15yo Girl Beat Down, Security Just Watches

Off Topic
121

[quote]Ken St.Mich wrote:

I�´ve been working in private security so I�´m gonna tell you a few things.

  • If you work in private security you should know how to fight. ItÃ?´s in your own interest and if you canÃ?´t, you are not able to protect you and those who you are paid to protect.
  • The situation could have been controlled easily, if all of those silly clowns had stepped in instead of walking away or if necessary just taken a hold of the attacker.
  • If you are sued you usually have a lot of witnesses on your side. I could beat people up and know my colleagues would lie for me in court. Who is the jude going to believe? A group of articulate and calm security guards in nice suits or some gang member, drunken fool who probably looses his temper in court or in front of the police?
    In one case a colleague beat someone up after being attacked. The guy called the police and after they arrived asked them why they took 20 min for it, if they first got a pizza on their way.
    Case closed. Most people are stupid especially those violent ignorant punks.
    [/quote]

You work in private security? Well then how can you be so ill informed. Allow me to deconstruct your arguments:

First, not all “security” is protecting persons. There is observe and report. A physical deterrence. Not all security is retained or trained to engage a threat. Period. No further debate is necessary on that point. If you’re retained to protect persons, then of course you should be trained.

You are basing your observation about the situation from a single camera angle. You do not know who or what was with her out of the camera shot. Assuming it could be controlled, they clearly had a policy of non-engagement. They called 911. They did exactly as they were CONTRACTED to do. And given that retention, they were unlikely to be armed with even pepper spray. Observe and report. Visual deterrence. Nothing more.

Lot of witnesses on your side? LOL. Lie in court. That’s great. You’re a genius. Did you forget the camera? Do you understand that once you do engage, you no longer CONTROL the engagement, yet you are still criminally and legally bound to a continuum of force? Have you considered that if you did breach that, that given your standing orders for that job, you likely stepped outside the course and scope of your employment and would not be defended by your employer’s insurance company - leaving YOU to incur the considerable cost of defending and paying any lawsuit?

Maybe you’re security at a grade school where those punks are so easily controlled and you can retain control over those playground fights. No offense, but seriously, your post is just…lacking.

122

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:
These emotional threads get so… emotional. I’m going to further restrain myself from this one because there aren’t many logical people to argue with.[/quote]

why do you think I said what I needed to say and left it at that? Everyone’s an expert[/quote]

Well…I am.

123

[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
The other kids in her gang wouldn’t have done shit to help her, they would’ve just taken off and no one would’ve known they were even involved. [/quote]

This is a very big, and potentially dangerous assumption. None of us were there. And I’ll share a little something with you; where I’m from, I do not fear another man, but I do consider teenagers carefully.

124

[quote]SirenSong61 wrote:
Someone mentioned that the attacked girl was in a gang. I saw the video and read the article and my understanding was that the girl was an innocent shopper, with no gang affiliation, targeted by a “gang” bent on harassing a lone young woman and stealing her goods. Did I misread this?

BTW, the story HAS picked up steam and the video, along with the “public outcry” made the CBS Evening News. Happy about that. No mention of the victim being associated with a gang on the news.[/quote]

You got it right. The attacker was in a gang. The victim was just some chick in a mall.

125

[quote]RTJenforcer wrote:
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.[/quote]

EXACTLY! This is not an issue of law, policies, or getting sued. Would you be proud of your father if he did nothing while he could have saved a young girl (somebody’s daughter) from great harm and maybe even death?

126

[quote]gethuge08 wrote:

[quote]RTJenforcer wrote:
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.[/quote]

EXACTLY! This is not an issue of law, policies, or getting sued. Would you be proud of your father if he did nothing while he could have saved a young girl (somebody’s daughter) from great harm and maybe even death?[/quote]

That depends on if that father had greater responsibilities at home. You don’t know these men or what their responsibilities are…and I can guarantee most kids would rather they had a father be there throughout their life than one who got himself killed while they were still young because he didn’t consider the outcome at all.

I don’t have kids. The decision for me would be simple. However, it would be ignorant to assume that everyone has the same responsibilities.

The LAWS are what need changing, not the men who actually followed the guidelines they were given.

127

I see what you mean X, but I have to disagree especially in this situation because the guards could have so easily stepped in. It was a girl doing the damage and no weapon was in the situation (yes I know that this doesn’t mean there were no weapons). So everybody needs to realize what they are rationalizing.

128

[quote]Professor X wrote:

That depends on if that father had greater responsibilities at home. You don’t know these men or what their responsibilities are…and I can guarantee most kids would rather they had a father be there throughout their life than one who got himself killed while they were still young because he didn’t consider the outcome at all.

I don’t have kids. The decision for me would be simple. However, it would be ignorant to assume that everyone has the same responsibilities.

The LAWS are what need changing, not the men who actually followed the guidelines they were given.[/quote]

Saying the laws need to change X is a slippery slope. What do we want to change? Do we want to abolish any legal liability for someone intervening in a criminal act? So what’s to stop or deter an unjust intervention? Where do you draw the line? Do we change the tort laws? Same argument. No. I think the laws we have, although imperfect, are sufficient. The only “problem” here, is that these guards were not retained to intervene, but to observe and report. That none of them decided to step outside that retention, is a personal decision for each man and you’ve adequately addressed the potential concerns they may have had.

There is no law that stops you from intervening and rendering aid. It just provides that you do so with “reasonable” force. Do we want anything else? If you’re fighting in my club, remove the present laws, we can take you in the alley and “legally” give you a beating within an inch of your life. Would it be reasonable for one of the men to punch the girl in the face to stop the attack? I’m purposefully being extreme and I’m certain you get the point. Were you talking about the tort laws? Same thing applies.

Do we want employees of companies administering vigilante justice or physically assaulting people with no legal remedy? I’m interested in knowing what laws you would change.

129

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]gethuge08 wrote:

[quote]RTJenforcer wrote:
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.[/quote]

EXACTLY! This is not an issue of law, policies, or getting sued. Would you be proud of your father if he did nothing while he could have saved a young girl (somebody’s daughter) from great harm and maybe even death?[/quote]

That depends on if that father had greater responsibilities at home. You don’t know these men or what their responsibilities are…and I can guarantee most kids would rather they had a father be there throughout their life than one who got himself killed while they were still young because he didn’t consider the outcome at all.

I don’t have kids. The decision for me would be simple. However, it would be ignorant to assume that everyone has the same responsibilities.

The LAWS are what need changing, not the men who actually followed the guidelines they were given.[/quote]

Man, I know you’re thinking logically and expressing it on here, but do you really think those guards, or the people standing around were also thinking about the big picture? I imagine that most - if not all - of the people in the vicinty of the attack had never seen anything that vicious and froze out of shock and fear, and that’s what enabled those kids to snatch her wallet, IPOD, etc… I seriously doubt conscious thought was behind their lack of action.

130

[quote]Professor X wrote:

The LAWS are what need changing, not the men who actually followed the guidelines they were given.[/quote]

I hope the company does follow through with the review they will be doing and do make some policy changes. At least no one got seriously hurt, and they have a chance to rectify the policies they currently have for the next time something of this nature occurs.

131

People have just become pussies, plain and simple. A group of full grown men was terrified by a slight of build teenage girl. In my opinion, that is ridiculous.

132

[quote]gethuge08 wrote:
I see what you mean X, but I have to disagree especially in this situation because the guards could have so easily stepped in. It was a girl doing the damage and no weapon was in the situation (yes I know that this doesn’t mean there were no weapons). So everybody needs to realize what they are rationalizing. [/quote]

She was reportedly with a group, I believe it was characterized - fairly or unfairly, as a “gang”. Do you know how many were with her out of the camera shot? 2 or 10. Armed, or unarmed? Do you know the age and physical condition of the guards? There is just too much we don’t know to render any reasonably intelligent conclusion about the guards inaction.

Food for thought; I’m 270 and generally accepted as very intimidating. I am trained. I don’t think I can beat everyone, but a fight with me wouldn’t be a leisurely day at the beach. Two weekends ago, I broke up 4 different fights involving females. Not one fight stopped when I went to intervene. I had to physically remove them like men. One girl was dragged out by another team member and CUFFED outside. One fight, the downed girl was getting robbed. My considerable physical presence did not deter these girls one iota. In Philadelphia, they are quite aware of security’s “disposition” in our club. We go hard on people because it’s a potential powder keg given our crowd and the numbers. It can be very easy to lose control of such a place. And in spite of this reputation, they were not in the least deterred.

