploying your own guys is simply higher than that of hiring those punks off the street for a throwaway job.
Certainly there are plenty of cases where anonymity is desirable or necessary, and they'll pay extra for that. There are also plenty of cases where it isn't quite as necessary and some compromises can be made to keep the price down.
Runners are to company men what consultants are to managers...
The corp will indeed know that any runner loyality is bought. It just expects them to stay bought. Several reasons to use runners spring to mind:
- deniability. Runners getting caught is less dangerous.
- morale. Losing a team member is very demoralizing for outfits who know each other for years - if losses are likely, send runners
- cost. runners cost more on a single mission, but replacing lost company men causes cost for hireing, training, equipment... gets real expensive real fast
- free talent pool. The number of company men is limited. Joe Gunner or one of his siblings are always present, but have little cyber. Maggie Mage is less available, as she also does duty as security mage at xyz facility. Outsourcing all the way!
The corp will indeed know that any runner loyality is bought. It just expects them to stay bought. Several reasons to use runners spring to mind:
- deniability. Runners getting caught is less dangerous.
- morale. Losing a team member is very demoralizing for outfits who know each other for years - if losses are likely, send runners
- cost. runners cost more on a single mission, but replacing lost company men causes cost for hireing, training, equipment... gets real expensive real fast
- free talent pool. The number of company men is limited. Joe Gunner or one of his siblings are always present, but have little cyber. Maggie Mage is less available, as she also does duty as security mage at xyz facility. Outsourcing all the way!
| QUOTE (toturi) |
| Such a team would not trust a Johnson. They would attempt to check up, cross-reference, doublecheck, re-check and do whatever it is necessary to secure and verify the trustworthiness of the Johnson. And still not trust him. |
You're right, not being a runner is obviously the best course of action. Because by going where the Johnson tells you to go and doing what he tells you to do you are trusting the Johnson to a certain extent!
The amount of verification you're talking about is expensive and time-consuming. It is also unlikely to discover anything that Mr. J really wants to keep hidden and could even blow the job before it starts (or cause you to become more expendable than usual because your snooping around was discovered and now you know too much).
Being in a good neighborhood is typically better protection than a side arm and looking like a clown in front of the Johnson because you didn't know the security level of the meet in advance is definitely not "professional".
Preempting another discussion: we'll assume "trust" in the second definition, according to the American Heritage Dictionary 
| QUOTE |
| I see no reason a corp that could even vaguely be described as "professional" would refuse to work with runners that offed one of their Johnsons, or for anyone else to. If they betrayed the Johnson they'll probably still work with them—they'll just get the Ares guy from Corporate Download's replacement. Only if they get a reputation for killing Johnsons at the meet for no particular reason will they be flat-out not dealt with, IMO. There's nothing to be gained and quite a bit to be lost any other way. - Kagetenshi |
So in other words about the only reason a given corporation would stop hiring a given team -- any team, so long as it had the ability to do what was needed -- is if the runners on a particular team acquire a reputation for [regularly] killing Johnsons at the meet? Anything else goes?
That's a heck of a sellers' market you're implying for shadowrunning services, Kagetenshi! (Isn't one of the premises of the SR world that it's generally a buyers' market tilted toward the megacorps, who've worked diligently to keep it so?)
| QUOTE (Talia Invierno) |
| That's a heck of a sellers' market you're implying for shadowrunning services, Kagetenshi! (Isn't one of the premises of the SR world that it's generally a buyers' market tilted toward the megacorps, who've worked diligently to keep it so?) |
This is definitely a case of the fluff not matching the rules...
When you consider how much expensive gear runners have, how exceptional their stats and skill levels tend to be, and how massively the awakened are over-represented in the runner community, it makes you wonder why these people would be so desperate for jobs, and why so many would be forced into the shadows in the first place...
IMO, the shadows have to offer something more to the exceptionally talented than low-end employment for the desperate.
Yes. Freedom.
... and freedom costs.
... and freedom costs.
| QUOTE (Talia Invierno) |
| Yes. Freedom. ... and freedom costs. |
Being a wanted criminal doesn't exactly strike me as a very free existence... I was thinking more money than they could easily make legitimately.
If there's one theme that's rung throughout this thread, it's the freedom to walk from any job, at any time. As a shadowrunner, you have chosen to try to make your living independently of anyone telling you what to do. It's your abilities and your equipment and network of contacts that support that freedom. Since (in the fact of your very existence! your freedom suggests alternate possibilities to others) you threaten the status quo, it's in the system's interest to spin the odds against you at every turn, to not ever give you a single break; and it's in your interest to improve your abilities and equipment and network of contacts so as to make it very difficult for the system to break you.
Outside shadowrunning, that freedom simply doesn't exist.
