Posted on 02/11/2010 10:54:38 AM PST by anonsquared
Since they lacked the testicular fortitude necessary for direct action to protect the teen, the absolute least thing they should have done was physically place themselves between her and her attacker instead of standing by and watching like enthralled herd animals.
Real men are rapidly becoming extinct.
From what I've read, the girl interacted with both, Seattle PD and the Rent-a-Watcher. Only the Rent-a-Watchers are on tape at the tunnel where the beating and robbery took place. The police refused to accompany her to that location before the beating, and she interacted with Seattle PD again after the beating.
She can sue all she wants, but she'll lose. In order to find negligence, there must first be a duty - and there is none.
Actually, police present at the scene, or willfully negligent, can be held liable. Well, their employers (the city, taxpayers) will, anyway.
The USSC rightly protected the police in cases where the police simply weren’t there, or where there were “procedural” mistakes (dispatch, addresses, etc.).
Unfortunately, the decision was vague enough to include simple negligence, with which I disagree.
Where to start...
Where is the Dad? Absentee no doubt.
What good are guards that don’t guard.
Arm the guards and give them authority to use their arms as necessary. Paper tigers are worthless.
Not that girls can’t be strong, but were there NO GUYS in the entire place that could intervene? I take that back. If you do intervene in a fight between 2 private parties in Seattle, you will probably be sued into bankruptcy and end up booked for assault yourself.
Just another minor event seen from a front row seat by people watching the Death of Western Civilization in real time. We are truly well and doomed.
To protect and serve the donuts.
These security guards are from Transit working for a private firm. They are under orders to observe and report only and not to intervene. Liberal insanity!
Then of course there was this jail guard here in Seattle that beat up a 15yo girl in her cell ... there was video on it ... still don’t know the court outcome of it all ...
i do
Where is the Dad? This is how perps get to be perps. No dad, no discipline, frustrated or lax mother.
“The victim should own Seattle after she’s done.”
I am not too sure of that. Incredibly, some states require that there be a ‘special relationship” between the victim and the ‘officer’. That is, something the ‘officer’ did or said that makes the victim think that the ‘officer’ will help or protect her.
Ignoring an assault right in front of the guard might not support civil liability.
More like future Obama voters. Or current, in the case of the security personnel.
I haven't studied the "failure to act" cases. Usually liability attaches on over-acting, not under-acting. In the under-acting cases (non-response to 911 call; Columbine; etc.), the courts have uniformly held that the police have no duty to protect. I'd like to read a case that found a duty, and expressed what that was/is.
Well...no...but this isn't it anyway. They are (should be were) employees of a private security firm. Not Gubmint employees.
Apparently, the girl was being bullied in the store and the police threw her out into their hands, into an unprotected area. They did intervene, and they made it worse. I think this would be a reasonable basis to hold them liable legally, under a negligence or recklessness standard.
Ah, that makes sense. She could have two causes for separate action.
Again, the police did act, according to the posts above. The girl was being harassed in the store and the police made her leave along with the rest of them, into an area without any police. She pleaded with them not to do this, but they did it anyway.
I think this is right. "Failure to act" is a fluid area of law, while most such claims don't prevail, there are some exceptions. And, as you point out, they did act, just not appropriately. My guess is the city would settle rather than taking their chances with a jury.
My husband says that the “security” they are hired to supply is for observation purposes ONLY. They are to REPORT and OBSERVE. Ever hear of an employee of 7/11 who get fired after trying to stop a robbery. They are supposed to NOT fight, hand over the money, then REPORT the robbery. Some people are more terrified of losing their jobs than putting themselves in harms way to assist someone in danger.
Myself, I’d toss the job, and help. I couldn’t live with myself otherwise....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.