You don't need a gun..

[BigDave]

imported post

I would find it hard to articulate shooting the attacker in this case as to the size, strength until at such time some greater threat to me.

I feel I could have stepped in between the two and stopped the threat thus keeping a close eye on her party of 3, a move by them toward me would consider an escalation of force.

 

[Tawnos]

imported post

erps wrote:

And BTW, IMO when considering how much force should be used, the question should be "how much force is required to stop one girl from assaulting another girl?" I submit that the majority here realize it does not take deadly force to stop an unarmed assault.

You're picking and choosing what facts to present. There wasn't just one girl, but a gang of people involved. I stated that I would draw if I saw her attacking like such, and shoot if she continued to attack (stomping on head and neck = attempted murder). I didn't say I'd just run in and shoot her, like you seem to be implying. When armed and faced with far superior numbers, it would be foolish of me to physically confront. Sure, I can beat one 15 year old girl like that, but I can't beat her and her 6 or 7 accomplices, which were originally focusing on stealing the downed girl's stuff, but could easily have turned on me in an intervention.

Why you choose to ignore that and act like it was simply two people going at each other is beyond me. If there were only two, then yeah, I would likely lack reasonable fear for myself engaging physically.

 

[Tawnos]

imported post

BigDave wrote:

I would find it hard to articulate shooting the attacker in this case as to the size, strength until at such time some greater threat to me.

I feel I could have stepped in between the two and stopped the threat thus keeping a close eye on her party of 3, a move by them toward me would consider an escalation of force.

It wasn't a party of 3, according to the report (linked earlier, but here again for your review: http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20100211/415263l_statement.pdf ) Three were charged with stealing her stuff and attacking her, but altogether there were at least 6: "Troy (HAYMAN), Tyrone (WATSON), Shayla, Kesean, Savage (MONROE), and WHITAKER". Note that HAYMAN also references "Cortez" and "Destiny."

If you watch the video, you can see this group. I count 7, but there's no way to know if that was all. Additionally, people have already pointed out that knives are not uncommon. From my own training and experience, as well as officer training videos I've seen, I know that closing the distance on an unknown assailant is asking to be stabbed or otherwise attacked with a sharp instrument. How, then, do they not present a great enough threat?

 

[kparker]

imported post

I submit that the majority here realize it does not take deadly force to stop an unarmed assault.

If you said "might not", or even "probably not", then I'd be with you--but "does not" is simply too restrictive. There's a reason that RCW 9A.16.050 includes the words "or to do some great personal injury to..."

If you want to live in a jurisdiction where you can only use the exact same level of force defensively as the attacker is using, I recommend you move to the UK. (Well, actually, of course I don't recomend you do that, it's not working out so well for them.)

 

[kparker]

imported post

I stated that I would draw if I saw her attacking like such, and shoot if she continued to attack (stomping on head and neck = attempted murder)

Yes, and note that this is pretty much exactly the same scenario as the Westlake shooting, which the KC Prosecutor's office obviously considered a justifiable use of force, since no charges were ever filed.

 

[trevorthebusdriver]

imported post

my .02 about the tunnel incident

1. These were two girls who knew each other with a long history of fighting. The general public generally does not need to fear being beat-up in the tunnel. If there were a number of random attacks/muggings, then there might be something to worry about.

2. People say the "Security" Guards do nothing, but you don't know how much crime they have deterred because the crimes never happened.

3. Since when has the tunnel been a supposed safe haven? Why do people think those five bus stops in the tunnel are/should be more safe than all the other bus stops in the city? I didn't see a sign that says you are guaranteed not to be the victim of crime in the tunnel. This beating could have taken place anywhere, on any street corner, bus station or not. If this would have happened at Rainer/Henderson would there be an outcry for armed guards? NO. Is there a permanent armed guard/cop at bus stops where people have actually been SHOT and KILLED(like Federal Way Transit Center)? NO. Then why all the demand for cops in the tunnel?

4. Was it unfortunate that the girl got beat? Yes.
Should the guards have done more to stop it? Probably.
Was anyone responsible for her attack besides her attacker? No.

