Seattle Bus Station beating, Security "Observe and Report"

This is a discussion on Seattle Bus Station beating, Security "Observe and Report" within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Mmm.. And every altercation between 15 YOs needs to be settled in court. So who is the victim going to sue with her two attorneys? ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 69

Thread: Seattle Bus Station beating, Security "Observe and Report"

  1. #46
    Member Array alfack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Marysville, Washington
    Posts
    320
    Mmm.. And every altercation between 15 YOs needs to be settled in court. So who is the victim going to sue with her two attorneys? The city? The assaulter? The police dept.? Give me a break. Don't pretend to know the intensity of the assault.

    It's well documented that the assault took place. The police are following up.

    FWIW, I think the security gaurds should have stepped in. MAYBE they didn't because they were actually there and realized that the 80 lb. 15 YO attacker was not doing much damage.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Senior Member Array Spade115's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    603
    IMHO, even if they knew the 15 yr old girl wasnt doing much damage they still should of stopped it. just because your not getting a severe a$$ whooping dosnt mean you arent getting it. Not knowing the previous situation they still should of interviened in THIS situation all they knew was a girl jumped and beat another girl, 2 guys stole from the same girl.

    If you see someone jump on another person you are not going to stop them and say "Hey how did this lead up to this" you might just decide to intervien and help out the person out numbered, what if the situation would of escalated, one of the males decides to stab, the girl, get involved in the beating, possibly rape her.

    If they are Security, then they should make sure everyone is "Secure" it would help.
    When life gives you lemons, Open a lemonaid buisness.

  4. #48
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by alfack View Post
    Mmm.. And every altercation between 15 YOs needs to be settled in court. So who is the victim going to sue with her two attorneys? The city? The assaulter? The police dept.? Give me a break. Don't pretend to know the intensity of the assault.
    Huh?

    It's well documented that the assault took place. The police are following up.

    FWIW, I think the security gaurds should have stepped in. MAYBE they didn't because they were actually there and realized that the 80 lb. 15 YO attacker was not doing much damage.
    Doing damage?...
    She's getting her head kicked and stomped on...As a plainly obvious physical assault.

    The weight of the attacker is of no bearing on the fact that the assault took place and that the victim was being physically assaulted.
    A victim who is of equal stature and weight, to use that logic of view.
    Small and light in weight persons are just as much as a potential serious injury threat as any other size/weight persons.

    Which again does not support referring to the victim being victimized as being a "grifter".

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  5. #49
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    This is a very valid point.
    One possible answer is some form of security guard certification program which would confer on them some real powers-- at least if they witness a crime in progress.

    It shouldn't be that difficult to create a state law that basically allows any peace officer (city, state, county, state or Federal) or lawfully credentialed private security guard to legally intervene in ongoing witnessed criminal events.

    And in this situation we are discussing, a "good Samaritan law" could be put in place to protect an individual who makes a good faith effort at intervention; just as we have Good Samaritan laws for medical emergencies.
    With regards to 'real powers', every citizen in Washington State (including a Guard) has the right to use reasonable force to stop an assault, a crime against their person or another person that is in their presence, and to affect an arrest for a felony.

    RCW 9A.16.020: Use of force ? When lawful.

    (snip)
    (2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

    (3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
    (snip)
    This knowledge is part of the state licensing class. Unfortunately, the class is typically administered by the company that employs you (the Guard), so it often includes admonishments like, "you aren't allowed to put hands on anyone except for first aid", or "it is against company policy to make arrests", etc. That was the case with my employer, who, after this incident, conveniently decided to remind everyone of the RCW's.

    With regards to the "good samaritan law", there's something close to it here.

    RCW 9A.16.110: Defending against violent crime ? Reimbursement.

    (1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.

    (2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award. (snip)
    This doesn't mean you'll avoid court, but it makes it easier for you to win if you came to someone's aid.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  6. #50
    Member Array alfack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Marysville, Washington
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    Huh?

    Which again does not support referring to the victim being victimized as being a "grifter".

    - Janq
    You are missing my point. I fully acknowledge that the security guards should have intervened and that an assault took place.

    My point is who is she going to sue with the two attorneys?

    And trying to get rich off of a case like this by suing the city, the police dept. or whoever is a tactic I would say a get rich quick artist might employ, hence the term grifter.

    The whole incident could have been staged between the parties, as far as you or I know. It occured right in front of a camera and 3 security guards. A juvie will get a slap on the wrist for assualt.

