Security guard just watch and call 911 as girl beaten

[Losonti Tokash]

In the Philippines, security guards can come armed with M4 carbines and USAS-12 automatic shotguns. I've also seen, with my own eyes, our local security guards shoot and kill people.

Question, what do American security guards do when bad people with guns come to rob the place? Are the American security guards armed, and authorized to use weapons in self-defense?

It obviously depends on where they're working. Mall cops are completely unarmed and spend their day riding around on segways harassing teenagers for their id and throwing them out after 8pm. Walmart if I recall correctly specifically forbids theirs from even confronting a shoplifter, let alone intervening in a fight.

[ArmorPierce]

I got my ass handed to me in a previous thread about advocating something similar, but I'm going to go ahead and say that here it's explicitly justified:

The hell with policy.
Past a certain point, he had an ethical duty to act to protect the well-being of the girl. The risk of death or permanent damage to her should have outweighed his need to keep his job, no question.

Yeah? Fuck that. Why should a guy who is making $10 an hour risk is financial and physical well being by going against company policy and getting involved?

Because he's risking $10 an hour. If he doesn't intervene, an innocent person just might die.
I'm not saying that it's his job - it's a fucking ethical imperative to the security guards and any other bystanders to get involved.

If the attacker did have friends with her who didn't appear in the video, then it may be a different situation - but just going by the video, the guards failed as human beings.

You're saying $10 an hour like it's nothing. It may seem like nothing to you but he is raising a family with it. If he could easily get another job he would. This reminds me of another thread of where I brought up a similar issue and was questioned, "Why don't they just get another job then?" If they could do another job they would.

If you admit that it wasn't their job, what about all the other people in the video as well? Why couldn't the intervene? Why even bring up the security guards rather than point out the fact that no one helped them at all.

In the Philippines, security guards can come armed with M4 carbines and USAS-12 automatic shotguns. I've also seen, with my own eyes, our local security guards shoot and kill people.

Question, what do American security guards do when bad people with guns come to rob the place? Are the American security guards armed, and authorized to use weapons in self-defense?

I think it depends on the agency, state, etc. Most security guards are merely there to make reports and call the police. Then you'll have the security that are like bouncers at the club who can physically detain someone (still no weapons though). There are some security that are able to carry guns, but I think these are mostly off duty cops and such and I don't know what the qualifications are for this is. The security there merely to report are paid the least, bouncer type securities paid more (100 to several hundred dollars a day) and I'd imagine off duty cops and such would be the highest paid.

[stormthebeaches]

observe, deter, and report

What is the point in even paying security guards when your in a public place then? Security cameras can observe better than any human being, and anyone can make a phone call. And if security guards can't physically intervene then I fail to see how they can deter people.

What a stupid system.

[stormthebeaches]

I wonder what would happen if one of the security guards was attacked. Would the other security guards just stand there and call the police while their co-working is the shit kicked out of him?

[Thanas]

If you admit that it wasn't their job, what about all the other people in the video as well? Why couldn't the intervene? Why even bring up the security guards rather than point out the fact that no one helped them at all.

Because in the public eye, a security guard is there to provide...security. Their image, regardless of their actual job, does reassure people that they need not intervene because people whose job it is to intervene are already on the scene. That is the common perception of security guards. People see a security guard and think "oh, I do not have to intervene, for they surely will".

EDIT: Actually, when normal people fail to see a security guard intervene for fear of injury, they are probably more likely not to intervene, after all, the professional thinks it is too risky.

[Dragon Angel]

One of my uncles from my dad's side of the family - who now works as a security guard after formerly being a cop - commented that some of these companies put strict regulations in their policies...because the companies themselves are afraid of being sued for many reasons. Some of these reasons include "excessive force" from the guards, wrongful use of force in some instances, and (I shit you not...) the companies want to REDUCE the chances of being liable for these guards' injuries. As if hiring security guards does not already paint huge targets on their bodies...

