She got kicked in the head several times. You DO NOT move someone with possible head/neck injuries. What you do is protect her from her assailant. There were three large men. They couldn’t form a human wall?
Ah, I won’t watch the video (I don’t need to see a little girl being brutalized) but the point definitely works your way too. Screw the assailant, protect the victim.
This:
When involved with Seattle Transit, you’re on your own. Makes concealed/carry look pretty smart
It appears that being armed is one’s only recourse since the “security” guards are there to only observe and inform. Apparently citizens have more power than the guards, re: Good Samitarian Laws.
Reading a lot of the comments on the website reveals that many like me thought that the security guards were there to help protect a person’s security. Thier only there to provide an illusionary deterent. They should have observation guard on thier shirts instead. Cameras would be cheaper.
Anyways, as is usual, its all about money.
Guard intervenes on moral grounds and the parents scream outrage over thier precious disrespectful brats getting a smackdown. Lawsuits commence, companies loose money.
When I was younger in the 2nd grade no less, I spoke out in class while the teacher was talking, and got a good paddling for it. From there on out, I kept my mouth shut and listened. In today’s world, the parents can’t paddle thier own kids, nor can the teachers without screams of child abuse.
Noone wants to take any responsibility for thier actions and wants the state to do everything for them.
Kids have no respect for thier elders, thier peers or thier bodies, so no surprise with the crap we see today.
Anway’s this is off topic, but somewhat related in that it is a everyone for themselves and to heck with everyone else. From Goldman Sachs to those sucking off the public teat via welfare when able to work. Greed.
Hmm,
I wonder if the guards would have to intervene if the girl started beating on one of them? Better to get arrested than have your head kicked in.
Yeah right, because the real tragedy of this situation was that nobody got shot.
Absolutely correct - one should always be willing to take a good beating rather than protect oneself.
Umm, getting kicked in the head until your unconscious like this girl can cause long term damage and even death.
[sarcasm]But it’s all good because no bullets were involved. It’s not being killed or injured that matters, but how your killed or injured[/sarcasm]
Here’s a snip of a post from :
from a retired Oakland Police Officer that I found intriguing
Another good reason to be armed, because in the end, its up to you protect yourself. This is not a knock down on police officers, but, thier main goal is collect money for the state and local coffers, and to protect business interests.
I’ve seen mention by a lot of security officers, that thier main reason for being is in interests of the business that they are overlooking, in looking out of theft, vandalism etc.
Also, I came across this article :
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman’s pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.
It’s quite clear that arming with a gun, taser , pepper spray etc is your best bet for self defense, because there are numerous examples where noone is going to help you.
I’ve been in fistfights and I’m still alive. Fortunately, I’ve never been shot but I hear it can kill you.
Some people act like guns are magic. Pull out a gun and suddenly the fight stops. But what can happen is you pull out a gun and the other gun pulls out his gun. Now all you’ve done is turn a fistfight into a gunfight. And not a TV gunfight where the bullets only hit the bad guys.
So, no, I’m not willing to take a good beating rather than protect myself. But I’d rather take a good beating than a good shooting. Getting punched and kicked is a lot better than getting shot.
My intent here is just to make sure I understand where Little Nemo is coming from, not to start a fuss. In the above quote the poster states that he is not willing to take a beating rather than defend himself, but then goes on to say essentially that he doesn’t want to take the chance of being shot, so would rather take the beating. I don’t quite understand this - does this mean that if you are outnumbered/over matched, the beating is the only option because you don’t want to use what would be considered the ultimate defense? Not being snarky - but would like to know what your feelings are on this subject. And a little clarificatin on my part. I’n not a ravening gun nut, and while owning several long guns, don’t own a handgun. I’ve never seen a gun used in anger, and the only fist fight I was ever in was in the third grade some seventy years ago (it was a draw). So please consider all the above to be a highly theoretical discussion.
The post just before quoting the police officer is, I fear, too close to the real truth. I know that here in Seattle the police are under constant scrutiny to catch the slightest overreaction to any incident. The recent murder of five local police officers has ameliorated this for the time being, but I rather expect not for long. They are really damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
And on a parenthetical subject (would this be another word for a hi-jack?) the Seattle Times this morning had a news article about Seattle’s recently imposed gun ban in all city owned parks. Even though the state Constitution expressly forbids local governments from over-riding state law, the last Mayor issued this directive on his own initiative. The state Attorney General warned that it was unconstitutional, but the Mayor ignored him. Anyway, a Superior Court judge yesterday issued a ruling that the ban was illegal, and gave the City thirty days to remove all the gun ban signs that they had installed in all the city parks.
I put this here because I didn’t want to start another thread, but thought it was interesting and at least sort of on subject (kind of).
The post you’re responding to makes the reasoning clear, doesn’t it? If your assailant also has a gun, you pulling yours to defend yourself only escalates the lethality of the situation. It is, in effect, a gamble on your life, not a sure-fire ultimate defense, unless you know for sure your assailant doesn’t have one.
There is a big outcry for a change in policy, to allow the guards to take direct action in future incidents. This would involve a change in state law, and a major increase in pay and/or benefits for security. Without a raise in pay, most security officers will refuse to take that kind of post, and the few that would you really don’t want there. Security Officers get close to minimum wage and the benefits(if they exist at all) are laughable.
As a teacher I have had to physically break up numerous fights even between girls. Rule of thumbs:
Be careful where you grab
Let them go once they’re separated and stand between them. Any agressive move after that point and I’m protecting myself
Carry professional liability insurance
The big difference is breaking up a fight is part of my professional duties and therefore offers SOME obligation and protection. For these security guards they would be action as private citizens.
Even then, a gun in your hands is only useful if you know how to use it. Simply owning a gun is not the ultimate defense; training and knowledge of how and when to use it is needed. A weapon you don’t know how to use belongs to the enemy, and all that.