share
GloriaLaw logo
CALL NOW FOR YOUR FREE CASE EVALUATION
772-287-1220

Security Company Held Not Liable for Pulse Nightclub Mass Shooting

pulse security shooting
November 4, 2020

What if a security company hired a “Custom Protection Officer” despite knowing:

  • He was dismissed from a corrections officer training class just months before for suggesting that he would bring a gun to class, specifically alluding to the then-recent mass shooting at Virginia Tech,
  • his position with their company required him to carry a firearm while working, allowing him to acquire a Class G license,
  • that they submitted a fraudulent psychological evaluation,
  • they provided 28 hours of training, including 8 hours of firearms training, with 4 hours of subsequent annual renewal training,
  • that their “security” officer was unstable and dangerous who expressed a desire to commit acts of mass murder against members of the general public, particularly who he thought were lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender,
  • he was allowed to work at a Courthouse in Florida as a security officer through their company,
  • was demanded to leave by the Sherriff’s office from his post at the Courthouse because he threatened his colleagues,
  • he claimed to be associated with the Boston Marathon Bombers,
  • e expressed a desire to martyr himself
  • he praised the actions of the Army major who shot 45 people at Fort Hood Texas,
  • that although he was arguably a potential danger to society, failing to require him to undergo a psychological evaluation to determine his fitness to work as an armed security guard, and transferring him to other locations when complaints were made where he
  • was reported by a former police officer to be “unhinged and unstable” and “was in a constant state of anger”, “engaged in frequent homophobic and racist rants, and talked about killing people.”
  • coworkers constantly requested to be transferred away from the “security officer,”


As a result of his job with the security company, this mass shooter used his Class G license that he got because of his job with this security company job to purchase the weapons that he used to killed 49 people and injured 53 others at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida


Would You Think That This Company Should Be Held Liable For This Shooting?

 

The Fourth District Court of Appeals in West Palm Beach, Florida apparently did not think these incriminating, alleged facts were enough to hold the security company liable and dismissed the lawsuit filed by the families of those injured and killed, stating the security company did not have a duty to protect the public from this killer.

 

Our system of justice in the United States relies upon justice to right the wrongs of corporations. In this case, why didn’t the security company do something about this “unhinged” person?  If they had, is it reasonable to believe this shooting might never have occurred?

 

I remember going into the Courthouse in St Lucie County and being scared of this “security guard” as I entered the front door metal detector. If I detected this on a short term encounter, why didn’t his bosses at this “security“ company notice his bizarre behavior? As a security company, they should have a heightened level of duty to hire stable people that are allowed to carry firearms as part of their jobs. The public is not safe from unhinged, gun toting security guards as a result of this ruling.


Filed under: