Decorated Marine Charged with Crime for Defending His Church

---

---

A decorated Marine who dedicated decades of his life to protecting our country and the Lord now finds himself facing criminal charges for defending his church. The incident, which took place in Post Falls, Idaho, has sent shockwaves through the church security community in Idaho. At the heart of the controversy is a Command Sergeant Major, a retired Marine with multiple tours of duty, accused of battery for stopping a trespasser who had entered church property and refused to leave.

---

Watch the Video

Don’t want to read the article, you can watch the video where I break this incident down.

---

The trespasser, a 20-year-old man, was dressed in a balaclava and hoodie, riding a skateboard onto the church campus during a high school ministry night. According to an anonymous source with firsthand knowledge of the incident, the suspect ignored multiple warnings from security personnel to stop and eventually engaged in threatening behavior. Despite his refusal to comply and his aggressive actions, no charges were filed against him. Instead, the church security officer—who acted to protect the safety of the congregation—was charged with battery by the Post Falls Police Department and the prosecutor’s office.

Disclaimer:

The information below comes from a source with first hand knowledge of the incident. I have no reason to doubt the information given to me by the source, who is so reliable that he would be considered a reliable source by the court if I was seeking a search warrant.

I asked the Post Falls Police Department, through a FOIA, for the surveillance video, the police report and the responding officers body worn camera footage. PFPD refused to release the report or the body camera footage. They also refused to give me an official comment on the situation. They would only release the surveillance video.

he church asked not to be named and I am honoring that request. I do not want this article to be the first thing someone sees when they are googling the church to see if they want to attend. I think my audience, more than anyone, would understand.

The Incident

The events unfolded on a high school ministry night, where the church campus was secured to ensure the safety of minors participating in activities. The trespasser entered the campus, riding his skateboard while dressed in a balaclava and hoodie, making his appearance immediately suspicious to those tasked with security. The church’s security measures included controlled access points and vigilant volunteer personnel.

It is also important to note that the Church Security Threat Level System (CSTLS) is currently at Severe (Red), the highest alert status. This level was established due to escalating threats against churches and places of worship across the country. While it is not confirmed whether the church was actively operating under this designation at the time of the incident, the Severe threat level emphasizes the need for heightened vigilance and rapid responses to potential risks.

Upon spotting the individual, a female volunteer from the church made the first attempt to stop him, asking if he was a high school student and instructing him to halt. She followed up with repeated verbal commands, all of which the individual ignored. Instead, he continued deeper into the campus, moving toward a breezeway that connected multiple buildings, including areas where high school students were gathered.

As the trespasser moved further into the campus, he began to exhibit aggressive behavior, ignoring commands to stop and threatening the safety of those around him. Two security volunteers, including the church security officer, intercepted him in an attempt to prevent him from reaching the area where students were located. When verbal commands failed, the church security officer stepped in to physically block his progress, resulting in a brief physical altercation. The trespasser’s momentum caused him to fall when the security officer reach out to stop him, but no excessive force was used. Witnesses observed the church security officer acting professionally, focused solely on neutralizing the potential threat without causing unnecessary harm.

You can watch the surveillance video of the incident that was provided to me by the Post Falls Police Department.

According to my source, the church security officer maintained control of the situation and ensured the individual was escorted off the premises. At no point did the church security officer escalate the encounter beyond what was necessary to protect the congregation and maintain the safety of the campus.

The response by the church security officer was measured, reflecting his extensive military training and understanding of situational de-escalation. Unfortunately, instead of recognizing the professionalism and necessity of the church security officer’s actions, local authorities charged him with battery. Meanwhile, the trespasser faced no consequences for his disruptive and threatening behavior, raising serious concerns about the priorities of the Post Falls Police Department and the prosecutor’s office.

A Closer Look at the Trespasser’s Actions

One of the most significant issues in this case is whether the church formally requested charges against the trespasser. In many cases, when force is used to detain an individual, an arrest or citation follows, not just to document the incident but also to support the justification for using force in the first place. While law enforcement has discretion in whether to pursue charges, security teams must be proactive in requesting that charges be filed when force is necessary. Failing to do so can create the perception that the security officer acted improperly.

The trespasser was not merely an individual minding his own business. He ignored multiple warnings from security personnel, moved aggressively toward an area occupied by children, and escalated the situation by resisting intervention. He then reacted with visible anger after the encounter, knocking over a sign and speeding off on his skateboard—clear indications of his agitation and defiance.

