Teen wounded by security guard outside FDA lab in Bothell
SEATTLE - Security guards at a Food and Drug Administration laboratory in Bothell called police to say they had fired gunshots just a few minutes after contacting a suspicious person in a car in the parking lot Friday morning, police said.
It was around 7 a.m. when two security officers approached a 15-year-old boy seen acting suspiciously in the building's parking lot, said Shari Ireton with the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office.
The teen ran away, but then came back a short time later and got into a car in the parking lot. As the security officers approached the car, the teen backed out and struck one of the security officers, who in turn fired at the car, Ireton said.
The teen sped off, and was involved in a hit-and-run accident about a mile away on state Route 527. He was then was tracked to his home, said Bothell police Sgt. Cedric Collins.
The teen had a gunshot wound to his foot and minor cuts to his face, Ireton said. Fire department medics took him to Evergreen Hospital in Kirkland where he was treated and released.
There was confusion throughout the day about whether the teen had actually been shot, as police made multiple contradictory statements on the matter.
Collins said the boy was held for detectives with the Snohomish County Multi-Agency Response Team, which took over the investigation.
It's not clear why the guard thought the teen was suspicious.
The two guards were under contract to the Federal Protective Service, a division of the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings.
"The FPS is working with local law enforcement to investigate this incident," the agency said in a statement attributed to spokeswoman Jacqueline Yost.
The FDA laboratory, called the Pacific Regional Lab Northwest, analyzes samples of products for safety and compliance with regulations. It is located in a suburban business park
The teen is a student at the Secondary Academy for Success, an alternative high school adjacent to the FDA building, said Northshore School District spokeswoman Leanna Albrecht. The school was in a modified lockdown while some students were questioned by police.
The school and the FDA building are separated by a fence, and there's no history of problems between students and the FDA, Albrecht said.
Officials weren't saying how a 15-year-old came to be driving or what brought him to the attention of the security guards.
"Everything went downhill from there," Collins said.
The teen is being held in an Everett juvenile detention center for investigation of second-degree assault.
It was around 7 a.m. when two security officers approached a 15-year-old boy seen acting suspiciously in the building's parking lot, said Shari Ireton with the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office.
The teen ran away, but then came back a short time later and got into a car in the parking lot. As the security officers approached the car, the teen backed out and struck one of the security officers, who in turn fired at the car, Ireton said.
The teen sped off, and was involved in a hit-and-run accident about a mile away on state Route 527. He was then was tracked to his home, said Bothell police Sgt. Cedric Collins.
The teen had a gunshot wound to his foot and minor cuts to his face, Ireton said. Fire department medics took him to Evergreen Hospital in Kirkland where he was treated and released.
There was confusion throughout the day about whether the teen had actually been shot, as police made multiple contradictory statements on the matter.
Collins said the boy was held for detectives with the Snohomish County Multi-Agency Response Team, which took over the investigation.
It's not clear why the guard thought the teen was suspicious.
The two guards were under contract to the Federal Protective Service, a division of the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings.
"The FPS is working with local law enforcement to investigate this incident," the agency said in a statement attributed to spokeswoman Jacqueline Yost.
The FDA laboratory, called the Pacific Regional Lab Northwest, analyzes samples of products for safety and compliance with regulations. It is located in a suburban business park
The teen is a student at the Secondary Academy for Success, an alternative high school adjacent to the FDA building, said Northshore School District spokeswoman Leanna Albrecht. The school was in a modified lockdown while some students were questioned by police.
The school and the FDA building are separated by a fence, and there's no history of problems between students and the FDA, Albrecht said.
Officials weren't saying how a 15-year-old came to be driving or what brought him to the attention of the security guards.
"Everything went downhill from there," Collins said.
The teen is being held in an Everett juvenile detention center for investigation of second-degree assault.
And blah, blah, blah...I don't bother reading comments longer than three lines...some people on here have diarrhea of the mouth!
@Life is too short That is fine, stay on Twitter then because folks there cannot post any long comments! Maybe just the issue is you think others are boring have no taste, stupid, un educated(Unlike yourself) actually do have something to say about an issue or maybe you just don't give a darn anymore............sorry........guess I said too much to....
If someone tried to hit me with a car or hit my friend, I would shoot them, too. Â Well done, officers!
