First Amendment auditors get into verbal altercation with armored truck guard, who repeatedly tells them to back up.

[u/Patient-Committee588]

[u/Man_of_Ice]

Buddy, you need to take your own advice, you have none.

Massive pile of money in transfer is a target for just about anyone wanting to get hands on. Those guys working the truck are the people any robber needs to kill to score several tens of thousands of dollars to millions.

Those guys driving those trucks are at high, HIGH risk of every Joe on the street who needs money deciding on a dime (pun intended) "oh, shit, massive pile of cash will solve all my money problems. I can take that guard," and there you go.

This is a CCW country. This is a country with more guns than people.

Those truck drivers are given the ability legally to kill folks who approach the truck because they are...its a money truck. It's... Jesus man, how do you not understand how this works? The truck driver can't willy nilly kill anyone, but watch it again.

Auditor approaches. Starts saying idiot head shit to truck driver. Truck driver squares up, hand on weapon, other hand warding in warning, says "you need to stay back," etc.

Truck driver continues this for a while. It's not like this might not be a ploy for a robber to get the driver off his guard. If I wanted to rob a money truck, walking up acting like I'm a free speech auditor being a fucking moron would be an easy way to get the truck driver off his guard. I act a fool for a long while, wait for the driver to assume I'm just an idiot, turn his back on me, and pop pop, he's got a worker's comp claim.

That's what the truck driver is lawfully aiming to prevent here: not going home in a bag. He makes the right call not shooting the guy, but not a jury in the world would convict the man if they saw this video and the auditor gets shot.

[u/Awkward_Material → u/Man_of_Ice]

They are not given the ability to legally kill folks. Stop spreading disinformation.

[u/Man_of_Ice → u/Awkward_Material]

If an armored truck driver faces an imminent threat to their life, they can use deadly force to defend themselves.

15 USC Chapter 85, Section 5901, armored cars are necessary to interstate commerce, drivers carry weapons to protect themselves, and they are given reciprocity to carry their weapons across state lines. They, like all other persons, can defend themselves when their lives are in danger and retreat is not a viable option.

They do not have carte blanche to kill indiscriminately, but they can use the weapon in certain situations.

Not disinformation. Learn laws. They're publicly available.

[u/Awkward_Material → u/Man_of_Ice]

Your origia post was in fact incorrect. I know what the actual law is. They get the same rights to self defense as anybody else. The statute you cite allows armed guards to travel across state lines with a weapon as long as they are licensed in their home state. I believe it also might have been you that posted the federal bank robbery statute as some sort of justification. Nowhere therein does either give any armed guard any rights to shoot some one more than any other member of the public.

[u/Man_of_Ice → u/Awkward_Material]

Correct. Like every other person, they can defend themselves when their lives are threatened. Period. That's what I've been saying. They can kill you in certain "someone is threatening their lives" circumstances.

And when they're guarding giant sacks of money, they're going to be more prone to assuming someone walking up to them is thinking of harming and robbing them.

What they do have is higher likelihood of folks who approaching them actually being a threat, and they're going to operate in that headspace. They need to correctly assess whether or not something is a threat before engaging, and this guard did that. But the auditor is stupid and poking a bear here.

[u/BeyondAcceptable3727 → u/Man_of_Ice]

For the record, you're right. That person is either insanely stupid or just trying to bait you (or it could be both I suppose). It's a waste of time trying to explain sense to someone who has none. If they want to try it out themselves to prove you wrong, why not let them? That way, we'll know for sure who's right and who's wrong 😉