I don't know how well this applies to the article's situation, but it's an insight into the thought processes of these policy makers. Corporate PR, legal, and money matters are apparently more important than the safety of the people.

[ArmorPierce]

I wonder what would happen if one of the security guards was attacked. Would the other security guards just stand there and call the police while their co-working is the shit kicked out of him?

More likely than not they would do the same. Do you think that there is some kind of comradry on the job or something?

If you admit that it wasn't their job, what about all the other people in the video as well? Why couldn't the intervene? Why even bring up the security guards rather than point out the fact that no one helped them at all.

Because in the public eye, a security guard is there to provide...security. Their image, regardless of their actual job, does reassure people that they need not intervene because people whose job it is to intervene are already on the scene. That is the common perception of security guards. People see a security guard and think "oh, I do not have to intervene, for they surely will".

EDIT: Actually, when normal people fail to see a security guard intervene for fear of injury, they are probably more likely not to intervene, after all, the professional thinks it is too risky.

I don't know why anyone would think that they are professionals. Compare cops to the typical security guard. The cops are mostly white and the security guards are mostly visible minorities. There is a reason for this. Most people know that security guards don't make any kind of money at that and they hire basically whoever will work for the least amount of money.

[Thanas]

I don't know why anyone would think that they are professionals. Compare cops to the typical security guard. The cops are mostly white and the security guards are mostly visible minorities. There is a reason for this. Most people know that security guards don't make any kind of money at that and they hire basically whoever will work for the least amount of money.

They wear uniforms and their job is to provide security. Do I really have to convince you that a security guard is supposed to be providing security? Do I really have to spell out for you that people are going to assume that with security guards present, they are supposed to step in?

Otherwise you might just as well make them wear uniforms saying "If something bad happens, I am going to do nothing" (except call 9/11, which you do not need security guards for in the first place).

[stormthebeaches]

More likely than not they would do the same. Do you think that there is some kind of comradry on the job or something?

I was being facetious. Just trying to point out how absurd the policy of hiring security guards in a public area and not letting them do anything (except call the police, which anyone can do) is.

[Jim Raynor]

As I said in my previous post, these security guards didn't even look like they were doing all they could within the company's limitations. Watching the video again, I assume that the guy in the green coat must have been one of the female attacker's gang. He's the one who runs over and snatches something off the ground, right after the victim is attacked. Same with the guy in the red and white coat, who moves in over the victim then promptly walks off with the others after the beating is finished. The gang was apparently standing back on the other side of the guards doing nothing, while the female attacker somehow got to the other side alone and achieved contact with the victim (who was not given even a minimal level of protection). The company's own statement implies that the guards are NOT supposed to stand by and just call; they can physically get in between and prevent a fight from happening. Why couldn't they get the girl closely behind them, and tell the gang members to stand back and that the police or more guards were in their way?

Fear for their own safety isn't even an excuse for that, they were calmly calling the cops on their cell phones and standing with their backs turned to those gang members. If the guards can rat out a gang right in front of their eyes, then they can also stand in the way and tell those punks not to do anything. Or did they seriously expect the gang to attack the girl on top of three security guards?

And again, the county is wasting its fucking money if it's paying for such useless "security." 911 doesn't mean shit after someone is already mugged, beaten, or killed, and you don't need a dedicated "guard" to use a cell phone.

[Dark Hellion]

Thanas, you are confusing job title with job description. Most security guards have as much to do with security as a custodial engineer has to do with engineering. They are underpaid, have no training for physical altercation and can face termination and criminal prosecution for stepping in. In some situations a guard with a normal license actually has less rights to interfere in crimes than a civilian has. In other states false imprisonment (which can include IIRC physical restraint) of a minor is a sexual offense and if convicted requires one to register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives. Because of corporate ass covering there is actually less incentive for a security guard to step in than a normal citizen.

Yes, this all sounds crazy but corporate hired security guards are a joke who exist because it is cheaper for companies to pay for some guy to walk around in a uniform for 8 hours at night then it is to cover their losses from shoplifting if those guys aren't present. This is the sad state of security in the U.S. A bunch of guys who earn less than a grocery cashier and less training than a convenience store employee are supposed to provide "security" but damn near all of it is simply presence security and because they probably need the job are actually less likely to do the things the public expects them to do.

