Even ultra liberal mayors are now proposing adding security guards to stores susceptible to organized "smash and grab" thefts. But if it is illegal to shoot someone who is not attacking you, what can they do? Suppose they are just being ignored as the thieves tend to do with other employees?

(I understand that the real life answer is that they can pull their guns and count on the fact that most thieves will not depend on the law forbidding them to shoot. But if these thefts are truly highly organized, it could easily not be enough.)

I do not think it is legal in the State of California. Now in Texas it is for your home not sure about business

Though I would enjoy a shop owner wiping out a whole crew with an AR15

Security guards are of no use. They can't simply shoot a robber that isn't brandishing a weapon and they don't try to stop them because that might spark a robber to pull a weapon. Besides, a single guard could conceivably stop a single robber out of a gang of many and that doesn't do much good either.

I'd try an out of the box solution: Station plain clothes police near likely to be targeted stores. When the caravan of cars containing the robbers shows up the police dash out and stab all of the tires so that they have to be abandoned right there and tow them to the impound lot. When the owner shows up for the car tell them that it's being held as evidence and they're going to keep it for a very, very long time.

You can legally shoot someone who broke into your home in California.

Its the same in Texas not sure about a business

this is America, unarmed thieves/traffic stops/protesters/domestic disturbance/mentally ill/druggies, etc. get shot all the time.

Just say they were reaching for your weapon and you feared for your life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaazFYTrQ_A

Not if they dont have guns they can't.

Which is all true, but has nothing to do with the question at hand.

the question at hand was "...what can they do?..." the answer is shoot them.

Lacking the stones to do that then, physically restrain them (citizens arrest a la the Ahmaud Arbery case) if they resist or become a threat then use pepper spray, taser, baton or firearm (Rittenhouse defense) easy game.

not true

The question at hand is: Can security guards shoot unarmed groups of thieves?. From a legal perspective, the answer seems to be, No.

I think pepper-spray and/or the taser are the best options of the one's you listed.

I suppose they can point their fingers and shout bang!

Uhh.... apprehend the thieves without shooting them?

It's really a never-ending source of wonderment to me that so many people in the land of the free and the brave refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that in the civilised world, we dispensed with firearms a long time ago.

OP's hypothetical about "how should we stop crime?" betrays a fundamental underlying ignorance. You are talking about opportunists taking advantage of a loophole in the law. You stop it by plugging the loophole, not by shooting the opportunists.

OP, what should we do when we find a blackjack dealer who keeps exposing his hole card? I know, let's execute the advantage players.

Business is mostly a no and it should be a no. There is a massive difference between shooting some dumbass robbing a jc penny and someone bashing through your front door to rob you. It's mostly a **** jc penny, who gives a ****.

Maybe chezlaw is capable to mix the two to where he prefers that you retrete to the end of your block if some degen wants to **** **** up at your place instead of taking away that sweet summer child's future potential but conflating the two isn't in the same ball park.

I am not a gun owner or a lawyer. But it my understanding that you cannot legally pull your gun in such a situation.

https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/31/us/fl...ing/index.html

Police shoot unarmed man mistook for a car thief.

Looks like they can pull a gun in that situation.

This post is LOL on multiple levels. First, our nation's security guards refrain from shooting more people because they "lack stones"? I can think of a few other reasons. Second, the Ahmaud Arbery case was an example of a citizen's arrest? That's charitable, to put it mildly.

What loophole is that? (Are you speaking of the $950 limit? They are going over that) The only one I can see would be that the law does not consider a certain number of unarmed thieves high enough to be considered armed and dangerous (when facing a security guard) even if they appear to have no weapons (eg Jan 6).

No security guard in his/her right mind would shoot anyone who isn't brandishing a lethal weapon. There'd be an investigation and maybe an indictment unless the shooting was 100% legit. No reason at all for a low paid security guard to risk that for things that aren't even theirs. The store owners don't want any shootings either, fwiw. Nothing but investigations and lawsuits will follow.

B&M stores should no longer exist.

You can actually arrest/detain someone without shooting them.

Why is that? As an old man, you should be saying that internet stores should no longer exist!