15yo Girl Beat Down, Security Just Watches

Off Topic
41

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Worse than that…is the reality that had they intervened, they would likely be sued by the girl they touched especially if they touched her before she started kicking the girl on the ground.

They may not win in court, but that is what is filling up most court rooms today.

So, what kind of world do we live in? One filled with cowards and sheep.

Even though most here claim otherwise, it is more likely that even some of the guys who will respond to this very thread wouldn’t do shit if actually faced with this situation as they have never been in a situation where their life was truly on the line.[/quote]

But…Would they get sued for stopping the fight the moment it started? They really didn’t even have to touch(hurt) the crazy bitch, they just had to restrain her and separate the parties.

They work for the company/station anyway so its not like they just jumped in and randomly participated even though it would have been in the victim’s defense.

And someone pointed out the last few kicks to the head where the girl came back and stomped the victim out. I think they could have came to the girl’s aid when there was a brief pause to the assault.[/quote]

Someone as bold as that girl in the video is not going to politely allow some guard to simply restrain her. She kicked the girl because they weren’t cops…so that pretty much makes them the same as “mall security”. People this screwed up aren’t afraid of mall-cops.

That means the situation would go more as follows:
Guard holds back girl.
Girl says, “Get your fucking hands off me, bitch!”, punches the guard and goes back to kicking.

Later, girl tries to sue mall-cop for somehow twisting her arm so that she now can’t go to work.

The only solution is for that company to stop being a pussy and actually allow the guards to break up a fight like that along with all of the repercussions as a result.[/quote]

This is true. The company doesn’t want to waste time and money over lawsuits that could be avoided by the guards simply not doing anything. As long as they call 911, they protect the security company and the city (assuming they own the subway system) from potential suits. If they didn’t have guards, and there has been attacks,muggings, etc. in the subway before, the city probably would be on the hook.

The sad thing is, is that civil law is set up so no one has a duty to help anyone UNLESS they created the dangerous situation;they are in a special relationship with the victim (employer-employee, for example); or they undertake the duty and screw up. This is the reason that no one should do anything to attempt a rescue if one of the above situations doesn’t apply (save for people with medical training who are protected by good samaritan statutes).

(***I also need to say that the above paragraphs are not legal advice, and the law may be different where you live).

42

Why? what’s happening in 2012?

43

For the FACTS about the infamous McDonald’s coffee case. I am truly tiring of people referencing it in urban legend terms as the penultimate “frivolous lawsuit” case. It was not frivolous in the least.

44

[quote]Petermus wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Worse than that…is the reality that had they intervened, they would likely be sued by the girl they touched especially if they touched her before she started kicking the girl on the ground.

They may not win in court, but that is what is filling up most court rooms today.

So, what kind of world do we live in? One filled with cowards and sheep.

Even though most here claim otherwise, it is more likely that even some of the guys who will respond to this very thread wouldn’t do shit if actually faced with this situation as they have never been in a situation where their life was truly on the line.[/quote]

But…Would they get sued for stopping the fight the moment it started? They really didn’t even have to touch(hurt) the crazy bitch, they just had to restrain her and separate the parties.

They work for the company/station anyway so its not like they just jumped in and randomly participated even though it would have been in the victim’s defense.

And someone pointed out the last few kicks to the head where the girl came back and stomped the victim out. I think they could have came to the girl’s aid when there was a brief pause to the assault.[/quote]

Someone as bold as that girl in the video is not going to politely allow some guard to simply restrain her. She kicked the girl because they weren’t cops…so that pretty much makes them the same as “mall security”. People this screwed up aren’t afraid of mall-cops.

That means the situation would go more as follows:
Guard holds back girl.
Girl says, “Get your fucking hands off me, bitch!”, punches the guard and goes back to kicking.

Later, girl tries to sue mall-cop for somehow twisting her arm so that she now can’t go to work.

