The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

In The News: Seattle Beating Controversy

30 Comments

February 16, 2010 by Kathy McManus

It’s the latest violent video to shock the country, setting off a fiery new debate about what it means to do the right thing.

Surveillance cameras at a bus station tunnel in Seattle captured the vicious beating of a 15 year-old-girl as three security guards stood and watched, refusing to intervene. The main attacker, also a 15 year-old girl, is seen knocking the victim to the ground and stomping on her, repeatedly kicking her in the head. Other youths steal her purse, phone, and iPod.

The Seattle Post Intelligencer reported that the security guards—employees of a private firm hired by King County—were just following orders. “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.” The guards did radio the transit control center about the incident, but by the time police arrived, the attackers were gone.

The city’s metro transit chief said that while the guards adhered to their job descriptions, their actions were “unacceptable.” But according to CBSNews.com, King County Sheriff’s Sgt. John Urquhart said the guards did the right thing. “If you’re a bank teller and you do something other than give them the money, you’re going to get fired,” he said. “We don’t expect civilians to take police action. In this case, it was a violent fight, and they were outnumbered by this pack of people 3-to-l.”

Tell us what you think: The security guards did their job, but did they do the right thing? What if they had helped the girl but were fired for violating their job contracts? When should someone stop “following orders” and start taking action?

30 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• February 17, 2010 by Vix

  I could not have stood there and watched. The guards would not even move to stand between them. The girl would have been better off if they had not been there as she would have kept running.

  Reply

• February 18, 2010 by Megan Peterson

  I honetsly could care less if the the security gaurds got fired or not. It was pure selfishness of them not to help that poor girl who clearly was in need of some assistance. I think the world is in an awfully sad state when people are too concerned about how saving a life could affect their own little world. Ultimatly it doesn't matter. You have an obligation as a human being to help out other human beings. People are seeming to forget that. I think the actions of the security gaurds, no matter what their motives, is despicable.

  Reply

• February 18, 2010 by Pasquale Bottiglieri

  Does the Good Samaritan principle apply in this case? If the guards intervened and one of the assailants was injured, would the guard involved receive protection under the law based in the principle that intervention was vital to the protection of the victims life? I don't know the answers to these questions but I do know that, after the fact, it is not uncommon for legal action to be taken wherever there is the possibility of "deep pockets". The fact this incident was filmed by security camera most probably was understood by the guards. The fact that they were given formal instruction not to intervene but to summon police places them in the position of judging the importance of preventing injury, possibly saving a life or, probably, losing their job in addition to the possibility of civil suit for any damages caused by the intervention. These are, I think, the facts. I ask again about the Good Samaritan principle of protection for individuals obviously (and in this case blatantly obvious) attempting to assist another person where subsequent contingent damages are caused and whether it applies in this case. Intervention in a violent situation of this type requires training, the type of training provided to Police but not necessarily to Security Guards.

  Reply

• February 19, 2010 by Indrik

  While my gut instinct was to condemn the security guards for their lack of action...I choose instead to repeat Pasquale's question: Do good Samaritan laws apply here? Moreover the guards were doing what was defined as their job descriptions, even though I wouldn't have acted in the same way I feel we cannot reprimand them for their actions. Personally any security guard that is willing to protect the public good would be highly desirable if they had acted and were subsequently fired for it.

  Reply

• February 22, 2010 by Marsha Gooden

  Although I am not interested in receiving information about LM, its products or its affiliates, I do thank you for allowing place for public comment on such timely topics as social responsibility. While I understand the need for and the contents of employment contracts in Corporate America, I believe any that would prevent intervening to prevent the suffering of others is wrong. I do not fault the security guards. After all, they have concern for their responsibilities; their livelihood and perhaps that of others, and they must guard their good name with the company for references. Instead, I fault a company that does not teach tactics, conflict resolution, or arm guards with tasers and taser (therapy) techniques, give guards the authority to move toward such attackers with a grimace and night sticks presented, to assume a martial arts pose, pray out loud, something to at least try to stop an assault. Perhaps some of that seems amusing; that's because I don’t know what should have been done, but clearly you don’t just stand by and watch a beating; and you certainly don't allow another to be savagely beaten! It is my humble opinion that any company that would tie the hands of their forces with the threat of firing personnel because they took action in such a dire situation (and I'm sure there must be many) needs to immediately give better training and tools to their guards with specifics on how to manage such situations, back them after they have behaved in a defined civilized manner in the face of such barbarity and last but most importantly, re-write the security guard contracts to guide them on how to intervene appropriately. If it is not a matter of dollars, I would like to understand what compels a company to tie the hands of those who are in a position to deter crime? In this case, they could have prevented someone being maimed and perhaps saved their life. How much more would a company have to pay to authorize the saving of a life? Frankly, the example of a bank teller who does anything other than give robbers the cash doesn't work for me because that is a person who is not in any peace-keeping role or any position of authority against the actions of (armed) bandits. Conversely, a security guard is considered to be an employee who, though unarmed (and under paid), would approach to deter an assault as he alerts other agencies of the situation. For mercy sake, don't tie their hands on something like this. Surely the kind of minds that can own or run a company and direct the creation of an employment contract can come up with guidelines that protect the company, the security guard and people, can't they? Finally, to do other than all that can be done is a serious encroachment upon humanity of others. Evil (including bullies, muggers, robbers, petty thieves, and its many other forms) wins when good people do nothing -- it is wrong to discourage proper action. It seems obvious that there is a serious defect in any employment contract that encourages standing by and observing evil -- in any of its many forms. That is not to suggest that an unarmed guard would approach those who are armed. Companies need to rethink what it means to be a member of a society, to be humane, to be good corporate citizens then extend right thinking to all of their employees. That this is even in question begs concern, even outrage.