(Doesn't anyone in this thread watch Firefly? Whedon understands the price of freedom.)
Outside shadowrunning, that freedom simply doesn't exist.
(Doesn't anyone in this thread watch Firefly? Whedon understands the price of freedom.)
| QUOTE (Mr. Man) |
| You're right, not being a runner is obviously the best course of action. Because by going where the Johnson tells you to go and doing what he tells you to do you are trusting the Johnson to a certain extent! |
Not if you are truly professional and godlike. You will verify and double check where the Johnson tells you to go and doing what he tells you to do. And despite having done all those, you still will not trust him. You go to the meet having verified what you can and have done all you can to make sure that what the Johnson has told you but that doesn't mean that you trust the Johnson. You are trusting yourself.
| QUOTE |
| The amount of verification you're talking about is expensive and time-consuming. |
If you were truly good, you would have the double digit submerged otaku and triple digit initiate on your team to check on his story and not let him know that you are checking up on him. Afterall, you are that damned good, no?
Wow, sarcasm is a two bladed sword! 
| QUOTE (mmu1 @ Aug 3 2005, 07:04 PM) |
| IMO, the shadows have to offer something more to the exceptionally talented than low-end employment for the desperate. |
How about the possibility of making
100,000 over a weekend. Or for someone that's SINless, raised on the streets, no education besides the school of hard knocks, and what gangs can teach him, the ability to make 5,000 in a week. How many of you get paid that much? Sure you only get one average one job a month. But that's more than I make.Another important point as to why you can't go around killing Johnson's. The copr certainly wouldn't want people to think they can get away with it. Top Dog mentality.
But let's also remember that the J isn't going to go out of his way to torque the runners off. They are after all professional criminals that he is paying to break into someplace, past coprorate security, waste somebody, track some body down, etc. So he's banking on the ability that they are competant enough to take someone like him out. So he's going to act professionally. Doesn't mean that he won't screw the team, lie to them, or try to take them out later if needs be. But he'll be sure to make it work if he decides to do it.
There's a lot of places you can go with this one. As far as I'm concerned, the key factor in this issue is REP.
No Rep, no trust.
Nameless, faceless Johnson has no rep.
Known Johnson has a rep. Good rep or bad rep is actually irrelevant, he is a known quantity and can be dealt with on that basis.
Your Fixer, by default, has a rep. He cannot function without one.
Green shadowrunners have very little rep, but they have one, otherwise the fixer would never have contacted them.
Shadowrunners, individually and in teams, get reps. Good rep or bad rep only changes the nature of the runs offered to the team. Good teams and runners will get offered more sensitive and thus lucrative runs. Bad teams will get offered more lethal and thus lucrative runs.
No Rep, no trust.
Nameless, faceless Johnson has no rep.
Known Johnson has a rep. Good rep or bad rep is actually irrelevant, he is a known quantity and can be dealt with on that basis.
Your Fixer, by default, has a rep. He cannot function without one.
Green shadowrunners have very little rep, but they have one, otherwise the fixer would never have contacted them.
Shadowrunners, individually and in teams, get reps. Good rep or bad rep only changes the nature of the runs offered to the team. Good teams and runners will get offered more sensitive and thus lucrative runs. Bad teams will get offered more lethal and thus lucrative runs.
As for the bringing guns to the meet issue.
The last team I played in generally preferred to meet the Johnson in upmarket settings, restaurants and cafes. We would send our Face and a single Sam, either a team Sam or a ring-in, into the meet. Our Phys-Ad and Mage would turn up for the meet a half hour early and sit somewhere with a good view of the room. The team Decker would be online to provide additional Intel and oversight for the meet. Any excess Sams and the team Rigger would be nearby, ready for retreival.
Everyone attending the meet would be dressed appropriately to the dress code of the venue. A single firearm, usually a Predator, would be carried by the Sam. The Face would be dressed in the LATEST fashion, and play the role of intermediary.
The Johnson's were generally happy, not removed from their "safe zone", and dealing with another professional, rather than violent criminals in some dingy hell-hole.
We were happy, our Face had a godawfully high Negotiation and generally got us a good price.
In our campaign other professional and wannabe-professional teams began emulating our use of a Face, causing something of a revolution in the shadows. Eventually our Face retired from running, but continued being a professional Face, effectively becomming a Fixer herself.
The last team I played in generally preferred to meet the Johnson in upmarket settings, restaurants and cafes. We would send our Face and a single Sam, either a team Sam or a ring-in, into the meet. Our Phys-Ad and Mage would turn up for the meet a half hour early and sit somewhere with a good view of the room. The team Decker would be online to provide additional Intel and oversight for the meet. Any excess Sams and the team Rigger would be nearby, ready for retreival.
