Maybe the “security” guards in this case are just like bank tellers. You know those stories where a certain bank gets robbed and the bank teller does something heroic and chases after them and beats them down but then gets FIRED. They get fired because it’s against the rules. This might be the same situation here. Granted…what kind of guard’s just stand there and do nothing is beyond me.
I love videos like this. It means more business for me. I have a funny habit of replacing guards with technology (beyond just cameras) and providing more protection while saving money.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash 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]
Seriously. Paying “security guards” to not intervene is like paying your garbage man to kick your trashcan over. It’s pretty much the exact opposite of what you expect. Whatever happens, that girl that stomped the other needs to catch perpetual beatings in juvy.[/quote]
Haha I lol’d.
In fact, My pipes are NOT leaking right now, perhaps it’s time to give my plumber a call. Right? Hey-Oh!
V[/quote]
Haha.
[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]
That was actually really interesting. Added it to my favorites. Thanks.
What blows my mind is the vast array of reflex reactions and the way most people’s reaction is to do absolutely nothing. Like when the guy who used to live 2 doors down from me was slamming his tiny wife’s head into the driver’s side window of his Jeep. While I was standing on the porch screaming at the skinny little shit to let go of his wife because I was calling the police, everyone else on the street stayed behind closed doors and pulled drapes.
When the cops arrived (quickly, actually) the beater and his wife had each taken off in separate vehicles. I told the cops what happened and they each had a ‘whatever’ look until I uttered the magic words “He whipped that tiny thing about like she was a dish rag…” THAT was the difference. Those words are what spurred the cops to come after that guy - and those words would never have been heard had I hid in my house like nothing was happening while a tiny woman was being beaten, possibly to death.
My reflexes have since sharpened. I still get involved (a lot in my crazy neighborhood) but I’m much more careful about HOW I do it now (an old untraceable cell phone is always charged up). Security allegedly dialed 9-1-1 but in a society where everyone carries a cell, I saw nobody in the video dial for help - and there’s no getting around the mass cowardice (a national disease). If nobody gets involved when the victim is you, you’ll never get over your distrust of humanity.
[quote]decimation wrote:
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.[/quote]
The case law is the same in this regard in most states. There’s a differentiation between nonfeasance(not acting at all) and misfeasance (undertaking to act and then failing). Usually, there’s no liability for nonfeasance.
Also, I should’ve been more clear. Usually, there is no duty to prevent a criminal act by a 3rd party, unless the guards knew it was going to happen or the person requested protection and they agreed. Here, the guards didn’t know about the attack until it occured. They were unarmed, and it’s reasonable not to intervene not knowing whether the attacker (yes, I know…a little girl) had any weapons. Instead of intervening, they called 911. If they do get sued, I’m guessing it will be dismissed.
I do know that liability for police officers generally falls the same way. If they undertake to protect someone, and they are negligent in some way, and the victim gets hurt, there will be liability. Generally, a police officer would stop this situation. (We should realize that unarmed security guards are pretty much normal civilians.)
In the instance you mentioned where police stood by and didn’t attempt to save a drowning child, I don’t if there would be liability here in the US. Maybe they didn’t have training in the water or in how to save a drowning person. Their standard of care would be measured against the standard of a reasonable police officer. If police don’t normally save drowning people, then there would be no liability.
I still say we should go back to carrying around swords. If you decaptitated that bitch and the first of her little gang friends who was dumb enough to try to pull a kife or gun on you, the rest would run and hide and probably think twice about thier “gang” activities. At least in the public domain with motherfuckers carrying swords who aren’t afraid to use them. I mean for fucks sake, didn’t basically every human being before guns carry around SOME type of weapon?
V
I need to get my head around US law. I have never really understood it fully The whole culpa determination must take a totally different spin for her to be able to sue and possibly win. In Denmark, if the security guards, or anyone for that matter had intervened, that bitch wouldn’t have anything to say in court against them.
In France and some other European nations you can actually face a prison sentence for not intervening in a situation like this. Of course an evaluation of the circumstances is included and it’s not like yo uexpected to directly intervene if two guys are going at each other with knives.
[quote]theOUTLAW wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
The plaintiff prosecutes the defendant in a civil court case as you do in a criminal court case. The plaintiff will more than likely have a lawyer and they will be prosecuting the defense. You still need to prove the defense is guilty, and you don’t have to have as much prove to win your case in a civil suit.(beyond a reasonable doubt vs a preponderance of evidence) Based on the footage, it still remains that there was negligence involved. Those in charge of security didn’t provide security, they just stood around like a common idiot(talking on a phone isn’t providing security). Therefore the company can and should be found liable. If it was a bystander that wasn’t in charge or being paid to provide a service than there would be no duty to act, but if you are there for a purpose(security) and you don’t provide said service, especially if something happens. You are liable and therefore were negligent in your duties.
I personaly think a good lawyer would have a field day taking down olympic “wimpy” services if this were to go to court. Yeah they called, but they are a security service, and they didn’t provide security, they didn’t even try.
About the only other person that understands the law here is oddly enough, Outlaw. The rest of you are being ruled by emotion and a very bad street law legal degree. There is NO liability for the security company period. There may be liability for the property owner. No matter how much you disagree doesn’t change tort law.
Here are some bullet points that olympic security services allegedly provides:
“Security personnel accurately matched to each client’s needs” They were present, so i guess this was fulfilled
“Highly trained staff responds rapidly in emergencies” They were negligent here. They did not respond.