  Reply

• February 22, 2010 by Gidget Marthaler

  Good Samaritan laws are laws or acts protecting from liability those who choose to aid others who are injured or ill. They are intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. Good Samaritan laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as will their interactions with various other legal principles, such as consent, parental rights and the right to refuse treatment. Such laws generally do not apply to medical professionals' or career emergency responders' on-the-job conduct, but some extend protection to professional rescuers when they are acting in a volunteer capacity. The situation seen on the video is a heart wrenching display of the need for children to have love and structure in there lives. Everyone is focusing on the guards non action. The delivery of the news we receive in today's society is the most incomplete I have ever seen or heard. Maybe we should take into account what we have not seen, have not heard. What comments may have been made to the guards by assailant like "you touch me and your family is next" or Was it gang related, like an initiation into a group and the gang was in the foreground. What started this fight? What ended it? Its sad that bystanders did nothing! Is it because they saw something we didn't? Good Samaritan Law ...where were the Good Samaritan's? The world is changing . . . perhaps those guards wanted to help, but under job policy they could not engage or it would cost them there job. Which may have meant taking food and shelter away from there children. There are conscequences for everything. I know I could not have stood by and watched. But I also know there is more to the story than meets the eye. I hope everyone, the girl's involved in the fight, the guards, the bystanders, the reporters and readers take this as a learning tool. I am grateful that girl being beaten is physically ok and I pray she is able to emotionally heal soon.

  Reply

• February 23, 2010 by L. Bretado

  While I understand that the security guards were adhering to their hands-off policy, they still should have stepped in to at least physically separate the attackers and protect the victim. No jury would have found them liable for damages given the circumstances provided that the guards did not go overboard and overstep certain boundries that would be considered extreme. The guards failed to act and in turn allowed a helpless person to be injured and robbed right before their eyes.

  Reply

• February 23, 2010 by Paul

  If the guards would have gotten fired for intervening, then yes, they did the right thing. If this was the case, then their firm is at fault. I am not in a financial situation where I would choose to keep my job over stopping an unfair fight, but the security guards might have been. On the other hand, if they knew they would not have gotten fired if one of them went to intervene leaving the other two to their security duties, then obviously they SHOULD HAVE HELPED.

  Reply

• February 24, 2010 by rs

  go away!!!!!!

  Reply

• February 28, 2010 by Elizabeth VanStaveren

  that people are not going to help another when assitance is obviously needed. People used to help others catch their dogs or for this case help when someone is under attack. It takes someone who is no longer a human being to sit there and act like it is fine to let a child get beat like that. The questions that should be asked is if it was your child would you sit back and watch them be ganged up on and get so hurt that they could most likely have mental damage afterwards? Would you want that kind of treatment upon yourself? Would you want to have this situation happen to you? I was watching a movie the other day. It's called "the kill room" i think it is a prime example of how mankind is becoming more heartless and that seeing these kinds of things is no longer suprising and is considered "normal" but in all reality we all know it is wrong to leave a person stranded and hopeless. Even if it means being fired. A job should not be our worries our fellow human beings should be. There will be other jobs and so helping that girl should have been their main priority not their job discription. It's called being a good person and taking action when the time is called for.

  Reply

• March 2, 2010 by Vernadetta S. Rawls

  What has our world come to when people will stand by and watch someone, especially a child, being viciously attacked and the only reason they give is they were protecting their job. At the risk of losing my life, I could have never stood by and watched something so horrendous without trying to do something. I'd don't believe I could have ever looked at myself in the mirror or had a peaceful sleep knowing I didn't do anything to try and help someone so deseparately in need of help. I know had it been anyone they knew and loved they would have wanted someone to intervene. Heartbroken Human Being

  Reply

• March 6, 2010 by D.shane Pakiser

  I am a man of 52 yrs of age. I live in the state of Colorado. I was surfing the net when I came apond this insanity. Where has the since of doing the right thing gone in Man or Woman. I am in no way a Super Man, I am a person that has his own mind. No one person, Or a owner of a company, Or even my friends for that matter. Can tell me to do, Or not to do the right thing. That is mine. I as a man was sicked by what I read. To the point of anger that I have not felt in a long, long time.. How can a grown adult justify not helping a 15 teen year old girl? I am not the one's that will have to live with what I did not do that day. They are. My core believe's would not allow me to watch an attack on any man, woman or child of that nature. I have three sisters, One niece and one great niece. And God help anyone that would harm them or watch a SAVAGE ATTACK on them. Like grown men did. I'm not as angery at the attacker's. As I am with the men that just watched. They where the adult. Believe it or not there are adult out here that would have acted on the behalf of a young victim. I will not or can not understand why adult men (MEN) just stood there and witness a permeditated crime right in front of there eyes. The ones that should be in jail. That's right I said jail are the adult that aloud it to continue to that level of insanity. When all thay had to do is stand up and be an adult and say NO MORE. My prays go out to the family of the 15 teen year old child. Mercey and forgiveness be with you. For I could not forgive something that could have and should have been stopped. A great man said Mercey is for the forgiveing. Justifiable revenge is my code of honer. Peace be with you all Shane

  Reply

Tell us what you think.