There was a TV show on recently about this,and below are some of the examples shown...
Would you help a stranger if..............
If a gang of male youths were beating up a another male youth on a bus?
If a gang of female youths was beating up on a 13 year old girl on a bus,throwing her to the floor and jumping on her head?
If you saw some youths on bikes taking money off some young kids on the street?
If you were walking home at night down a deserted street and you saw a man getting his head kicked in as he lay unconscious on the floor by 2 men?
| truespeed wrote: |
Would you help a stranger if..............
If a gang of male youths were beating up a another male youth on a bus? |
I'd kick 'em in the face.
| truespeed wrote: |
| If a gang of female youths was beating up on a 13 year old girl on a bus,throwing her to the floor and jumping on her head? |
I'd kick 'em in the face.
| truespeed wrote: |
| If you saw some youths on bikes taking money off some young kids on the street? |
I'd kick 'em in the face.
| truespeed wrote: |
| If you were walking home at night down a deserted street and you saw a man getting his head kicked in as he lay unconscious on the floor by 2 men? |
I'd kick 'em in the face.
Not the guy, but the other 2.For one, taking on a "gang" (I don't know how many people this means) is not a wise decision. You'd be better off calling the police or finding more help than taking on a "gang" of people and then having to rely on somebody else to call the police.
Two, it depends on the size of the people in the "gang." I'm not going to take on four 6foot guys when I'm a scrawny 5ft 7in guy.
Would I ignore the situation? Absolutely not. Calling the police or getting more help would be the first thing that would come to my mind. I'm not a very confrontational person and I can't see how my jumping into the middle of something like that would make the situation better. Perhaps I would call the police then attempt to do something about it myself until they got there.
"If a gang of male youths were beating up a another male youth on a bus? "
I would call the police first and wait for them to come. If there are more then two people you could end up being the next victim.
"If a gang of female youths was beating up on a 13 year old girl on a bus,throwing her to the floor and jumping on her head? "
I would call the police first then go over to stop them.
"If you saw some youths on bikes taking money off some young kids on the street? "
I would call the police first then go over to stop them.
"If you were walking home at night down a deserted street and you saw a man getting his head kicked in as he lay unconscious on the floor by 2 men?"
I would call the police first and wait for them to come. If there are more then two people you could end up being the next victim.
----------------
Now playing: Nickelback - Hero
via FoxyTunes I would help those people right there. I have, on a couple of occasions, stood up/gotten in physical altercations as the result of standing up for other innocent people. I HATE anyone associated with gangs or people engaging in any type of "thugery (I know that's not a word - but it fits this description well)." I also have no sympathy for gang members/or just plain thugs who die/get injured in the course of their crimes. At the high school that I went to, I saw way too much violence/gang fights/etc. to have any tolerance for any of that nonsense.
However... The "great" judicial system of the United States is against me. Hell, half of the time the U.S. supports criminals. Let's say, for instance, that I saw a 17-year-old bullying/beating up (which I can't stand either) a 12-year-old, or I saw a 17-year-old spit in the face of an old lady, or if I saw a 17-year-old slashing the tires on my car, etc. and I beat that 17-year-old's ass (which I would be inclined to do - given that he would definitely deserve it), there is a high probability that I would go to jail for assaulting a minor... Hell, I guess I'd have to do what my cousin did after he got arrested for teaching the neighborhood thug a lesson and go and hire the biggest minor in the neighborhood to beat up the hooligan (and he of course watched gladly from a distance).
| truespeed wrote: |
Would you help a stranger if..............
1.If a gang of male youths were beating up a another male youth on a bus?
2.If a gang of female youths was beating up on a 13 year old girl on a bus,throwing her to the floor and jumping on her head?
3.If you saw some youths on bikes taking money off some young kids on the street?
4.If you were walking home at night down a deserted street and you saw a man getting his head kicked in as he lay unconscious on the floor by 2 men?
|
I am usually only in the following situations when im coming home with friends from places
1. Call police and if there is more of us then them kick there ass (other wise stay back)
2. separate the girl from the group until they get off
3. Depending on how many of us and how many of them probs just join in and require a 50% commision (ok maybe not) BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF THEM
4. Call the police and maybe help the stranger depending on the size of the guys and how drunk the look
by youths im guessing between 15 and 18
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
I would help those people right there. I have, on a couple of occasions, stood up/gotten in physical altercations as the result of standing up for other innocent people. I HATE anyone associated with gangs or people engaging in any type of "thugery (I know that's not a word - but it fits this description well)." I also have no sympathy for gang members/or just plain thugs who die/get injured in the course of their crimes. At the high school that I went to, I saw way too much violence/gang fights/etc. to have any tolerance for any of that nonsense.
However... The "great" judicial system of the United States is against me. Hell, half of the time the U.S. supports criminals. Let's say, for instance, that I saw a 17-year-old bullying/beating up (which I can't stand either) a 12-year-old, or I saw a 17-year-old spit in the face of an old lady, or if I saw a 17-year-old slashing the tires on my car, etc. and I beat that 17-year-old's ass (which I would be inclined to do - given that he would definitely deserve it), there is a high probability that I would go to jail for assaulting a minor... Hell, I guess I'd have to do what my cousin did after he got arrested for teaching the neighborhood thug a lesson and go and hire the biggest minor in the neighborhood to beat up the hooligan (and he of course watched gladly from a distance). |
For the first one, if he (the hooligan) is beating up another person, which could result in serious injury or death (possibly) then you kicking his ass but not causing serious injury or death then you wont go to jail because the outcome you produced by stepping in was better then the possible outcome if you had not stepped in.
but for the other two, you would go to jail if you beat him up because the out come of your actions would have been worse then if you had not acted
This is in US and Australia as much as i know | truespeed wrote: |
There was a TV show on recently about this,and below are some of the examples shown...
Would you help a stranger if..............
If a gang of male youths were beating up a another male youth on a bus?
If a gang of female youths was beating up on a 13 year old girl on a bus,throwing her to the floor and jumping on her head?
If you saw some youths on bikes taking money off some young kids on the street?
If you were walking home at night down a deserted street and you saw a man getting his head kicked in as he lay unconscious on the floor by 2 men? |
If a gang of male youths were beating up a another male youth on a bus?
I think it would be illegal to take matters in my own hands. Isn't there a rule somewhere that you can only act against others when your own life is in danger, or if you are licensed to do so? I would draw the attention of the bus driver to this and allow him to deal with the situation. I would imagine that he would bring the bus to an immediate stop and deal with the situation. Otherwise, I would dial 911 if the bus driver needs assistance.
If a gang of female youths was beating up on a 13 year old girl on a bus,throwing her to the floor and jumping on her head?
Ditto above. I will offer assistance to the bus driver, who I think by law is the person who needs to deal with the situation. Who I imagine would bring the bus to an immediately halt, hopefully jump on the brakes, which will capsize these youths.
If you saw some youths on bikes taking money off some young kids on the street?
I would check around if I could see the parents of the young kids around. If they are alone, I will shout at the youths, and then pretend as though I am dialling 911. Think they would scoot at that.
If you were walking home at night down a deserted street and you saw a man getting his head kicked in as he lay unconscious on the floor by 2 men?
I wouldn't interfere. I would dial 911 immediately and try and stay out of sight.These were real life situations and here's what happened..
| truespeed wrote: |
| If a gang of male youths were beating up a another male youth on a bus? |
Nobody on the bus did anything,everyone looked away hoping someone else would step in,but nobody did,eventually the driver stopped the bus and ordered them off,both the lad and the gang ran off.
| truespeed wrote: |
| If a gang of female youths was beating up on a 13 year old girl on a bus,throwing her to the floor and jumping on her head? |
The girl was sat with her friend,the gang of girls approached her,one of the girls dragged her from her seat and onto the floor,beat her then jumped on her head,the girl screamed for help,nobody helped,one of the passengers even told her to shush. The girl was beaten pretty badly before the older girl stopped.
