If deadly force cannot be used for defense of property, then why are any cash guards allowed guns? Your implication is that the guards have guns to protect only themselves, not the money. They are then like an ordinary citizen carrying a gun, except they have an open carry permit and not a concealed carry permit.

This could be avoided if they post on the side of the armored car "Notice: You do not need to threaten our guards with physical harm. They do not carry guns and are on orders to not resist. If you want the money simply take it, our guards will not fight to keep it."

As someone else pointed out, one or two jurisdictions permit deadly force to be used to protect property. However, everywhere else in the U.S., "I was stopping him from taking my stuff so I shot him dead," will get you convicted of murder. Cash guards have guns so that, if deadly force is used (or the reasonable perception that deadly force will be used) by robbers, they can defend themselves. Also, if I recall correctly, "reasonable force" can be used to evict trespassers in most jurisdictions, i.e. you can give someone the "bum's rush."

That's not my implication. That's the law.

That's exactly correct. In those states that require a carry permit, the stated criterion for obtaining one is, usually, that you are engaged in a specific activity that is dangerous and the weapon is required for protection of your person. If you shoot and kill someone who is stealing something and you have no reasonable belief that you are in danger you have committed murder in most states. Note, too, the distinction between "theft" and "robbery." A robbery is theft by force or fear of force, i.e. you are put in apprehension of your physical well-being. If someone pulls a knife or gun on you, shooting him dead is self-defense and non-criminal.

Obviously, if you do not threaten the guards, they're not going to give you the money just because you asked. If you do threaten the guards, and they reasonably believe they are in danger of imminent bodily harm, they can and will shoot you dead.

Here's a more interesting hypothetical:

While the armed guards are turned away, you sneak up behind them, grab a bag of money, turn and start to run away. The guards hear you, turn, draw their guns, and yell, "Stop, or I'll shoot!"

Do you think they can shoot?

Now, same hypothetical, except instead of the guards drawing their weapon and shouting, it's a policeman standing nearby.

Do you think he can shoot?

Very good.

That's a good question and I don't really know the answer. The rationale of Garner is that a policeman's reasonable belief that the fleeing felon poses a risk to others justifies the use of deadly force. Ordinary citizens can use deadly force to defend themselves and others against a reasonable belief that they or others will be subject to imminent severe harm so it's possible that it would. Maybe someone who is more versed on criminal law than I can comment.

They = ATM couriers. But they were escorted by APD officers when refilling the machines.

When you get liquored up your mind turns to crime?

Oh, I forgot. You're a lawyer.

Is that the cop that shot the fleeing suspect/felon/parollee/whatever he was?

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live...U.html?sid=101

Here in Ohio, there's no such thing as an "open carry" permit, just CCW. the story tells of a guy who was walking around with a weapon on his belt; he had a license for a gun.

See, that's a completely unfair assumption -- talk about prejudicial stereotyping!

As a lawyer, I don't need to get liquored up for my mind to turn to crime.

I haven't read Garner since law school, but I think your characterization of the holding is not correct (though your recitation of the facts are). The fleeing felon rule, as I recall, requires a good-faith belief on the part of the law enforcement officer that the fleeing felon poses a significant risk to others. Absent that belief, deadly force is not permitted. I may be wrong, but it makes no sense to excuse deadly force used on, for example, an unarmed, non-violent jaywalker on crutches who tries to limp away.