“On-going communication between client and security team” They did this by the radio.
“Management team always available, providing leadership and support” I guess this was fulfilled through the press release.
Here is a big bold statement of this company.
“It’s more than just a shiny badge and a uniform - it’s a total package combining years of experience, extensive training and professional, responsive management.” I did not see any experience showing on the footage, nor did i see any training or professional behavior out of a security personnel.
http://www.olympiksecurity.com/index.htm
http://www.komonews.com/news/content/84063732.html This story is one glorified blow smoke up your ass media responce if i ever saw it. This paragraph is particularly intriguing.
“Olympic Security has reviewed this incident with King County Metro officials and agree with them that a review of policies and procedures is necessary in order to develop the best possible responses to incidents like the assault captured in the video.”
This sort of thing is what happens after cases of negligence. This whole thing stinks, something wasn’t done, and if it get pursued they should be found liable.
Outlaw, due to particular phrasing on what this would be judged on and technicalities, you are probably right that the company would not be found liable, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t.
[quote]Heracles_rocks wrote:
[quote]theOUTLAW wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
The plaintiff prosecutes the defendant in a civil court case as you do in a criminal court case. The plaintiff will more than likely have a lawyer and they will be prosecuting the defense. You still need to prove the defense is guilty, and you don’t have to have as much prove to win your case in a civil suit.(beyond a reasonable doubt vs a preponderance of evidence) Based on the footage, it still remains that there was negligence involved. Those in charge of security didn’t provide security, they just stood around like a common idiot(talking on a phone isn’t providing security). Therefore the company can and should be found liable. If it was a bystander that wasn’t in charge or being paid to provide a service than there would be no duty to act, but if you are there for a purpose(security) and you don’t provide said service, especially if something happens. You are liable and therefore were negligent in your duties.
I personaly think a good lawyer would have a field day taking down olympic “wimpy” services if this were to go to court. Yeah they called, but they are a security service, and they didn’t provide security, they didn’t even try.
[/quote]
Again, no one prosecutes in a civil case. The plaintiff files a complant (or brings a cause of action) against the defendant.
Even if the court finds that a duty exists,the guards were unarmed, they called 911. That’s what they were trained to do. Also, they never promised this girl protection in the first place, so there’s no special relationship.
Yes, they were paid for their services, but that’s a contract issue, not a tort issue.
Whatever, my head hurts. I could probably spin the argument either way.
[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]
there is a point when humanity trumps rules. desensitization and narcissism can cloud the mind however so perhaps these are endemic here?
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]
With the economy as shitty as it is and jobs as scarce as they are I’m betting those security guards didn’t want to-
-
Get fired
-
Get sued
-
Go to the emergency room with a gunshot wound
-
Pay hospital bills and court fines with no income and no health insurance.
The girl is in a street gang, what is there to feel sorry about? People don’t get beat up for no reason.
Something else to think about…in this economic climate where jobs are hard to find in the first place, I really wonder how many of you would put your job on the line in this instance.
Also, if any of you think you could simply “restrain” that girl without using any force at all, I am going to have to wonder if you have ever had to handle someone like that before.
It’s one thing to sit at home behind your computer and yell what someone else should have done and another to act for yourself.
There are way too many mangina’s around today. I agree with the earlier poster, we live in a pussified society…and it’s only getting worse.
[quote]thrasher wrote:
With the economy as shitty as it is and jobs as scarce as they are I’m betting those security guards didn’t want to-
-
Get fired
-
Get sued
-
Go to the emergency room with a gunshot wound
-
Pay hospital bills and court fines with no income and no health insurance.
The girl is in a street gang, what is there to feel sorry about? People don’t get beat up for no reason.
[/quote]
You beat me to it…barely.
Those guards have to be at that same spot tomorrow. Raise your hands if you would like to have a gang on the look out for you every night while at work because you roughed up a member?
[quote]thrasher wrote:
With the economy as shitty as it is and jobs as scarce as they are I’m betting those security guards didn’t want to-
-
Get fired
-
Get sued
-
Go to the emergency room with a gunshot wound
-
Pay hospital bills and court fines with no income and no health insurance.
The girl is in a street gang, what is there to feel sorry about? People don’t get beat up for no reason.
[/quote]
though i don’t agree with the point “people don’t get beat up for no reason”, the rest is unfortunately really logical. I doubt they thought that rationally, given the COMPLETE apathy, but they lucked out in doing it “right”.
I didn’t take the time to read the article, but all I saw was a couple of little schoolgirls fighting. What’s all this talk of gangbangers?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]thrasher wrote:
With the economy as shitty as it is and jobs as scarce as they are I’m betting those security guards didn’t want to-
-
Get fired
-
Get sued
-
Go to the emergency room with a gunshot wound
-
Pay hospital bills and court fines with no income and no health insurance.
The girl is in a street gang, what is there to feel sorry about? People don’t get beat up for no reason.
[/quote]
You beat me to it…barely.
Those guards have to be at that same spot tomorrow. Raise your hands if you would like to have a gang on the look out for you every night while at work because you roughed up a member?[/quote]
So whats the solution then? Just have everyone in society bow down to teenage gang members because they will fuck shit up and we are afraid to? Employ more heavily armed and armored cops to patrol areas with high gang activities and crack down on them super hard? Robots with lazers to do the dirty work? (thats what I vote for, Robocop)
V