 @Life is too short They are not officers.
 @JLS1950 "T he two guards were under contract to the Federal Protective Service, a division of the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings."...i would think this may be a step up from the typical "rent a cop"!
Â
And technically they are officers...just not LEOs.
"The teen ran away, but then came back a short time later and got into a car in the parking lot. As the security officers approached the car, the teen backed out and struck one of the security officers, who in turn fired at the car, Ireton said.".... This does not say it was his car. Where did you get your info?
 @aintno1special I do not condemn you for your opinion... I merely elect NOT to agree with you! Is that really so very hard for you to understand??
 @JLS1950 "And if you disagree.... too bad!"..from what I have read this seems to be your "mantra" I am entitled to my opinion and so are you, as long as it is the same as mine. Pretty closed minded, but isn't my point to change you mind...perhaps just open the bias that you are displaying.
 @aintno1special I do not have a negative opinion regarding "officers": most are well trained and easily identifiable as such, and would never have done this at all. What I have a negative opinion regarding is people who fire guns at other people other than as an absolute last resort. And I am frankly not convinced that these were truly "officers" anyway.
Here is the deal: unless these guys actually observed this teen committing or attempting to commit a felony - or otherwise had knowledge that an actual felony had been committed in which this teen MIGHT have been involved - then they really had no basis to attempt to detain him even if they were commissioned. Even simple trespass (parking in a private lot without permission or walking on a non-fenced portion of private property adjacent to a public roadway) does not grant them that right generally - even if they WERE police officers, and absolutely not if they were NOT actual police. For example, a police officer cannot detain you - even to perform a Terry Stop - just because he thinks you were "thinking about" committing a crime: he must have actual basis (evidence) to believe either that a specific crime has actually been committed or else that you were or are attempting to commit a specific crime.
Additional to that, even if you accidentally back into a police officer in a parking lot, that does not in and of itself grant that officer a right to deploy deadly force. To deploy deadly force, certain preconditions must be met, such as in general:
- Actual evidence of both INTENT and ABILITY to cause serious injury or death - a clearly accidental act does not count, nor does an intentional act without actual capability. (For example, an officer cannot shoot you for trying to set off a terror bomb that the officer himself knows is fake because he provided it to you - although he can shoot you if he does not know the bomb is fake.)
- An actual fleeing felon where no alternative exists
- CONTINUING felony eluding where no alternative exists
- Another CONTINUING act actually endangering life where no reasonable alternative exists
And in each of these cases, the law requires that other "reasonable" measures must be exhausted FIRST.
This is what I do not see in play here. Reports are that the teen was acting "suspiciously" - not that he tried to commit any actual crime - therefore once he left the property that incident was over. Further reports are that he then returned and got into his own car, and apparently prepared to leave - all of which he had at least a conditional right to do. And reports are that these security guards only approached the vehicle AFTER it began backing out of a parking space. If one was then struck by the vehicle - and unless there was clear evidence that the driver was TRYING to run him down - that was primarily his own idiot fault IMHO: you do not step behind a backing automobile and try to body-block it!!!
And reports are that THIS was the justification the guard offered for opening fire... which is NOT ENOUGH!
Â
So unless there appears clear evidence either that the the kid was trying to break INTO (not out of) the property - or evidence that he DELIBERATELY and KNOWINGLY aimed at and struck the guard while backing - then I would frankly be inclined to say this was tantamount to attempted murder.
And if you disagree.... too bad!
 @JLS1950 "Let me also point out something else important here: when approaching a vehicle already backing out of a parking space in a parking lot, it is considered incumbent upon the pedestrian..."..as the story reads..."As the security officers approached the car, the teen backed out and struck one of the security officers..." Quite honestly an ambiguous depiction of what came first...but my posts are to get you to view things with an open mind. I have never "justified" what the security officers did, I am saying IF / THEN!
Â
You seem fairly quick to condemn these guys for doing what they did...even when there was very little information, not sure why you have such a negative opinion regarding officers, but it is obvious you do. I am with holding my judgement until more facts surface. The one thought I do keep coming back to in my head is, if I was minding my own business, then harassed by some security guards, then shot by the same guards, I don't think running home would be my first choice of places to go.
