Posted on 02/11/2010 10:54:38 AM PST by anonsquared
Too many are missing the main point.
The point is the taxpayers are picking up the tab for the security company to PROVIDE SECURITY and the police to PROTECT AND SERVE. For our tax dollars should we not get the SECURITY and PROTECTION? And if we are not getting the SECURITY and PROTECTION, as Donald Trump would say, “YOU’RE FIRED!!!”
I hear you, and that is likewise a fair argument. I simply predict that the Court will find otherwise. Whatever tussle was going on in the store was something short of beating and robbery. The street, in general, is not perfectly safe (I don't know how many beatings and robberies occur in Seattle on any given day, but am certain it is greater than zero. The fact that the victim pleaded for assistance is common - see battered wives. They also have well founded fears, but the police have NO duty, NONE, to protect any particular individual who is being bullied, or who has been threatened. They might decide to assist, sure. But they have no affirmative duty to do so.
No, that’s an issue with the company who hired the guards and told them they were to WATCH and REPORT and not act. I can’t speak about the police, since all we have so far is the word of the girl who was beaten. I simply don’t know what happened. Hopefully other people were there and will give an account.
You’re welcome. Whatever the political hijinks, it’s unconscionable that anyone is hurt.
*The useless government employees - police - did nothing before the altercation on the platform. That is not on tape. Read all the articles.*
How are police supposed to stop a crime that is not yet happening?
Taxpayers have the right to be outraged at the waste of tax dollars. The issue is some useless government worker/workers negotiated this useless contract with the useless security company hiring useless SECURITY guards. All of them should be fired and the money returned to the taxpayers. You’re receiving a government paycheck/retirement check, eh?
“I simply don’t know what happened.”
Well I plainly see an assault caught on tape and it does not matter if the victim said anything to provoke it. Assault is assault. Blaming the victim and excusing criminal behavior is for Obama voters.
I might have aimed a few at those cowardly “guards”.
This is from a Texas CHL holder.
I’m afraid you’re right. But she might try to sue the city for failing to provide security, especially if this sort of thing happens frequently. Worth a shot.
You did not see the cops on tape send the kids out and not help her, unless you have access to a different video than we have seen, and please, if you do, make it available. Otherwise, I stand by what I said. We have her story about what the police did. Otherwise, we don’t really know what happened. I did not say it was not the truth, I said I didn’t know.
The mobsters must have known that, huh?
I’ll agree with you on everything BUT the DV statement. The cops WILL arrest you (if your male) on a DV complaint so fast it’ll make your head swim.
If the girl had been smart she could have insisted on making a criminal complaint and at least taken up the cops time for a 1/2 hour or so. Most likely the group harassing her would have gotten bored waiting around and left by the time she was done having the cops fill out useless paper work.
In school, though, I tried to follow my mother's rules. "Don't ever start a fight, but if someone starts with you - end it." I withstood a lot of teasing over the years, I wasn't allowed to start the physical contact; I had to wait until it was initiated on me.
Never, in all of my fights, did I kick another person in the head. When they were down, I backed off. The moment they stopped fighting back, it was over.
That's how I knew this was more than a case of "aggressiveness." Combine that with the theft, and the attacker was clearly over the edge.
That young lady wouldn't like me to sit on her jury.
This case will be a close call if it comes to court. Even if the law is clear, jury sympathy will be on her side unless some other facts are uncovered making her somewhat responsible. I do not think that the city will want to test this case in court unless the victim has onerous demands.
In Oakland, the transit security officers would have bashed her head through a glass window and then shot her in the back for making such a request. Mall cops run amok.
We paid 40000 dollars tax last year... I was sick to my stomach when I read that... I mean come on? Where is it going?
I agree with that. The scenario I had in mind was that after arrest, and the guy is under a TRO, the cops have no duty to keep the guy away from the gal. The guy has an order that he is responsible to obey, or else suffer the consequences. Should he violate the TRO, and cause her harm, the guy is in trouble (as are the captured perps here), but the police are not in any way liable.
“...her daughter is a good girl who made a bad decision. ...” And she wants to be a rap star. She is turning her life around. She starts to school on Monday. She is fun to be around.She wants to support her baby. Any other posters feel free to add to the list.
Yeah, but the jury isn't the end of it. An appellate court can overturn a jury verdict, finding "as a matter of law" (even if the facts are taken in favor of the plaintiff), that the municipality has no duty; or even if it did have a duty, the conduct alleged did not amount to a breach.
-- I do not think that the city will want to test this case in court unless the victim has onerous demands. --
Mixed bag, that one. The simple calculus is cost to defend vs. cost of paying the demand letter. I would guess minimum cost to defend to be in the $15,000 neighborhood. Cheaper to pay, plus it avoids the negative publicity associated with a very sympathetic victim. The Watch-a-Crime outfit will perform a similar calculation; or might be covered in the same payout on account of being involved by the same municipality that hires the PD.
But there is a substantial downside to settling, in that it sends a signal to all the ambulance chasers that the city will pay off (whatever the cost of defending a suit is) for failure to protect, provided the victim can obtain the right kind and amount of publicity. That means every person who had contact with the cops, and later suffered an injury, is enticed to sue.
“Real men are rapidly becoming extinct”
And that is by design of the social engineers. Real men cannot be enslaved or ruled. Feminized males can be both.
Or, shoot to kill the lawyers and let God sort it out.
≤]B/)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.