Everyone attending the meet would be dressed appropriately to the dress code of the venue. A single firearm, usually a Predator, would be carried by the Sam. The Face would be dressed in the LATEST fashion, and play the role of intermediary.
The Johnson's were generally happy, not removed from their "safe zone", and dealing with another professional, rather than violent criminals in some dingy hell-hole.
We were happy, our Face had a godawfully high Negotiation and generally got us a good price.
In our campaign other professional and wannabe-professional teams began emulating our use of a Face, causing something of a revolution in the shadows. Eventually our Face retired from running, but continued being a professional Face, effectively becomming a Fixer herself.
Hmmm...maybe sleep would be an idea, I appear to be rambling now. 
On the issue of professionalism.
Why is your runner running?
This is a big issue in most of our games. Low level street scum run to get off the street, sure, but what then?
Too many time I've seen characters run to make enough nuyen to buy a new ubertoy so they can get bigger runs so they can afford bigger ubertoys...ad infinitum.
It's a circular argument that leads to a dead character. They never did leave the streets, they just became the biggest badass on the streets for a while.
A professional has a goal. He has his eyes firmly set on a future when he is not running. Whether that be to have a permanent Luxury lifestyle, or meerly enough to open a bar in his old neighbourhood and retire, he has a goal.
That isn't to say his old buddies can't call him in for one last run later, or that old enemies wont look him up and cause trouble in the future, but such is the fodder of future runs.
On the issue of professionalism.
Why is your runner running?
This is a big issue in most of our games. Low level street scum run to get off the street, sure, but what then?
Too many time I've seen characters run to make enough nuyen to buy a new ubertoy so they can get bigger runs so they can afford bigger ubertoys...ad infinitum.
It's a circular argument that leads to a dead character. They never did leave the streets, they just became the biggest badass on the streets for a while.
A professional has a goal. He has his eyes firmly set on a future when he is not running. Whether that be to have a permanent Luxury lifestyle, or meerly enough to open a bar in his old neighbourhood and retire, he has a goal.
That isn't to say his old buddies can't call him in for one last run later, or that old enemies wont look him up and cause trouble in the future, but such is the fodder of future runs.
Damn, I just can't seem to keep away from this place today.
On the issue of taking guns with you.
You can pretty much take a properly registered and sealed Narcoject™ pistol anywhere.
Likewise for most brands of taser pistol.
Non-lethal weapons are looked on favourably by most authorities.
A number of characters I have played only ever carried non-lethal weapons on most runs. Narcoject pistol instead of Predator, stun baton instead of dikote katana, concussion grenade instead of white phos.
If the run does hose, corporate security or lone star are less likely to summon HTR, and if you do get captured, they wont geek you on the spot. A fine, a slap on the wrist, and a record in their files. Not death.
Professionals don't need to kill, and a team with a rep for non-lethal can go far.
On the issue of taking guns with you.
You can pretty much take a properly registered and sealed Narcoject™ pistol anywhere.
Likewise for most brands of taser pistol.
Non-lethal weapons are looked on favourably by most authorities.
A number of characters I have played only ever carried non-lethal weapons on most runs. Narcoject pistol instead of Predator, stun baton instead of dikote katana, concussion grenade instead of white phos.
If the run does hose, corporate security or lone star are less likely to summon HTR, and if you do get captured, they wont geek you on the spot. A fine, a slap on the wrist, and a record in their files. Not death.
Professionals don't need to kill, and a team with a rep for non-lethal can go far.
And the "non-lethal" fallacy raises its head once more…
~J
~J
Yeah, yeah, I know. It's all in how you use it, and an overdose will kill.
Intention and action do carry weight though. The security guy is going to have a very different reaction when his buddy drops with a gaping hole in his chest than he does when he drops with a little dart in his neck.
Intention and action do carry weight though. The security guy is going to have a very different reaction when his buddy drops with a gaping hole in his chest than he does when he drops with a little dart in his neck.
Yes, he is. In the second scenario, he's going to slap a stimpatch on the guy and then they're both going to resume trying to kill you. In the first, he might think twice about whether he wants to be there right now.
While non-lethal weapons aren't, that's not the fallacy I was referring to. Link.
~J
While non-lethal weapons aren't, that's not the fallacy I was referring to. Link.
~J
If someone points something at me that looks like a pistol, I'm going to shoot him. If somebody fires something that looks like a pistol at my partner, I won't check to see if it's a dart or a bullet, I will be returning fire.
I will react the same against a guy trying to attack me with a stun baton as I would a guy attacking with a sword.
Maybe the courts will be a little more forgiving, but I assure you the guys out there with guns will not.
I will react the same against a guy trying to attack me with a stun baton as I would a guy attacking with a sword.
Maybe the courts will be a little more forgiving, but I assure you the guys out there with guns will not.