I’m just saying…X said it earlier. No one is afraid of the mall cops in the green vest. They are getting no respect and if they intervene, they will likely be engaged and not “surrender”. I “get” that this is a matter of human decency. I support that. I feel the same way. I’d have acted. But not everyone is cut out to be a hero. The end.

133

What a bunch of useless piece of shit!

134

FWIW, as a bouncer, girl fights are a whole different animal. First of all, like thebodyguard said, they don’t seem to give a fuck about your “presence” they will still go crazy. Secondly, security/bouncers get sued all the time for “sexually assaulting” these women when they go to break up a fight. You might accidentally grab their boob or something when trying to pry them apart, and next thing you know you have a lawsuit on your hands.

Pretty fucked up.

135

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
FWIW, as a bouncer, girl fights are a whole different animal. First of all, like thebodyguard said, they don’t seem to give a fuck about your “presence” they will still go crazy. Secondly, security/bouncers get sued all the time for “sexually assaulting” these women when they go to break up a fight. You might accidentally grab their boob or something when trying to pry them apart, and next thing you know you have a lawsuit on your hands.

Pretty fucked up.[/quote]

They’ll still go crazy 'cause 1. They’re generally illogical, and 2. Think they’re “untouchable” to a man, as far as physical violence is concerned. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a woman get in a mans face and say the most fucked up shit imaginable while hitting/slapping/choking him and expecting no physical retaliation. And, the few times I have seen a man hit back these bitches act like they got shot they’re so surprised.

136

[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
FWIW, as a bouncer, girl fights are a whole different animal. First of all, like thebodyguard said, they don’t seem to give a fuck about your “presence” they will still go crazy. Secondly, security/bouncers get sued all the time for “sexually assaulting” these women when they go to break up a fight. You might accidentally grab their boob or something when trying to pry them apart, and next thing you know you have a lawsuit on your hands.

Pretty fucked up.[/quote]

That’s why I snatch them by their fucking neck LOL. j/k

138

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SirenSong61 wrote:
Someone mentioned that the attacked girl was in a gang. I saw the video and read the article and my understanding was that the girl was an innocent shopper, with no gang affiliation, targeted by a “gang” bent on harassing a lone young woman and stealing her goods. Did I misread this?

BTW, the story HAS picked up steam and the video, along with the “public outcry” made the CBS Evening News. Happy about that. No mention of the victim being associated with a gang on the news.[/quote]

If it catches enough steam, perhaps we can curb the legal ramifications that cause shit like this to happen in the first place.

As it stands, if they even slightly moved the girl on the ground after she was injured they could be sued as well if there is ANY damage at all to her spine or the move causes internal damage. That means that LEGALLY, there isn’t much you can do to protect YOURSELF in a situation like that if you work for a company with those guidelines.

As a society, we have basically “court-roomed” away our own humanity.[/quote]

I generally don’t like all this liability bullshit either, but in regards to rendering medical aid, would you want some joe schmoe w/o an iota of medical training touching you in this position? I mean, he has every intent to be helpful, but b/c he isn’t trained, you’re paralyzed for life. I think I would want him to stop my bleeding, but not to move me in any way.

and for medically trained people such as yourself, states have a good samaritan statute that absolves you of liability in this situation as long as you are not reckless. So you wouldn’t be held to the general std of the public.

I think this serves to deter dumb people from acting and screwing up badly, and encourages people with medical training to help.

139

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Ken St.Mich wrote:

I�?�´ve been working in private security so I�?�´m gonna tell you a few things.

  • If you work in private security you should know how to fight. ItÃ??Ã?´s in your own interest and if you canÃ??Ã?´t, you are not able to protect you and those who you are paid to protect.
  • The situation could have been controlled easily, if all of those silly clowns had stepped in instead of walking away or if necessary just taken a hold of the attacker.
  • If you are sued you usually have a lot of witnesses on your side. I could beat people up and know my colleagues would lie for me in court. Who is the jude going to believe? A group of articulate and calm security guards in nice suits or some gang member, drunken fool who probably looses his temper in court or in front of the police?
    In one case a colleague beat someone up after being attacked. The guy called the police and after they arrived asked them why they took 20 min for it, if they first got a pizza on their way.
    Case closed. Most people are stupid especially those violent ignorant punks.
    [/quote]

You work in private security? Well then how can you be so ill informed. Allow me to deconstruct your arguments:

First, not all “security” is protecting persons. There is observe and report. A physical deterrence. Not all security is retained or trained to engage a threat. Period. No further debate is necessary on that point. If you’re retained to protect persons, then of course you should be trained.