 

[amzbrady]

imported post

Didnt they start harrasing her at the store and she told the manager and left from there, and her attackers followed her? Didnt they say she sprayed them with something before and instigated it?

 

[amzbrady]

imported post

Didnt they start harrasing her at the store and she told the manager and left from there, and her attackers followed her? Didnt they say she sprayed them with something before and instigated it?

Crap, Double Tap.

 

[kparker]

imported post

Trevor,

Appreciate your .02, if I may throw a couple of mine onto yours:

I think the reason this story is attracting all the attention is because of the video footage of the incident and the presence of "security" throughout the entire event. Surely if neither of those factors were present, it would rate only a little more than something happening at Rainer/Henderson ("a little more" because of the "nicer" location.)

And certainly most of the discussion here is of the nature of an AAR, as opposed to what might be being said in other venues.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

trevorthebusdriver wrote:

my .02 about the tunnel incident

1. These were two girls who knew each other with a long history of fighting. The general public generally does not need to fear being beat-up in the tunnel. If there were a number of random attacks/muggings, then there might be something to worry about.

2. People say the "Security" Guards do nothing, but you don't know how much crime they have deterred because the crimes never happened.

3. Since when has the tunnel been a supposed safe haven? Why do people think those five bus stops in the tunnel are/should be more safe than all the other bus stops in the city? I didn't see a sign that says you are guaranteed not to be the victim of crime in the tunnel. This beating could have taken place anywhere, on any street corner, bus station or not. If this would have happened at Rainer/Henderson would there be an outcry for armed guards? NO. Is there a permanent armed guard/cop at bus stops where people have actually been SHOT and KILLED(like Federal Way Transit Center)? NO. Then why all the demand for cops in the tunnel?

4. Was it unfortunate that the girl got beat? Yes.
Should the guards have done more to stop it? Probably.
Was anyone responsible for her attack besides her attacker? No.

The reason why people are asking for more guards is because there were ALREADY guards there that did NOTHING.

 

[BigDave]

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

BigDave wrote:

I would find it hard to articulate shooting the attacker in this case as to the size, strength until at such time some greater threat to me.

I feel I could have stepped in between the two and stopped the threat thus keeping a close eye on her party of 3, a move by them toward me would consider an escalation of force.

It wasn't a party of 3, according to the report (linked earlier, but here again for your review: http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20100211/415263l_statement.pdf ) Three were charged with stealing her stuff and attacking her, but altogether there were at least 6: "Troy (HAYMAN), Tyrone (WATSON), Shayla, Kesean, Savage (MONROE), and WHITAKER". Note that HAYMAN also references "Cortez" and "Destiny."

If you watch the video, you can see this group. I count 7, but there's no way to know if that was all. Additionally, people have already pointed out that knives are not uncommon. From my own training and experience, as well as officer training videos I've seen, I know that closing the distance on an unknown assailant is asking to be stabbed or otherwise attacked with a sharp instrument. How, then, do they not present a great enough threat?

Just a reminder it is what you knew at that point and time.
There is no way you would be aware of who was or was not involved when the incident occurred right in front of you, as with most incidents, you become aware of the incident when the fight breaks out.

 

[Tawnos]

imported post

BigDave wrote:

Just a reminder it is what you knew at that point and time.
There is no way you would be aware of who was or was not involved when the incident occurred right in front of you, as with most incidents, you become aware of the incident when the fight breaks out.

That's a fair point, and it could go either way. Since the video has no audio, I cannot infer what the sound was (if people were cheering the attacker on by name, for example). I'm basing my response on the fact I see what appears to be a mob of people harming her (either by robbing or beating her) and nobody defending. You're right in that we don't know (here) what we would have known (or felt) at that time and place.

 

[OrangeIsTrouble]

imported post

Oh, and another thing I didn't notice until now, that I watched the press conference, and re-watching the video,

they did come from every angle. So she was surrounded....I guess the only place left to run is into the bus path into the actual tunnel....