I'll pay that. But what it comes down to is simply a difference in running style. As a security guard myself, I know my reaction would be to call in backup. Lethal badguys means HTR, non-lethal means more guards and the cops.
Security guards have to justify the level of response they apply to any situation. If my opponent is not using lethal weapons, it is harder for me to justify a lethal response. If I cannot justify my lethal response it means loss of license, loss of job and gaol time.
Security guards have to justify the level of response they apply to any situation. If my opponent is not using lethal weapons, it is harder for me to justify a lethal response. If I cannot justify my lethal response it means loss of license, loss of job and gaol time.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| While non-lethal weapons aren't, that's not the fallacy I was referring to. Link. |
Again, style of play is the issue. If you're taking on the corporate security front on then, by all means, spray lead. I couldn't tell you the number of times Plan "B" was required to bail us out.
On the other hand, a quiet insertion, and using non-lethal means to neutralise wandering security, is a very different situation. Hell, slipping up behind a patrolling guard and slapping a tranq patch on them has been effective in the past.
It all depends on the players and their particular style.
Not entirely true.
You just have to establish reasonable justification.
If a suspect points a pistol-like object at you, it is permissible for you to employ lethal force. You are not expected to wait until he fires it to find out if your life is in danger. If you can establish that you had reasonable belief that your life (or another's life) was in jeopardy, then you are justified.
Now if you have a peaceful demonstrator handcuffed and sitting on the ground and you decide to pepperspray him, that's just hilarious. But seriously, you couldn't justify something like that.
Now if you went to cuff that protestor and he tried to deck you, then you could spray him. If he pulls a knife and comes after you, you can employ lethal force. If he pulls a taser, you can employ lethal force as well. Even if a suspect only comes after you with pepper spray, you are justified since it is meant to incapacitate you. (This would all go to court of course, but it would be reasonable for the security guy in this situation to assume that the suspect is trying to incapacitate him and gain access to his weapon)
You just have to establish reasonable justification.
If a suspect points a pistol-like object at you, it is permissible for you to employ lethal force. You are not expected to wait until he fires it to find out if your life is in danger. If you can establish that you had reasonable belief that your life (or another's life) was in jeopardy, then you are justified.
Now if you have a peaceful demonstrator handcuffed and sitting on the ground and you decide to pepperspray him, that's just hilarious. But seriously, you couldn't justify something like that.
Now if you went to cuff that protestor and he tried to deck you, then you could spray him. If he pulls a knife and comes after you, you can employ lethal force. If he pulls a taser, you can employ lethal force as well. Even if a suspect only comes after you with pepper spray, you are justified since it is meant to incapacitate you. (This would all go to court of course, but it would be reasonable for the security guy in this situation to assume that the suspect is trying to incapacitate him and gain access to his weapon)
| QUOTE (FrostyNSO @ Aug 5 2005, 04:53 PM) |
| If a suspect points a pistol-like object at you, it is permissible for you to employ lethal force. You are not expected to wait until he fires it to find out if your life is in danger. If you can establish that you had reasonable belief that your life (or another's life) was in jeopardy, then you are justified. |
You really do have to be careful with this. If your badguy is trying to flee the scene, gun or no gun, a security guard here has no right, no reasonable justification, to open fire. If the badguy can convince a jury he was leaving, you are toast. So, if I were to open fire on badguy first, I leave myself open to all kinds of bad things. Particularly if the pistol-like object is a replica or something else entirely. At a minimum, I would lose my firearms license until I prove I was in the right. Thus my ability to perform my job.
The law may be different in the States, but here it's pretty harsh for armed guards.
What the police can do, and what a security guard can do, are very different animals.
Whether he is coming or going makes no difference once he points that weapon at you. At that point, you are justified.
It doesn't matter if it was replica or not as long as you can have a reasonable belief that it was real.
Either way, you better have a good lawyer, and I wouldn't worry about not being able to do your job. As civilian security, Even in the "perfect" justifiable lethal force scenario, you will still be placed in custody immediately after the event, and you will not be working until the court proccess is completed and your response is found to be justified.
edit for addition: The sad part is that not many companies will provide that lawyer for these situations, and in effect hang their man out to dry in case he wasn't justified. Even if you were, most companies don't like retaining employees with lethal force on their record. Sad, really.
It doesn't matter if it was replica or not as long as you can have a reasonable belief that it was real.
Either way, you better have a good lawyer, and I wouldn't worry about not being able to do your job. As civilian security, Even in the "perfect" justifiable lethal force scenario, you will still be placed in custody immediately after the event, and you will not be working until the court proccess is completed and your response is found to be justified.
edit for addition: The sad part is that not many companies will provide that lawyer for these situations, and in effect hang their man out to dry in case he wasn't justified. Even if you were, most companies don't like retaining employees with lethal force on their record. Sad, really.