The only solution is for that company to stop being a pussy and actually allow the guards to break up a fight like that along with all of the repercussions as a result.[/quote]

Its a fucked up world when defending a defenseless person can end up getting you sued because the attacker gets hurt, then again arnt we the country that lets burglars who fall off ladders while attempting to break into a person houses sue because they broke their arm or leg falling.Lets not forget the infamous mcdonalds coffee spill fiasco or a judge sueing a small family dry clearer for over 100mil because satisfaction guaranteed is a very serious claim and his 20$ suit pants had a stain on them.[/quote]

Trespassers can’t sue if the danger would be obvious to a reasonable person (like falling down steps for example). But if you had a gaping hole in your yard, and you didn’t put anything around it, and the burglar falls in at night (or any trespasser for that matter), you are screwed.

45

Surely a security guard does owe a duty of care towards the victim.
I would imagine in the UK that the security guard does have special relationship
with the general public. That could set the company up for liability.
Anyone know the extent of the girl’s injuries. Presumably the assailant would not be worth suing.
She could easily be badly hurt from that attack.

I am not familiar within any pertinent case-law. A teacher here would definitely have
obligation for a pupil’s safety.

46

u know what thats whats wrong w/ this fucking country now…everyone is so god damn afraid of everyting cuz we are so sue happy…idk about u guys but lose my job or not im not gonna sit there w/ my thumb up my ass as a fifteen yr old girl lies unconsious and gets her face stomped on right in front of my eyes…and screw all those other idiots in the background not doing anything either…have some fucking respect and decency this isnt a third world country where public beatings are socially acceptable is it???

47

[quote]decimation wrote:
Surely a security guard does owe a duty of care towards the victim.
I would imagine in the UK that the security guard does have special relationship
with the general public. That could set the company up for liability.
Anyone know the extent of the girl’s injuries. Presumably the assailant would not be worth suing.
She could easily be badly hurt from that attack.

I am not familiar within any pertinent case-law. A teacher here would definitely have
obligation for a pupil’s safety.[/quote]

Nah, security guards don’t have a special relationship w/ the general public, UNLESS the security guards promised a specific person that they would protect him, and then that person relied on that promise, and then security guards failed to protect him. (that situation would be more of undertaking a duty and failing, rather than a special relationship.)

Teacher-student would be sufficient though in primary and secondary school b/c of the autonomy the school takes on when parents send their kids there.

48

It doesn’t matter what their job is, or what they are allowed to do. All that matters is that a couple of men watched a woman get the shit kicked out of her. She could easily have died. It’s a simple case of right and wrong, with the security guards not having the balls to step in. There is no grey-area in this situation - it was their time to step up as men, and they failed spectacularly, as did every man who stood watching.

49

Unless a massive public reaction gathers stem NOTHING will happen to the assailants. Ju-vee detention for the 15 year old girl… big deal. It’s a gang thing so she’ll probably keep her mouth shut to protect the grown men who were in it with her so nobody will do any real time.

A bunch of grown men brutally attack an innocent 15 year old girl… and nobody wants to do anything about it; not security, not the citizens, not the police, not the courts. What a wonderful world.

50

[quote]KBCThird wrote:

[quote]Fuzzyapple wrote:

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]Fuzzyapple wrote:

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
WOW. Wtf? Those guards should be charged as well. What the fuck has this world come to?[/quote]

Did you not even read the article to why they did not intervene? [/quote]

So what exactly is the purpose of the gurads then? You could hire 1 dude to watch 20 security feeds and call 911 if shit went down. Instead in the view of just 1 feed you have what 3 guards? Brilliant use of funds there. I’m not saying the guards are fuckheads if they were “Instructed” not to get involved, but then again, what the hell exactly is the job description then? Please wear these green vests and stand around and chit chat with eachother for 8 hours per day.

V[/quote]

Exactly! Shit, there’s three of them for fucks sake! And the assailant was a girl… Seriously, they are GUARDS who are supposed to GUARD the fucking station. If someone snatched a lady’s purse and the thief is running the guards’ way, would they not even at least try to trip the motherfucker?

They were standing there smoking cigarettes. And outnumbered my ass. There were “four” suspects and one of them was a crazy bitch. Tell me you atleast felt sorry for the victim…[/quote]

Guys don’t get me wrong I do feel bad for her and I probably would have stepped in if I were a guard regardless if I were told not to. She fucking stomped her and kicked her in the head while she was down in the fetal position not attempting to fight back! That’s what boggles my mind and I would have done something. Call it E-toughness or whatever. But to charge with the guards for what tho? They did what they were told to do.