 

[trevorthebusdriver]

imported post

Ok, so the people want the guards that are already there to do something.
But then three minutes later you're up on the street level and on your own again.
Remember, when seconds count, cops...(you know the rest)

 

[DaemonForce]

imported post

Aryk45XD wrote:

*picture...*

Damn son, that's real purty. Do want! :shock:

Charles Paul Lincoln wrote:

this country was founded on men who stood up for what is right and fair, no matter the possible personal consequences. The community took care of itself, watched over its own, called the police to make the official arrest. THAT is why there is still citizens arrest in 49 states -- because we have a long-recognized moral duty as men to step in and protect children, women, and the defenseless.

I see that Charles Darwin and raise a Samurai Lincoln. :?

What is the state that doesn't recognize citizen's arrest anyway? North Carolina? Well I guess I now know where I'm not moving.

Aryk45XD wrote:

Another thing. I'm pretty damn sure the public wouldn't let these guys get fired and do nothing about it. The press would be all over that and they would definitely not be out of work. They may even get a better paying job than that crap! This is what kind of security you get for minimum wage. Blah blah blah. How the hell can you even wear a security uniform and be allowed to not do anything. The false sense of security in our city is very much alive and it sickens me.

No no NO! This is how minimum wage gets security! Confused? You should be. In this world, we try to give equalchances to everyday citizens. Are we all equal? Hell no! If we were, we certainly wouldn't have people where they obviously don't belong. This is something I and certain innovative groups like to call opportunity.

Here's the thing:
A company hires unarmed forces to guardthe persons and property involved on company property in the expectation that they canreport suspicious or criminal activity and generally be there as they are required without the same powers as Law Enforcement. Whenever you are hired onto a non-Federal job you are usually being deprived ofsome importantrights. It's true. A lot of people fall victim to this pattern and then get a job as security. I have never seen any kind of common company employee that has more rights on the clock than when they're not. Sure they have certain rights when it comes to property but not with people. This is why guards need more training. These unarmed guards are the same situation. These are people that are there because they find the job acceptable and don't feel the need to be any higher. They are there to collect money. They are happy with the risks they take and they are rewarded accordingly. Great risk comes with great responsibility. Now that you see why they'repaid next to nothing, let me continue.

Okay here goes: These guards were hiredin themindsetthat they would be there to protect people and property without physically interfering with a situation. They may have been trained but they didn't pay attention. Do you know what that means?

Any company that hires unarmed guards cannot be trusted. That includes the company that dispenses these so called private "guards" with a policy that removes them ofsome of the most meaningful responsibilities.Most of these companies are the same. Theyhire anyone with a clean or not so questionable record, train themand ask them to guard property without all of the basic rights of a civilian and they do not deliver. If you need any help from themin which they are not legallypowerful enough to provide, it's the equivalent of calling the police and waiting for them to arrive when seconds are critical. If the policy is really to blame it needs to be reviewed and fixed becauseit is a bad one. Period. I would honestly like to read it. Seeing as how I can't find accurate details on this incident it's hard to say I can trust any of it.

Solution: Hire armed guards that have a strong history of giving a damn about the rights of civilians and give themclose if not equal pay to thatof a LEO. Hell, give them some elevation of rights while we're at it and then after some time offer them a job as a LEO. Give them the ability to detain people. These unarmed guardskeep their jobs because they're happy being stripped of their rights and earning bad pay. Would you trust your life in the hands of a person that wants that? I can't do it!

olypendrew wrote:

What exactly would you all have done to defend the victim? One poster said he would shoot the aggressor, but most posters have indicated simply that they would do something, or intervene.

What should one guy, with or without a gun, do in this situation to protect the victim, but minimize the risk to himself?

It is my belief that one should not have to draw blood in order to defend themself or others. This is why I have declined the path of firearms. However I do believe in the idea of inflicting pain and fear into aggressive criminals. If I were involved, this is probably the best way it would go down:

Little girl comes up to me and my two guard buddies(because we don't go it alone) asking for refuge from a fewthreatening individuals.Aggressors come to us getting ready to stomp the piss out of the poor girl.Me and my unarmed buddiesstep in front of the aggressors' path in unison and with extremely powerful body language.I clearly state that the area is off limits and they need to move along or they will be trespassed. They comply and everything ends well.