 @aintno1special *IF* they are commissioned officers in FPS with powers of arrest (and I do NOT take your word for that) then that would both require that they be trained as LEOs and would also MAKE them LEOs - and they ought to know better how to distinguish a unauthorized parking from a felony crime! And in the absence of a felony - in an unsecured, unfenced parking lot adjacent to both a public roadway and a school - they have VERY limited authority to accost or try to detain someone or especially to shoot someone who is attempting to remove his/her own vehicle from that parking lot. (Do these guys pull their guns on every employee or legitimate visitor who prepares to leave the parking lot during the day?)
Let me also point out something else important here: when approaching a vehicle already backing out of a parking space in a parking lot, it is considered incumbent upon the pedestrian (including a security guard on foot) NOT to deliberately walk into the path of the alreaady-moving vehicle, and NOT to assume that the driver actually sees the pedestrian enter the vehicle's path! And in the absence of clear evidence that a driver is DELIBERATELY aiming to strike and injure an approaching officer, that officer DOES NOT acquire the right to kill the driver! Accidents HAPPEN - an imputing intentional assault to a complete accident where the "injured" has deliberately placed HIMSELF at risk IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!Â
The plain and simple fact here is that these guards have a history of being overly aggressive and confrontational, and they seriously effed-up here, nearly killing an UNARMED kid over a simple parking violation and minor vehicle-pedestrian interposition which they deliberately caused themselves. They need to be fired, and replaced by people who aren't quite so full of themselves and trigger-happy. And this kid WILL receive a settlement at taxpayer expense FAR in excess of $1 million.
Finally, before you go trying to quote some law to me to "justify" this reckless action, let me point out that (a) I am not an attorney or a judge (and likely neither are you) but rather a citizen, and (b) no matter what the law may seem to say today, We The People can both condemn it harshly and damned well CHANGE IT!!!
Because we do not serve the law - the law serves us!
@JLS1950 @Life is too short He is not PAYING ATTENTION, his attention span expired....
I think about the only thing I trust about this news report is that âshots were fired.âÂ
Â
I donât totally trust the motives of the kid, but even less so of the guards.
Â
Have read other posters whoâve entered this driveway and it really makes me wonder when a non-threating driver of a stopped car is using his smart phone and a guard walks up to tell him to clear out with his hand on his gun. Just what is this FDA lab doing that requires such a rapid descent into a âdeadly forceâ type approach? Or is this a case that the guardsâ bosses are part of the Dept. of Homeland Security empire and that makes what they do untouchable because the guards know that this will be swept under a carpet as soon as the public moves on to another more juicy gun story and we forget about finding out about the truth behind this one?
Too bad his aim wasn't better. Would've saved the tax payers thousands of dollars in welfare benefits and prison space.
 @Common Sense ...to be replaced by millions of dollars in wrongful death settlements....
I must say its sad to see so many people who think this is a parking issue or a driving under the age issue. This was not a serious issue until he tried to run someone down trying to escape getting caught doing what ever it was that he was doing. there is a reason he is in jail tonight facing a list of charges and the guard is not. with all the different law enforcement agencies involved, city, state and federal. one would think if this was an unauthorized shooting they would be all over it right now. instead this was a criminal trying to escape and willing to do anything to get away. My hat is off to the guard. He protected his own life and that of the second guard. Whatever happens to the piece of trash he/they shot, so be it. If he doesn't get charged as an adult this time I'm sure he will be the next time he commits a felony. And i'm sure there will be a next time for him. Â
 @Ghost1518 you have no idea about what happend in that parking lot.the guard took more that one shoot at a 15 unarmed boy.did you miss the part where its right next to a school?did you miss the part where the boy was going to school?so this boy does nothing wrong more than to park at the wrong parking lot and you are given the guard a hats off for shooting a unarmed boy that you dont even know the full story about.you are why we need to look at gun laws
 @Ghost1518 The word is that he was backing the vehicle and the guard was struck. That is not the same as "tried to run someone down". If the guard stepped into the path of the already-moving vehicle - as I very strongly suspect he did - then the matter is entirely the guard's fault. A private security guard has NO AUTHORITY to prevent someone from driving their own vehicle away from an unsecured parking lot unless he has personal knowledge that a serious felony has been or is being committed. .
