TO SERVE AND--WHAT?
Last week was another tragic lawyer-shooting in Chicago. This one had no connection to family law--the intended victim was an intellectual property attorney who had handled a patent case for the shooter (the inventor of a toilet for trucks.) The intended victim, another attorney in the same office, and a clerical worker were all killed, and a paralegal was wounded. The shooter was also killed--last I heard, nobody was sure whether it was by his own hand or by the SWAT team which finally turned up a bit too late. The shooter was apparently yet another person who had anticipated the legal system solving his problems, who expressed his disappointment with a gun when it didn't.
There will undoubtedly be more commentary on that part of the story, both in and out of the profession. For the moment I'm concerned about the requirements of yet another "profession," namely "building security." The shooter entered the building at the only available entrance, which was covered by security officers. They asked for his ID and checked at the law office to see if he had an appointment. Finding out that he didn't, they sent him away. But he came back with a gun, which he pulled on the security guard. The guard then took him up to the law office.
Like all the rest of you, I have spent lots of time waiting to be allowed into buildings in which I had perfectly legitimate business, so that "security officers" could check me out and decide I was an acceptable visitor. Being female and not especially big, I probably didn't make any of them nervous enough to stop me. But if I had, I would have put up with it, because like just about everybody else, I was willing to sacrifice a certain amount of convenience and freedom so that other people could be safe.
And now I learn that all I had to do to get personally escorted wherever I was going was to pull a gun on the security guard. Excuse me? Aren't these guys being paid, and armed, and trained, to prevent attacks on building occupants? Shouldn't the guard have done something at the lobby checkpoint, like pull a gun, or mace, or a taser, or at least alert one of the other guards before going upstairs, or jam the elevator once they got in? Something other than escort the killer into the office of his victims and then (so far as I know) go back downstairs before the shooting started?
Yes, I know that the guy was not a real police officer sworn to serve and protect and put his own life on the line to do it. Yes, I know that he was probably "temporary" and/or "part-time" with no benefits, and was getting paid maybe 5% of the hourly pay of the attorneys he allowed to get shot. But nonetheless, he was uniformed, trained and at least in some fashion armed, to provide the building's occupants with the illusion of safety.
And, apparently, nothing else. This is not a position the building management should have allowed itself to get into. If there is one thing lawyers know how to do, by definition, it is sue. The friends and families of the decedents in this case will probably go after every asset of the building management and the owners who hired them. And those of us who have given up ever-increasing amounts of convenience and freedom to "building security" personnel will be sitting in the stands cheering them on.
There will undoubtedly be more commentary on that part of the story, both in and out of the profession. For the moment I'm concerned about the requirements of yet another "profession," namely "building security." The shooter entered the building at the only available entrance, which was covered by security officers. They asked for his ID and checked at the law office to see if he had an appointment. Finding out that he didn't, they sent him away. But he came back with a gun, which he pulled on the security guard. The guard then took him up to the law office.
Like all the rest of you, I have spent lots of time waiting to be allowed into buildings in which I had perfectly legitimate business, so that "security officers" could check me out and decide I was an acceptable visitor. Being female and not especially big, I probably didn't make any of them nervous enough to stop me. But if I had, I would have put up with it, because like just about everybody else, I was willing to sacrifice a certain amount of convenience and freedom so that other people could be safe.
And now I learn that all I had to do to get personally escorted wherever I was going was to pull a gun on the security guard. Excuse me? Aren't these guys being paid, and armed, and trained, to prevent attacks on building occupants? Shouldn't the guard have done something at the lobby checkpoint, like pull a gun, or mace, or a taser, or at least alert one of the other guards before going upstairs, or jam the elevator once they got in? Something other than escort the killer into the office of his victims and then (so far as I know) go back downstairs before the shooting started?
Yes, I know that the guy was not a real police officer sworn to serve and protect and put his own life on the line to do it. Yes, I know that he was probably "temporary" and/or "part-time" with no benefits, and was getting paid maybe 5% of the hourly pay of the attorneys he allowed to get shot. But nonetheless, he was uniformed, trained and at least in some fashion armed, to provide the building's occupants with the illusion of safety.
And, apparently, nothing else. This is not a position the building management should have allowed itself to get into. If there is one thing lawyers know how to do, by definition, it is sue. The friends and families of the decedents in this case will probably go after every asset of the building management and the owners who hired them. And those of us who have given up ever-increasing amounts of convenience and freedom to "building security" personnel will be sitting in the stands cheering them on.
posted by WiredSisters at 12:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home