Security officers are not law enforcement, but they serve an important protective role, particularly in church settings where recent threats have heightened concerns. Allowing a trespasser to ignore commands, violate secured areas, and then leave without any consequences sends a dangerous message—that individuals can challenge church security with impunity, knowing that any attempt to stop them may result in charges against security personnel instead of the actual suspect.

It is also important to recognize that at this stage, we only have one side of the story. The skateboarder and law enforcement have not provided their accounts to me, and the police have refused to release official records (see below). We do not know what the trespasser was thinking or his reasoning for ignoring commands. However, based on the available information, it is clear that he was moving aggressively toward a group of children after being told multiple times to stop.

As this case continues to unfold, more information may emerge that clarifies these unanswered questions. However, based on the information available at this time, the church security officer’s actions appear justified given the circumstances.

Obstacles to Transparency: The Fight to Obtain the Police Report and Body Camera Footage

In mid-January, I contacted the Post Falls Police Department to request a statement regarding the incident. I also sought to obtain the police report and all relevant video evidence, including surveillance footage and body-worn camera recordings from the responding officers. I was directed to Lieutenant Harrison, who informed me that he could not provide an official statement but suggested that reviewing the full police report and video would offer a broader picture of the event.

Acting on this suggestion, I submitted a formal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for all available video and the police report. My request was promptly denied. According to the city, the reason for the denial was to protect the individual who had been arrested—an unusual rationale, considering that the case was already in the court system and subject to public scrutiny.

When I informed Lieutenant Harrison of the denial, he expressed surprise and stated that I should have had access to the requested information. He assured me that he would work to rectify the situation. However, when I followed up, I received yet another denial notice from the city. Over the next two to three weeks, I worked with Lieutenant Harrison in an effort to obtain the full case file, but ultimately, the only material released to me was the surveillance footage. Both the police report and body-worn camera footage were withheld, with no clear justification.

As a use-of-force expert who has testified in court, I know that surveillance footage alone rarely provides a complete picture of an incident. Context matters. A still frame or a short video clip can be misleading, omitting the critical details of an evolving situation. In this case, the surveillance footage does not appear favorable to the church security officer—it shows the trespasser moving on his skateboard before being intercepted and taken to the ground. However, video alone does not tell the full story.

We must consider the perspective of those on the ground. According to my source, multiple church staff members had repeatedly ordered the trespasser to stop. He ignored all verbal warnings while moving rapidly toward a group of children. Given the circumstances, hands-on intervention was not only justified—it was necessary. Pepper spray was not an option, and this was clearly not a deadly force situation. The logical next step in the use-of-force continuum was to physically stop the individual.

Despite this, the refusal to release critical evidence—such as the body-worn camera footage—raises significant concerns. The Post Falls Police Department’s decision to selectively release only the surveillance footage, while withholding the police report and officer-worn camera recordings, creates the appearance of narrative control. I do not know if this is intentional, but in law enforcement, perception is reality.

The body worn camera footage would show people’s emotional state, statements they made to officers and would clear up the context needed that is missing from the surveillance footage. It also allows for independent review by experts to determine if the police did an adequate job in their investigation, like interviewing all available witnesses and making arrests if warranted.

As a 30-year police veteran, I have worked in the most liberal state in America, and even there, a police report would have been released to the press upon request. While some details might be redacted, the core facts would be publicly accessible. The fact that Post Falls is refusing to provide these basic records is inexplicable. The security officer in question has already been to court, meaning the case is no longer under investigation—so what exactly is the justification for withholding these records?

This lack of transparency raises serious questions about how this case is being handled and whether justice is truly being served.

Legal Analysis of the Charges

At this time, we do not know the exact charges filed against the church security officer, as the police and prosecutor’s office have refused to release that information. However, what we do know is that Idaho law already provides civil immunity for church security teams under House Bill 511, Section 5-347. This law ensures that volunteer church security members cannot be sued for their actions in protecting the church, unless gross negligence is involved. While this immunity does not extend to criminal charges, the fact that lawmakers did not include criminal immunity suggests that they never anticipated a prosecutor would pursue charges in a case like this.

Attorney Steve Smith, who helped author the legislation, told me that there was no push to include criminal immunity because it was assumed that a security officer acting in defense of the church would not be prosecuted in Idaho. This case, however, has now challenged that assumption.

This raises critical questions for church security teams. If security personnel can be charged for using reasonable force to prevent an unknown individual from advancing toward children after refusing verbal commands, what does that mean for other churches facing similar threats? This prosecution sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting that security teams may be left vulnerable to criminal charges simply for doing their jobs.