I think what is noticable about the above two examples is that when in group situations,the ability to do nothing is enforced by the fact that nobody else is doing anything,so every one sits around thinking/hoping someone else will step in,but what happens is that nobody steps in.
| truespeed wrote: |
| If you saw some youths on bikes taking money off some young kids on the street? |
A young man stepped in to show some kids on bikes how it was wrong to steal money,at one point he put his hand on one of their bikes as if to say how would you like it if i took your bike,this was the last thing he ever did as one of the youths stuck a knife in his heart,he died a couple of days later.
| truespeed wrote: |
| If you were walking home at night down a deserted street and you saw a man getting his head kicked in as he lay unconscious on the floor by 2 men? |
A middle aged couple walking home one night witnessed this scene,the man got angry,the woman told him not to get involved,but he did as he could see the man on the floor was unconscious and that they were just playing football with his head,he shouted over,with his phone to his ear,telling them he was calling the police, he got threatened,but the two men stopped what they were doing and walked away,leaving the couple to help the man on the floor and get an ambulance.
Would i help a stranger? I would like to think so,but i guess i am like everyone else,i would rather not get involved,in situations where there's the possibility of somebody else stepping in,i know i would sit back and wait/hope that somebody else did. | redslazers wrote: |
For the first one, if he (the hooligan) is beating up another person, which could result in serious injury or death (possibly) then you kicking his ass but not causing serious injury or death then you wont go to jail because the outcome you produced by stepping in was better then the possible outcome if you had not stepped in.
but for the other two, you would go to jail if you beat him up because the out come of your actions would have been worse then if you had not acted
This is in US and Australia as much as i know |
Well I am talking from the experience of past cases. I remember reading about one case where some stupid thug student started to physically attack a teacher. The teacher fought back in pure self-defense. The student ended up getting suspended, detention, or whatever (I can't remember the punishment, but it was a light punishment) while the teacher was fired. To make matters worse, at the time of the article (I don't know what ended up happening), the parents of the student (that deserved to get his ass beat and be arrested for assault) were pressing charges against the school and teacher... That's another problem with our society. Parents of criminal children tend to support their criminal children (probably because they're criminals themselves). I can't tell you how many times I would see crap like that back in high school. A kid would bring a knife to school with intentions of attacking someone from another clique/gang or something and then when he was caught and expelled, the parents would raise hell to try and get the punishment uplifted. Parents should support the disciplinary actions of the school/law and REINFORCE them at home with further punishment. | truespeed wrote: |
The girl was sat with her friend,the gang of girls approached her,one of the girls dragged her from her seat and onto the floor,beat her then jumped on her head,the girl screamed for help,nobody helped,one of the passengers even told her to shush. The girl was beaten pretty badly before the older girl stopped.
I think what is noticable about the above two examples is that when in group situations,the ability to do nothing is enforced by the fact that nobody else is doing anything,so every one sits around thinking/hoping someone else will step in,but what happens is that nobody steps in. |
I don't understand as I thought that the bus driver was in charge of the bus. Wasn't the onus on him to sort the problem out. Surely there is a protocol for situations like these? If I were the parents of the girl who screamed for help, I would sue the local authority responsible for the bus. And/or the parents of the girls who jumped on her. If the facts presented were really true, as I am not completely convinced that these are the actual facts as they happened. Why would passengers ask the girl who screamed to shush if it was as extreme situation as indicated by the presentation of the facts?
I think police caution members of the public not to interfere in acts of violence. For good reason. It may turn OK, but it also has a good chance of backfiring in a lethal way. | truespeed wrote: |
These were real life situations and here's what happened..
Nobody on the bus did anything,everyone looked away hoping someone else would step in,but nobody did,eventually the driver stopped the bus and ordered them off,both the lad and the gang ran off. |
This seems to be happening more often. Damn kids.
| truespeed wrote: |
If a gang of female youths was beating up on a 13 year old girl on a bus,throwing her to the floor and jumping on her head?
The girl was sat with her friend,the gang of girls approached her,one of the girls dragged her from her seat and onto the floor,beat her then jumped on her head,the girl screamed for help,nobody helped,one of the passengers even told her to shush. The girl was beaten pretty badly before the older girl stopped.
I think what is noticable about the above two examples is that when in group situations,the ability to do nothing is enforced by the fact that nobody else is doing anything,so every one sits around thinking/hoping someone else will step in,but what happens is that nobody steps in. |
It's called the Kitty Genovese Syndrome. It's taught in every Psych class. This aspect of humanity disgusts me. "I didn't do anything because I was just sure someone else was going to do something". It's cowardice.
| truespeed wrote: |
| Would i help a stranger? I would like to think so,but i guess i am like everyone else,i would rather not get involved,in situations where there's the possibility of somebody else stepping in,i know i would sit back and wait/hope that somebody else did. |
Don't underestimate yourself. If you have compassion within your heart, you may find the courage to do what is right. And in situations like this, quite often the right thing to do is KICK 'EM IN THE FACE. | truespeed wrote: |
There was a TV show on recently about this,and below are some of the examples shown...
Would you help a stranger if..............
If a gang of male youths were beating up a another male youth on a bus?
If a gang of female youths was beating up on a 13 year old girl on a bus,throwing her to the floor and jumping on her head?
If you saw some youths on bikes taking money off some young kids on the street?
If you were walking home at night down a deserted street and you saw a man getting his head kicked in as he lay unconscious on the floor by 2 men? |
In all four cases, it simply depends on how well armed I am. Alone and unarmed, I'm no match for a 'gang', or even just two people. With a good pistol though, I could probably scare them off, possibly without even firing a shot. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| truespeed wrote: | | I think what is noticable about the above two examples is that when in group situations,the ability to do nothing is enforced by the fact that nobody else is doing anything,so every one sits around thinking/hoping someone else will step in,but what happens is that nobody steps in. |
It's called the Kitty Genovese Syndrome. It's taught in every Psych class. This aspect of humanity disgusts me. "I didn't do anything because I was just sure someone else was going to do something". It's cowardice. |
It most certainly is not cowardice, and there is nothing "disgusting" about it. It is unfortunate, yes, but it is due to very rational thought processes that far more often than not drive us to do the right thing. For every Kitty Genovese where these processes cause these unfortunate incidents, there are tens of thousands of cases where they prevent unfortunate incidents... you just never hear about them.
When you are standing in a crowd of 50 people, and two people suddenly start pounding on each other right in front of you... but no one else moves a muscle... what is the logical thing to do? It is not to charge in to break up the fight. It is to ask why no one else is charging in to break up the fight. It is to ask, "What do these other 50 people know that i don't know?" Maybe one of the pair is a police officer subduing the other, maybe they're both armed and will kill whoever approaches, maybe the pair are friends and they do this all the time... maybe they're filming a bloody movie!!! The point is you don't know, and when you see 50 other people holding back, the only rational conclusion you can make is there must be a reason they are holding back.
999,999 times out of a million, that works out fine... the one case that it doesn't, you get a Kitty Genovese. It's a terrible tragedy yes, but it is an accident of very well-developed rational minds being confronted with a confounding situation and misfiring.
What disgusts me is people who trash talk humanity as if there is something fundamentally flawed about us when we are just doing what comes naturally - and what is perfectly rational and good behaviour the vast majority of the time except in a few freak circumstances that get paraded across the media circus ring. None of the 50 or so people who witnessed the Kitty Genovese murder were in any way disgusting or flawed, or even cowardly. They are just ordinary people confronted with a ridiculously unordinary circumstance who relied on brain systems to decide what to do that were just poorly suited to the particular circumstance. Chances are very good that if any one of those witnesses had been alone, they would have done something to help Ms. Genovese... and, statistically, several would have risked their lives to save her. But, because the circumstances were just so, their psychology misfired. It's tragic, yes, but those people - and people like them from other incidents - probably feel plenty bad enough that they made such a terrible mistake that they really don't need people hurling ignorant judgements at them that they really don't deserve. People aren't perfect - blame evolution or God for that as you please - but we work quite well the vast majority of the time. Saying we're broken because of a few isolated incidents that are - frankly - freakishly out of our ordinary experience, is just ridiculous.
