A 15-year-old girl was recently beaten and robbed in front of three Seattle bus station security guards. As you can see, in the video below, the guards do virtually nothing to stop the violence, even as the attacked girl runs to them for help. According to the news sources, the guards were contract workers who were not authorized to use any force or stop any illegal act from happening—in fact, prohibited from doing so. They’re only duty was to “observe and report” crime.
This incident makes me wonder if these privately-employed individuals should even have the appearance of law enforcement, when they cannot enforce laws or protect individuals from harm. Giving them the appearance of law enforcement officers, with uniforms, hats, bright yellow jackets (as in the video), and large radios or flashlights only serves to lull us into a false sense of security.
If security guards can only provide a perception of security—not actual security— officially-dressed security guards might even pose a greater threat to us than if they simply wore civilian clothing. For example, in the video you can see the girl run toward the security officers and try to hide behind them, thinking they would protect her. That pause gave the attackers the ability to grab her. If the security guards were not so obviously dressed, the victim would not have seen them and kept on running, possibly fleeing her attackers altogether.
I suppose the problem here is that when security guards dress like law enforcement, the public puts trust in them, but that trust is misplaced. That misplaced trust can have dangerous consequences, as this teenage girl found out.
Law enforcement officers: What do you think? Do civilian security guards help or harm citizens by dressing like officers?
Security guards: How does the way you dress affect the way you do your job?
James Gunter is the editor of The Crime Map and the director of social media for CrimeReports.com.
Get on the National Crime Map at CrimeReports.com
{ 1 trackback }
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
These secuity guards make $17 an hour, and receive incredibly minimal training. We also know that security guards have historically also committed an unfortunate number of predatory and opportunistic crimes. Personally, I think some level of psych screening, certification, and continuing education should be required for any person who is in the role of security guard, mall security, etc.
Side note: first time I was ever asked if I’d like to buy drugs? Security guard in downtown Reno, supposedly keeping the transit area safe. I was 12. :^P
Good suggestions, Bethan. I wonder if property owners would be willing to foot the bill for such training or would want to pay higher wages as a result of it?
I think increase in pay would be strongly justified, as the pay would still be less than off-duty police, and increased sense of security would lead (likely) to increased use and revenue.
state-level agency could screen, vocational school could centralize training and provide avenue to financial aid, and CE could be taught by off-duty police & criminal lawyers
Fun times.
I’m coming to this a bit late, but I think part of the problem is also a poorly worded and trained policy coming down from the executive level.
No, security guards should not be expected to intervene when a property crime is taking place. That’s unreasonable. But for the guards not to feel they should intervene when someone’s life is at risk? That’s beyond the pale.
It’s hard for me to believe that these guards could not even think for themselves and go against policy long enough to help this girl. Then again, if they were in fear of losing their jobs? If they were faced with putting a stranger’s life ahead of their own families’? I could understand. Not agree with, but understand.
Whether the security company is making the wrong hiring decisions (people who cannot make the right moral choices) or failed to plan and communicate adequately (policy and training) or created a culture of fear of job loss, some serious changes need to be made somewhere.
You may be onto something here. The guards contest that they did nothing because they were not “authorized” to do so. A poorly written/enforced policy like this could be the real cause. For example, if it had been written that the guards “could not interfere in physical confrontation, except when it is clear that the guard is not threatened by serious physical harm.” Wording like that could allow some intervention, but could instruct guards not to put their own lives on the line.
In a case like the one seen above, it doesn’t seem like the guards would have incurred any serious physical harm from intervening in the situation, especially once the victim was on the ground. Maybe a differently-worded policy could have prevented this.
You make a good point. Thanks for sharing.