You are basing your observation about the situation from a single camera angle. You do not know who or what was with her out of the camera shot. Assuming it could be controlled, they clearly had a policy of non-engagement. They called 911. They did exactly as they were CONTRACTED to do. And given that retention, they were unlikely to be armed with even pepper spray. Observe and report. Visual deterrence. Nothing more.

Lot of witnesses on your side? LOL. Lie in court. That’s great. You’re a genius. Did you forget the camera? Do you understand that once you do engage, you no longer CONTROL the engagement, yet you are still criminally and legally bound to a continuum of force? Have you considered that if you did breach that, that given your standing orders for that job, you likely stepped outside the course and scope of your employment and would not be defended by your employer’s insurance company - leaving YOU to incur the considerable cost of defending and paying any lawsuit?

Maybe you’re security at a grade school where those punks are so easily controlled and you can retain control over those playground fights. No offense, but seriously, your post is just…lacking.
[/quote]

Hahahaha I had a blast reading this.

Pepper spray? For a little girl?

Take a big step back and literally ah no forget about it. Look at the situation.
You have a couple of girls attacking a girl.
While I don´t know what was outside the camera picture, I doubt there were others involved. The article didn´t mention it.

Concerning the training and attributes a security guard should have, I did not say that they are all trained or just strong.
Unfortunately not. But I expect it from a security guard. Otherwise he puts himself at risk and can´t protect others (or whatever shit he should protect).
My employers did not ever arrange any sort of training for me. They accepted me as a trained person and employ me accordingly. (Not everyone can do every job in the security business)
I often see securtiy guards who are weak, fat, untrained. They are ridiculous.
I also see such people in the police. What a disgrace.

The security camera would make an intervention even easier because you have hard evidence. Xou´d have to restrain yourself from using excessive force in that case.

You say you can´t control a physical engagement with a teenage girl. Why are you a bouncer in one of the toughest clubs in Philly?
They claimed they were outnumbered, what a ridiculous argument.
Outnumbered by a couple of girls.

I try almost every weekend to get outnumbered by at least 2 girls, but they don´t make it that easy.

I don´t know much of your laws. I can tell you that you are supposed to help in such situations in Germany.
If you are in danger of getting injured you don´t have to intervene physically.
That means your grandma wouldn´t have to step in, she´d have to call the police.
Then you still have to consider that unless they put themselves in unreasonable danger security guards in Germany are obligated to protect the stuff and people in their working place.
Failure to do so leads to the possibility of legal consequences.
If you work in a mall and let some kid steal a couple of video games without interfering (as long as it s not dangerous) and you can be convicted for negligent theft.
Watch a bitch beat up a girl and you can be convicted for negligent physical assault. A normal bystander would be in for not helping without that assault thing. You see as a security guard you´d get punished a lot more than a person who is not involved.
A contract forcing security not to intervene in such a situation would be irrelevant.
I somehow like that a lot more than what you are describing.

140

Not too long ago a portland police officer was removed from duty after giving multiple warnings to a 150-180 female who was barred from mass transit. She proceeded to beat on him quite vigorously. Nice video of it. She was given multiple warnings and he fired a single bean bag round into her thigh at which point she submitted. Unfortunately even after following what appeared to be a pretty reasonable procedure he was removed from duty. I have not heard he was reinstated yet. He was a cop, seemed to be reacting in a calm and professional manner. She unfortunately was underage, but a mighty big pretty violent girl actually appeared to be close to the size of the cop who probably would have injured her physically if he just took her down.

I would not want to make my living as a cop in America in this era. A dirty cop has an advantage but a decent one is at a disadvantage.

Being a tough guy is just fine when you are young and don’t a family to support. Taking a stand when you may lose not only your job but possibly your ability to continue your profession may take a different level of intestinal fortitude.

A crazy person always has the advantage against a decent one!