--------------------------
For the record, the right answer to every case is the same: from a safe distance, make it clear that if they don't stop immediately you will call the cops. If they don't stop (or if they come for you), announce that you're are calling the cops, and do it (either on a cell phone right there, or go find a pay phone a safe distance away). Do not jump in to the fray (or go waving a gun around), or you may find your ass shot, stabbed or just badly beaten... and there will be two victims rather than one, and no one to describe the offenders to the police.
Your best weapon is your voice. Put some authority into it and tell the offenders that you're calling the cops, and chances are very good that they will back down. The application of violence more often than not only leads to escalation of violence. People brutal enough to kick someone who is down will almost certainly retaliate violently when attacked.
It is human nature to want to jump in and play vigilante, but that's almost always a stupid move. Stay back, intimidate (using your voice and verbal threats to call the cops), and call for help - that's playing it smart. | Indi wrote: |
| It most certainly is not cowardice, and there is nothing "disgusting" about it. It is unfortunate, yes, but it is due to very rational thought processes that far more often than not drive us to do the right thing. For every Kitty Genovese where these processes cause these unfortunate incidents, there are tens of thousands of cases where they prevent unfortunate incidents... you just never hear about them. |
Etc etc...
I see it as a position of not wanting to get involved, which would be the answer that most people give when asked why they didn't do anything. That, in my opinion, is cowardice. And it disgusts me. Half the reason people aren't safe in their own neighborhoods anymore is because nobody wants to get involved. Where you see communities banding together, you see less crime, because people look out for each other; in other words they are getting involved. Is it rational to not want to put oneself in danger to help another? Maybe, but it isn't very neighborly.
| Indi wrote: |
| When you are standing in a crowd of 50 people, and two people suddenly start pounding on each other right in front of you... but no one else moves a muscle... what is the logical thing to do? It is not to charge in to break up the fight. |
I suppose that's the difference between you and I. My instincts compell me to break it up, especially if one person is getting injured, or is being unfairly beaten. I would want someone to do the same for me.
| Indi wrote: |
| "What do these other 50 people know that i don't know?" |
And the longer you spend rationalizing what other people may or may not be knowing or doing, the more of a chance there is that one of the two people fighting could end up seriously injured or worse. My conscience will not allow me to run the risk of doing nothing for fear of a possible weapon or a movie being filmed, to find out later that a man has brain damage because I resisted my instincts to help my fellow man.
| Indi wrote: |
| What disgusts me is people who trash talk humanity as if there is something fundamentally flawed about us when we are just doing what comes naturally |
If sitting back while someone gets their face kicked in comes naturally to someone, then they are fundamentally flawed and earn every bit of trash talk. The thing is, I wasn't trash talking humanity. I was criticizing the act of doing nothing while other people get hurt, and using the excuse of "I figured someone else would help out". Call that rational thinking all you want, but at the end of the day, it's what Merriam-Webster defines as "lack of courage or resolution": also known as "cowardice". | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Call that rational thinking all you want, but at the end of the day, it's what Merriam-Webster defines as "lack of courage or resolution": also known as "cowardice". |
Although I admire your willingness to jump in, I also think this would be foolish especially for people who are not equipped with the same ability to fight and rescue people as you are obviously trained to be. There has to be a very good reason, including and especially common sense, for police to caution public not to get involved in fights of others. I thought Indi's guidelines were really good and common sense ones. To call it cowardice is a bit crazy to me. Are you serious? | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| I see it as a position of not wanting to get involved, which would be the answer that most people give when asked why they didn't do anything. That, in my opinion, is cowardice. |
And your opinion makes no sense given the fact that the effect is that people are less likely to act the more people that are present. If it really were cowardice, it would be other way around: people would be less likely to act if they were alone rather than with others. But that's not how it works, therefore it's not cowardice. End of proof.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Half the reason people aren't safe in their own neighborhoods anymore is because nobody wants to get involved. Where you see communities banding together, you see less crime, because people look out for each other; in other words they are getting involved. Is it rational to not want to put oneself in danger to help another? Maybe, but it isn't very neighborly. |
And again, that's not what the bystander effect is all about. In the case of communities coming together, there is communicated agreement between everyone about what is going on - which is not the case in an incident of bystander effect. In those incidents, people don't know whether they can or even should act. They're not afraid, they're confused. It's not about being too cowardly to risk yourself to help others, it is about not knowing if you can or even should put yourself at risk, or if the people that appear to need help really do need it, or if you can even help. And, as a matter of course, once the confusion is cleared up, people can and do act very courageously the vast majority of the time.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| I suppose that's the difference between you and I. My instincts compell me to break it up, especially if one person is getting injured, or is being unfairly beaten. I would want someone to do the same for me. |
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| And the longer you spend rationalizing what other people may or may not be knowing or doing, the more of a chance there is that one of the two people fighting could end up seriously injured or worse. My conscience will not allow me to run the risk of doing nothing for fear of a possible weapon or a movie being filmed, to find out later that a man has brain damage because I resisted my instincts to help my fellow man. |
No, actually, your instincts would compel you to hold back until you know more about what is going on. You are not immune to the bystander effect, regardless of how much better than everyone else you think you are.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| If sitting back while someone gets their face kicked in comes naturally to someone, then they are fundamentally flawed and earn every bit of trash talk. The thing is, I wasn't trash talking humanity. I was criticizing the act of doing nothing while other people get hurt, and using the excuse of "I figured someone else would help out". Call that rational thinking all you want, but at the end of the day, it's what Merriam-Webster defines as "lack of courage or resolution": also known as "cowardice". |
It is not a fundamental flaw at all, because if we really were wired the way you think we should be wired, then we would be a very dangerous species indeed. i tell you what: if you ever come across an area sealed off by the police because inside a dangerous person is holding people hostage at gun point, then you just go do what you feel you should - charge on in and "help your fellow man".
Oh, what's that? It would be stupid? Why, yes, yes it would. More likely than not, you would not only get yourself killed, plus the gunman and several hostages as well, and probably a few police officers to boot. But hey, at least you wouldn't be a coward, right?
Clearly blindly charging in to help people is not always the intelligent thing to do, despite what you seem to think, hm? Clearly it makes sense to consider the situation before charging in to help, hm? And it is not a coward that takes a moment to consider if they are acting wisely, it is an idiot that does not.
That's all bystander effect is: people stop to consider how they can best help, but are presented with conflicting information (on the one hand to jump in and help, and on the other to hold back because everyone else is and may know something you don't), and freeze. It's a perfectly valid system that works fine the vast majority of the time, but has a weak spot that causes it to malfunction in specific circumstances. | Indi wrote: |
| And again, that's not what the bystander effect is all about. In the case of communities coming together, there is communicated agreement between everyone about what is going on - which is not the case in an incident of bystander effect. In those incidents, people don't know whether they can or even should act. They're not afraid, they're confused. It's not about being too cowardly to risk yourself to help others, it is about not knowing if you can or even should put yourself at risk, or if the people that appear to need help really do need it, or if you can even help. And, as a matter of course, once the confusion is cleared up, people can and do act very courageously the vast majority of the time. |
Perhaps a good example would be Sept 11 plane where passengers overpowered terrorists? They obviously did that as there was a communicated agreement that lack of action would result in everyone's death?
Refresher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Flight_93
| Quote: |
United Airlines Flight 93 was a scheduled United States domestic passenger flight from Newark International Airport, in Newark, New Jersey, to San Francisco International Airport that was hijacked by four Islamic terrorists as part of the September 11 attacks in 2001. Over forty minutes into the flight the hijackers breached the cockpit, overpowered the pilots, and took over the control of the aircraft, diverting it toward Washington, D.C. Several passengers and crew members made telephone calls aboard the flight and learned about the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. As a result, the passengers decided to mount an assault against the hijackers and gain control of the aircraft.