Wargear, you're talking about security guards in real life. The rest of us are talking about non-US citizen corp bred-and-raised paramilitary extranational territory-protecting corporate security enforcers, and the laws they (and the SINless Shadowrunners) deal with.
There's a world of difference there.
There's a world of difference there.
To my mind, the 'lethal vs non-lethal' argument has never been conclusively solved, primarily due to it relying on situational specifics:
1) How fast the targets are taken down or hidden, reducing their chances of being stimpatched.
2) The individuals being run against (Lone Star or SK, probably less money invested in finding you, the parameters of the run not withstanding. Cross Applied or MCT? Probably won't care.)
3) Some types of stun damage are reliably non-lethal, at least in my game - stun spells being one of them. I mean, you set the damage level at M, get 4 successes, guard's out! ROCK! 6 successes, they take a light physical wound? That strikes me as horribly lame.
But that's a discussion for a different thread. I'm not claiming to play a paragon of virtue. He stuns or incaps people when he can cuz it lets him sleep better at night. But when pissed or scared, he's been known to manaball a room full of people.
Edit: Wargear:
In the US, it's extremely rare for security guards to carry any sort of firearm or deliberately lethal weapon. The only security guards authorized to do so, as far as I recall, are those that work on government commission, such as Wackenhut. That may be California-specific, but I don't believe so. In short, if a 'security guard' is packing heat, his organization has government go-ahead to do so, and ergo will probably fill you full of holes as fast as any cop.
1) How fast the targets are taken down or hidden, reducing their chances of being stimpatched.
2) The individuals being run against (Lone Star or SK, probably less money invested in finding you, the parameters of the run not withstanding. Cross Applied or MCT? Probably won't care.)
3) Some types of stun damage are reliably non-lethal, at least in my game - stun spells being one of them. I mean, you set the damage level at M, get 4 successes, guard's out! ROCK! 6 successes, they take a light physical wound? That strikes me as horribly lame.
But that's a discussion for a different thread. I'm not claiming to play a paragon of virtue. He stuns or incaps people when he can cuz it lets him sleep better at night. But when pissed or scared, he's been known to manaball a room full of people.
Edit: Wargear:
In the US, it's extremely rare for security guards to carry any sort of firearm or deliberately lethal weapon. The only security guards authorized to do so, as far as I recall, are those that work on government commission, such as Wackenhut. That may be California-specific, but I don't believe so. In short, if a 'security guard' is packing heat, his organization has government go-ahead to do so, and ergo will probably fill you full of holes as fast as any cop.
| QUOTE (Digital Heroin) |
| Ok, so the setup is timeless and simple. The runner are called to a meet at a family restaurant; a nice, neutral ground in a good, well patrolled neighborhood. Two runners of the five show up unarmed (ok, so one's a mage and the other and adept), the other three come packing heat. When the GM institutes a gun check (unlikely now, but this is the Sixth world), two of them flat out refuse to relinquish their weapons, one even goes so far as trying to intimidate the guy who is supposed to seat people. The third hands over her weapons and is allowed to enter unquestioned. The guy who tried intimidation (only to be asked to leave) proceeds to stand around outside expecting the meet to come to him, while the other just goes home. What really gets me is the two gun bunnies have the nerve to call anyone who would go to a meet unarmed, or who would check their gun, unprofessional. This is the kind of thing that causes a Johnson to scrub entire runs, and ruins reputations. Am I the only one that watches this drek and wants to reach out and throttle someone? |
Are you referring the game that I'm running here (warning: the rest of those boards are for 'adult roleplaying', so if you go outside of the SR game, be prepare for t3h cyb3rs3xx0rs)?
If so, *begins singing "It's a small world after all..."*
Ahem. I pulled the gun check because I knew about the attitudes towards obvious cyber and armor, and I figured that folks wouldn't want armed folks dining with them.
| QUOTE (wargear @ Aug 5 2005, 02:05 AM) |
| The law may be different in the States, but here it's pretty harsh for armed guards. What the police can do, and what a security guard can do, are very different animals. |
Gun laws in the States generally are less likely to require you to be a mind reader and try to figure out whether the intruder really intended you bodily harm or was just going to rob you, whether he was thinking hard about running away, and whether your gun constitutes disproportionate force.
