"Aiesha, 15, Asked for an Escort, Warned Guards and Cops About Attackers, Got Beating But No Help"and
"According to King County Sheriff's Department spokesman John Urquhart, the security guards at the terminal did what the job required.Now people all over the country are expressing outrage over how the incident was (not) handled.
"'They are to observe and report,' Urquhart told Good Morning America. 'And that means be a good witness and call 911. And that's exactly what they did.'"
GOOD. It's about damn time.
From what I've heard, Seattle is a liberal-pussifier-paradise and they're proud of it. Well, this is what you get when cowardice and apathy combine. Ooh, the three unarmed security guards (an oxymoron right there) were outnumbered. They were following orders. Had they grown a pair and intervened, they might have lost their jobs. Never mind the victim could have lost her life.
The mindset at work here is not isolated by any means:
"This is not an unusual case, according to security experts from around the county. Most private security guards under contract by cities, shopping malls and businesses work under strict rules to retreat, not to jump in, if something goes wrong."So what good are they? None? Guess what, the criminals know that.
Aiesha knew she was at risk and asked police officers to escort her to the bus so she could get home safely. They refused.
"Sgt. Sean Whitcomb, a Seattle police spokesman, told ABC News last week that the officers could only do so much before a crime was actually committed, and had told the victim and her friend to go home and get away from the assailants at least two times before the attack occurred.Emphasis mine.
Pay attention here, folks. Running away doesn't work when your attackers are hunting you down. Not only are the police under no obligation to protect us from violent crime, they are under no obligation to take any action to prevent such crime from happening. Their assigned role, literally, is to put up the yellow tape and investigate the crime after it is completed.
Who has the greatest investment is actually preventing the completion of that crime?
THE INTENDED VICTIM.
Now this case is made even worse by the age of the victim. As a minor, she is prevented by law from owning and using the most effective tools of self-defense. She used pepper spray against her attackers earlier in the sequence of events, and it did nothing to improve the outcome. It may have even enraged them more. Also, keyring-size sprays often don't have much multiple use capacity. So much for the effectiveness of kitchen condiments as deterrants.
So if we have a mandated-helpless victim, whose job is it to actually stop the threat?
Apparently not the police, who refused her request for an escort. Apparently not the "security guards" who were trained to do nothing but be good witnesses. Apparently not the other bystanders who thought the "security guards" would stop the assault but did not step in when they didn't.
And doesn't anyone here see that the reason these teenaged thugs felt empowered to viciously beat and rob this girl in front of multiple witnesses, including uniformed security guards, is that they knew with a high degree of confidence that nobody would take any action against them???
Every public official who says you should not defend yourself but give the criminal what he wants is aiding and abetting violent crime.
Every business that bans effective self defense and hires unarmed guards that are ordered to retreat and call 911 is aiding and abetting violent crime.
They are enablers. They won't do anything effective, they don't want you to be able to do anything effective, and then they wonder why there's more violent crime.
NEVER EVER BET YOUR LIFE THAT SOMEBODY ELSE WILL SAVE IT.