This is probably the worst way:
Little girl comes up to me panicked and asks for help. I fail to quickly move her to safety. Her aggressors confront us and I state that they need to move along or they will be detained. They do not comply and begin attacking us. I am the only guard posted in the area and fail to protect the girl. I am also badly injured in the process requiring medical treatment that my carrier refuses to provide. I am fired for overstepping my power as a private citizen and sued for damages beyond my control. I ambranded a criminal and thrown in jail along with the girl Ifailed to defend. We are unable to afford lawyers and we are represented by a horrible public defender that ends up giving us a bad deal. You can imagine the rest. It's not probable butvery possible.

Remember: Isolate and contain. The easiest way to protectpeople and property is to make them inaccessible. I've been in the Seattle tunnel before and I hate it. It's like a big box of suck. It's really hard to get out of there too. I would have at least tried to move the girl to safety. I remember there being some off-limits doors when I was last there. One of those areas would have been good. My judgement is based on action. Not reaction. I refuse to play that game. In the end, neither of those extremes happened but rather something closer to the worse end. Not cool.

swatspyder wrote:

She had a chance to defend herself and continue backing away from the aggressor. She instead, moved towards the aggressor and began to fight with her.

Hmm....In my personal experience, if you half ass it, you're asking for it. I don't like fighting and I make it a critical point to end the fight as quickly as possible. When I decide to engage in a fight, that is an extremely powerful declaration. It means that risk and injuryno longermatter to me and it's open season. There are no rules here. You're a fool if you think so. A fool that gets a surprisingly fast asswhoopin. I'm not fond of asswhoopins. When you start a fight, you should do everything you possibly can to overpower your aggressor as fast aspossible until they back off and proceed toflee even faster. Speed is so important that I completely depend on it. If my aggressor is faster, that implies that he's too strong and I'm screwed. The result is very very bad. On a completely unrelated note I have never met a female of any age that is prepared with such a mindset. Your mentalitydecides everything whether you believe it or not.

I type too much.

 

[erps]

imported post

Sure, I can beat one 15 year old girl like that, but I can't beat her and her 6 or 7 accomplices, which were originally focusing on stealing the downed girl's stuff, but could easily have turned on me in an intervention. Why you choose to ignore that and act like it was simply two people going at each other is beyond me. If there were only two, then yeah, I would likely lack reasonable fear for myself engaging physically.

I didn't ignore it just like others here didn't ignore it when they described their response. Stop the initial attack, assess how the accomplices react and then adjust use of force to the new situation.

Now as to you other comments, please allow me to speak for myself rather than telling me what I'm thinking, what I'm ignoring and for me to just shut up. I've been civil with you and I would expect similar treatment in return.

I think this dead horse has been beaten enough, so I'm bowing out of this thread.

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

 

[Tawnos]

imported post

DaemonForce wrote:

This is probably the worst way:
Little girl comes up to me panicked and asks for help. I fail to quickly move her to safety. Her aggressors confront us and I state that they need to move along or they will be detained. They do not comply and begin attacking us. I am the only guard posted in the area and fail to protect the girl. I am also badly injured in the process requiring medical treatment that my carrier refuses to provide. I am fired for overstepping my power as a private citizen and sued for damages beyond my control. I ambranded a criminal and thrown in jail along with the girl Ifailed to defend. We are unable to afford lawyers and we are represented by a horrible public defender that ends up giving us a bad deal. You can imagine the rest. It's not probable butvery possible.

I already pointed out that this state has legal precedent which states the guards could not be fired nor charged for acting in defense of another, even if that action is against company policy.

 

[DaemonForce]

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

I already pointed out that this state has legal precedent which states the guards could not be fired nor charged for acting in defense of another, even if that action is against company policy.

Respectfully noted. Just like when I still went to school I couldn't have possibly been illegally searched, detainedthen banned from my classes based on accusations from someone I have never even known. Anyone can be railroaded by the legal system even when there are protections in place. This means you too buddy. What I stated was a worst possible case scenario(at least in my line of thought) and I wish to leave it at that. It took me 12 years of school before I was taught this is a screwed up world we live in where anything is possible and I can be thrown away just because someone accuses me of something. It seems every other day I find out that I'm some mysterious exception to some legal issue or business code that I had no idea existed while I happen to squeak by. All kinds of crap goes on without your knowledge ALL the time. :uhoh: