Security guard just watch and call 911 as girl beaten

[Molyneux]

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.

I'm saying $10 an hour like it's much less important than someone's life, which it is. Salary versus possible death or permanent injury for an innocent person - as far as importance goes, there should be no contest.

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.

Ahem.

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.

It was an ethical failing on the part of the bystanders as well - although as several other people have pointed out, the natural tendency when seeing a security guard in a situation is to assume that he has control of the situation.

[Big Phil]

Let's face it, these little hoodlums are trash - if they were animals they'd be rightfully put to sleep so they could never harm someone again - but since they're black, instead we're asked to empathize with them and understand their perspective and we're told that they're "victims of society" who will be on the streets again in a few weeks or months.

I wasn't aware that we generally support the death penalty for second degree assault.

We don't with humans... instead we allow the behavior to continue unchecked until they do something sufficiently heinous, at which point they end up dead or in prison.

What's even worse is that the Seattle Police Department (directed by the Mayor's office) have effectively surrendered the downtown Core and a number of Seattle neighborhoods to gangs, drug dealers, and other criminals. Gangs of kids (predominantly black) run wild, but because they're black, politically correct Seattle is scared to death of doing anything about them.

Are you saying that black criminals actually recieve reduced sentences in Seattle? Sounds like some nightmarish conservative caricature come-to-life.]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the mayor's office and city government have effectively castrated the police and told them not to pursue certain crimes or criminals. The downtown core, where all city governments are located, is an open-air drug market inhabited by criminals, junkies, and homeless people. It would be pretty easy for the police to clean the area up, but they don't because the mayor's office doesn't want to.

The ironic thing is that Seattle's black population is tiny and relatively affluent (there isn't really a ghetto in Seattle and there aren't any "projects"), and Seattle is fairly egalitarian, so there really aren't any of the traditional excuses for this type of behavior (entrenched racism, abusive police, massive poverty, drugs, etc.).

Didn't you just say that certain neighborhoods had been surrendered to drug-dealers? But there aren't a lot of drugs in the city so those damned niggers don't have an excuse? lolwat

Write in proper English, cock knocker... I don't do leet speak. And the two don't have anything to do with each other. In other cities the excuse for black kids (or any other kids for that matter) joining gangs is poverty, crime, drugs, or lack of opportunities. Seattle has plenty of opportunities, not much poverty, and crime/drugs/poverty are all related in a circular fashion in any case. In other words, the black community in Seattle is failing its members, Seattle's political leaders lack the courage to say or do anything about it, and the end result is a new generation of black kids being raised to become vicious animals because no one cares enough to do anything about it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm saying $10 an hour like it's much less important than someone's life, which it is. Salary versus possible death or permanent injury for an innocent person - as far as importance goes, there should be no contest.

Unfortunately, life is not that black and white. The security guards have priorities in their lives. Maybe they have a family to support that depends on that $10 an hour being paid to them on time and without delay. Also, before they risk their jobs intervening they, like anyone else, would have to consider the situation.

What you didn't see, and what was later revealed, is that attacker was with a group that made up of a total of eight boys and two girls. If the guards did physically intervene and the other gang members joined in the fight then they would have had a serious situation on their hands and when it was all said and done the security company would be able to wash their hands of any financial responsibility (injury to the guards, and any civil action against the guards).

Again, the fault of this situation rests entirely with the security company for writing such a cowardly policy.

[Thanas]

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

As Havok said, security guards provide a false level of actual security and the average person has no idea they will not guard anything except their own asses when push comes to shove. Thus, they raise the treshold for other people stepping in because those other people think that if even a security guard will not risk anything, the situation must be way too high for normal people to intervene.

It is the same thing as when other people decline to join in when the cops are fighting with others.

[tim31]

There was a case in Sydney a few years back where an armed security was collecting the weekend taking from a tavern/gambling establishment after close of trade. Walking back to her vehicle, she was assaulted by a man with a knuckleduster who grabbed the bag with the cash. Incensed, she ran to him as he was getting in his car and shot him in the head at point-blank. She was charged with manslaughter and murder(I didn't know you could play both cards) and eventually acquitted on both, possibly thanks to public support(well, it was a woman who had been beaten, right?)

The point is that for hired security, any sort of escalation will probably land you in a world of shit.

[Temjin]

The point is that for hired security, any sort of escalation will probably land you in a world of shit.

To expand on this, at my current site, if I get attacked and I fight back the wrong way, I can lose my job.

I'm allowed to block punches and kicks, in specific ways, and to try to nonviolently get out of any holds. And that's it. I even have to be careful when blocking a punch in case my arm accidently hits the person attacking me and injures that person. Punching and kicking is strictly not allowed. And I can only restrain a person as a last resort if there's two other people present, and even then there's only one restraint I'm allowed to perform.

Of course, most of this is due to not working at a security company any more. I'm instead an in-house security guard at a company that mainly handles other things.

Back when I was working for an actual security company, it was made clear to us that it was completely our choice as to whether we would intervene in a situation like this, as long as 911 was called first, and we thought we could do so safely.

[The Yosemite Bear]

The only security guards who are well armed are employeed by the banks, armoured truck crews and bank security a very well equipped in most cases...

[ArmorPierce]

I'm saying $10 an hour like it's much less important than someone's life, which it is. Salary versus possible death or permanent injury for an innocent person - as far as importance goes, there should be no contest.

Whatever. If I had the option of risking my financial and physical well being, leaving my family suffer, or helping some stranger on the street, I would pick my own and my family's I would choose my own. I don't see why anyone would be ethically bound to act otherwise when they're struggling every day as it is and losing the job can be highly destructive. How is it ethical that a person who is struggling as it is, is expected to go out and get involved when society has already given them a big fuck you to them?

[aerius]

It was an ethical failing on the part of the bystanders as well - although as several other people have pointed out, the natural tendency when seeing a security guard in a situation is to assume that he has control of the situation.

It is, but thanks to the fucked up law system in the US it's to be expected. Put it this way, in quite a few places I can blow someone's brains out with a gun in self-defence and not even get charged while if I step in to break up a fight I'm going to get sued to hell, lose a fortune in lawyer fees defending myself in court, and still have a good chance of being convicted of various felony charges.

If a bystander stepped in to break up the fight in the OP, he or she would likely be charged with assault, assault & battery, unlawful restraint of a minor (which puts the person on the sex offender list), excessive force, and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. You want to mortgage your home and lose your job fighting those charges be my guest, keep in mind that if you lose you're going to jail for a good long time.

[Stofsk]

There was a case in Sydney a few years back where an armed security was collecting the weekend taking from a tavern/gambling establishment after close of trade. Walking back to her vehicle, she was assaulted by a man with a knuckleduster who grabbed the bag with the cash. Incensed, she ran to him as he was getting in his car and shot him in the head at point-blank. She was charged with manslaughter and murder(I didn't know you could play both cards)

You can. Usually though, the prosecution will charge the accused with murder, and in cases where partial defences are possible, the accused will plead not guilty to murder, guilty to manslaughter. In some cases, like the one you referred to, the prosecution will present both charges to the jury. In some cases, the prosecution will be reluctant to have an alternative, lesser offence in lieu of the major one, either because they don't believe the accused committed the lesser offence, or they want the option to plead out the case if things don't go so well. Having said that, the prosecution is oblgated to ensure the accused receives a fair trial just as much as the trial judge is obligated to do. The trial judge also has the primary responsibility to do this as well, and either sorts it out before the trial commences, or at the trial's conclusion he will give instructions to the jury whether they can reach a verdict on a lesser charge.

By law, the trial judge has to provide an alternative lesser charge if evidence can reasonably allow a verdict. From the perspective of both sides of the bar table, this can be sub optimal - the prosecution wants a guilty verdict for murder, not manslaughter, for obvious reasons. The defence, at least if they're aiming for a full acquittal, will want a not guilty verdict for murder, without the jury to have to consider a verdict for a lesser charge (note that some cases naturally give rise to partial defences where manslaughter is actually the best that can be hoped for given the evidence and circumstances EDIT - I mean that from a defence perspective). The fear is juries will be tempted to give 'compromise' verdicts, not willing to send someone potentially innocent to jail for a long time, nor willing to let a potential killer walk away scot free.

and eventually acquitted on both, possibly thanks to public support(well, it was a woman who had been beaten, right?)

More like the guy she killed deserved it. You may be remembering the case wrong, she hadn't been merely assaulted, she had been bashed by the guy and had a fractured nose, eye socket, and wrist. She also had a concussion. For the crown to prove she murdered him, they'd need to prove she acted out of anger or revenge - and the witnesses didn't corroborate that. The defence argued that she acted out of a kind of automatism brought on by the trauma she withstood by her assailant. That would rule out murder by itself. And this was an important point, because the jury in that case asked the judge to clarify what the crown and defence's positions were on what constituted a voluntary act.

In any case, even the prosecutor in that case seemed satisfied about the verdict.