Since this has been brought to light I’m sure that is about to change on what they can and cannot do with situations like this. [/quote]

Exactly. As someone pointed out, they were probably afraid of getting sued, and more immediately, probably afraid of losing their jobs. As far as why you have security guards not providing security, it’s probably a deterence factor - ineffective, as we see here, and possibly about to change.[/quote]

This is called negligence, which means they neglected to do their jobs. If this gets pursued in court, and the footage is made available the prosecuting lawyers should win in a landslide. They are security guards, and security guards are supposed to provide security not stand around with their thumbs up their asses acting like monkeys.

51

We live in a pussified society

52

I agree in this specific instance, the security guards probably would’ve been fine as long as they acted with reasonable force since that girl was in danger of serious injury or death. A simple bear-hug would’ve been fine.

I would stop something like this in a heartbeat, but as I said before, the company trained its guards not to step in. They probably could’ve lost their jobs, but as long as they didn’t go overboard, the lawsuit probably would get dismissed.

BUT, I would never touch anyone who was hurt. I would maybe apply pressure to a wound, but that’s it. Why put your personal assets on the line when you could call 911.

53

[quote]Heracles_rocks wrote:

[quote]KBCThird wrote:

[quote]Fuzzyapple wrote:

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]Fuzzyapple wrote:

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
WOW. Wtf? Those guards should be charged as well. What the fuck has this world come to?[/quote]

Did you not even read the article to why they did not intervene? [/quote]

So what exactly is the purpose of the gurads then? You could hire 1 dude to watch 20 security feeds and call 911 if shit went down. Instead in the view of just 1 feed you have what 3 guards? Brilliant use of funds there. I’m not saying the guards are fuckheads if they were “Instructed” not to get involved, but then again, what the hell exactly is the job description then? Please wear these green vests and stand around and chit chat with eachother for 8 hours per day.

V[/quote]

Exactly! Shit, there’s three of them for fucks sake! And the assailant was a girl… Seriously, they are GUARDS who are supposed to GUARD the fucking station. If someone snatched a lady’s purse and the thief is running the guards’ way, would they not even at least try to trip the motherfucker?

They were standing there smoking cigarettes. And outnumbered my ass. There were “four” suspects and one of them was a crazy bitch. Tell me you atleast felt sorry for the victim…[/quote]

Guys don’t get me wrong I do feel bad for her and I probably would have stepped in if I were a guard regardless if I were told not to. She fucking stomped her and kicked her in the head while she was down in the fetal position not attempting to fight back! That’s what boggles my mind and I would have done something. Call it E-toughness or whatever. But to charge with the guards for what tho? They did what they were told to do.

Since this has been brought to light I’m sure that is about to change on what they can and cannot do with situations like this. [/quote]

Exactly. As someone pointed out, they were probably afraid of getting sued, and more immediately, probably afraid of losing their jobs. As far as why you have security guards not providing security, it’s probably a deterence factor - ineffective, as we see here, and possibly about to change.[/quote]

This is called negligence, which means they neglected to do their jobs. If this gets pursued in court, and the footage is made available the prosecuting lawyers should win in a landslide. They are security guards, and security guards are supposed to provide security not stand around with their thumbs up their asses acting like monkeys. [/quote]

False. There is no duty to act; therefore, there could be no breach of that duty. Without a breach of duty, there is no negligence. Furthermore, they called 911.

Just FYI, in lawsuits, there is no prosecution. Prosecution is only in criminal cases. If the girl who got beat up tried to sue, her lawyer would be the plaintiff’s lawyer.

54

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Worse than that…is the reality that had they intervened, they would likely be sued by the girl they touched especially if they touched her before she started kicking the girl on the ground.

They may not win in court, but that is what is filling up most court rooms today.

So, what kind of world do we live in? One filled with cowards and sheep.

Even though most here claim otherwise, it is more likely that even some of the guys who will respond to this very thread wouldn’t do shit if actually faced with this situation as they have never been in a situation where their life was truly on the line.[/quote]

But…Would they get sued for stopping the fight the moment it started? They really didn’t even have to touch(hurt) the crazy bitch, they just had to restrain her and separate the parties.

They work for the company/station anyway so its not like they just jumped in and randomly participated even though it would have been in the victim’s defense.

And someone pointed out the last few kicks to the head where the girl came back and stomped the victim out. I think they could have came to the girl’s aid when there was a brief pause to the assault.[/quote]

Someone as bold as that girl in the video is not going to politely allow some guard to simply restrain her. She kicked the girl because they weren’t cops…so that pretty much makes them the same as “mall security”. People this screwed up aren’t afraid of mall-cops.

That means the situation would go more as follows:
Guard holds back girl.
Girl says, “Get your fucking hands off me, bitch!”, punches the guard and goes back to kicking.

Later, girl tries to sue mall-cop for somehow twisting her arm so that she now can’t go to work.

The only solution is for that company to stop being a pussy and actually allow the guards to break up a fight like that along with all of the repercussions as a result.[/quote]

Absolutely true. Whether we want to believe it or not. The problem starts with discipline at home. Nowadays there is none. Kids aren’t afraid of anything because they know authority can’t touch them (that includes parents).

55

there’s a video floating around where an ex husband is stabbing his ex wife in the face repeatedly in public, yet everyone just watches it happen for about 10 mins.

56

[quote]bblb wrote:
We live in a pussified society[/quote]

We live in a society where most don’t care about anyone outside of their immediate family/friends.

57

Outlaw is this in some Civil Code in the relevant state?
Is there any actual case-law on this. Which state is this?
Is it the same in all states.
Surely the police officers , at least have a duty of care towards her.

We (UK) had two policemen who did not attempt to saving a drowning child (they rang
the emergency’s services). They lost their jobs and I believe did get sued too.

58

I like how the guy stole her wallet when she went down. Classic!

59

[quote]KBCThird wrote:

[quote]Fuzzyapple wrote:

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]Fuzzyapple wrote:

[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
WOW. Wtf? Those guards should be charged as well. What the fuck has this world come to?[/quote]

Did you not even read the article to why they did not intervene? [/quote]

So what exactly is the purpose of the gurads then? You could hire 1 dude to watch 20 security feeds and call 911 if shit went down. Instead in the view of just 1 feed you have what 3 guards? Brilliant use of funds there. I’m not saying the guards are fuckheads if they were “Instructed” not to get involved, but then again, what the hell exactly is the job description then? Please wear these green vests and stand around and chit chat with eachother for 8 hours per day.

V[/quote]

Exactly! Shit, there’s three of them for fucks sake! And the assailant was a girl… Seriously, they are GUARDS who are supposed to GUARD the fucking station. If someone snatched a lady’s purse and the thief is running the guards’ way, would they not even at least try to trip the motherfucker?

They were standing there smoking cigarettes. And outnumbered my ass. There were “four” suspects and one of them was a crazy bitch. Tell me you atleast felt sorry for the victim…[/quote]

Guys don’t get me wrong I do feel bad for her and I probably would have stepped in if I were a guard regardless if I were told not to. She fucking stomped her and kicked her in the head while she was down in the fetal position not attempting to fight back! That’s what boggles my mind and I would have done something. Call it E-toughness or whatever. But to charge with the guards for what tho? They did what they were told to do.

Since this has been brought to light I’m sure that is about to change on what they can and cannot do with situations like this. [/quote]

Exactly. As someone pointed out, they were probably afraid of getting sued, and more immediately, probably afraid of losing their jobs. As far as why you have security guards not providing security, it’s probably a deterence factor - ineffective, as we see here, and possibly about to change.[/quote]

Sounds like “Nuremberg Defense” to me.

60

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

For the FACTS about the infamous McDonald’s coffee case. I am truly tiring of people referencing it in urban legend terms as the penultimate “frivolous lawsuit” case. It was not frivolous in the least. [/quote]

Thank you, sir. It is really annoying when people cite this case while knowing absolutely nothing about it.