Armed security guards in San Francisco may soon be barred from drawing their firearms in response to property theft, after an ordinance to amend the police code, prompted by the killing of Banko Brown, was passed by a Board of Supervisors committee today.
“I believe strongly that nobody should ever have to die just because they are suspected of stealing property,” said District 5 Supervisor Dean Preston, who introduced the ordinance earlier this summer in response to the killing of 24-year-old Banko Brown, an unarmed transgender man who was shot dead in April during an altercation with a Walgreens security guard. Brown had allegedly shoplifted some $15 worth of snacks.
After the killing, it was revealed that the security firm that employed shooter Michael Earl-Wayne Anthony had recently instructed its guards to be more hands-on in their approach to shoplifting.
Preston, who presented his legislation to the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee, said he was “dismayed” to find that Article 25 of the city’s police code allowed for armed security guards to draw their firearms to protect property, unlike local police and security guards around the state. The article was last amended in 1981.
The three moderate members of the public safety committee, Catherine Stefani, Matt Dorsey and Joel Engardio, agreed with Preston.
“It makes no sense whatsoever that we would have a different standard that would be more permissive for property, when sworn officers have more rigorous standards,” said Dorsey who, before becoming District 6 supervisor, was a spokesperson for the police department.
The police code currently states that armed security guards may draw or exhibit their firearms in response to a threat to “person and/or property” — a more lenient standard than that for San Francisco police officers. The police department only allows officers to draw their firearms when there is a “specific and articulable threat of serious bodily injury or death.”
State law is also more restrictive than San Francisco’s current rules, Preston noted today: The firearms training manual for the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services only allows for guards to remove their weapons from their holster when there is an “imminent danger to life.”
Engardio asked to be added as a co-sponsor to the ordinance, and even suggested that security guards should not necessarily be armed at all.
Stefani, the committee chair, said she has separately been looking into creating more oversight of private security guards in the city, and expressed concern, considering that San Francisco has about five times as many private security guards as police officers.
She called the language and provisions in the police code “extremely archaic” and in need of updating.
“Your legislation, Supervisor Preston, is … an important step toward that end,” Stefani said.
Brown’s killing in April galvanized weeks of protest, culminating in a review of the shooting by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Preston’s legislation today.
Banko Brown and the security guard, Michael Earl-Wayne Anthony, had gotten into a physical altercation when Brown tried to exit the mid-Market Walgreens. Brown appeared to be retreating from the store when Anthony shot him. The District Attorney’s Office said Anthony was acting in self defense and declined to charge him with any crime. Bonta’s review is still ongoing.
Geoffrea Morris, a director of the Black Women Revolt Against Domestic Violence, who has helped advocate for the legislation, said she will work next to promote legislation to remove armed guards from grocery and convenience stores altogether.
“Human lives should always weigh more than property,” she said.
If a person is committing a property theft , a security guard tries to prevent the theft and a physical fight ensues such as in Banko’s case, will the guard always be wrong if they pull their firearm. At that point in a fight it is subjective and the guard can never be wrong if they feel they are in severe danger. This will take a lot of training if it passes.
Ironically, this ordinance wouldn’t even apply in the Banko case: The weapon wasn’t drawn before Banko taunted the security guard in a threatening manner, at least FWIW in the eyes of the DA.
San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) officers received 8 months of academy training before they even hit the street. After, they receive months more of supervised on the job training by being paired with Field Training Officers. Contrast this with the tiny fraction of training received by private security guards. This restriction placed on firearm usage by security guards is based on the facts and truth of the situation.
For Elon Musk to attack our District 5 Supervisor Dean Preston is wrong headed and ill informed. Preston is trying to save lives. Musk is trying to gain more attention and sell more products. Musk’s comments are appalling.
It is indeed distressing that property is being ripped off at staggering rates everywhere. However, using force, especially deadly force to defend property as opposed to force to defend people has always been against the law unless it’s in your home. The comments above are expressions of frustration (I hope). What they really seem to be: an alarming desire for suspension of our constitutional rights. Be careful for what you wish for. It’s truly a slippery slope. Better to change how retail works/looks than have the current security system in place, which clearly is broken and unworkable.
not in the wild west? mobs of criminals storming businesses and making off with hundreds of thousands (millions?) of dollars worth of merchandise yearly while the city government apparently doubles down in what ends up being enabling? It ain’t the old west, but it’s def the wild west. Criminals on the west coast are living in a golden era and our neighbors to the south are absolutely making hay while the sun shines.
Not allowing a firearm as a deterrent would be allowing a crime to happen with no fear. Criminals in SF already have a pathway to rob without any repercussions. Supervisors with this mentality are destroying our city and should be removed from office. Security guards are in harm’s way, every day. A simple answer is, don’t steal and using a gun is a non issue
I object to calling comments ‘votes’.
Is this like a “like” like? Those who refer to ‘loser
Supervisors’ appear to be stuffing the ballot box.
This was a committee’s recommended amendment to bring us in line with the rest of the State. Let’s hope the full Board passes it.
In California a merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time to investigate if they have probable cause to believe the person is attempting to take unlawfully or has unlawfully taken merchandise. Merchants used to do this. In fact there was a holding cell in the basement of the Westfield mall. A shoplifter could be seared and then put in a cell as they waited for the police to arrive. 8 years ago my sons friend was detained for stealing Tic Tacs! Let that sink in…
Why do we have security guards and police “protecting” us if they are the ones being handcuffed. Dean. Maybe we need to catch and punish the criminals.
The tremendous decline of the city was not caused by security guards shooting crackheads. It was caused by excusing and normalizing antisocial behavior and stripping normal citizens of the right to defend themselves and their property. I would like the loser Supervisors to protect public safety and our quality of life. We should be permitted to shoot someone committing violence towards another person or committing shameless property crime including theft and vandalism. We don’t need them.
” We should be permitted to shoot someone committing … shameless property crime including theft and vandalism.”
Hey Joey BD, Perhaps you might feel more comfortable someplace like Saudi Arabia or The Philippines? Summary execution for petty crimes isn’t exactly the hallmark of a functional democracy…. Sheesh.
We’re no longer the Wild West. Theft and vandalism are not grounds for an instant death sentence at the hands of a citizen with an itchy trigger finger, pilgrim.
😂😂😂😂😂 SF never fails to disappoint. One more step in the right direction of letting criminals do WHATEVER they want! Keep it up!!!!111one
Nope, no armed, amateur, wannabe cops guarding the candy rack, thank you.