Possible or not, they technically have no obligation to stop it, and good samaritan laws may or may not apply to assaults.
“The security guard groped me when he broke up the fight” would cause a whole other mess of legal issues.
Granted, if that were me I would have intervened. If for no other reason that to pull the other girl safely away.
If I were a regular citizen, I would jump in to protect her without question because the law protects common citizens in cases like that. The trouble is, I’m not a regular citizen-I’m in the sucurity business, and if I am on duty, Good Samaritan laws do not protect me from getting fired or sued. Now, I’m in the biz because I’m damn good at it and like what I’m doing, but currently the field of security, because clients refuse to pay what the job is really worth and security companies are willing to slit each other’s throats to get contracts, is filled with people who cannot get other jobs for various reasons. Most of these people cannot get other jobs if they get fired, and they certainly can’t afford a lawyer if they get sued.
They could have been hurt? Are you shitting me? You’d stand by and watch somebody have their head repeatedly stamped on because you may get “hurt” by a 15 year old girl? WTF.
Good thing you are not a lawyer. In at least Ohio, can’t speak to other states but would guess they are similar, a private security guard has a duty to only protect what he has been contracted to protect. Most security contracts provide that the firm is to provide security to the property only. There is no affirmative duty to protect those on the property beyond what an ordinary citizen would be required to do.
Remember, private security guards are just that, private. They are not officers of the law, they do not have the training the police officers have nor do they have the backing of the government and a union when things wrong.
Ethically, should the security guards have done something if they could, and job be dammed? Yes. I hope that I would do something if I were in that situation. But it is very easy to have things get out of hand in such an event, and we shouldn’t require people to act when they have not accepted a duty to act.
There seem to have been a dozen or so other passers-by just standing around and watching. If people are going to scream about the security guards, fine, but scream at the other people too.
I mean, honestly, nobody expects security personnel to get physically involved in altercations. Unless they’re protecting Puff Daddy or they’re nightclub security, it just ain’t there thing.
If the rules get in the way of doing the right thing, hang the rules. And hang the consequences of hanging the rules, too.
They’re more like guidelines, anyway.
This.
If you need a policy to stop someone from being beaten then there is something mentally wrong with you. It’s called common sense.
They were citizens who were witnessing a misdemeanor (at least) in progress. They were entitled to make a citizen’s arrest. Cite.
I’d like for them to have made a citizen’s arrest.
Wouldn’t fly. You almost never have an obligation to assist others, especially if there is any risk involved to yourself, unless you have taken a part in creating the situation that is endangering them. If I push you into a swimming pool, and it turns out you cannot swim, I have an obligation to help you out. If you fall in, I can sit and watch you go under.
This can be changed by statute, such as in Latham, Massachusetts.
Everybody that was there had the same entitlement, and the only ones who would have lost their jobs for doing so were the security officers.
I’m sure if they had intervened and broken up the fight, there would be people who would be outraged at how security guards were beating up some young girls.
Shouldn’t people scream louder about the passers-by not doing anything? Presumably they have no fear of losing their jobs for violating policy if they intervene.
P.S. Since there were three of them, two could have told the third that they were going on their break.
Point taken. I don’t absolve any of the bystanders.
Yes, but although most people think of unarmed security as fat old guys, they probably don’t realize that those fat old guys could actually get fired for getting physically involved.
- Security Officers don’t go “on break” whenever they want, leaving a site understaffed.
- Even when they are on break, they are still on duty.
- Nobody would be dumb enough to buy that story.
They were entitled as citizens, not as employees. As has been brought up numerous times, one of the rules they must follow is not intervening, which means not stopping a violent person and arresting them.
You don’t know they could have decided on their own to go on break. When you’re on a break, you’re still on the job and have to follow the same rules, especially when in uniform.
Citizen’s arrest doesn’t protect you from a lawsuit or possible criminal charges against you…
From here.
People who can intervene or stop a crime without fear of physical danger yet do not do so should be punished to the second degree of that crime (ie second degree murder in a murder case).