[LMSx]

Posted too early.

[LMSx]

Here's a link to the Seattle Times article, which has the Metro video and a quote from the victim that she has a "potentially fatal heart condition".

From this thread I buy that the security guards have a legit fear of liability in breaking up fights (it's deeply fucked up that the guards are even more useless than bystanders in case of anything actually happening). But I think two parts of that video are instructive- not when the two are engaged where someone would have to reach in and try and separate the two, but before and after with space between them.

For example, at the start, it's evident that the victim was trying to use one of the guards as a physical barrier from the attacker, something the guard apparently had zero interest in. Or at the finish, after the attacker is done trying to kick in the face of the victim she walks away about 10 feet, turns around, walks back over and the guards let her get one more kick in. Are you kidding me? I don't see their actions here and think "those guys tried to minimize a bad situation but were ultimately constrained by dumb policy from stronger actions that would have prevented this", I see "oh, your face is being beaten up. Interesting."

[Kamakazie Sith]

It is, but thanks to the fucked up law system in the US it's to be expected. Put it this way, in quite a few places I can blow someone's brains out with a gun in self-defence and not even get charged while if I step in to break up a fight I'm going to get sued to hell, lose a fortune in lawyer fees defending myself in court, and still have a good chance of being convicted of various felony charges.

Aerius, your perception of the US criminal justice system seems to be built upon rare occurrences, media hype, and movies. In other words, it is not an accurate representation of what is considered normal.

When you say there are a "quite a few places that you can blow someone's brains out with a gun in self-defence and not even be charged" you make it sound as if nothing is done. If you, a citizen, is involved in a shooting that's in self defence. There will be an investigation to see if charges are warranted.

There are a few places where it is assumed that your life was in danger just by the very presence of an intruder, like your own home, but even then there will be an investigation. Example - One guy in Utah claimed self defence in his own home. Crime scene was able to reconstruct the shooting and found that the home owner lied about the victim coming at him. They found that the victim was actually sitting down. The home owner was charged with murder because of that little lie.

If you break up a fight it is highly unlikely that you will be charged with a crime. An investigation will be done, and if it's found that you used force when it wasn't necessary to defend yourself or another person then yes you could be charged. Example - Two men are verbally arguing. You decide to take sides and punch one of them in the face. You'll probably be charged.

Another example - Two men are engaged in a fist fight. You decide to end it by attacking one or both of the men with a baseball bat. You'll probably be charged. However, if you use reasonable force to end a fight or to protect another then chances are you won't be charged unless your contribution added to the chaos.

The US criminal justice system does have a lot of problems, but your description is highly inaccurate. The situation that the OP is involved in is a civil matter, and that system is far worse off than the criminal justice system.

If a bystander stepped in to break up the fight in the OP, he or she would likely be charged with assault, assault & battery, unlawful restraint of a minor (which puts the person on the sex offender list), excessive force, and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. You want to mortgage your home and lose your job fighting those charges be my guest, keep in mind that if you lose you're going to jail for a good long time.

He or she would not likely be charged with any of those that you listed unless they went far beyond the scope of defending that minor.

[tim31]

More like the guy she killed deserved it. You may be remembering the case wrong, she hadn't been merely assaulted, she had been bashed by the guy and had a fractured nose, eye socket, and wrist.

Oh, I remember it right, I just didn't want to over-word it, and wound up understating the situation too much. And I agree he deserved something, but on the face of it her response needed analysis and reconciliation because of the escalation from life-threatening to outright deadly force.

[Kamakazie Sith]

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

As Havok said, security guards provide a false level of actual security and the average person has no idea they will not guard anything except their own asses when push comes to shove. Thus, they raise the treshold for other people stepping in because those other people think that if even a security guard will not risk anything, the situation must be way too high for normal people to intervene.

It is the same thing as when other people decline to join in when the cops are fighting with others.

Sure, it's called bystander apathy, and it occurs even in cases where uniformed officers aren't present. It's only logical that it would increase with the presence of uniformed security. However, only the security guards have a legitimate excuse for not acting. (Job preservation)

[Kamakazie Sith]

Here's a link to the Seattle Times article, which has the Metro video and a quote from the victim that she has a "potentially fatal heart condition".

From this thread I buy that the security guards have a legit fear of liability in breaking up fights (it's deeply fucked up that the guards are even more useless than bystanders in case of anything actually happening). But I think two parts of that video are instructive- not when the two are engaged where someone would have to reach in and try and separate the two, but before and after with space between them.