@JLS1950 well the primary fault with your statement is "the word is". this is based on speculation and that is a dangerous stance to base your opinion on. Human nature is to fill in the blanks with your own beliefs. Just wait for the final report. I think you will find your "very strongly suspect" is way off. So before you go jumping to conclusions based off of your personal beliefs let the proper authorities do their job. There is a reason the criminal is in jail and the security guards are not. Unless you know more than the investigating officers I recommend you hold off on your accusations and convictions.
@Ghost1518
Just came back to see if there have been any worthwhile updates, and nope, nothingâ¦
Â
Quote:
âIt's not clear why the guard thought the teen was suspicious.â
Â
Just one thing â and I think this has some bearing, especially since this incident degraded into a deadly force situation so fast â If these guards had been sworn police officers, what was the probable cause to begin this in the first place? Seems to me that if the guards were worried about security of the building and parking lot, theyâd be happy for the kid to remove the vehicle from the areaâ¦.. If for nothing else than to remove any company liability, not to mention if the car was a bomb, oh my!
Â
The word is that they arenât talkingâ¦â¦ and Iâm beginning to think that the wrong side may be in jailâ¦..
 @glad i dont live in WA anymore  @Ghost1518 Thanks for the confirmation. I hope the kid recovers well and that he has a good attorney. (I would recommend contacting Paul Luvera.) This should be worth millions from the security company, from DHS and from the FDA. They will only need to get statements from (the many) other people who have had run-ins with the aggressive guards, and the case will likely be settled out of court.
Sadly, lawsuits and big payouts are likely the only means of correcting this utterly egregious behavior: the Snohomish County Prosecutor has got one huge and most incredibly lumpy rug to sweep this incident under as quick as he can.Â
 @Ghost1518  @JLS1950 ghost you will be eating your words when this full story gets out.the boys mother is my best friend and you have everything wrong.and again the rent a cop had no right to repeadly shoot at an UNARMED 15 YR BOY.the guard was even shooting for the head
 @Ghost1518 That was the statement of the investigating officers yesterday: that the teen returned to the lot, got into his own vehicle and was backing out of a parking stall when the security guards approached and tried to stop him.
Maybe the kid shot his own foot. Maybe he parked his car in the adjacent parking lot for a getaway after doing something at the alternative high school. He broke the law driving under age, there is no telling what he was up to or capable of.
 @Nightowl "Maybe the kid shot his own foot."
With WHAT??? His BOOK REPORT??? Did you see any statement here that the kid had a gun???
Okay, personal knowledge through a friend/colleague when I was working just down the street from there: if you pull into that parking lot even just to use your cell phone, the guards will come out with guns displayed and will demand to know who you are and why you are there and will threaten you. This was a bit of a joke at the time: what we did not know then was that there is a high school in the two buildings immediately behind the lab building. We thought it was a datacenter or a NOC or some other communications hub that they were protecting so over-aggressively.
@Nightowl Yes, he drove without a license, looks like we have the next Timothy McVegh on our hands. Seriously? Really?!?
 @138  @Nightowl You should not make things up.Â
 @138  @NightowlÂ
Just saying. Maybe he had other thoughts. Really!! Seriously!!
Are 15-year-olds allowed to drive by themselves any more in Washington? I thought those laws had changed.
 @Whobeke Is driving without a valid license justification for use of deadly force against a child on a parking infraction?
@JLS1950 I had the same point you have earlier today and the best comeback I had by anyone was to call me "moron" , "troll"  and also correct my typo "would't".  Most of the people here for some reason have a shoot now ask questions later mentality.
 @Lorie Well, basically, what you have here are the gun-nut defenders coming to the defense of what they account as a "justified" shooting. But you are right about the "cops" (likely including this security guard) always winning: the Snohomish County Prosecutor has a special team for dealing with these cases: his wife. When public pressure mounts too high, she is engaged, she files over-the-top charges, brings the case to court, deliberately flubs the prosecution, and either the jury acquits on the over-charge or else deadlocks to a mistrial - after which the prosecutor says "oh well, we won't re-try." Boss Hogg and Rosco Coltrane never had it so good...
 @thinkfirst Questions? You think they would ask Questions?