In most places you can get away with shooting an intruder on your property because you felt threatened. (provided your gun was legally owned, of course)
Just make sure that if you fire on an intruder you shoot to kill. Wounding just gets you sued by the son of a slitch.
| QUOTE (Adarael @ Aug 5 2005, 05:02 AM) |
| Edit: Wargear: In the US, it's extremely rare for security guards to carry any sort of firearm or deliberately lethal weapon. The only security guards authorized to do so, as far as I recall, are those that work on government commission, such as Wackenhut. That may be California-specific, but I don't believe so. In short, if a 'security guard' is packing heat, his organization has government go-ahead to do so, and ergo will probably fill you full of holes as fast as any cop. |
Yeah... That ain't true everywhere in the States. There are armed security guards all over the place around here. The university cops are armed here (meh... state school, but still). However, rules of engagement generally leave them armed pretty much for show.
| QUOTE (Nikoli) |
| Just make sure that if you fire on an intruder you shoot to kill. Wounding just gets you sued by the son of a slitch. |
And killing them gets you sued by their next of kin for even more money.
| QUOTE (SL James) | ||
And killing them gets you sued by their next of kin for even more money. |
Not necessarily. You did kill the only other witness, remember.
And seriously, there is something called a John Wayne law in most states. You can use lethal force in defense of your home. Check with your local state police before you try it, though. I personally would probably shoot to scare
Most robbers didn't come in for a firefight, and breaking and entering while armed means more time. Plus I'm a wus and I'd prefer not to shoot someone to find out it's a sexy woman sneaking in to seduce me or something.
I believe it arises from the common law concept of 'a man's home is his castle' but it varies drastically from state to state. In some states you'd practically have to ask one to be shot to sign a waiver, in other cases, its quite a bit more permissive.
Also, I have to second Frosty on the incapacitation. Which may go towards the lethal/non-lethal SR question that people love to argue about.
Also, I have to second Frosty on the incapacitation. Which may go towards the lethal/non-lethal SR question that people love to argue about.
So, really, what the hell makes you think that would stop someone from trying to sue your ass?
he number of criminals that have broken into a home only to slip and fall or suffer some other ignominius method of injury only to be caught and sue the homeowner. Apparantly in some areas you have to consider the safety of a person willing to break into your home.
If anyone ever needed a competence hearing its a judge that finds in favor of a robber in that type of case.
If anyone ever needed a competence hearing its a judge that finds in favor of a robber in that type of case.
| QUOTE (nezumi) |
| Plus I'm a wus and I'd prefer not to shoot someone to find out it's a sexy woman sneaking in to seduce me or something. |
Back when I lived in the middle of a red light district in Asia...
I came home once to find a nude woman in my living room with no explaination. Of course, I think she was on something. I let her sleep it off and then sent her out after figuring out where the clothes had gotten to... Some things, honestly, you learn are not wise to touch - like candy you find on the street, it's just not a good idea.
now that's a story you tell your buddies over a beer.
In most states (especially the west coast, and yes even Cali) shooting someone breaking into your house is perfectly legal. Regardless of the level of threat as long as...
A. you shoot them in the front
B. You can see them when you shoot them (i.e not through a door)
C. They aren't attempting to flee when you shoot them
D. They are physically in your house when they are shot (not in the front yard)
You still have to justify it, and you will probably get your gun confiscated for a while but if it was a righteous shoot you will be fine.
Also in many states if you have a permit to carry concealed you are legally bound to use your gun in defence of life and property. The example that was given to me in Washington State was that if you carried and a man walked down the street with a Shotgun shooting at people you had to intervene. You were legally obligated to stop him. You just can't run away.
A. you shoot them in the front
B. You can see them when you shoot them (i.e not through a door)
C. They aren't attempting to flee when you shoot them
D. They are physically in your house when they are shot (not in the front yard)
You still have to justify it, and you will probably get your gun confiscated for a while but if it was a righteous shoot you will be fine.
Also in many states if you have a permit to carry concealed you are legally bound to use your gun in defence of life and property. The example that was given to me in Washington State was that if you carried and a man walked down the street with a Shotgun shooting at people you had to intervene. You were legally obligated to stop him. You just can't run away.
In self defense against an assailant, the relevant question is: "Would a reasonable person in the place of the defender believe that the use of force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to any person?"
In theory, self defense is not the only justification for deadly force. In the past, many US states had a "fleeing felon" rule. The fleeing felon rule allows the police to shoot someone suspected of a felony if that individual is attempting to escape their custody - even if that individual is unarmed. The fleeing felon rule was shot down by the US Supreme Court partly on the grounds that it denies an individual their right to life without due process. It's still there in a watered down form, now the police have to show that the particular felon posed a serious danger to the public, and I don't believe it's much used. That said, in a world where half the population doesn't have rights (constitutional or otherwise) such a rule could easily arise again. Corporate security guards, operating extraterritorially, are not subject to the courts of the United States or any of its subdivisions. They really cannot be sued. At least not without the corp's permission. Even if you were allowed to sue, as a practical matter you couldn't really compel the corp to hand over any evidence or witnesses for testimony. So you'd have the word of some criminal and his buddies against a megacorporation, which has plenty of time to atler video records and so forth in order to win.
