Why the Security Guards were right and what they did was wrong

Sometimes you do the right thing and you get kicked in the ass; sometimes you get hurt. That's the plain facts of life. Sometimes doing the right thing means breaking some rules and risking a good ass kicking.

The Seattle security guards who stood by and watched one teenage girl kick another teenage girl in the head did everything by the book. It's about time we burned some books.

It's really a simple matter of policy. That statement should cause you to feel nauseated or angry, but it's true. The policy of the Olympic Security Service in Seattle is clear: observe and report. That's the policy for most civilian security agencies, store clerks and bank tellers across the country.

There's good reason for this policy. Most civilian employees are not trained to stop a violent attack and even if they are, they are not generally afforded the same legal discretion in the use of force equal to that given law enforcement personnel. The intention is to prevent untrained people from causing injury or harm to innocent people, or themselves.

Even law enforcement officers have been under increased pressure. They're sued for excessive force even in cases where their application of force appears more than reasonable. In most cases, they're subject to administrative leave and public condemnation as they wait for their names to be cleared. If their actions are deemed justified; the news of exoneration is seldom given the same media attention as the accusation of excessive force.

I'm not defending anyone who uses excessive force whether law enforcement or anyone else. The real danger today, however, is that you can be doing exactly the right thing as measured by the standard of what any reasonable person would do and still be subject to criminal charges, lawsuits, loss of your job and damage to your reputation.

That's why the Olympic Security Guards were right. What they did, or didn't do, was wrong.

Responsibility sometimes transcends what "reasonable people" might do in the face of real danger. Still, the guards did act reasonably so let's be sure we cover all the arguments justifying their actions/inactions.

Company policy says they did the right thing. We already beat that horse, but it is reasonable to follow company policy. Is following company policy justification enough to stand by while someone else is lying defenseless on the ground as another person kicks her head? Would you have risked your job to intervene on her behalf?

How about the danger of personal injury? One report cited that the guards acted properly since they were outnumbered 3 to 1. I've been teaching self-defense for over 20 years and every time we talk about similar situations I caution people to be very careful before they get involved. Part of the reason for this caution is the risk of personal injury, particularly if you're facing overwhelming odds or you're unarmed.

Would you face an angry violent mob to protect someone you didn't know?

The final argument is that this attack may have been provoked. It's certainly not reasonable to ask someone to try and sort out the justification for such an attack to decide whether it's appropriate to intervene. Would you want to know all the circumstances before you step into a situation like this one?

No matter what the provocation, what justification is there for a group of young women, or anyone else for that matter to track down and batter someone who poses no immediate physical threat?

Maybe it's time we become a lot less reasonable. This case is not isolated; the news has been full of reports of violent attacks, particularly by young people where bystanders lived up to the name until it was too late to help the victims. A few months ago dozens of teens walked by for nearly two hours as a classmate was brutally and repeatedly raped at a high school dance. Adults have even instigated attacks by their own children on others. In one recent case a parent prevented a victim from escaping a beating at her own home by her own daughter. Are these the actions of "reasonable" people?

Here is my "unreasonable" response:

This girl was escorted by mall cops to the area patrolled by the Olympic Security guards. She told the guards what was happening and asked for their protection. If their job is to observe and report, that's when they should have reported and had real cops on the way. Also at that point the very least they could have done was to take this young woman to a safer location.

Once the fight started it would seem a reasonable person concerned about personal harm would move to safety. These guys stood inches, not feet, inches from the fight. It does look like the closest guard is telling the attacker to back off, but is that enough? Part of the reason these guards probably don't act threatened is because they aren't. Two of the guards obviously weighed more than both the victim and the assailant put together. These were skinny teenage girls, not 200 pound men.

Forget the guards for a second; what about the dozens of other people walking by on the platform? Nobody wants to get involved? Did they assume the guards would handle it? Were they also afraid of this 110 pound teenage girl?

But what if one of the guards did grab the attacker? What if in the struggle the guard injured the attacker; what if they broke her arm? What if the other kids suddenly jumped in? The problem here is that the guards would likely lose their jobs, and would probably be the target of civil litigation. In our society the person doing the right thing is not always protected by the law. Sometimes the scumbag who is injured in the act of committing a crime comes out better than the person who risked his own safety to stop the crime.

Here's what should have happened:

Screw the possible consequences. Somebody, and most likely the guards whom the victim approached for help should have grabbed that skinny punk kid and tossed her across the platform. Those actions would have at the very least saved the victim from taking some of the 16 blows I counted on the video. This fight lasted nearly as long as an official round of amateur boxing. Wasn't that enough time for someone to step in?

One expert on ABC News, Professor Harold Tarkooshian of Fordham University stated that only 5% of the population would intervene given the same circumstances. The 95% who would not act would probably have reasonable justification to "observe and report." Some would not be physically capable, that makes sense. Others would fear retribution or personal injury, perfectly reasonable. Still others would simply not want to risk the possibility of a lawsuit not knowing all the circumstances, perfectly understandable.

It does take courage to act. Courage is not the absence of fear, that's stupidity. Courage is your willingness to act in the face of fear.

If you were faced with the same circumstances, would you be in the reasonable 95% of the population, or would you be in the 5% who would have the courage to act?



Here's a video of the attack with commentary from ABC News.


Jim Bouchard is an internationally recognized speaker, media personality and author of "Think Like a Black Belt." Jim is a self-defense expert with over 25 years experience and has served as a firefighter and bodyguard and has been involved in dealing with violent attackers in both roles.

For more information on Jim Bouchard and "Think Like a Black Belt" visit JimBouchard.org.