The plane crashed in a field in Stonycreek Township, near Shanksville, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, about 80 miles (130 km) southeast of Pittsburgh and 150 miles (240 km) northwest of Washington, D.C., killing all on board including 40 passengers and crew and four hijackers.
|
| Indi wrote: |
| No, actually, your instincts would compel you to hold back until you know more about what is going on. You are not immune to the bystander effect, regardless of how much better than everyone else you think you are. |
Despite your condescension, I don't think I am any better than anyone else. I simply don't like seeing someone being unfairly attacked. In the case of a person robbing a bank with a gun, for example, it's obviously a stupid thing to jump in and try to be a hero, it just makes the situation worse. This is not commonly the case, though, and I was speaking specifically of the examples given at the stsrt of this thread.
| Indi wrote: |
| That's all bystander effect is: people stop to consider how they can best help, but are presented with conflicting information (on the one hand to jump in and help, and on the other to hold back because everyone else is and may know something you don't), and freeze. It's a perfectly valid system that works fine the vast majority of the time, but has a weak spot that causes it to malfunction in specific circumstances. |
I never said people shouldn't take a second to size up the situation, and as stated above, I was commenting on scenarios such as the ones mentioned originally in this thread, where there was no gunplay involved.
| Indi wrote: |
| If a gang of male youths were beating up a another male youth on a bus? |
In my opinion, the other kids on the bus were cowards for not helping the lone kid.
| Indi wrote: |
| If a gang of female youths was beating up on a 13 year old girl on a bus,throwing her to the floor and jumping on her head? |
Same goes for this one.
| Indi wrote: |
| If you saw some youths on bikes taking money off some young kids on the street? |
I would intervene, if they were not being violent, then I'd call the cops because nobody was in immediate danger.
| Indi wrote: |
| If you were walking home at night down a deserted street and you saw a man getting his head kicked in as he lay unconscious on the floor by 2 men? |
A few years back, at Charleston Southern University, a pitcher for the college baseball team was at a party. He and another guy got in a fight, the other guy knocked him out with one punch. Then, as if he hadn't done enough, he started kicking the unconscious guy in the head, bouncing his head off a cement curb. There were dozens of people watching. Not a single person said or did anything until after the guy was finished and they realized the other kid wasn't breathing. He died on the spot. All it would have taken is someone to jump in and shove the guy away. Maybe they would have taken a punch or two, but that kid would still be alive as a result. Everyone froze, for similar or different reasons, and their lack of action lead to a persons death. That is cowardice.
You can pull out any fake statistic you want about inaction being the best thing 99.99999% of the time, but I personally will not risk being wrong 00.00001% of the time just to be right the rest of the time. Especially when that small fraction could spell someones' death.
If the examples above involved weapons or terrorists or whatnot, perhaps my answers would be a bit different, but we were talking about people getting beaten up. I don't claim to know exactly what people are thinking when they fail to react in these situations, but I do know that when one person is being unfairly beaten upon, at least one person in the crowd should have the presence of mind to risk their safety to help that person out. That's the part that makes me angry, is that these things happen, and not one person in the crowd steps forward to try to stop it. Sometimes, you have to stop being part of a group mentality and do what is right. Sadly, too many people are more worried about being right than doing what is right. I know I'm in the minority on this, so perhaps it's a mistake for me to call this a "flaw", as it seems to be the norm. I just hope that if I am ever getting my head kicked in, there's someone from my small minority in the group who will take a punch for me, rather than hedge their bets on my fate falling into that 99.99999% category. | Indi wrote: |
| And your opinion makes no sense given the fact that the effect is that people are less likely to act the more people that are present. If it really were cowardice, it would be other way around: people would be less likely to act if they were alone rather than with others. But that's not how it works, therefore it's not cowardice. End of proof. |
That state of mind works in a group mentality too, so it's perfectly possible to be less likely to act the more people are there, especially if their rationale is the assumption that someone else would do something. So "group cowardice" is totally possible, and in many cases it's very likely.
| Indi wrote: |
| i tell you what: if you ever come across an area sealed off by the police because inside a dangerous person is holding people hostage at gun point, then you just go do what you feel you should - charge on in and "help your fellow man". |
This is just ridiculous. Obviously, if the police are there, there would be no reason for me to just rush in. Also, as I stated in my above post, the clear presence of a deadly weapon changes the situation. I never once stated that I would try to rush a gunman or a machete weilding psycho. The original examples had nothing to do with guns. The assumption that I would charge into a police controlled armed robbery situation is nothing more than a dirty attack on my character to try and make a point. Congratulations.
| Indi wrote: |
| Oh, what's that? It would be stupid? Why, yes, yes it would. More likely than not, you would not only get yourself killed, plus the gunman and several hostages as well, and probably a few police officers to boot. But hey, at least you wouldn't be a coward, right? |
We both agree on the outcome of this type of action. But again, you leapt to the assumption that I would "charge in" when there is an obvious gun threat. All I said was that I wouldn't sit back and do nothing during a fist fight while wondering if a person had a gun. So try not to put words in my mouth.
Our difference of opinion on the subject may be drastic, and you may think of me as wrong in my thought that risking ones personal safety to help another is the proper course of action. I won't try to tell you what people think and feel in these situations, I'm not a psychologist. What I do know, is that there are situations where people should charge in, and the original examples in this thread, in my opinion, warranted someone charging in. For there to be an audience to these acts, and not one person doing anything to physically help, is outrageous. You call it "normal", I call it cowardice. We are cut from different cloth, apparently. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| So "group cowardice" is totally possible, and in many cases it's very likely. |
How would you define cowardice in situations like that? Surely there is a common sense rule not to get involved in fights of others. Police officers would not be advising public to stay out of these situations if they did not have clear evidence of the consequences of getting involved. Law is also rarely on the side of those who interfere to their own detriment. Including killing someone when their own safety was not directly compromised. The intention may rarely be to kill someone, but accidents happen all the time, as well as when stepping in, that person may compromise his/her own safety and be killed as a consequence. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Quote: | | If you saw some youths on bikes taking money off some young kids on the street? |
I would intervene, if they were not being violent, then I'd call the cops because nobody was in immediate danger.
|
While you say you would help out in situations like the one above,in the situation above,the man paid for it with a knife to the heart and ultimately his life. To him there was no obvious threat,they were kids after all,and he had no idea anyone was carrying a weapon. There are lots of stories like this in the media,call them scare stories if you want,perhaps in the majority of similar cases,the man stepping in actually helps,but its the cases where the have a go hero is hurt or killed that get reported,so i think this plays a lot on peoples minds when they are in that kind of situation. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Despite your condescension, I don't think I am any better than anyone else. I simply don't like seeing someone being unfairly attacked. |
No, you don't think you're "better", just less "cowardly", right?
No one except sickos likes seeing someone being being unfairly attacked. This is not an issue of "enjoying" looking on. This is an issue of deciding whether you should intervene or not. Whether or not you like watching someone get pummelled, it is remarkably stupid to jump in to the fray.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| In the case of a person robbing a bank with a gun, for example, it's obviously a stupid thing to jump in and try to be a hero, it just makes the situation worse. |
It doesn't make the situation any less worse when the person is wielding a knife or a club or even just their fists rather than a gun. If someone is engaged in violence, regardless of their weapon of choice, jumping in to the situation is almost certainly going to lead to an escalation. Even police - armed with guns - do not dive into a fist fight... because that would be stupid! They stand back and try to control the situation by using their voices (and their uniforms), and only dive in as an absolute last resort, after calling for backup.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| This is not commonly the case, though, and I was speaking specifically of the examples given at the stsrt of this thread. |
As others have pointed out, if you had just dived in to the fray then in at least some of the situations you would be dead. Perhaps you should have thought about it more? Ah, but that would be "cowardly", hm?
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | That's all bystander effect is: people stop to consider how they can best help, but are presented with conflicting information (on the one hand to jump in and help, and on the other to hold back because everyone else is and may know something you don't), and freeze. It's a perfectly valid system that works fine the vast majority of the time, but has a weak spot that causes it to malfunction in specific circumstances. |
I never said people shouldn't take a second to size up the situation, and as stated above, I was commenting on scenarios such as the ones mentioned originally in this thread, where there was no gunplay involved. |
You're so hung up on guns, as if they are the only factor that makes a difference. To point out the obvious: you can't know whether or not guns are around if you don't see them. And even if there are no guns around, that doesn't mean you can't be killed just as easily with a small knife, a short loop of twine or even a nearby rock.
Anyway, you're still completely missing the point. Whenever i press you, you do admit that you have to "size up the situation" before getting involved. Well of course. But that's exactly what the bystander effect is - you stop to size up the situation... and get stuck. Your brain is processing contradictory information, and desperately trying to form a coherent opinion out of it. You'll freeze up. And most of these situations pass in only a matter of moments. By the time you get out of your logic loop, it is usually too late.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| A few years back, at Charleston Southern University.... |
Yadda yadda... you know, you can keep tossing out examples of cases when people should have intervened, i can keep tossing out examples of cases when people did intervene and only made the situation worse. This is going to get us nowhere.
The reality of most of these violent situations is that looking back at them - as you are - is not the same as being there. When you are at the scene, you may only have snippets of information, and often contradictory information, and mere seconds to act on that information. It may seem clear that the kid was in serious trouble and that it was patently obvious that someone should have helped... but at the time it probably wasn't as clear as you think it was. i don't know the details of this CSU beating, but take the Kitty Genovese case.
Although it seems patently obvious that the onlookers should have done something to you, being there was an entirely different thing. Ms. Genovese did scream out that she had been stabbed, and onlookers did hear her, but when they looked what they saw was a man running away (because he'd been scared off by the cries of onlookers), and Kitty Genovese getting up and stumbling away toward the door of a building. They didn't know she was actually stabbed. Now, you might say "but she said she was stabbed!", but come on... how often have you heard kids horse-playing around and saying things like that they are being raped when they really aren't? They saw her get up and walk to the (apparent) safety of a building, and the attacker flee. What would you do in that situation? You might go so far as to call the police about a disturbance (and some did), but would it occur to you to go down and check? Hardly.
You'll find the same kind of thing happens all the time. It may sound horrible in retrospect that that kid had "his head kicked off the curb" or whatever... but to witnesses it doesn't really look that bad at the time. And it was probably over with in less than a minute, before most people could even process what was going on. i'd bet it just looked like a normal fight, which occur frequently among college-age kids - you've probably witnessed a couple, and didn't jump in then, hm? After the fact everything changes, but at the time, you don't have enough information to tell you to move... so you freeze.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| You can pull out any fake statistic you want about inaction being the best thing 99.99999% of the time, but I personally will not risk being wrong 00.00001% of the time just to be right the rest of the time. Especially when that small fraction could spell someones' death. |
Yes, your own. ^_^;
i don't think you grok statistics. ^_^; If diving in is the wrong thing 99.99999% of the time, how often do you think you can get away with doing it? And... seriously, use your head... if you only have a 0.00001% chance of actually helping, is it really a smart thing to do?
i mean, good grief, if the numbers were really that bad, then why not go around shooting people? 99.99999% of the time you'll kill them, but 0.00001% of the time you may make their lives better.
And even if the numbers aren't nearly that bad - let's say that inaction is the best move 99%, 95% or even 70-80% of the time - it's still a stupid move. Acting on those odds, you're not a hero, you're an idiot, who will (statistically) hurt far more people than you help.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| I don't claim to know exactly what people are thinking when they fail to react in these situations... |
Yet you apparently know enough to call them cowards.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| That state of mind works in a group mentality too, so it's perfectly possible to be less likely to act the more people are there, especially if their rationale is the assumption that someone else would do something. So "group cowardice" is totally possible, and in many cases it's very likely. |
Your reasoning is completely specious, and actually totally out of touch with reality. The science on the matter is quite clear: people are much bolder in groups - in fact, in a group people will do things that they would never dream of doing without a group. It's a well-studied phenomenon, and it's exploited frequently (for example, in gangs).
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| This is just ridiculous. Obviously, if the police are there, there would be no reason for me to just rush in. |
Why, too afraid? ^_^
Seriously tough, look at what you write: "... if the police are there, there would be no reason for me to just rush in". Now use your head. And tell me why that is so "obvious" while this is "ridiculous": "... if a huge crowd of people is there, there would be no reason for me to just rush in".
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Also, as I stated in my above post, the clear presence of a deadly weapon changes the situation. I never once stated that I would try to rush a gunman or a machete weilding psycho. |
But you would rush in to stop a knife wielding psycho currently engaged in actually stabbing somebody? Or would you have been too "cowardly" to help Kitty Genovese?
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| What I do know, is that there are situations where people should charge in, and the original examples in this thread, in my opinion, warranted someone charging in. For there to be an audience to these acts, and not one person doing anything to physically help, is outrageous. You call it "normal", I call it cowardice. We are cut from different cloth, apparently. |
As has already been explained, charging in to some of those situations was what happened, and the people who did it are dead.
Pointing out the obvious fact - that some tragedies could have been avoided by jumping in - is not really useful. There are some situations where major tragedies could have been avoided by murdering children - like Ted Bundy for example. So why don't we go around killing children, on the off chance that some small percentage of the time we will do more good than harm?
Because it's stupid, that's why. You're gambling on long odds with other people's lives, as well as your own. If that's the kind of cloth you are cut from, then you're right... i am not cut from that cloth. | Indi wrote: |
| Because it's stupid, that's why. You're gambling on long odds with other people's lives, as well as your own. If that's the kind of cloth you are cut from, then you're right... i am not cut from that cloth. |
Funny how our thinking about action can divorce us from reality at times. A few people in public are remarkably well trained in personal combat. They have been in war, can be lethal with or without guns, and are always prepared to defend themselves with or without guns. They are so thoroughly trained in military preparedness that it comes second nature to them. So reading our opinions has to be completely out of their scope of reality. My instincts say that Solon counts amongst that minority. I imagine that what is common sense as you and I have argued Indi, is for the average person, yet there are people who are exceptional in combat and defence. So probably one has to make allowances for that too. My instincts would be cautious and using my head. Solon's would be instinctive, using his head in everything he has been trained in. The kind of guy who when he speaks up in situations like that, people would immediately pay attention to and not argue with him. There is very little argument with the combination of lack of fear and the ability to command with authority in the examples that have been given in this thread.I don't think that every person who doesn't help out is cowardly, and certainly, I'm no more brave or "less cowardly" than the majority of people. Perhaps my willingness to help someone who is being beaten up seems strange to some of you, but in situations where someone is in danger, seconds count, and you can't always wait for the police.
| Indi wrote: |
| Anyway, you're still completely missing the point. Whenever i press you, you do admit that you have to "size up the situation" before getting involved. Well of course. But that's exactly what the bystander effect is - you stop to size up the situation... and get stuck. |
In the original examples, there was nothing that would count as "contradictory information". Sizing up those situations should take a couple seconds, at most. Getting stuck in some "logic loop" while watching a girl get her head kicked in makes no sense.
| Indi wrote: |
| You'll find the same kind of thing happens all the time. It may sound horrible in retrospect that that kid had "his head kicked off the curb" or whatever... but to witnesses it doesn't really look that bad at the time. |
It did look bad. Some of the people there said it was horrifying to watch and a few actually vomited from the sight and sound of it. I've been to shooting scenes that had less blood.
| Indi wrote: |
| And it was probably over with in less than a minute, before most people could even process what was going on. i'd bet it just looked like a normal fight, which occur frequently among college-age kids - you've probably witnessed a couple, and didn't jump in then, hm? |
It was over before it began. Like I said, the kid was knocked unconscious with one punch. Then everyone just watched as the other guy spent the next minute or two kicking his head in. Plenty of time to at least go shove him out of the way.
| Indi wrote: |
| Seriously tough, look at what you write: "... if the police are there, there would be no reason for me to just rush in". Now use your head. And tell me why that is so "obvious" while this is "ridiculous": "... if a huge crowd of people is there, there would be no reason for me to just rush in". |
Simple. Because the cops are doing something. If there is a group of people doing nothing, then someone ought to help. I can't believe you actually equate the presence of police doing their jobs to a group doing nothing.
| Indi wrote: |
| But you would rush in to stop a knife wielding psycho currently engaged in actually stabbing somebody? Or would you have been too "cowardly" to help Kitty Genovese? |
I would have a called the cops based on her cries about being stabbed, then I would have grabbed my pistol and went to check and see if she was OK. I totally understand people not wanting to go down there, what with the threat of a knife, but nobody did a single thing. And you seem to think that's perfectly acceptable and normal behavior.
