Using the Issue, Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion, see the analysis of the legal case indicated above.
<h3>What is the Issue?</h3>
As already given, Additional security officers were engaged to defend the steel mill from thieves and vandals, as previously stated. CBC management was also aware that the security guards possessed weapons, which they were meant to employ for CBC protection.
The primary goal of recruiting more guards was to defend CBC from external threats.
<h3>What was the rule?</h3>
The responsibility for confirming that the hired guards were:
- trained for the circumstance and
- were legally permitted to carry and use weapons in a crisis situation like this;
was that of CBC
Both PSP and CBC were entirely negligent in failing to check and regulate the scenario in which a security guard who was not qualified as an armed guard nonetheless carried the pistol.
<h3>What is the Analysis?</h3>
Unauthorized employees carrying firearms are automatically breaking the law and endangering their own and others' safety.
Also, once CBC discovered that guards were armed with weapons, it was their job to ensure that sufficient training is provided to their personnel and that they are familiar with the entire procedure so that they may prevent any confusion and are not perceived as a thief or a risk to others.
<h3>What is the conclusion?</h3>
Working in an atmosphere prone to theft and vandalism necessitated more security and armed guards, which was an inherently risky circumstance, especially when uncertified guards were deployed with guns.
However, both parties (PSP and CBC) were negligent.
Learn more about Legal case analysis at:
brainly.com/question/25903338
#SPJ1