    I don't care if you don't like my use of the term grifter and I did not say that they were grifters, I said the possibility exists and will keep my mind open until the incident plays out.

  7. #51
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    That was never the 'point' I was addressing to your original point to start.
    I was singularly focused on your suggestion that she might be a "grifter".

    As to who she might sue, that has been well reported and was within 48 hrs. of when this story first broke the news.
    For more info on the who and why go back to the beginning of this thread and note the news storys posted.

    Yes, the whole incident for all we know could have been staged (!)...And they both could possibly be grifters trying to run game on the city and/or the security force and/or it's guards for coin.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  8. #52
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,531

    re: Matiki- good Samaritan law?

    Quote Originally Posted by matiki View Post
    With regards to 'real powers', every citizen in Washington State (including a Guard) has the right to use reasonable force to stop an assault, a crime against their person or another person that is in their presence, and to affect an arrest for a felony.

    This knowledge is part of the state licensing class. ....
    With regards to the "good samaritan law", there's something close to it here.

    This doesn't mean you'll avoid court, but it makes it easier for you to win if you came to someone's aid.
    With regard to RCW 9A.16.110--- Sections 1 and 2 almost seem self-contradictory; but maybe I'm not reading them right.

    In "1" it says, " No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever..." but then in "2" it proceeds as if someone was charged notwithstanding the apparent protection afforded by "1."

    Worse, two portions within section 2 seem contradictory as well.

    "the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense." v "To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence."

    In other words, you can be charged notwithstanding section 1, and if you are found not guilty, maybe the state of Washington will reimburse you if there is some sort of trial at which perhaps a jury finds by the preponderance of the evidence that you are entitled to reimbursement and then, a judge gets to determine the reimbursement.

    That is all lots of big gamble for someone to intervene. I'm sure the legislature intended these to be helpful, but were I the employer of security guards, or a guard myself, these sections as written don't appear to offer adequate comfort.

  9. #53
    Member Array Deuce130's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Destin
    Posts
    291
    It's ironic their employment status as "security guards" actually takes away their power to act. Had they simply been bystanders, they could've done something. Strange world. These clowns were getting paid to basically be video cameras. Though I'm sure video cameras would be more reliable.

    @alfack: if you and your brother actually stomped each other in the head and/or tried to kick field goals with each others faces, then you're probably in need of some serious counseling.

  10. #54
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    Hopyard,

    Your reading is fairly correct about the self defense reimbursement laws. It is rarely used. Typically, if prosecutors choose to charge someone with some kind of assault and the jury acquits the defendant by means of self defense, the judge can (and will) award the defendant reimbursement for their out of pocket legal defense costs. The county pays that reimbursement out of its own funds. Often in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    There lies the real reason for the law. It stops overzealous prosecutors and politicians from taking people to court unless they are very confident that the person will be convicted and did not act in self defense. It serves as a means of regulating. I generally think it works fairly well.

    The most recent case I can think of: In Spokane last year, a drunk off duty Leo shot a man in the head outside a downtown bar after some sort of altercation about a ride home or possible auto theft...? He was charged with first-degree assault and reckless endangerment, tried, and found not guilty by means of self defense. The county reimbursed him for legal expenses, he was paid his salary for the past year (while he was suspended), and resigned as a LEO (he was to be fired). Personally, I think this is all somewhat dubious, but the jury has a sheet of paper where they check "not guilty by means of self defense" and the judge did his job. The jury has spoken. The county paid $$$ for choosing to prosecute.

    Jay Olsen resigns from Spokane Police Department - Spokesman.com - April 13, 2009

    For what it is worth, from the head stomping in the video, I believe the Washington State criteria for use of deadly force in defense of a 3rd party was met.

    If there have been previous altercations, the correct response is to file a police report and go to court. Not to get a posse together and stomp someone in the head as revenge.
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.

  11. #55
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    Quote Originally Posted by alfack View Post
    And trying to get rich off of a case like this by suing...

    The whole incident could have been staged between the parties...

    the possibility exists and will keep my mind open
    This is certainly possible and it is exactly why we have civil trials by jury so that a jury or your peers can decide upon the facts. I personally think it is highly unlikely this is some sort of scam to get money from the city. Unlikely enough that I think your comments are inappropriate.

    It is worth noting even if the victim was playing along, an assault still occurred and the assailant needs to be charged with a crime.
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.

  12. #56
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Quote Originally Posted by nutz4utwo View Post
    ...It is worth noting even if the victim was playing along, an assault still occurred and the assailant needs to be charged with a crime.
    BINGO! ^^

    That the attacker reports some event had occurred to her by the victim at some other time or place as into the past has zero relevance to the event that actually did occur as per video documentation in front of the security guards AND police as at that time in the immediate.

