You are absolutely correct. Security guards, like the ones pictured here, cannot legally do anything other than report.
I was looking for a second job for a little extra pay, and went to an interview for a security company like this. They made it very clear that not only would I be sued by anyone that I touched, but that I would be in breach of contract and lose my paycheck as well so they could protect themselves from litigation.
Needless to say, I didn’t take the job. Mainly, because I know that I’d jack someone up in this situation, and can’t afford the hit to my bank account. But for everyone here bashing the security guards, get a life. Most of you are gloating about someone getting sued over this. Well guess what? Those lawsuits cause situations like this, where security guards can’t provide security without worry of getting sued.
The cops on the other hand? Reprimands needed.
Too many are missing the main point.
The point is the taxpayers are picking up the tab for the security company to PROVIDE SECURITY and the police to PROTECT AND SERVE. For our tax dollars should we not get the SECURITY and PROTECTION? And if we are not getting the SECURITY and PROTECTION, as Donald Trump would say, “YOU’RE FIRED!!!”
I really, REALLY hate to have to agree with you.
OTOH, these security guards are employees of a private contractor, hired by a public agency, stationed at a transit stop, giving them the appearance and public expectation of actually providing security to patrons of the transit system.
That is a far cry from the typical "night watchman" security guard, that is mainly charged with watching over--not protecting--property.
Placing them in those uniforms; presenting them as public rather than private employees; and stationing them as they do, is inviting the public to expect aid. What purpose do they serve that the already present surveilance camera doesn't?