Legal & Law, Self Defense Insurance

The Importance of Self-Defense Insurance for Security Guards

Why Security Guards Need Self-Defense Insurance: Lessons from a Tragic Incident

The role of security guards in our society has grown increasingly challenging. With police departments struggling to fill vacancies due to early retirements, low recruitment numbers, and record resignations, security guards are often stepping in to fill the public safety void. This shift has led to guards encountering use-of-force situations at an unprecedented rate.

Unlike police officers, who often have unions and department-backed legal protections, security guards lack the same level of support. Guards are frequently left to navigate the legal aftermath of use-of-force incidents on their own, particularly when criminal charges or civil lawsuits arise. This vulnerability highlights the critical need for self-defense insurance tailored to the unique risks faced by security professionals.


The Case of Logan Gimbell

A tragic and highly controversial case that underscores these challenges occurred in Portland, Oregon, in a Lowe’s parking lot. Logan Gimbell, an armed security guard, confronted Freddy Nelson Jr., a man who was sitting in his parked car. The situation escalated, and Gimbell fired his weapon through Nelson’s car window, fatally striking him.

The incident drew widespread public outrage, sparking debates over the proper role of security guards and the appropriate use of force. Critics questioned why an armed confrontation occurred over an alleged trespassing situation, arguing that Gimbell’s actions were excessive and reckless. The video footage of the incident, which circulated widely online, intensified the controversy, leading to protests and calls for greater accountability in private security practices.

Gimbell was ultimately convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Additionally, Nelson’s family and estate were awarded $20 million in a civil lawsuit, a portion of which Gimbell was personally responsible for.

For more on the case, you can read the news article here or watch the video of the incident here (Viewer discretion is advised).

Former Cornerstone Security guard Logan Gimbel, at right, was convicted last year of murder in the May 29, 2021, fatal shooting of pallet collector Freddy Nelson at the Delta Park Center in Portland. Photo Credit

Although this case involved a bad use of force, Gimbell, like any individual, was entitled to due process and representation in court. The public backlash highlights a crucial issue: how can security guards protect themselves legally and financially in high-stakes situations without the institutional protections afforded to police officers?


The Role of Self-Defense Insurance

Self-defense insurance is essential for security guards who may find themselves in high-stakes situations on or off duty. Even when companies provide liability insurance, it often does not extend to criminal defense or individual liability in civil suits. Guards are left vulnerable, especially when companies seek to absolve themselves of responsibility by pointing blame at the individual guard.

A comprehensive self-defense insurance policy can provide guards with:

  • Unlimited Civil and Criminal Defense: Coverage for legal expenses in the event of lawsuits or criminal charges.
  • Psychological Support: Access to counseling and mental health services after traumatic incidents.
  • Expert Witness Coverage: Assistance with legal defense through expert testimony.
  • Training and Education: Resources to ensure guards stay informed and prepared.
  • Bail Bond Coverage: Assistance for getting bonded out of jail.

Why Choose Right To Bear?

Right To Bear offers some of the most affordable and comprehensive self-defense insurance options tailored for security guards. Here’s a breakdown of their coverage:

Associate Coverage

  • $13/month or $145/year
  • Unlimited civil and criminal defense
  • Psychological support
  • Expert witness coverage
  • Firearm and self-defense training
  • Discounts to industry partners

Additional Options

  • Multi-state coverage: $4/month or $35/year
  • Bail bond coverage (up to $100,000): $4/month or $35/year
  • Coverage for minor household children: $4/month or $35/year

For as little as $13 a month, security guards can gain peace of mind knowing they are covered both on and off duty. To sign up, visit Concealed Carry Classes of Denver’s partner page with Right To Bear.


A Personal Perspective

As an armed security guard with over 10 years of experience in the field and training other guards, I have witnessed the devastating consequences of inadequate legal protection. While I have not personally faced legal repercussions, I have seen guards and companies sued for use-of-force incidents. Some cases involve legitimate grievances, while others are driven by opportunistic attorneys seeking a payday.

No matter the circumstances, security guards deserve the same access to due process and legal representation as anyone else. Self-defense insurance ensures that guards have the resources to defend themselves in court and protect their livelihoods.


Protect Yourself Today

The case of Logan Gimbell serves as a sobering reminder of the risks security guards face every day. Public outrage and controversy often amplify the stakes, making it even more critical for guards to be legally prepared. Don’t leave your future to chance. Invest in self-defense insurance and gain the protection and peace of mind you need to focus on your duties.

For more information or to get covered today, visit Right To Bear.