On a total side note - The Washington State Constitution is vastly more protective of individual rights than the United States Constitution. Without its repeal or significant modification Lone Star (and the various MegaCorps) would operate under a far stricter legal regime. So clearly the state governments have gone kaput in favor of a massive federal bureaucracy . . .
As to the choice of lethal or nonlethal - for me it depends on stance. If you're sneaking up on a guard and want his passkey, then you should probably tranquilize him. If he's shooting at you - finish him. That's what he gets for being a bad shot.
In theory, self defense is not the only justification for deadly force. In the past, many US states had a "fleeing felon" rule. The fleeing felon rule allows the police to shoot someone suspected of a felony if that individual is attempting to escape their custody - even if that individual is unarmed. The fleeing felon rule was shot down by the US Supreme Court partly on the grounds that it denies an individual their right to life without due process. It's still there in a watered down form, now the police have to show that the particular felon posed a serious danger to the public, and I don't believe it's much used. That said, in a world where half the population doesn't have rights (constitutional or otherwise) such a rule could easily arise again. Corporate security guards, operating extraterritorially, are not subject to the courts of the United States or any of its subdivisions. They really cannot be sued. At least not without the corp's permission. Even if you were allowed to sue, as a practical matter you couldn't really compel the corp to hand over any evidence or witnesses for testimony. So you'd have the word of some criminal and his buddies against a megacorporation, which has plenty of time to atler video records and so forth in order to win.
On a total side note - The Washington State Constitution is vastly more protective of individual rights than the United States Constitution. Without its repeal or significant modification Lone Star (and the various MegaCorps) would operate under a far stricter legal regime. So clearly the state governments have gone kaput in favor of a massive federal bureaucracy . . .
As to the choice of lethal or nonlethal - for me it depends on stance. If you're sneaking up on a guard and want his passkey, then you should probably tranquilize him. If he's shooting at you - finish him. That's what he gets for being a bad shot.
| QUOTE (SL James) |
| Yeah... That ain't true everywhere in the States. There are armed security guards all over the place around here. The university cops are armed here (meh... state school, but still). However, rules of engagement generally leave them armed pretty much for show. |
University police at state universities are usually actual police, just like city police. Sometimes they are part of the city or county police department, sometimes they are thier own thing entirely. At the university of washington they are their own police department with different uniforms and everything from the Seattle police. They also have some unarmed security guards on campus, mainly in the hospital.
But you are definately right that armed security guards are reasonably common. Banks and armored car services are probably the most commonly seen on the street, but I have also seen them outside the japanese consulate and at industrial sites. They are presumably more expensive than unarmed security and seem to be used either when the risk of armed attack is much higher than normal (ie a bank), when the guard is going to be all alone off someplace (industrial park), or where there could be really bad consequences from an attack and lots of money (consulate).
| QUOTE (Adarael) |
| In the US, it's extremely rare for security guards to carry any sort of firearm or deliberately lethal weapon. The only security guards authorized to do so, as far as I recall, are those that work on government commission, such as Wackenhut. That may be California-specific, but I don't believe so. In short, if a 'security guard' is packing heat, his organization has government go-ahead to do so, and ergo will probably fill you full of holes as fast as any cop. |
Those poor bastards at Wackenhut. I think they carry weapons only to compensate for their ridiculous name.
They carry weapons because their principle customer is the US Department of Energy - which is responsible for nuclear power generation and warhead research.
| QUOTE |
| Those poor bastards at Wackenhut. I think they carry weapons only to compensate for their ridiculous name. |
Joke! Are you a Wackenhut employee? If so, I'm really, really sorry.
I know that. They pull security on nuke plants that are owned by energy companies too (and thus contracted by those companies). Wackenhut ran the adversary team that the NRC takes around the country to evaluate security at those same nuke plants (sounds like a cool job until you find out they only get paid 12 bucks an hour). They recently got busted because their adversaries were fudging to make Wackenhut contracted sites look good.
I'm just glad I got on at one of the few places that has their own internal department.
| QUOTE (SL James) |
| So, really, what the hell makes you think that would stop someone from trying to sue your ass? |
Because I don't live in California where you can't throw a stone without hitting a lawyer.
I live in Maryland where you can't throw one without hitting two (but at least we have more NRA representnation).
And what was that comment about not eating candy off the street? It's always best that way. It has that 'outdoorsy' taste to it that you just can't buy!
Back to the topic, if *I* were a security guard and someone fired an obvious tazer at me, I would be just as likely to shoot, but less likely to actually WANT to hit him. Why? Because I'm a dumb patsy. I don't want to kill someone if I don't have to, and the first thing that goes through my mind when I see a tazer is "oh whew, we're not playing for keeps."
