Understanding deadly force, self-defense, defense of others, and the legal responsibilities of armed security officers in Colorado, California, Texas, Florida, and New York.

An armed security guard carries a firearm for a reason. However, carrying a firearm and being legally justified in using it are two very different things.

Security officers frequently encounter confrontational individuals, trespassers, shoplifters, and people committing criminal acts. The overwhelming majority of these encounters do not justify drawing a firearm, much less discharging one.

But what happens when someone presents an immediate threat to human life? What if an individual begins shooting inside a shopping center? What if an armed robber points a handgun at a cashier’s head and threatens to kill them?

These are situations in which an armed security officer may have to make an immediate decision about protecting themselves or another person.

At Patrol Guard Security Services (PGSS), we believe armed security officers must understand not only how to operate their firearms but also the legal limitations governing when those firearms may be used.

This article examines the Five Elements of Self-Defense, compares use-of-force laws in five states, and examines hypothetical and real-world incidents involving armed security personnel.

Understanding the Difference Between Drawing and Using a Firearm

Before examining state laws, it is important to distinguish between three separate actions.

Drawing a firearm: Removing a firearm from its holster in response to a perceived threat. Depending on the circumstances and jurisdiction, even displaying a firearm may create criminal liability.

Pointing or threatening with a firearm: Directing a firearm toward another person or communicating an intention to use it. This can constitute a threat of deadly force, menacing, assault, or another offense if the conduct is not legally justified.

Discharging a firearm: Firing the firearm. When directed at another person, this ordinarily constitutes deadly force or attempted deadly force and requires substantial legal justification.

A security officer does not have to discharge their firearm for their conduct to be investigated as a potential criminal offense.

Likewise, possessing an armed security license does not automatically grant an officer broader authority to threaten or use deadly force than the law permits.

The Five Elements of Self-Defense

One useful way to evaluate a defensive encounter is through the Five Elements of Self-Defense.

These principles provide a framework for understanding the circumstances surrounding a defensive use of force. However, they are not five identical statutory requirements in every state.

For additional information, see our article on the Five Elements of Self-Defense for Security Guards.

1. Innocence

The person claiming self-defense generally must not be the unlawful aggressor who deliberately created the violent confrontation.

An armed security officer cannot unlawfully provoke a confrontation, unnecessarily escalate it, and automatically claim self-defense when the other individual responds.

Some jurisdictions recognize circumstances in which an initial aggressor may regain the right to defend themselves, but those rules are specific and limited.

2. Imminence

The threat must be immediate or impending under the applicable legal standard.

Someone making a vague threat about something they might do next week is fundamentally different from an individual presently pointing a handgun at another person’s head.

An officer does not necessarily have to wait until someone has been injured before acting.

The legal question is whether the circumstances establish a reasonable belief that a qualifying threat is imminent.

3. Proportionality

The degree of force must be legally proportionate to the threat.

Deadly force generally cannot be justified merely because someone is argumentative, refuses to leave a business, or commits a minor offense.

An immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury presents a substantially different legal question.

4. Avoidance

Security officers should consider safe disengagement, de-escalation, and other reasonable alternatives whenever circumstances permit.

However, the legal duty to retreat varies by jurisdiction.

New York generally imposes a retreat requirement in certain deadly-force self-defense situations when retreat can be accomplished with complete safety, while Florida and Texas recognize conditional stand-your-ground protections.

Avoidance is therefore an important professional consideration, but not a universal legal requirement in every situation.

5. Reasonableness

The officer’s perceptions and actions must satisfy the applicable legal standard of reasonableness.

Investigators may examine what the officer knew, what they reasonably believed, how quickly the incident developed, and whether the degree of force was necessary.

An officer’s subjective fear alone does not necessarily establish legal justification.

These five elements should be considered together. A serious threat does not excuse an unreasonable response, and a lawful initial response does not justify continuing to use force after the threat has ended.

Armed Security Guard Use-of-Force Laws in Five States

Although the legal language varies, Colorado, California, Texas, Florida, and New York all recognize circumstances in which deadly force may be justified in defense of oneself or another person.

The differences involve the required level of danger, the scope of defensive authority, the duty to retreat, and other statutory limitations.

Colorado: C.R.S. § 18-1-704

Colorado law addresses the use of physical force in defense of oneself or another person.

Under C.R.S. § 18-1-704(1), a person may be justified in using physical force when they reasonably believe it necessary to defend against another person’s unlawful physical force or its imminent use.

Deadly physical force is subject to a higher standard.