For example, at the start, it's evident that the victim was trying to use one of the guards as a physical barrier from the attacker, something the guard apparently had zero interest in. Or at the finish, after the attacker is done trying to kick in the face of the victim she walks away about 10 feet, turns around, walks back over and the guards let her get one more kick in. Are you kidding me? I don't see their actions here and think "those guys tried to minimize a bad situation but were ultimately constrained by dumb policy from stronger actions that would have prevented this", I see "oh, your face is being beaten up. Interesting."

I imagine it has more to do with brain freeze due to inadequate training. It's unlikely that they are trained in self defense techniques because they aren't suppose to physically intervene. Furthermore, the camera doesn't show you everything. Those security guards probably saw the suspect female approaching with a group that consisted of eight boys and one other female. That is a serious problem if they were to get into a physical confrontation with her. Trying to act as a barrier is only so effective up until you're punched in the face...which again isn't part of their job description.

[aerius]

Aerius, your perception of the US criminal justice system seems to be built upon rare occurrences, media hype, and movies. In other words, it is not an accurate representation of what is considered normal. <ship>

It's possible, I was on a message board dealing with self-defence issues some years ago and the news section on that board was filled with tons of horror stories along with some cases where things did work out. I remember there being a lot of news links where a bystander would step in to break up an altercation and get charged for his troubles. Could be a case of selection bias, but after seeing the same thing a few dozen times in the links it's not a comforting picture.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Aerius, your perception of the US criminal justice system seems to be built upon rare occurrences, media hype, and movies. In other words, it is not an accurate representation of what is considered normal. <ship>

It's possible, I was on a message board dealing with self-defence issues some years ago and the news section on that board was filled with tons of horror stories along with some cases where things did work out. I remember there being a lot of news links where a bystander would step in to break up an altercation and get charged for his troubles. Could be a case of selection bias, but after seeing the same thing a few dozen times in the links it's not a comforting picture.

That's even worse. Think about it. You're only getting one side of a situation. People who are arrested by the police are always whining about how they are innocent.

[LMSx]

I imagine it has more to do with brain freeze due to inadequate training. It's unlikely that they are trained in self defense techniques because they aren't suppose to physically intervene. Furthermore, the camera doesn't show you everything.

I suppose that's fair. 90% of their job is likely shooing people back from the curb where the buses/trains pass through, and pointing out where the bathrooms are.

[ArmorPierce]

Basically. Most security jobs are 90% welcoming/info desk.

[Big Phil]

Late breaking story updates - I'm not going to link to everything because frankly I don't know which sources are good and which are bullshit.

1. The girl who was beaten is planning to sue the City of Seattle, the Seattle Police Department, the security company, Metro Transit, and possibly Microsoft too for good measure, for quintillions of dollars for failing to protect her.

2. Apparently the victim in this case has a felony rap sheet - one felony for assaulting a security guard who was attempting to detain a shoplifting friend of hers, another for larceny or burglary of some sort - and she's only 15.

3. Supposedly the assailant in this case had previously been beaten by the victim and her friends. According to "sources," (i.e., the assailant's friends and family, so take it with a grain of salt), the victim had beaten her up before and she decided not to take it any more.

4. The victim apparently pepper sprayed a friend of the assailant's about an hour before the videotaped beating. This assault was partially a response to that incident.

And the list goes on and on and on - lots of excuses and justifications and bullshit being spewed by all sides. In the end, you have to wonder whether these people will ever make anything of themselves, and it's hard to feel sorry for a stupid little girl who got the shit kicked out of her when she has a rap sheet and is accused of having been on the delivering end of similar beatings in the past.

BTW - I say allegedly, supposedly, etc., because I don't entirely believe the sources reporting these things. It's not exactly a shock to have the assailant claim she'd previously been the victim, after all.

[Stofsk]

It's also not a surprise that the 'victim' sometimes turns out to have been a victimiser themselves, or who acted in a provocative manner. A lot of obnoxious people provoke others because they haven't encountered someone who takes violent exception to their behaviour (not to condone vigilantism or anything, but I certainly can understand it if it occurs).

[AMT]

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.

Which is bullshit. I have friends who work in Wackenhutt, and they have the same non-intervention rules for their regular guards as the other company.

Note I say "regular" guards. Companies like Securitas and Wackenhutt also provide security for places like government buildings (such as my office) and nuclear plants. Those positions usually pay closer to 18 dollars plus compared to 10 dollars, require several years of experience in law enforcement or military, and provide actual firearm training and self defense techniques.