[Thanas]

Thanas, you are confusing job title with job description.

I am confusing nothing, I am describing the effect security guards have on average people, who think they are there to provide security.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Thanas, I think you're missing one key point here about American security guards, along with the points Dark Hellion mentioned. Security, at least the type of security in question is generally not about protecting people, that's the role of the police. Their job is to deter theft/vandalism and possibly to maintain a semblence of order (ie in malls no skateboards and running around like it's a park or in this case making sure people don't go where they're not supposed to be) by enforcing the policies of the place for whom they're providing security, either by removing people from the premisise or calling the police to have them do it and handle any legal transgressions that may have occured. Mostly, they're there for the security and well being of the property, not the people there.

In the Philippines, security guards can come armed with M4 carbines and USAS-12 automatic shotguns. I've also seen, with my own eyes, our local security guards shoot and kill people.

Question, what do American security guards do when bad people with guns come to rob the place? Are the American security guards armed, and authorized to use weapons in self-defense?

Generally, they are not armed. Mostly thier job is to notify the police and get as accurate of a description of the perpetrators as is possible. Even if they were armed I'd imagine it's largly only for use in self defense, as generally there are far too many legal problems that are bound to result from use of deadly force. That of course is not even taking into account the potential problems of discharging a firearm in a probably crowded public place.

[Thanas]

Thanas, I think you're missing one key point here about American security guards, along with the points Dark Hellion mentioned. Security, at least the type of security in question is generally not about protecting people, that's the role of the police. Their job is to deter theft/vandalism and possibly to maintain a semblence of order (ie in malls no skateboards and running around like it's a park or in this case making sure people don't go where they're not supposed to be) by enforcing the policies of the place for whom they're providing security, either by removing people from the premisise or calling the police to have them do it and handle any legal transgressions that may have occured. Mostly, they're there for the security and well being of the property, not the people there.

See above.

[aerius]

There's several problems here. The guards probably don't know their company policy that well, the company policies & liabilities are not entirely clear, and the US is a goddamn sue happy place. The security guards likely aren't the sharpest knives in the drawers either, put it all together and stuff like this shouldn't be surprising.

For instance the transit security here in Toronto have all the rights, powers, and responsibilities of a peace officer, if we had a similar situation here the security guys would have to go in, break it up, and arrest the perps. If they don't, it's lawsuit time. And this is spelled out everywhere, it even says on the subways that TTC security guys are peace officers and have all the powers of the police while on TTC property.

This obviously isn't the case down there. You have a confused half-ass system where if say, the guard decided to grab the girl and pull her away, he can get charged with assault & battery, unlawful restraint of a minor (which can put you on the sex offender list) and god knows what else. That's enough to permanently ruin his life. It's totally fucked up, but short of clearing up all the laws & company liabilities it ain't getting fixed.

[aerius]

They wear uniforms and their job is to provide security. Do I really have to convince you that a security guard is supposed to be providing security? Do I really have to spell out for you that people are going to assume that with security guards present, they are supposed to step in?

Otherwise you might just as well make them wear uniforms saying "If something bad happens, I am going to do nothing" (except call 9/11, which you do not need security guards for in the first place).

In America, and to a lesser extent in Canada, security guards are just there for show. They're supposed to provide security but it's widely understood that they're just ex-burger flippers who went through 5-10 hours of "training" and got a uniform for it. They're not gonna come save your ass, their job is more to guard property (prevent shoplifting & trespassing) than to protect lives.

[Siege]

I do have to wonder, how does one prevent shoplifting and trespassing if one can't even so much as touch anyone attempting to do those things?

[Artemas]

Ask nicely, and hope they don't call your bluff.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Thanas, you are confusing job title with job description.

I am confusing nothing, I am describing the effect security guards have on average people, who think they are there to provide security.