@thinkfirst  Did you notice that they did not mention the security guard was injured or went to the hospital. If "anything" happens to a security guard or other law enforcement person, they have to go to the hospital, just to document an injury. And how could the kid have shot himself, he didn't have a gun. I think people are coming to conclusions that they don't know what they are talking about. But we do seem to live in a country that is so out of control that law enforcement personal and people all seem to shot first and then ask questions. And the cops always seem to win though.  Ask a 71 year old lady who was shot in the back by a stupid cop who made a very bad mistake. And she was just delivering newspapers. How in the world could this lady have resembled the size of the guy they are looking for? Dumb de dumb dumb. The bottom line, don't assume anything, you'll be wrong. And the teenagers are not always scumb, don't assume that either, just because they are teenagers.
 @JLS1950  @Whobeke Your obsessed with making up your own truth it seems. Police officers die every year because people decide to hit them with their vehicles. I would love to see how you react after you are run over and your survival instincts kick in.Â
@JLS1950
Actually, as you typed it, IMO, you are wrong â you first have to survive to make it to a courtroomâ¦.. afterwards, the Law might winâ¦. But Iâd rather be alive to find out.
 @Warpath2198  @Whobeke Did you read anything here about someone being "run over"? I read "hit" - and apparently not hard enough torequire any medical attention at all. "Survival instincts"? "Survival instincts" do not overrule THE LAW!
 @JLS1950Â
Â
Well, it means the kid chose to put himself into a situation he shouldn't have been in. He shares the blame here.
 @Whobeke How many times have you turned into an unmarked, unsecured parking lot simply in order to turn around? Would you expect someone to come at you with a gun?
Actually, I used to work just down the road from this site, and I knew someone who did try to turn around in the parking lot and who was met by an overly-aggressive "security guard" who scared the bloody heck out of him. Read some of the other postings by people who have had harsh experiences at this facility: it sounds more like a mafia front for a prohibition-era distillery than an actual government laboratory - unless they are assembling nukes in there or something!
@JLS1950 @Whobeke What article are you reading???? No parking is not worth deadly force. Trying to run down a federal security officer is........ This was no child either it was criminal, plain and simple.
@Ghost1518
PanAm used to hold contracts for several Navy bases for several parts of the infrastructure, including security. This does NOT make the PanAm people DoD personnel, since the awarding of the contracts actually removed DoD personnel from the wage rolls, which were doing that job. This is the same thing. These guards and PanAm folks are rent-a-cops.
 @Ghost1518  @JLS1950 Actually, When I was working just down the street, a friend did have a run-in with the security guards in that UNSECURED, UN-GATED, UNFENCED parking lot, when he pulled in one afternoon to use his cell phone. Guard with gun wanted to know everything about him: name, rank, DL number, why he was there - VERY threatening demeanor and encounter. We assumed that it was some sort of secure datacenter or key communications hub (we knew of other small datacenters in adjacent buildings.) We did NOT know then that there was a high school immediately behind the aggressively-protected building.
@JLS1950 didn't realize you were an expert on the structure of Homeland Security contracts and Federal facilities. You sure about your answer???? As for the car, you act as though you were there and witnessed this first hand. Do you always jump to conclusions based on very limited information?
 @Ghost1518  @JLS1950  @Whobeke Not a federal security officer - a private security guard. And I firmly suspect the guard simply walked into the already-backing car.
Those security guards need to be fired and brought up on charges. A 15 year old kid tries to drive to school to impress his friends and gets shot by a tin badge rent a cop. I sincerely hope there will be legal action for excessive force and these scumbags will be taken to task
@DaCapN Funny you know so much about what happened. And in another headline, "Violent teens attack soccer coach in Lynnwood".
 @DaCapN Why are there armed guards at an FDA lab????
Â
 @FL_One  @DaCapN To protect the BUILDING... NOT for armed parking enforcement in the ---ing parking lot!
They also kill their parents, blow up their friends at school, and beat tuba men to death.
 @Half-Baked Oh!... Well!... by that logic we should just shoot ALL kids when they reach age 13...
Great posting name there - SO appropriate!
@JLS1950 @Half-Baked And the next article on the KOMO web page: "Violent teens attack soccer coach in Lynnwood"
 @dome200q Now THAT is some serious gun-control!!! ;-)
Now wait a minute here..... my kid just turned 28..... only because I lost my key to my ammo box when he hit his teens.......
