Private security contractors are not paid to stand and watch assaults

Public safety 8 Comments

One might have thought that private security guards are supposed to ensure the safety of the general public on premises which they patrol.

Apparently not – at least not in the case of those employed by Olympic Security at the Seattle Bus Station, who just stood there and watched as a fifteen year old girl was beaten unconscious and robbed in a vicious assault last month.

Three parties share in the blame for this appalling incident: Metro Transit, the guards themselves and Olympic Security (the guards’ employer), which should certainly be stripped of its contract.

Taxpayers do not pay for guards to stand around and do nothing.

 
The incident
Footage of the entire incident can be seen here.

Shortly after the girl in question was seen talking to one of the guards (apparently pleading for help), another girl approached, launching a vicious assault in which the victim was knocked to the ground and repeatedly punched and kicked in the face. Meanwhile, a third person stole her bag, including mobile phone and iPod.

Aside from having one guard call for help, none of the three guards on duty did anything. They simply stood there and watched. Even after the victim lost consciousness, they did not bother to check if she was OK.

Their excuse: strict orders preventing them from intervening in any confrontation – a claim supported by both Metro Transit and Olympic Security, employer of the guards in question.

 
Three parties at fault
Pathetic.

All three parties involved had a duty of care regarding public safety. All three failed abysmally and share in the blame:

 
• The guards themselves.

To be sure, the guards themselves are not police and do not have the same rights or authority as members of the police force – especially in cases like these involving physical contact with members of the public. Furthermore, it should also be acknowledged that failure on their part to comply with strict orders could have serious legal and/or disciplinary repercussions, and that they themselves are not therefore in any position to disregard these orders willy-nilly.

Still, they have no excuse. There were three of them – surely their ‘orders’ would not have stopped them from either: (a) preventing the attack by simply standing between attacker and victim; or (b) bothering to check whether or not the savagely beaten victim was Ok.

(Moreover, surely there is a case where you abandon orders for blatant simple common sense when it is clear that the safety of a member of the public is in serious jeopardy)

No – their actions reflected blatant negligence for which they had no excuse.

 
• Metro Transit.

Bottom line: Metro Transit are responsible for public safety at any station or terminal under their operation, and cannot be absolved of responsibility when incidents like this occur regardless of any contributory negligence on the part of either Olympic Security or the guards themselves.

The buck stops with them – period. They failed miserably.

 
• Olympic Security:

Finally, Olympic Security themselves must share the blame, and it is pleasing to see that their contract is under review following this incident.

They can argue all they like about how their staff did as required under the contractual agreement with Metro Transit. But this is a weak argument. As a private security firm, they share in a duty of care, and should not accept any contract under which members of their staff are prohibited from doing what is necessary to protect the public. And given their expertise, it is their responsibility to ensure that these types of contracts allow for proper procedures to handle any security incidents that might occur.

They are also responsible for training their staff how to handle confrontations – and this does not include standing, watching and doing nothing.

Rather than miserably trying to justify their actions, Olympic Security should just come clean and publicly acknowledge a clear and simple fact – they, too, failed in their duty of care.

They should also be stripped of their contract. They are not paid to have their staff stand and watch whilst fifteen year old girls are beaten and robbed. If that’s what’s going to happen, then their services are not of a standard which is appropriate to meet the ongoing requirements of the travelling public.

.

8 Responses to “Private security contractors are not paid to stand and watch assaults”

  1. Lillie Ammann Says:
    February 26th, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    Andrew,

    This is so appalling. Regardless of contractual requirements, no one—paid security guard or not—should stand and watch someone being beaten and not try to get help. Certainly there’s no excuse for not checking on the girl and calling for paramedics after the attack. That the people who stood by and didn’t help were paid to provide security makes it even worse.

  2. Andrew Heaton Says:
    February 26th, 2010 at 7:18 pm

    Absolutely right Lillie,

    Generally speaking, for reasons of their own safety, ordinary members of the public would not be advised to physically intervene in an assault, and anyone witnessing such an incident should attempt to get help.

    But as you say, even if they were ordinary people as opposed to paid security personnel, basic human decency should have dictated that they at least check on the girl and seek medical help. The fact that this did not happen is utterly disgraceful.

  3. Brad Shorr Says:
    February 26th, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    Unbelievable! Lillie is right: forget contracts and legal mumbo jumbo. How can a human being stand by and watch something like that? To me, the behavior of those “men” was as appalling as the that of the attackers.

  4. Andrew Heaton Says:
    February 28th, 2010 at 9:45 am

    Fully agreed, Brad.

    The conduct of the attackers themselves was disgraceful, but that of just standing around and doing nothing and letting it happen is just as bad.

  5. Fred H Schlegel Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 4:17 am

    I wonder what the reasoning behind the ‘rule’ was? Can’t say I can imagine it ever making sense to put ‘guards’ out and then not let them do anything. Probably better without any authority in place, then someone might have taken the initiative to intervene.

  6. Andrew Heaton Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 7:13 am

    Fred,

    Maybe it was something to do with fears about security personnel mishandling or mistreating members of the public, and/or avoiding any possible legal consequences associated with this.

    I can understand why the issue of private security guards making physical contact with members of the public is a ‘touchy’ issue (pun intended), but this is taken way too far when it means they just stand around and watch assaults as they occur.

  7. Mark Says:
    March 4th, 2010 at 3:03 am

    Rules are made to be broken. We don’t live in a black and white world and these guards should have done the right thing and stepped in regardless of the consequences.

  8. Andrew Heaton Says:
    March 4th, 2010 at 8:33 am

    Mark,

    Agreed.

    Never should we through out the basic human concept of doing what is clearly and plainly right simply because of an overly-rigid interpretation of the rule-book.

    Rules were meant to help us create an orderly society. Never were they meant to enslave us or prevent us from using basic common sense.

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv Enabled
Icons by N.Design Studio. Designed By Ben Swift. Powered by WordPress and Free WordPress Themes
Entries RSS