If I had five minutes after seeing that guy to realize how dumb I am, I might change my tactics, however. But that's just me speculating, I can't say if that's how I'd REALLY act. And for me, a narcojet would look close enough to a gun (and be mysterious enough) that I'd shoot the guy.
Then again, I'm also the sort of guy that if someone pulled a gun on me, I might just surrender. I mean come on, I'm working at the front desk so I can buy soy burgers tonight and maybe sneak a peek at my elf pr0n while waiting for the clock to hit 5. I'm not in this for no 'corporate loyalty' drek.
elf pr0n? What, you don't have an 'agreement' with the corp security deckers to get you access to the lithe wageslave goddesses on the Secretarycam™?
I'm not a Wackenhut employee. And frankly it kinda scares me that those guys are the ones watching a bunch of nuclear reactors.
Problems with "OpFor" type of testing at live facilities are pretty common. Either the red team doesn't do well enough, or cheats or somebody gets ticked and tanks the career of the red team. Remember Red Cell?
Odd that the red force at National Training Center never has any problems. . .
Problems with "OpFor" type of testing at live facilities are pretty common. Either the red team doesn't do well enough, or cheats or somebody gets ticked and tanks the career of the red team. Remember Red Cell?
Odd that the red force at National Training Center never has any problems. . .
There's a very simple way to make OpFor testing with MOUT gear at live faccilities as authentic as possible. (Without actually using live ammo and bombs, of course.)
First, you strap MOUT sensors to anything remotely dangerous if it gets shot, and rig them with laser splashers in their kill zones.
Second, you tell all participants that their jobs are on the line.
First, you strap MOUT sensors to anything remotely dangerous if it gets shot, and rig them with laser splashers in their kill zones.
Second, you tell all participants that their jobs are on the line.
| QUOTE (Clyde @ Aug 5 2005, 04:14 PM) |
| I'm not a Wackenhut employee. And frankly it kinda scares me that those guys are the ones watching a bunch of nuclear reactors. Problems with "OpFor" type of testing at live facilities are pretty common. Either the red team doesn't do well enough, or cheats or somebody gets ticked and tanks the career of the red team. Remember Red Cell? Odd that the red force at National Training Center never has any problems. . . |
NTC isn't bound by restrictive NRC regulations. I can't go into detail but the NRC places certain limits on what the adversaries can and can't do.
Our adversaries cheat (not *cheat*, but you get the idea) their asses off (I should know!
) in order to win, and consequently, this helps to better train the officers defending the plant. However, when the NRC evaluates drills certain limitations come into play and the level of training suffers.During "the big" drills, the NRC brings their own people, who incidentally, do FAR worse than our own OpFor guys
*pats own back*
| QUOTE (SL James) | ||||
Yeah... That ain't true everywhere in the States. There are armed security guards all over the place around here. The university cops are armed here (meh... state school, but still). However, rules of engagement generally leave them armed pretty much for show.
And killing them gets you sued by their next of kin for even more money. |
Most security guards carry guns. California is just insane with its gun laws, which is strange when you consider who the Governor is.
I went to a priviate college. There, the college police force was privately owned but federally certified to act as a police force. Essentially, the college was a seperate jurisdiction. The local police couldn't come onto campus without the permission of the college police. They weren't armed, however. After some incidents the student government voted to issue firearms to the police officers and tazers were recomended. However, the board of trustees put it off and I graduated before any weapons were actually issued.
Oh, and you should always shoot to kill. However, this has nothing to do with being sued. If you believe that you can get by with just wounding the attacker then you are not legaly justified in shooting at all.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
Yes, he is. In the second scenario, he's going to slap a stimpatch on the guy and then they're both going to resume trying to kill you. In the first, he might think twice about whether he wants to be there right now. While non-lethal weapons aren't, that's not the fallacy I was referring to. Link. ~J |
There is another fallacy at play here, the fallacy that combat is a zero sum game.
The security guard who was awakened with a stim patch will still have wound modifiers, possibly severe ones.
Let us that about this from a real life point of view. You are a security guard. Someone breaks in and injects you with an unknown drug that knows you unconscious. Your partner is able to wake you up using smelling salts but you are dizzy and your vision is blurry. You have to make an effort to walk straight and certainly cant shoot straight.
Are you seriously going to go after the intruder with guns wildly blazing or are you going to ask your budy to call for an ambulance so that you can make sure the drug you were injected with isn't slowly melting your internal organs?
My security manuals, if I ever make any, will include the phraise "Blaze of Glory".
| QUOTE (wargear) |
| I couldn't tell you the number of times Plan "B" was required to bail us out. |
Hehe... In the games I run, that's the team's name. They've never failed though.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.