Home Defense, Legal & Law

Can You Shoot Someone For Trespassing In Colorado?

Debunking the Myth: “You Know I Can Shoot You for Trespassing” in Colorado


By: Mark Schneider, NRA Certified Firearms Instructor (Owner: Concealed Carry Classes Of Denver)

NOTICE: This is not legal advice and I am not an attorney.

In Colorado, a common misconception among some property owners, especially a minority who own firearms, is the belief that they have the legal right to use deadly force against someone committing third degree trespassing (CRS) 18-4-504. This myth often perpetuates a false sense of security and power, leading to potentially dangerous confrontations. To understand the reality of this myth, it’s essential to reference Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 18-1-705 and examine a real-life scenario involving local teenagers.

Understanding the Legal Framework: CRS 18-1-705

CRS 18-1-705 provides a legal framework for the use of physical force in defense of premises. However, it is critical to note that this statute does not grant carte blanche to property owners to use deadly force against anyone who steps onto their premises without permission. It primarily focuses on situations where an individual (premises owner) reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent or terminate another’s unlawful entry into or upon their premises using reasonable and prudent force. No where does the statue state you’re allowed to use deadly force unless circumstances fall under (CRS) 18-1-704. This article should not be confused with (CRS) 18-1-704.5 ,which is Defense Against an Intruder. That specially pertains to unlawful entry into a habitable area of a dwelling (House, Apartment or Condo).

Debunking the Myth: The Case of Local Teenagers

Consider the hypothetical situation of Jim, a gun owner in Colorado, who confronts a group of local teenagers crossing his lawn to reach a friend’s house. Jim, believing in the myth, thinks he can legally threaten or use deadly force against these teenagers for merely trespassing. However, this belief is a dangerous misinterpretation of the law.

Trespassing vs. Imminent Threat To Serious Bodily Injury or Death

Trespassing, in this case, does not constitute an imminent threat to Jim or his property. The teenagers, albeit trespassing, pose no apparent danger or threat of violence. Colorado law requires a reasonable belief of imminent peril to life or great bodily harm to justify the use of deadly force. Simply crossing someone’s lawn does not meet this threshold.

Legal and Moral Implications

If Jim were to threaten or use deadly force in this situation, he would likely face significant legal consequences, including potential charges & conviction of Felony Menacing (CRS) 18-3-206, Manslaughter and 2nd degree murder. Beyond legal ramifications, there are moral and ethical considerations. The irreversible decision to use deadly force, especially in a situation that does not warrant it, can lead to tragic outcomes, lifelong regret, criminal convictions and civil litigation.

Alternative Approaches

Property owners like Jim have several non-violent options to address trespassing:

  • Verbal Warning: Politely asking the trespassers to leave.
  • Signage: Posting clear “No Trespassing” signs.
  • Fencing: Erecting a fence to deter trespassers.
  • Community Engagement: Talking to the parents of the teenagers or engaging with the community to find a common sense resolution.

Educating the Public

Misinformation about the legal use of force in defense of premises can lead to tragic consequences. It is crucial for firearm owners and the general public to be educated about the realities of the law. This where a well educated Firearms Instructor & Use Of Force Expert, Local Attorney or Law Enforcement can help educate the public.

Jim Decides To Use Lethal Force

If Jim in Colorado used lethal force against a teenage trespasser, resulting in their death, he would likely face serious legal & Civil consequences. An investigation would lead to his arrest and charges ranging from manslaughter to second-degree murder, depending on the circumstances. During a potential trial, while Jim might claim self-defense, Colorado law (CRS 18-1-705) does not justify deadly force against a simple trespassing incident. If convicted, Jim could face a lengthy prison sentence. Additionally, he might be subjected to civil lawsuits from the victim’s family for wrongful death. Beyond legal repercussions, Jim would also likely endure significant personal and psychological distress and potential backlash from his community. This situation underscores the importance of understanding the legal limitations on using force other options in premises disputes.

Conclusion

The myth that property owners in Colorado can legally use deadly force against trespassers is not only a misinterpretation of the law but also a dangerous belief that can lead to unnecessary violence and legal complications. CRS 18-1-705 does not provide a blanket justification for the use of deadly force in situations like the trespassing of teenagers on a lawn. Understanding the law, considering the moral implications, and choosing non-violent alternatives are vital steps in ensuring the safety and well-being of all involved. As a community, it is our responsibility to educate ourselves and others about the legal and ethical use of force, thereby fostering a safer and more informed society.

Disclaimer: The information provided is for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. The use of this information is at your own risk. For advice on specific legal issues, consult a qualified attorney.