@DaCapN Wrong. If the kid "attacked" them with his car, they had every reason to fire at him. The police use this excuse FREQUENTLY.
 @scared_citizen  @DaCapN There is no allegation that the teen "attacked" with the car. The statements STRONGLY suggest that the guards stood behind the dar to prevent the teen from leaving - which in the absence of an observed felony they had NO right to do. The strong suggestion is that the kid parked in the lot and tried to walk to his school, the guards objected and chased him off, the kid returned to remove his car and the guards tried to block him with their bodies (at that point a possible felony by the guards - unlawful detention) and opened fire when the kid tried to back out of the parking space to escape his captors (at which point it DEFINITELY became a felony since these were not actual police officers and had to authority to execute a Terry Stop or otherwise to detain.
But the SnoCoProc will still sweep it under a rug.
@JLS1950 @aintno1special Yep, what JLS said. You're just mis-reading the statute in a way to suit your own pre-conceived notions.
 @aintno1special  @138 Did you read "public officer, peace officer, person aiding"? There is a huge difference between a commissioned police officer with actual arrest powers - and a private security guard who DOES NOT have such authority! A private security is not authorized to try to detain someone - including a car and driver - unless he has personal knowledge that a crime has been or is being committed. There was a case last year or so where a private security guard tried to improperly detain a suspected shoplifter - resulting in death or at least permanent injury to the suspected shoplifter - and the guard went to prison while the store paid out millions of dollars in damage claims. If you are not really a cop, you do not have authority to act like one!
If a non-commissioned private security guard stepped behind a car to try to stop it from leaving (as indicated in several articles) and without actual knowledge that a crime was being or had been committed, that is actually unlawful detention (a.k.a. attempted kidnapping) and the victim has a legal right to use any reasonable and necessary means to escape such detention. And since there is no mention that the security guard was even examined at a hospital, my take is that the guard hit the already-moving car more than the car hit the guard.
As I have stated elsewhere here, a personal acquaintance had a run-in with an overly-aggressive security guard at this facility when he simply stopped to use his phone. They act like they are protecting Fort Knox, a military communications hub or a drone command center.
 @138 Did you read (2)?
Â
    (a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening.
Â
Backing into a guard with your car is threatening...reasonable cause.
 @Beam_Me_Up  @138 I doubt very much that it is in fact federal property: much more likely a leased facility belonging to a private landlord.
 @138  @Beam_Me_Up Federal property does not come under state regulations.
 @Beam_Me_Up  @scared_citizen  @DaCapN Personally, I very much doubt that the kid deliberately struck the security guard. Much more likely the guard walked into the path of the already moving vehicle, trying to block it and to create an "excuse" to start firing. Either way, he was out of line for a non-police officer. Private citizens and private guards are only allowed to use deadly force when there is clear evidence that their own safety or the safety of others is at serious risk and there is no other reasonable way to mitigate that risk.Â
In other words, if someone not otherwise in the act of a crime races at you with a car and you can simply step behind a concrete wall and be safe, then you have no authority to shoot the driver.
As for the shoplifting analogy, a customer cannot be so detained unless the security person has SEEN them stealing; and no, if the person insists on walking away, there is NOTHING that a non-police officer can lawfully do to restrain them. That came up in a court case last year, the guard went down for it, and the store paid out big-time.
@Beam_Me_Up Sorry, but lethal force is not legal to prevent escape under these facts. What's more, fleeing felon rule is different in WA, see RCW 9A.16.040.Â
 @JLS1950  @scared_citizen  @DaCapN Sorry but you are incorrect on a couple of points. Security can detain people on private property including restraining them if needed, if this was not the case then how does mall security detain shop lifters? Shoplifting under a certain dollar amount is not a felony. Blocking a car is a form of detention. Your comment about an observed felony makes no sense. Standing in back of a car is not use of lethal force to prevent anyone from fleeing. Again, this was a detention move not application of lethal force. It became application of lethal force of the driver (violent felony) when the driver of the car purposely hit the security guard in an attempt to prevent detention. At that time the use of lethal force can be used to prevent the escape of a violent felon. And just because these are security officers I don't think it has been released yet what the federal government has authorized their contracted security to perform. These are security personnel operating on federal property authorized to carry/apply lethal force.