    Further nothing changes as related to the security guards and police, as they did not act _period_ even if they were so called unwitting participants in a "grifter" scam...And the girl was kicking and head stomping wearing Nike 'Air' shoes with Comfortech pillows in her soles.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  13. #57
    Member Array alfack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Marysville, Washington
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by nutz4utwo View Post
    It is worth noting even if the victim was playing along, an assault still occurred and the assailant needs to be charged with a crime.
    I'm pretty sure I did note that. However, I think the whole incident was blown out of proportion by our sensationalized media and sue happy society. What if this had happened during recess at school? Never mind. I know what you would say to that, too.

  14. #58
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    With regard to RCW 9A.16.110--- Sections 1 and 2 almost seem self-contradictory; but maybe I'm not reading them right.

    In "1" it says, " No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever..." but then in "2" it proceeds as if someone was charged notwithstanding the apparent protection afforded by "1."

    Worse, two portions within section 2 seem contradictory as well.

    "the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense." v "To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant's claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence."

    In other words, you can be charged notwithstanding section 1, and if you are found not guilty, maybe the state of Washington will reimburse you if there is some sort of trial at which perhaps a jury finds by the preponderance of the evidence that you are entitled to reimbursement and then, a judge gets to determine the reimbursement.

    That is all lots of big gamble for someone to intervene. I'm sure the legislature intended these to be helpful, but were I the employer of security guards, or a guard myself, these sections as written don't appear to offer adequate comfort.
    Nutz4utwo pretty much summed it up and just to clarify, section 1 and 2 are not contradictory.

    Section 1 says that if you acted in self defense against certain crimes you cannot be held in any legal jeopardy - that means civil or criminal.

    Section 2 says that if you have been accused of the crimes listed in section 1 and you are found not guilty, and acted in self-defense then you are entitled to your expenses/etc. (as in the example given by Nutz4utwo).

    The distinction is made, so that if you are charged with a crime you will be reimbursed but if you are subjected to a tort you will not be reimbursed under the statute. The reason they chose to differentiate the two actions with regards to reimbursement is not known to me.

    As far as guard companies go - the statute does nothing for them. Only the guard. It is better than nothing for those of us on the ground.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  15. #59
    Senior Member Array Shadowsbane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,051
    It is more than the Security Guards doing what they were told to do.

    Security Guards are not police, they are paid to protect property, and create what those of us here would feel as a "false" sense of security. That is all.

    Also in most cases, those batons, handcuffs, and pepper sprays are also just for show. Were a security guard to use them except in personal defense, then they would likely face assault charges, false arrest charges, and lose their jobs.

    It is a crap job, with terrible pay/hours, and the most you can really do is hope nothing happens. Heck, once when I applied for such a position at the Cary mall here in NC it was told to me that they start everyone off at 25 cents above min wage, require 24/7 availability and no other income sources. While maintaining the ability to come in for full shifts with 30 minutes warning.

    Really McDonalds pays better, and at least you get free food.

    Also, lets say that they had intervened, and one of those girls had gotten seriously injured. (not an unreasonable outcome really) What we would have video of is 2 full grown men manhandling some 15-16 year old girls. Cries of excessive force would be sung from sea to shining sea on that one.
    Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

    www.Lonelymountainleather.com

  16. #60
    Member Array Holger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowsbane View Post
    Were a security guard to use them except in personal defense, then they would likely face assault charges, false arrest charges, and lose their jobs.
    So good men can be indifferent to evil if their job might be at risk? Just asking.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. RVA-"Youtube Beating" wives lifelong friend got jumped (link to news)
    By Ghettokracker71 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 28th, 2011, 08:05 PM
  2. Radio station owner loses CWP after airing "shootout" challenge
    By Retiredonce in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: January 20th, 2011, 12:35 AM
  3. Security Related i.e., "security fiasco"
    By DaveH in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 28th, 2010, 04:27 PM
  4. "IN"security? Unarmed security guard killed
    By paramedic70002 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 21st, 2006, 11:18 PM

Search tags for this page

concealed carry metro bus seattle

,

concealed carry seattle bus

,

girl | child | teen bus tunnel beating seattle security or bystanders or onlookers

,

king county metro bus handbook on assault

,

seattle bus terminal security

,

tyrone watson willimantic ct arrest

Click on a term to search for related topics.