Under subsection (2), the individual must reasonably believe that a lesser degree of force is inadequate, and one of the specified conditions must exist.

Those conditions include a reasonable belief that the individual or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or receiving great bodily injury.

The statute also addresses circumstances involving certain serious crimes, including kidnapping, robbery, and sexual assault.

For an armed security officer working in Denver, this distinction is critical.

An individual refusing to leave a store does not automatically create justification for deadly force. An individual actively attempting to kill someone presents a fundamentally different threat.

Colorado also places restrictions on claims of self-defense involving initial aggressors and individuals who deliberately provoke violence.

Legal reference: Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 18, § 18-1-704

California: Penal Code §§ 197–198

California Penal Code § 197 addresses circumstances in which homicide may be legally justified, including resistance to attempts to murder or inflict great bodily injury.

Section 198 further requires that the fear supporting a claim of justifiable homicide be objectively reasonable.

Fear alone is insufficient.

California’s statutory language also addresses certain felony-related circumstances. However, this should not be interpreted as blanket permission for a security officer to shoot anyone committing a felony.

The applicable requirements concerning necessity, reasonable belief, and self-defense remain essential.

For example, an officer witnessing someone actively shooting at innocent people has substantially stronger grounds for claiming defense of others than an officer confronting an individual stealing merchandise.

California generally does not impose a duty to retreat on an innocent person who is otherwise lawfully acting in self-defense. Nevertheless, the circumstances and reasonableness of the response remain important.

Legal reference: California Penal Code §§ 197–198

Texas: Penal Code §§ 9.31, 9.32 and 9.33

Texas law expressly addresses self-defense, deadly force, and defense of third persons.

Under Texas Penal Code § 9.32, deadly force may be justified when a person reasonably believes it immediately necessary to protect against another person’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force.

The statute also addresses preventing certain imminent violent offenses, including murder, aggravated kidnapping, robbery, aggravated robbery, and specified sexual offenses.

Section 9.33 recognizes defense of a third person when the statutory requirements are satisfied and the intervention is reasonably believed to be immediately necessary.

Texas also provides conditional no-duty-to-retreat protections for qualifying individuals who are lawfully present, have not provoked the encounter, and are not engaged in criminal activity.

For an armed security officer, the important point is that deadly force must satisfy the applicable legal requirements.

The fact that the officer is protecting a business does not independently establish justification.

Texas has separate statutory provisions addressing defense of property, including §§ 9.41 and 9.42. Those provisions contain specific conditions and should not be confused with unrestricted authority to shoot a thief.

Legal reference: Texas Penal Code, Chapter 9

Florida: Statute § 776.012

Florida law expressly addresses both the use and threatened use of force.

Under Florida Statute § 776.012(2), a person may be justified in using or threatening deadly force when they reasonably believe it necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves or another person.

The statute also addresses preventing the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

Florida provides conditional stand-your-ground protection for qualifying individuals who are not engaged in criminal activity and are in a place where they have a right to be.

This is particularly relevant when distinguishing between drawing a firearm, threatening deadly force, and actually discharging the firearm.

However, Florida law does not mean that every armed confrontation justifies deadly force.

The circumstances must still satisfy the applicable statutory requirements.

Legal reference: Florida Statute § 776.012

New York: Penal Law § 35.15

New York recognizes self-defense and defense of third persons but imposes specific limitations on deadly physical force.

Under Penal Law § 35.15(2), deadly physical force may be justified when a person reasonably believes another individual is using or about to use deadly physical force, subject to statutory limitations.

The statute also recognizes certain circumstances involving specified serious offenses.

Unlike states with broader stand-your-ground provisions, New York generally requires retreat in the deadly-force self-defense situation when the individual knows they can avoid the necessity of deadly force with complete personal safety to themselves and others.

Statutory exceptions apply.

For an armed security officer, this distinction can be particularly important during a rapidly developing confrontation.

However, retreat is not automatically required when doing so would endanger innocent people, and the statute contains separate provisions concerning specified serious offenses.

Legal reference: New York Penal Law § 35.15

Scenario One: An Active Shooter Inside a Shopping Center

Consider the following hypothetical situation.

An armed security officer is assigned to a shopping center during normal business hours.

Without warning, an individual enters a common area carrying a handgun and begins deliberately shooting at customers.

Several people are struck. Others attempt to escape or take cover.

The security officer personally witnesses the individual firing at innocent people. The attacker remains armed and continues shooting.

There is no reasonable indication that the attacker is a law enforcement officer or another individual lawfully defending themselves.

Applying the Five Elements of Self-Defense

Innocence: The officer did not provoke or initiate the unlawful violence.

