SecurityInfoWatch, click to go home
Most Popular: Today | OverallMost E-Mailed: Today | Overall

Lawsuit claims private guard failed to thwart Kirkwood council shooting

Company denies responsibility for actions of gunman
BY HEATHER RATCLIFFE
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Updated: 02-8-2010 12:19 pm

--

Feb. 5--KIRKWOOD -- A lawsuit faults an unarmed private security officer for allowing Charles "Cookie" Thornton into a Kirkwood City Council meeting the night he fatally shot six people and was killed by police.

"This wasn't some fellow that was unknown to the city of Kirkwood," said Chet Pleban, attorney for the daughter of Constance Karr, a council member and mayoral candidate slain that night.

"This was a fellow who had an extremely adversarial history with the city and he's permitted to walk into the city building without restriction and without any sort of scrutiny whatsoever, carrying a sign and two guns after shots were heard in the parking lot."

A police report says the private officer, Ronald L. Whitehead, saw Thornton arrive outside City Hall the night of Feb. 7, 2008, and went upstairs to the meeting chamber to alert police Officer Thomas Ballman, who was providing security inside. The report says Ballman remained seated.

It also says that Whitehead returned to the lobby by the time Thornton passed him on the way to the chamber. Ballman would be among those Thornton killed.

The suit, filed Jan. 29 in St. Louis County Circuit Court, seeks in excess of $25,000 from Whitehead and his employer, Whelan Security.

Whitehead could not be reached Thursday for comment. Whelan's president, Greg Twardowski, issued a statement saying that neither the company nor its employee was responsible for the loss of life. "While our continued condolences go out to the victims and their families ... the claims asserted against us will be vigorously defended, and we are confident that they will be found to lack merit," he wrote.

Post a Comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.

Private guard failed to thwart shooting

When I examine the story I find some very disturbing trends so here goes:
1. Knowing what they know now, how could an unarmed guard be liable when the police officer with arrest powes was killed along with the council member.
2. Present status of unarmed guards is Observe and report and that was followed. The extent is unknown at this timepoint.
3. I am sure the guard never received information to the effect that "XX is not to be allowed in" or "he is to be searched or detained", or that he is in the loop to receive council meeting minutes to ascertain the severity or extent of this incident.
4. If the council knew about the workplace incidents and never relayed to Whelan, then that is a different matter.
5. It would be interesting to see if they now install metal detactors or if they deputize security guards to have arrest powers in these type of scenarios.
4.

Armed or Unarmed?

When will companies realize that an unarmed guard is as useless as a camera if you cant do anything about it while it's happening. Observe and report and is all they are allowed to do. But, place a well trained guard with a gun and you got yourself some security. I hope the guard doesn't feel like he did anything wrong, the gunman would have killed him on the way up if he had intervened. Good luck to him, and Whelan.