So, you think the publics ignorance is an excuse for inaction of their part when they can visually see nothing is getting done? Interesting.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I do have to wonder, how does one prevent shoplifting and trespassing if one can't even so much as touch anyone attempting to do those things?

Not all security companies have the same policy. Others allow their employees to physically detain shoplifters.

[Kamakazie Sith]

For instance the transit security here in Toronto have all the rights, powers, and responsibilities of a peace officer, if we had a similar situation here the security guys would have to go in, break it up, and arrest the perps. If they don't, it's lawsuit time. And this is spelled out everywhere, it even says on the subways that TTC security guys are peace officers and have all the powers of the police while on TTC property.

Then chances are they probably are police, or at least certified as peace officers. They just have limited jurisdiction like other transit cops in the US. (university police officers, or railroad cops, etc.)

[Jim Raynor]

And the one interviewed in that article/video explicitly said that its security guards would step in and save someone from a beatdown like the one we saw.

Half-assed "guards" who just make phone calls do mislead people. Problem is that if you put up signs and let people know how handicapped they are, that removes even the minimal deterrence that their presence provides.

[Kamakazie Sith]

And the one interviewed in that article/video explicitly said that its security guards would step in and save someone from a beatdown like the one we saw.

Half-assed "guards" who just make phone calls do mislead people. Problem is that if you put up signs and let people know how handicapped they are, that removes even the minimal deterrence that their presence provides.

Yes, it does mislead people. That's the point. They're a visual deterrent only, but yes you are correct especially now that this weak policy has been broadcast to the entire nation.

[Havok]

Thanas, you are confusing job title with job description.

I am confusing nothing, I am describing the effect security guards have on average people, who think they are there to provide security.

This is the problem. Security Guards are a false level of actual security. The average person has no idea how little security they actually have when they are around.

I worked as a security guard for my Step dad when I was like 19 and I will tell you, there is nothing secure when security guards are around. For the most part, your average security guard is just window dressing. They have virtually no training and no skills applicable to the job of actually maintaining security. They are great in parking garages as deterrents for car break ins, gate checks and making sure doors stay locked or anything else that only requires visual checks, but that is about it.

This isn't to say that there aren't real security companies out there, but your average 'guard' is just a guy in a uniform. People are probably safer in a bar with a bouncer than in a public place with five 'guards'.

[Gil Hamilton]

In America, and to a lesser extent in Canada, security guards are just there for show. They're supposed to provide security but it's widely understood that they're just ex-burger flippers who went through 5-10 hours of "training" and got a uniform for it. They're not gonna come save your ass, their job is more to guard property (prevent shoplifting & trespassing) than to protect lives.

Often, they aren't even there to guard property. Case in point, I did a brief stint one summer as a security guard for the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh. Now, at the Carnegie, there are actually two security companies, the in-house security and a hired company from outside the museum. If you dig a little deeper, you'll find that NONE of the outside hired people are stationed anywhere where there are actually valuable exhibits. In fact, they are expressly forbidden from entering the Permanent Collection where they have the irreplacable art (I was part of in-house security and thus my job was to stand around the Permanent Collection and not talk to anyone unless they needed to know where the bathroom was).

Aside from the fact there was an incident where a security guard hire from outside severely damaged an exhibit at the International Show with a knife, the reason is simple. People who are typically work for security companies are the sort of people who you want under NO CIRCUMSTANCES to actually guard anything you want to be secure. They don't give a shit and are in the job out of sheer lack of talent such that the only thing they are qualified to do is wear a uniform and occupy space in hallways. At least fifty percent of the time when someone gets lost and wanders down a corridor they ought not to the security guard turns them around. Well, maybe fifty percent.

So the museum pays them to consume oxygen because they feel the need to have security bodies but rightfully don't trust them to provide security for anything that might be worth stealing. This is funny when you talk about the museum, but is less funny when you are talking about the TSA. I suppose that isn't fair though, since the TSA manages to make sure valuable luggage doesn't make it to the plane often enough.