Tunnel assault on girl sparks security debate

Seattle PI ^ | February 11, 2010 | SCOTT GUTIERREZ

[anonsquared]

King County Metro Transit will change its security policy in the Downtown Transit Tunnel after a surveillance video showed a 15-year-old girl beaten in front of three security guards who didn't intervene to help her, an agency official said Wednesday.

In the meantime, county officials have called for a full review of tunnel security practices. A law enforcement officer, however, says Metro should go further and revisit a decision that greatly reduced the number of commissioned police officers working in the tunnel and replaced them with private security guards.

Metro contracts with Olympic Security Services, a private firm in Tukwila, for security officers inside the downtown tunnel. Guidelines in the contract say the guards, who are unarmed, should "observe and report" assaults and suspicious activity to police, but not try to physically intervene. On Wednesday, Metro's General Manager Kevin Desmond said the policy would be changed.

[anonsquared]

I thought the same thing but remember, it’s a SEATTLE newspaper.

[Moltke]

Latroy Demarcus Hayman, 20

LOL. His parent(s) was/were too dumb to even spell 'Latrine' correctly...

[FightThePower!]

In a perfect world, the criminals and rent a cops would recieve the death penalty.

[jwalsh07]

This particular incident has nothing to do with “policy”. It has to do with common decency and balls which the onlookers possessed none of.

[OneWingedShark]

>It’s not an issue of legal authority at its core.
>
>It’s a moral issue

Oh, I agree. But when the law is against moral citizens defending either themselves or others, what can you expect?

For example, the NM constitution says:
Article II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

Yet state law (specifically NMSA 1978 30-7-2 & 30-7-2.4) say:

30-7-2 — Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon.
A. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon consists of carrying a concealed loaded firearm or any other type of deadly weapon anywhere, except in the following cases:
(1) in the person’s residence or on real property belonging to him as owner, lessee, tenant or licensee;
(2) in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person’s or another’s person or property;
(3) by a peace officer in accordance with the policies of his law enforcement agency who is certified pursuant to the Law Enforcement Training Act [29-7-1 NMSA 1978];
(4) by a peace officer in accordance with the policies of his law enforcement agency who is employed on a temporary basis by that agency and who has successfully completed a course of firearms instruction prescribed by the New Mexico law enforcement academy or provided by a certified firearms instructor who is employed on a permanent basis by a law enforcement agency; or
(5) by a person in possession of a valid concealed handgun license issued to him by the department of public safety pursuant to the provisions of the Concealed Handgun Carry Act [29-19-1 NMSA 1978].

B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the carrying of any unloaded firearm.

C. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

30-7-2.4 — Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.

A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
(1) a peace officer;
(2) university security personnel;
(3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
(4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
(5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person’s or another’s person or property.

B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
C. As used in this section:
(1) “university” means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
(2) “university premises” means:
(a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
(b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

Note that there is no mention of “public places” in the places you are ‘allowed’ to have a deadly weapon in 30-7-2 meaning that, on its face, you cannot open-carry [a loaded firearm] for self-defense according to that law (IMO it reads like a omission) even though the state Constitution recognizes the right to arm oneself for self-defense. Statute 30-7-2.4 is even worse because it flat-out contradicts the state Constitution’s opening in art 2, Sec 6 “No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense,[...]”

>of protecting a girl being stomped in the head, which is a murderous assault.

Why should the adjective ‘murderous’ matter in the case of assault? Either you have the right/liberty to interfere in an assault or you do not.

>Any male human who would move OUT OF THE WAY of thugs stomping a girl on the head, is not a MAN.
>
>AND I don’t give a damn what his security guard contract says. IT’s far beyond that.

I can understand your outrage. But, I can also see the guard’s point/position. I worked detainee ops in Iraq, so I can understand the orders “tying one’s hands” and I can also understand the overwhelming powerlessness one can feel being in that position where morals and even desire (to do something impactful/meaningful) and having to comply with those orders puts in one’s head... I’m not excusing it, I’m just saying I can understand it.

[JimRed]

Fire ‘em all, save the money, cut the fare!