New limits on armed guards too little
Early Sunday morning, as my partner, his 6-year-old and I walked up to our local Target, chatting about what we were going to buy, I spotted what has become a familiar sight across the Bay Area: a huge guard in a bullet-proof vest, two guns and extra ammunition holstered around his waist. Two more armed guards leaned on the rows of shopping carts inside. As the kid dashed inside to the dollar bins, I found myself worrying about shopping in a place where at least three people present had the ability to quickly kill someone.
Despite these concerns, however, it’s not like I can easily avoid them. These days, there are armed guards at supermarkets, big box stores and pharmacies. Sometimes I’ll try to flag someone down to unlock the shelf containing toothpaste and realize, “This person is heavily armed.” Half the time I can’t actually find anyone to help me — the guards are there to guard, not procure toothpaste. So, I leave without buying anything, and — with a wave of shame — add what I need to my next Amazon order.
Militarized customer service seems a questionable response to shoplifting. But that’s clearly where we’re at in the Bay Area.
In 2021, Walgreens told San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors it was spending $10 million a year on private security for its stores in the city. According to a 2022 report on Article 25, San Francisco’s set of regulations for private security, there are nearly 10,000 active guard cards issued in the city.
And the regulations surrounding this collective security force that dwarfs the city Police Department are patchy.
But pressure is finally mounting to increase oversight of guards and update the 50-year-old policies they’ve operated under.
On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved legislation amending part of the private security policy. Guards are now banned from drawing their firearms to protect property; there would have to be a specific threat to a person.
The impetus for this change emerged in late April, when an armed security guard shot and killed Banko Brown, a homeless 24-year-old Black transgender man, for allegedly stealing $14 worth of snacks.
This legislation’s passage was a rare moment of unity for a Board of Supervisors that’s usually divided on issues of public safety. But it doesn’t change much; it simply undoes part of Article 25 that never should have existed in the first place but sat untouched for decades until a young person was killed. This freedom was unique to San Francisco. The California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services’ firearm training manual says, “A firearm may be used ONLY if there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to the guard or to another person and there is no other option available to avoid or neutralize the danger.”
Based on the way Brown’s case was perceived by authorities, it’s unlikely this legislative change would have prevented his death. The security guard said he felt threatened, which allowed him to draw his weapon. His claim was believed by the District Attorney’s office, and subsequently, no charges were filed. This legislation is an overdue change but it’s not justice. The root causes that led to Brown shoplifting that day still exist.
It also raises a larger question: Should private security guards working at our grocery stores and pharmacies be armed at all?
Geoffrea Morris, a lawyer from the Bayview who brought the idea of amending Article 25 to Supervisor Dean Preston’s office after Brown’s death, says absolutely not.
“I don’t believe any store that sells basic needs — food, anything that you can eat — should have an armed guard,” she told me, noting that armed guards monitor the Foods Co. she shops at in the Bayview. “We could have so many nonlethal items on a security guard.”
In the weeks prior to Brown’s killing, Kingdom Group Protective Services, which employed the guard in question, encouraged workers to physically engage in the recovery of stolen items. After Brown’s death, they were told to stop confronting shoplifters, and guards were seen with “nonlethal” guns that fire plastic pellets. Less than two weeks later, Walgreens canceled its contract.
There are genuine, understandable safety concerns that result from San Franciscans’ untreated drug and mental health crises and how they overflow into businesses. Retail workers should not be left alone to de-escalate someone who needs help, nor should they be responsible for preventing large-scale retail theft. But are armed guards the answer? Recently, two New York Times journalists spent a day shadowing a private security guard in Portland, Ore., as he encounters many of the things we see in downtown San Francisco: a man running naked in traffic, a person stumbling around very ill outside a business, people using drugs in doorways. In none of these cases did he pull a gun, even after responding to a call about a severely mentally ill woman who had unsuccessfully tried to kidnap a little boy. Instead, he attempted at every stage to de-escalate crises, save people’s lives and connect people to services. He controlled volatile situations and prevented further harm until city workers could take over.
Private security can clearly help fill some spaces where police and social services fall short. But simply arming people with guns and little training is not public safety. High standards in training, proper governmental oversight and a commitment to de-escalating crises are essential.
We know the good-guy-with-a-gun fallacy doesn’t work to stop mass shootings. It’s even more dubious with shoplifting.