Imminence: The attacker is actively shooting at innocent people, presenting an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Proportionality: The ongoing deadly threat may justify deadly defensive force.

Avoidance: Any safe alternatives and risks to bystanders must be considered, but innocent people face immediate danger.

Reasonableness: An officer personally witnessing an ongoing deadly attack has substantial grounds to believe that lives are in immediate danger.

Would Drawing a Firearm Be Justified?

Under these facts, drawing a firearm in preparation to defend innocent people would generally have a strong legal justification, provided the officer is lawfully armed and their conduct otherwise complies with applicable law.

Would Deadly Force Be Justified?

The ongoing shooting presents a clear example of the type of imminent deadly threat addressed by the self-defense and defense-of-others statutes discussed above.

Deadly force may be legally justified if reasonably necessary to stop the attacker and the other statutory requirements are satisfied.

An officer is not necessarily required to wait until the attacker fires another shot or injures another victim before acting.

The justification comes from the ongoing threat to human life, not simply from the attacker’s possession of a firearm.

What Happens When the Threat Ends?

Now consider that the attacker drops the firearm, surrenders, and no longer presents an imminent deadly threat.

The circumstances have changed.

The previous justification for deadly force does not automatically continue after the danger ends.

A security officer cannot use deadly force as punishment for the attacker’s previous actions.

Additionally, the officer must account for innocent bystanders and responding law enforcement.

An armed security officer may be mistaken for the attacker, particularly if their identity and role are not immediately apparent.

The officer’s responsibilities include following lawful police commands, avoiding unnecessary firearm handling when officers arrive, and facilitating emergency assistance when safe.

Scenario Two: An Armed Robber Threatens to Kill a Cashier

An armed security officer is assigned to a retail store.

During business hours, an individual approaches a cashier, produces a handgun, and demands money from the register.

The cashier complies.

However, the robber continues pointing the handgun directly at the cashier’s head and threatens to kill the cashier.

The officer personally witnesses the threat and has no reasonable basis to believe the robber is acting lawfully.

The robber has not surrendered, withdrawn, or stopped threatening the cashier.

Applying the Five Elements of Self-Defense

Innocence: The officer did not initiate or provoke the robbery.

Imminence: The robber is pointing a firearm at the cashier’s head and threatening to kill them.

Proportionality: The threatened killing presents a potential justification for deadly defensive force.

Avoidance: The officer must consider the immediate danger to the cashier and whether any safer response is reasonably available.

Reasonableness: A reasonable officer could believe the cashier faces imminent death or serious bodily injury.

Could the Security Officer Draw Their Firearm?

Under the circumstances described, there is a strong basis for concluding that the officer may be justified in drawing a firearm to defend the cashier.

The legal analysis still depends on the applicable jurisdiction and the officer’s conduct.

Could the Security Officer Use Deadly Force?

Potentially, yes.

The relevant legal justification is the immediate threat to the cashier’s life, not merely the fact that a robbery is occurring.

This distinction is important because some jurisdictions separately authorize defensive force in response to specified violent felonies, while others focus on the immediate threat of death or serious injury.

What If the Robber Takes the Money and Leaves?

Change one critical fact.

The robber lowers the firearm, stops threatening the cashier, and flees the store without presenting an ongoing imminent threat to anyone.

The officer cannot simply assume that deadly force remains justified because the robber previously threatened the cashier.

The applicable legal analysis has changed.

Certain states have narrowly defined statutory provisions involving specified crimes or arrests, but those exceptions should not be treated as general permission for armed security personnel to shoot fleeing suspects.

The purpose of defensive force is to address a legally qualifying threat, not to punish a criminal or recover stolen property.

Real-World Armed Security Shootings: Two Cases With Very Different Outcomes

Understanding the law is important, but examining actual incidents helps demonstrate how decisions made by armed security officers can have lasting consequences.

Two cases worth examining are the fatal shooting of Freddy Nelson by security guard Logan Gimbel in Oregon and the armed intervention that stopped a shooting at Turnberry Towers in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Logan Gimbel: When a Security Encounter Ends in Murder

On May 29, 2021, private security guard Logan Gimbel fatally shot 49-year-old Freddy Nelson in the parking lot of the Delta Park Center shopping plaza in Portland, Oregon.

Gimbel was working for Cornerstone Security Group when he confronted Nelson, who was sitting in his pickup truck.

According to reporting by Oregon Public Broadcasting, the confrontation escalated, and Gimbel fired four rounds through the truck’s windshield, killing Nelson.

Gimbel claimed that he believed Nelson was going to run him over. However, eyewitness accounts challenged that explanation, raising questions about whether Nelson presented an imminent threat and whether Gimbel had unnecessarily escalated the confrontation.

The case ultimately went to trial.

In May 2023, a jury convicted Gimbel of second-degree murder with a firearm and additional offenses. He was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years.

Reporting also raised serious concerns about whether Gimbel possessed the required authorization to carry a firearm while working as an armed security guard.

What Can Security Officers Learn From This Case?

The Gimbel shooting demonstrates the serious consequences of escalating a confrontation and using deadly force without legally sufficient justification.

A security officer’s responsibility to enforce property rules or address an unwanted individual does not provide unlimited authority to use force.

The case raises several important considerations:

• Was the security officer an unlawful aggressor or responsible for escalating the confrontation?
• Was there an objectively reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury?
• Could the confrontation have been safely avoided or de-escalated?
• Was the degree of force legally proportionate to the actual threat?
• Did the circumstances support a reasonable claim of self-defense?

In this case, a jury rejected Gimbel’s defense and convicted him of murder.

The lesson is straightforward: An armed security officer cannot manufacture or unnecessarily escalate a confrontation and assume that claiming self-defense will excuse the resulting use of deadly force.

Source: Oregon Public Broadcasting — Security Guard Convicted of Second-Degree Murder

Turnberry Towers, Las Vegas: An Armed Employee Stops an Active Shooter

On June 23, 2023, a gunman entered the Turnberry Towers condominium complex in Las Vegas, Nevada, carrying a rifle.

The individual opened fire inside the building, shooting toward the front desk area and shattering glass.

An armed building employee responded and shot the attacker, stopping the assault.

According to subsequent reporting, the attacker’s rifle malfunctioned during the incident. The employee’s intervention prevented the attacker from continuing the shooting.

The incident received national attention as an example of an armed employee intervening during an active shooting.

What Can Security Officers Learn From This Case?

Unlike an encounter involving a trespasser, shoplifter, or argumentative customer, the Turnberry Towers incident involved an individual actively firing a rifle inside an occupied residential building.

The circumstances presented an immediate and serious danger to human life.

Applying the Five Elements of Self-Defense:

Innocence: The armed employee was responding to an attack rather than initiating the confrontation.

Imminence: The attacker had already opened fire inside the building.

Proportionality: An ongoing attack involving potentially deadly force may justify a deadly defensive response.

Avoidance: The immediate danger to employees and other occupants was a critical consideration.

Reasonableness: The attacker’s actions provided substantial grounds for believing that people faced imminent death or serious bodily injury.

The Turnberry Towers incident illustrates why properly trained and lawfully armed security personnel can play an important role in protecting human life.

It also demonstrates why an officer does not necessarily have to wait until an attacker injures someone before taking legally justified defensive action.

Importantly, the facts of this incident should not be interpreted as a universal legal determination that every similar shooting would be justified. Each defensive encounter must be evaluated under the applicable law.

Source: FOX5 Las Vegas — High-Rise Residents Push for Armed Security After Turnberry Towers Shooting

The Difference Between These Two Incidents

The Gimbel case and the Turnberry Towers shooting demonstrate an important distinction in armed security operations.

In the Gimbel case, a confrontation between a security guard and a civilian escalated into a fatal shooting. The officer’s self-defense claim was rejected by a jury, resulting in a murder conviction.

At Turnberry Towers, an armed building employee confronted an individual who had already opened fire inside an occupied building, presenting an immediate threat to innocent people.

The circumstances, legal considerations, and outcomes were substantially different.

An armed security officer’s authority to use deadly force is not based on a desire to control a situation, enforce compliance, or stop every criminal act. It depends on the law and the existence of circumstances that justify that level of force.

Professional judgment, de-escalation, proper training, and a clear understanding of self-defense law remain essential.

When Can an Armed Security Guard Draw Their Firearm Without Firing?

This is one of the most important questions in armed security operations.

There are circumstances in which drawing a firearm may be justified even though firing it is not.

For example, an officer may reasonably perceive an imminent deadly threat, but the threatening individual may surrender or disengage before deadly force becomes necessary.

In that situation, the officer’s initial decision to draw and their subsequent decision not to fire are separate actions that must be evaluated under the applicable law.

However, officers must recognize that displaying or pointing a firearm can itself constitute a threat of force.

A firearm should not be used to intimidate a difficult customer, compel compliance with routine security instructions, or resolve a nonviolent disagreement.

It is also important to understand that the legal threshold for threatening deadly force is not worded identically in all five states.