But this wasn't about Kitty, this was about a girl having her head jumped on on a bus, a kid getting his money taken by other kids, more kids picking on a kid on the bus, and a guy getting his head kicked in. Given the information in those scenerios, I would have done something. I know, I know... I would have been killed. If it makes you feel more wise to never risk yourself for someone, then go ahead, whatever helps you sleep at night. I just hope there isn't a group of people like you around if ever I'm getting my head kicked in.
| Indi wrote: |
| Yet you apparently know enough to call them cowards. |
Yep. But I'm not talking about the ones who are afraid of being hurt, or think the guy might have a gun or whatever. The cowards are the ones who can help, but choose not to, and they justify their inaction with a bunch of BS statistics or excuses like "I figured someone else would help". Even if most fistfights turn out to be nothing, that does not justify not helping. When entire groups of people stand idly by watching these things take place, it only emboldens these violent pricks to keep going.
I would have a hard time believing that if you were a victim in one of the original scenerios that you wouldn't be praying for someone to help you out. Yet you seem to think that I'm stupid for being that person who would help you out. Hummm ..
Well, I have helped strangers many times in my life. However, I have never found myself in such a situation as described above, and hopefully I never will.
Not being Rambo, Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee, even as a younger man I don't think I would have waded into a brawl like that, so badly out numbered. Today as an older man, who walks with a cane, I'm sure I wouldn't do so. However, today, I would whip out my trusty cell-phone and call the cops!! If the thugs took off and left the victim alone, I'd try to help as I am trained in first aid.
My 2 cents,
Chad
| Wolf1918 wrote: |
Hummm ..
Well, I have helped strangers many times in my life. However, I have never found myself in such a situation as described above, and hopefully I never will.
Not being Rambo, Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee, even as a younger man I don't think I would have waded into a brawl like that, so badly out numbered. Today as an older man, who walks with a cane, I'm sure I wouldn't do so. However, today, I would whip out my trusty cell-phone and call the cops!! If the thugs took off and left the victim alone, I'd try to help as I am trained in first aid.
My 2 cents,
Chad |
Sounds like good common sense. The cane could also be good for self-defence 
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| I don't think that every person who doesn't help out is cowardly, and certainly, I'm no more brave or "less cowardly" than the majority of people. Perhaps my willingness to help someone who is being beaten up seems strange to some of you, but in situations where someone is in danger, seconds count, and you can't always wait for the police. |
Your desire to help people does not seem strange. Your insistence on "helping" them by taking a course of action that you yourself admit is dangerous more often than not does. It makes no sense to me that someone can happily admit that even if they're going to be wrong about helping someone "99.99999% of the time" (your own number!), they're still going to do the same action.
Personally, i take helping people very seriously, and when i choose which action to take to help people, i prefer to base it on what might actually help them... at least the majority of the time... rather than my own machismo. If an action is going to be wrong 99.99999% of the time, then it's highly unlikely that there isn't a better option to take - one more likely to actually help people, rather than just feed my own ego, and twisted sense of vigilante-style frontier justice.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| In the original examples, there was nothing that would count as "contradictory information". Sizing up those situations should take a couple seconds, at most. Getting stuck in some "logic loop" while watching a girl get her head kicked in makes no sense. |
You don't know what the truth about any of the original examples was. You read one or two short sentences summing up the incident, leapt to a judgement about what to do, and called everyone who was there a coward for not taking the course of action you - in almost complete ignorance - insist is the right course of action.
Does that sound like a reasonable way to make a judgement? Perhaps the courts should work the same way, hm? "Your honour, in this state a man has a right to defend himself on his property using lethal force. The defendant shot this man while he was in the defendant's yard late at night. He was a stranger, acting suspiciously, in the defendant's yard with an accomplice. The defendant had is wife call 911 and fired at the man, to protect himself, his wife and his home. None of these facts is in dispute." "Well, seems pretty open and shut to me! Not guilty, self defence. Let's all go home."
This is the reason i brought up the details of the Kitty Genovese case, which, you'll recall, you used to justify calling the bystanders in these cases cowards. Unlike the incidents mentioned here, we do know the details of the Kitty Genovese case... and it turns out... surprise, surprise... that there was more than meets the eye. The simple description of events in the Kitty Genovese case obscures the more nuanced truth. The same is likely true in all the cases mentioned here. At the very least, one should try to find out the details of what really happens before grabbing a gun and calling everyone cowards.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | You'll find the same kind of thing happens all the time. It may sound horrible in retrospect that that kid had "his head kicked off the curb" or whatever... but to witnesses it doesn't really look that bad at the time. |
It did look bad. Some of the people there said it was horrifying to watch and a few actually vomited from the sight and sound of it. I've been to shooting scenes that had less blood. |
... you have got to be kidding me.... -_-
You have just gone from one extreme to the other. In the Kitty Genovese case, no one at the scene had enough awareness of the situation to realize that they should have acted... leading them to take no action. In this CSU case, people had so much awareness that they were... according to you... literally puking their guts out in shock. These people were shocked and horrified!!! They're not cowards, they're victims!
Yes, it's unfortunate that they didn't manage to shake off the shock quick enough to act, but good freaking grief, they were shocked to the point of physical sickness!!! And your response is to call them "cowards" and "disgusting"... and you accuse me of a lack of empathy?!?
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | Seriously tough, look at what you write: "... if the police are there, there would be no reason for me to just rush in". Now use your head. And tell me why that is so "obvious" while this is "ridiculous": "... if a huge crowd of people is there, there would be no reason for me to just rush in". |
Simple. Because the cops are doing something. If there is a group of people doing nothing, then someone ought to help. I can't believe you actually equate the presence of police doing their jobs to a group doing nothing. |
Yes, the cops are doing something... they're doing nothing. ^_^; Because nothing is often the best thing to do to avoid making a bad situation worse. That is police procedure, but it is also instinct wired into the vast majority of higher mammals: when you are suddenly put in a shocking and unexpected situation... freeze. Obviously it is adaptive, from an evolutionary standpoint, because it's almost universal. i don't even need to make an argument to justify it... the fact is simply there. ^_^;
So, bottom line, doing nothing when you're suddenly put in a dangerous situation you don't have enough information to handle is the right move... the vast majority of the time. That's fact. That's why police procedure in situations is to hunker down and wait until either more information comes in, or the situation changes. They're doing the exact same thing that these people you call "cowards" and "disgusting" do. Hm.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| I would have a called the cops based on her cries about being stabbed, then I would have grabbed my pistol and went to check and see if she was OK. |
Oh, of course. Because bringing a gun to a knife fight is a sure-fire way to end it without any more people getting hurt. After all, if there's anything a bad situation needs, it's more guns![/sarcasm]
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Given the information in those scenerios, I would have done something. I know, I know... I would have been killed. If it makes you feel more wise to never risk yourself for someone, then go ahead, whatever helps you sleep at night. |
But here's the problem. You don't have the information in those scenarios - certainly not enough to warrant turning them into a gunfight. In the absence of enough information, what is usually the right thing to do: go in waving a gun, or wait for more information?
This is not about not wanting to risk myself for someone. You are stuck in this mindset where anyone who doesn't go in shooting is a coward... so much so that you say - outright!!! - that you don't care that chances are you will end up dead.