Without clear legal protections, church security teams must document every encounter thoroughly, ensure that any use of force is backed by witness statements, and work closely with church leadership to demand that trespassers be charged when necessary. Otherwise, as this case demonstrates, the focus of prosecution may shift from the trespasser to the security personnel who stepped in to protect others.

The USCCA’s Failure to Cover the Church Security Officer

One of the most troubling aspects of this case is the failure of the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) to provide the church security officer with legal coverage, despite his active membership. The USCCA promotes itself as a self-defense insurance provider, offering financial and legal support to individuals who act in lawful self-defense. However, this case appears to be another in a series of incidents where the USCCA has refused to cover a member in a legitimate self-defense situation.

According to a trusted source close to the church security officer, he contacted the USCCA immediately after learning he had been charged with a crime. Expecting support from his insurance provider, he was instead denied coverage.

You can read the denial letter from the USCCA below.

In an effort to obtain clarity, I personally contacted the USCCA and requested a statement. The receptionist took my information and the reason for my inquiry, stating that my request would be forwarded to the appropriate person. That was one month ago, and I have yet to receive any response from the USCCA.

On February 1st, I taught a Christian Warrior Academy class in Slidell, LA. At the course, I mentioned that I would not recommend USCCA and that anyone who has it should switch immediately. I brought up this case as an example. One day after that course, A USCCA employee heard about my comments and called me. We discussed this case as well as my other concerns with USCCA protecting church security team members.

That person did tell me that you must state you were acting in self defense. I told this employee that it should be assumed he was acting in self defense of others (the children at the church) and that he shouldn’t necessarily have to say those words out loud. After all, a lawyer would recognize this and help him sort it out. That’s what he is paying insurance for. I left the conversation having a better understanding of USCCA policies, but I still cannot recommend them for obvious reasons.

After reviewing the USCCA Membership Agreement, I found no clear justification for their refusal. The agreement states that self-defense liability insurance is a primary benefit of membership and that members are additional insureds under the Self-Defense Liability Policy. Nowhere does it specify that lawful use of force by a church security officer would be excluded from coverage.

This raises serious concerns for church security teams and concealed carriers who rely on the USCCA for legal protection. If a decorated veteran, acting in defense of his church, can be denied coverage, who else might be left without support when they need it most?

Since my conversation with USCCA, they have reached out to the church security officer to offer coverage. I do not know if he accepted their offer. But you should be alarmed if you are insured by USCCA. There was a gap of MONTHS where another source had to be used to pay for his attorney. It should not take me rattling USCCA’s cage to get coverage for this man.

Self-Defense Protection: Who Actually Supports Their Members?

This case highlights the importance of choosing a self-defense protection provider that actually stands by its members. The United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) denied coverage to the church security officer, despite his membership. This has raised serious concerns about whether self-defense protection plans truly cover those who act in defense of others.

Based on extensive research, I have recommend Right to Bear for church security teams and responsible defenders. Unlike other providers, Right to Bear offers clear and reliable coverage without hidden exclusions. I based my recommendation on my evaluation of the 11 major self defense companies. You can see the article I wrote on my evaluation here. For more information, visit Right to Bear.

I will be revisiting this topic once a year as insurers change their policies and procedures. I know you are all loyal to whomever you have coverage through, but I did extensive research on this and will continue to do so. I am not under contract with Right to Bear. I do have an affiliate link, but many “influencers” are under contract with these same companies I reviewed. Some of them offered me money in exchange for an endorsement. I refused all offers.

Lessons for Church Security Teams

This case serves as an important reminder for church security teams to take proactive steps to protect themselves legally and operationally:

1. Ensure an Arrest is Made or Charges Are Sought – If force is required to stop an individual, security personnel should work with church leadership to formally request that charges be pursued. This helps establish the legitimacy of the security team's actions and prevents the perception that they acted improperly.

2. Select the Right Self-Defense Protection Provider – Not all self-defense protection plans are created equal. The United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) refused to cover the church security officer in this case, reinforcing the need to choose a provider that truly supports defenders. Based on extensive research, I recommend Right to Bear, which offers clear and reliable protection. For more information, visit Right to Bear.

3. Church Leadership Must Support Their Security Teams – Churches should ensure they have clear policies in place for handling incidents involving trespassers and provide legal and financial support to security volunteers who are acting in good faith to protect the congregation. Security teams should not be left vulnerable to criminal or civil action when they are carrying out their responsibilities.

By following these steps, church security teams can better protect themselves while continuing their vital role in safeguarding their congregations.