Florida expressly addresses threatened deadly force in § 776.012, while other jurisdictions may analyze a particular display or pointing of a firearm through different statutory provisions and case law.

Situations That Do Not Automatically Justify Deadly Force

Armed security officers routinely encounter behavior that may be criminal, disruptive, or threatening without necessarily meeting the legal requirements for deadly force.

Examples include:

• A shoplifter leaving a store with unpaid merchandise.
• A customer refusing to leave private property.
• An individual insulting or verbally challenging a security officer.
• A person refusing to comply with ordinary security instructions.
• Someone fleeing after committing a nonviolent offense.
• A trespasser who does not present a legally qualifying threat.

None of these facts, standing alone, establishes that deadly force is justified.

Other facts can change the legal analysis.

For example, an encounter that begins as a trespassing complaint could escalate into an imminent deadly attack.

The officer must evaluate the actual threat rather than relying exclusively on the initial reason for the encounter.

Armed Security Guards Are Not Police Officers

A private security officer’s authority is not identical to that of a sworn law enforcement officer.

Even when armed and licensed, private security personnel generally operate under the legal authority applicable to private individuals, together with any additional powers or limitations established by state and local law.

Their employment does not automatically grant police arrest powers or law enforcement use-of-force authority.

Security officers should also understand that company policy may impose stricter limitations than the law.

An action that might qualify as legally justified under a state’s self-defense statute can still violate an employer’s use-of-force policy, training requirements, or contractual obligations.

What Happens After an Armed Security Officer Uses Their Firearm?

Any incident involving a firearm can trigger substantial legal and administrative scrutiny, even when the officer believes the action was justified.

Investigators may examine the officer’s initial observations, the nature of the threat, available alternatives, the duration of the encounter, and whether force continued after the threat ended.

Video recordings, witness statements, physical evidence, dispatch communications, and the officer’s own statements may all become relevant.

Officers should follow their training and emergency procedures, summon police and medical assistance, preserve evidence, and comply with lawful directions from responding authorities.

A defensive firearm incident may also lead to licensing reviews, employment consequences, civil litigation, or criminal investigation.

Why Armed Security Training Must Go Beyond Firearms Qualification

Being able to shoot accurately does not establish that an individual understands when shooting is lawful.

Professional armed security training should address the legal requirements of self-defense and defense of others, threat recognition, de-escalation, judgment, firearm safety, emergency response, and the responsibilities that follow a critical incident.

Training should also address the risks of mistaken identity, particularly during active shooter incidents when responding police officers may encounter multiple armed individuals.

At PGSS, we believe an armed security officer must understand that possessing a firearm is a serious responsibility.

The objective is not to find opportunities to use deadly force. It is to recognize genuine threats, make defensible decisions, and protect human life within the limits of the law.

Final Thoughts: The Responsibility of Armed Security Officers

The legal authority to use deadly force is not based on a security officer’s uniform, badge, job title, or desire to stop criminal activity.

It is based on the circumstances, the applicable law, and whether the officer’s actions satisfy the legal requirements for justification.

An active shooter deliberately firing at innocent people and an armed robber threatening to execute a cashier are examples of situations that may present clear grounds for defending human life.

But even in those situations, officers remain responsible for their decisions, the safety of innocent people, and recognizing when the threat has ended.

The responsibility of an armed security officer is not simply to carry a firearm. It is to exercise sound judgment, understand the law, and recognize when force is—and is not—justified.

Request Professional Armed Security Services

Patrol Guard Security Services provides armed and unarmed security solutions for businesses, commercial properties, houses of worship, and other organizations throughout Denver and Colorado.

Our focus is on professional security personnel, sound judgment, training, and responsible protective services.

To discuss your organization’s security needs, visit Patrol Guard Security Services.

Related Articles:

• How Drones and UAS Are Changing Security, Event Management, and Commercial Operations
• How to Protect Your Business From Crime: A Complete Business Security Guide
• Are Counter-Snipers the Future of Private Security in America?
• When Should a Security Guard Be Equipped With a Rifle?
• Professionalism in Private Security: More Than Just Wearing a Uniform
• Is Denver Safe in 2026?
• Uniformed Vs. Plain Clothes Security – Advantages & Disadvantages
• How Much Does It Cost to Equip, Train & License an Armed Security Guard?

Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for general educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or operational authorization to use force. Specific incidents must be evaluated under current law, controlling court decisions, licensing requirements, and applicable policies. State statutes and case law should be reviewed by qualified legal counsel before this article is used as a formal training or policy document.