If you'd rather be dead than called a coward, fine, it's your life to value as you will. But you can't seem to see past your own ego. You are not the only one who is likely to get hurt if you run in waving a gun. In fact, statistically, the person who brings a gun to a confrontation is not the one who gets hurt.
So you see... this isn't about you. This is about the "collateral damage" that occurs whenever you escalate violence - even if your intention is to end it. You are so determined not to appear "cowardly", that you are not only risking your life... you are - more likely - risking the lives of others.
Basically, what i've been trying to get across is that this is not about "risking your life to save a life". This is about risking other people's lives...
... and there's more!
Because it's not even about risking other people's lives to save a life... because as i've already pointed out, and as you've accepted, the odds are pretty bad for going out gun waving actually doing any real good. Maybe not as bad as 0.00001%, but not that great. And, there are better options, not the least of which is to observe, analyze, and wait for a chance to take an action that will almost certainly do good. So this really isn't about saving a life at all, because there are better options. This is about fear of cowardice.
To put it all together, this is not about risking your life to save a life. This is about risking the lives of other people... so you can feel good about not being a coward.
And no, sorry, i don't understand that at all.
i have no qualms about risking my life to save others - and my service will attest to that. But risking other people's lives to avoid being called a coward? No, i don't do that. i will take whatever action seems best at the moment to help people - including inaction, if that's what seems most likely to result in the most good - and i won't care if you or anyone else calls me a coward for it. All that matters to me is helping people the best way possible, not how people perceive me.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| I would have a hard time believing that if you were a victim in one of the original scenerios that you wouldn't be praying for someone to help you out. Yet you seem to think that I'm stupid for being that person who would help you out. |
You're absolutely right - if it was me getting the crap kicked out of them in front of a crowd of onlookers, i would most certainly hope that one or more of them gets over the shock and steps in to help me. And, if they didn't - if they stayed frozen for the whole assault and i ended up severely hurt because of it - i would certainly be bitter.
And you know what, i'll go you one better. If it was someone i cared about had been beaten up in front of a crowd and no one had helped, i would be quote pissed at them. i might even be moved to call them cowards in my rage and pain.
But these would be emotional responses, and emotions are not rational. Acting solely on emotions is dangerous, and stupid. i would be wrong to be bitter in both cases. i may not be able to help it, but i would be wrong. i'm not perfect.
Your heart moves you to want to help people, but that's as far as it should go. After that, you should use your head to figure out how to help them, the best way you can.
Here's one for you. How would you feel if you charged in to help someone being beat up... and something went wrong and you killed a bystander? (Which is very likely, remember.) See, if you want me to base my decisions on my feelings rather than my wisdom, how does this sit with you? Let's say that you do this cavalry charge tactic of yours a hundred times. How many times out of that hundred would it be acceptable for an innocent bystander to die, before the odds are too high to risk the charge?
And i'll tell you what! i'll even answer the obvious rebuttal question in advance! How many people would have to die unnecessarily because i did nothing, before i admit that doing nothing is the wrong choice? The answer: one more than the number of people who would die unnecessarily from me taking hasty actions that turned out wrong. | Indi wrote: |
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | | I would have a hard time believing that if you were a victim in one of the original scenerios that you wouldn't be praying for someone to help you out. Yet you seem to think that I'm stupid for being that person who would help you out. |
You're absolutely right - if it was me getting the crap kicked out of them in front of a crowd of onlookers, i would most certainly hope that one or more of them gets over the shock and steps in to help me. And, if they didn't - if they stayed frozen for the whole assault and i ended up severely hurt because of it - i would certainly be bitter.
And you know what, i'll go you one better. If it was someone i cared about had been beaten up in front of a crowd and no one had helped, i would be quote pissed at them. i might even be moved to call them cowards in my rage and pain.
But these would be emotional responses, and emotions are not rational. Acting solely on emotions is dangerous, and stupid. i would be wrong to be bitter in both cases. i may not be able to help it, but i would be wrong. i'm not perfect.
Your heart moves you to want to help people, but that's as far as it should go. After that, you should use your head to figure out how to help them, the best way you can. |
Good point. I've been there, however could never have described it as well. There is sometimes a deep divide between rational and emotional responses. Also amazing that our guilt feelings originate more from emotional than rational observations. We tend to make the emotional rational and probably there is a good amount of ego in it as well.Yeah, I would help the stranger. Even if the odds were extremely physically against me, well, worst case, that's what 911 is for. Are you telling me you would just walk away?
| Indi wrote: |
| Your desire to help people does not seem strange. Your insistence on "helping" them by taking a course of action that you yourself admit is dangerous more often than not does. It makes no sense to me that someone can happily admit that even if they're going to be wrong about helping someone "99.99999% of the time" (your own number!), they're still going to do the same action. |
First, I never said helping someone was wrong most of the time, I said that I won't risk someone being hurt ".00001%" of the time, even if it means helping every time. The number, which you so condescendingly mock, is based on something you said earlier...
| Indi wrote: |
| 999,999 times out of a million, that works out fine... |
As for "being wrong" most of the time, what I meant was that if most of the time, my help isn't needed because 999,999 times out of a million(your own number!) these things ammount to nothing, it still doesn't mean I shouldn't help.
| Indi wrote: |
| Personally, i take helping people very seriously, and when i choose which action to take to help people, i prefer to base it on what might actually help them... at least the majority of the time... rather than my own machismo. If an action is going to be wrong 99.99999% of the time, then it's highly unlikely that there isn't a better option to take - one more likely to actually help people, rather than just feed my own ego, and twisted sense of vigilante-style frontier justice. |
And you assume that I only do it to bolster my ego. Wrong again. But keep making assumptions, it seems to work for you. Again, that statistic was based on your own number. And again, being "wrong" that often simply means that the help isn't needed due to the fact that the situation doesn't require it. This does not mean that it makes the situation worse, if it's clear that the situation would be made worse by helping, then obviously I would not jump in, as I have stated before. But since it's impossible to know beforehand if my help is needed, then I choose to help, given that it wouldn't make the situation worse(how many times do I need to say it?) because I wouldn't want that to be the 1 time out of a million (your own number!) that turns fatal for the person involved.
| Indi wrote: |
| You don't know what the truth about any of the original examples was. You read one or two short sentences summing up the incident, leapt to a judgement about what to do, and called everyone who was there a coward for not taking the course of action you - in almost complete ignorance - insist is the right course of action. |
I said "based on the information given" in those examples. If there were more details then a better judgement could have been made. None of us knew the truth about the examples, we were all given very little information and asked to make a decision based on that information. I didn't call "everyone" in the crowds cowards. When you have a crowd of people watching a kid get beat up, chances are that there are cowards in the crowd. Those are the people I was aiming that comment at, you just assumed that I was talking about everyone.
| Indi wrote: |
| Does that sound like a reasonable way to make a judgement? Perhaps the courts should work the same way, hm? "Your honour, in this state a man has a right to defend himself on his property using lethal force. The defendant shot this man while he was in the defendant's yard late at night. He was a stranger, acting suspiciously, in the defendant's yard with an accomplice. The defendant had is wife call 911 and fired at the man, to protect himself, his wife and his home. None of these facts is in dispute." "Well, seems pretty open and shut to me! Not guilty, self defence. Let's all go home." |
Wow. This makes no sense at all. It has no bearing on the topic, and apparently is only being used as an insult. So let's clear things up.
I never said anything about frontier vigilante justice, I simply said I would help someone, and pointed out that there are, believe it or not, cowards amongst the groups of bystanders. I know that's a hard concept for you to grasp, but it's true.
I don't just rush right in as you constantly assume. I have said at least once before that I size up the situation, and if my helping would worsen the situation, then I would not jump into it. I can't be much more clear about that. I also said that I would help, even based on your number that 999,999 times out of a million, the victim would not die. To me, that one time out of a million is not worth the risk of someone getting killed.
Also, this has nothing to do with my ego or my being called a coward. It has to do with helping out my fellow human beings. I'll say it yet again; If it has the obvious potential to make the situation worse, then I would take the obvious path of not just rushing right in. You seem to be very hung up on being statistically right that you are willing to watch someone get hurt in order to beat the odds. You also seem to think that I am this gung-ho, gun toting vigilante cowboy, who has it in mind to just shoot the place up every time someone gets out of line. You could not be further from the truth. It seems to me that you only want to pick a fight with me because I have no tolerance for those who are able to help in a situation, but choose not to(yes, people actually choose not to. you may think you know what's going on in everyones head, but for some, this is a conscious decision based on "not wanting to get involved"). Those are the people I call cowards, which you seem to think are victims(because apparently in your world, there is no such thing as a coward).
There are those who freeze up and do nothing in these situations, and those who do not. It's perfectly fine to freeze, as you stated before, it's human nature, and the majority of people react this way. There are those, however, who have the ability to help you from getting your ass kicked without worsening the situation. When these people choose not to act on that ability, I will gladly call them out on it. These people are not victims, as you proclaim, they are onlookers, they are people who like to watch people fight(yes, this actually happens quite a lot, despite the fact that you think they are all frozen in terror). There are many people who assume that the fight is not life threatening, and they enjoy watching someone get beaten up.
As someone who has had to deal with these situations for years, I know this to be true, in spite of your insistence that the onlookers are all just caught in a logic loop. It’s true with rapes also, as a lot of people just assume it’s a lovers’ quarrel, as with the Kitty Genovese case. You mistakenly assume that most of the bystanders are trying to process conflicting information, when in fact most of them are simply uninterested or under the assumption that the situation is not as dangerous as it really is. Of those people, a number of them have the ability to do something about it(given that it won’t make things worse), and their inaction should not be justified nor tolerated.
In the case of fistfights and such, a group of spectators is very often what promotes the escalation of violence. People are emboldened by the fact that others are watching them pummel another person and nobody is doing anything about it, so they tend to be as aggressive as possible. So doing nothing is actually worse in this case. As for the CSU example, yes a few of the girls there became physically ill from the carnage, but many of the guys were laughing too, right up until they realized the victim wasn’t breathing. There were people there with the presence of mind to help, and the ability to do so, but chose not to, going so far as to cheer the attacker on, thus emboldening him to do more damage. But they were all just victims, right?
Down here in the real world, when a fight breaks out and someone is getting their ass handed to them, the fight needs to be stopped, and the police can’t always be there in time, nor are they even necessary most of the time. If you happen to be the type of person who freezes up or otherwise can’t help, then that’s fine. Just don’t assume that those who can and will help are only doing it to feed their own egos. But if you can help, and choose not to, then you should be ashamed of yourself and people should let you know it. All the psyche 101 crap in the world doesn't justify people letting another human being get hurt when they can help stop it. If you had to be in these situations on a regular basis, you would understand that I don't say these things to inflate my machismo, it's because I know what I'm talking about. Not every spectator is shocked into paralysis and can't figure out what's going on. Most are quite aware of the situation(though perhaps not the danger level), and some are even capable of subduing the threat. Those people who can help the situation should act on that ability, and when they don't, they should be held accountable.
If you were a kid on a bus, getting your head jumped on(as per the example), you would be praying for someone to help, and you would be grateful for it, should someone step in. Yet you stand here and mock the very people that would help, while justifying those who are able, yet choose not to. You pass them off as victims, caught in logic loops, frozen with terror, etc.
But hey, I guess as long as death isn’t imminent 999,999 times out of a million(your own number!), it's OK to not do anything.
And you know, if this did happen to you and nobody helped, calling them all cowards would be wrong. Understandable, but wrong. And not all of them are cowards, but certainly, the ones who could help but chose not to, and cheered it on, etc., well... you would be right about them. And that's not an emotional response. When someone can help, but chooses not to, they are either a coward, or an enemy. In what scenerio would you see someone as a coward anyway? Does that type of person even exist in your world? You seem to go to such great lengths to deny the existence of cowardice in these situations that I'm having difficulty imagining what it would take for you to come to a logical conclusion of someone being a genuine coward. This isn't the Loch Ness monster here, I mean, this type of person must certainly exist. Joking aside... there are cowards, and they choose not to help. It's not an emotional response to call them what they are, it's simply an observation of the facts. So spare me the whole everyone-is-a-victim crap, some people are just chickensh*t.
By the way, the police are most certainly not trained to hunker down and do nothing when they come upon a fight ot rape or mugging. They are trained to be proactive and to subdue the threat as quickly as possible. Sometimes this takes talking, or just their presence. Sometimes it takes the threat of their weapons, or even the use of them. But they are never, ever, trained to do nothing as you claim. That is pattently false, and offensive to those who have to deal with such situations. Perhaps in your statement below you are talking about bank robberies and such, but I was sure we cleared the air on how I, or anyone else, would deal with that. And if they came upon the Kitty Genovese scene, they would do pretty much what I said; call for back-up, then move in with a weapon. Only in hostage scenerios do the police seem to be doing nothing, but even then, they are actively working to subdue the threat.
| Indi wrote: |
| Yes, the cops are doing something... they're doing nothing. ^_^; Because nothing is often the best thing to do to avoid making a bad situation worse. That is police procedure, |
Your ignorance of police procedure is astounding.Hm, well it depends on what phase I am in life.
1. Do I have kids
2. Am I train to deal with fighters
Cell phones have cameras today - document for later use and call 911...
Hm, it was a long time since a did a perfect armbar on someone well ,the worlds a bad place nowadays..you never know what people have in store for you..being on the safer side, it is probably ok ot help in presence of a public, or a witness or likewise. Any other case, it is not at all safe..
i do...makes me happy and all that...if the cost(s) to me, isnt that high...to help...
Sometimes it is much easier to help strangers than people who are close to us. The anonymity of it all makes giving that much more spontaneous, and also that much easier to receive, unless the recipients have hang-ups about it.
someone . . . by Bluedoll
perhaps I could choose not to help a stranger
and then go to my quiet place to hide
to forget, or to hang my head in regret
or maybe try not to care mostly about myself
of course I would be of little consequence
so maybe it would not really matter
or rather I could choose to do my part
and be the person I want to be
but the question for me is what can I do really
against gangs that hold so much power
knowing all I can do is do the asking
of someone more brave and true
to stop all this anarchy
and pray someone is there
to hear my cry
I would at least try to help. In my current job I work with those who are in need on a daily basis. Granted, not with any physical conflagrations, but help is help to those who are in need.
Yes I'd help, no matter the situation.
| Quote: |
| If a gang of male youths were beating up a another male youth on a bus? |
Most people will yes, they will help. But if you think about it, an average man/women cannot take on a "gang" of youths especially if they have weapons. Yes, I will help but not directly and not physically. I will notify the drier and police.
| Quote: |
| If a gang of female youths was beating up on a 13 year old girl on a bus, throwing her to the floor and jumping on her head? |
Yes, defiantly. I will do the same thing with the first scenario but I will not get physically involved.
| Quote: |
| If you saw some youths on bikes taking money off some young kids on the street? |
What's with you and having scenario questions about the "youth"? Not every lawbreaking trouble maker is "youth". To answer your question, I wouldn't know what to do they are on their bikes which means they can easily escape before the cops come or before I even pick up my phone to call them. No, I would not do anything and ignore the situation.
| Quote: |
| If you were walking home at night down a deserted street and you saw a man getting his head kicked in as he lay unconscious on the floor by 2 men? |
I would help but not get physically involved. Call the police and ambulance. | Denvis wrote: |
What's with you and having scenario questions about the "youth"? Not every lawbreaking trouble maker is "youth". To answer your question, I wouldn't know what to do they are on their bikes which means they can easily escape before the cops come or before I even pick up my phone to call them. No, I would not do anything and ignore the situation.
|
They were all real life situations. I didn't choose the examples,they were chosen and shown on a TV show,asking the question "would you help a stranger".
