Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Prof., Apr 26, 2010.
Bystander affect or not, those 25 ppl are just as guilty as the assailant.
It is sad that no one offered any assistance.
I saw that on my late news last night. It's just sad.
not surprised by this at all.
having spent some time in NYC, if you see a homeless man lying on the sidewalk (at 5am mind you), you generally don't go up to him and try to turn him over to see if he is okay.
also no blood was visible on the sidewalk.
this falls under...people really shouldn't complain about this until they are faced with that situation type of thing. 8 out 10 people wouldn't have done anything either.
its sad and unfortunate but it happens.
The worst part is when someone took out his phone and took a photo, and then walked off. That's just sick.
This reminds me of a case of the bystander effect we were told about the other day.
In the 1960s a women in NYC (again eh!) was being attacked and stabbed by a man outside her block of apartments. She was crying out for help but no one came to her aid. The attacker spent 30 minutes killing her, and she called out the whole time. During the investigation, police discovered that 38 people, in apartments overlooking the area and nearby, heard screams that night, and admitted they sounded like screams of a person in distress. For half an hour! It shocks me that not even one of them phoned the police!
It really is sad!
Around here you can't even break down in your car without 50 people stopping to ask you if you need help. Im not really too surprised though.
Why didn't the woman who nearly got mugged offer any help?
That video is absolutely disgusting. Bystanders allowed that man to bleed to death.
The reference to the New York woman who was stabbed in the 1960s refers to the Kitty Genovese case which has since been more or less debunked. Check snopes.
As for the guy collapsed on the sidewalk, clearly most of those people had no idea he was actually injured. What people on this board don't understand is that in New York, the homeless will sprawl themselves, half-naked, screaming, and faecessy, directly in front of you on the sidewalk, demanding money. And if you admonish them or give them a dirty look you are clearly considered Racist and Worse Than Hitler.
I don't understand the deal with the person who rolled him over to check on him, though. Why didn't he call 911? And what about the woman who was mugged? She obviously didn't call the police to report anything, either.
For those who would rather read than watch, here's another link.
New Yorkers are rather inured to the presence of apparently-homeless guys passed out on the street. Generally, other than people whose jobs are looking after them, we ignore them.
It may sound callous, but besides the fact that there are so many (in certain areas), most are drug addicts or psychologically disturbed, many do not want help, and some can be violent. Approaching and touching a stranger on the street who appears to be unconscious is not generally a good idea.
That one guy checked him out, saw blood, and didn't call 911 is horrible. Or maybe he just thought the blood was liquor? But if the passersby couldn't see any blood, then he was just another lush.
Yes, it's depressing. Yes, it's horrifying that this could happen to someone. Am I surprised? No. Should someone have called 911 even if they didn't see blood? Great question.
The city has had a lot of successful public service campaigns lately (notably the anti-smoking campaign). Maybe it's time for something encouraging people to call 911 about anyone passed out on the street, even if they don't seem to be in distress (well, other than unconsciousness).
The trouble then becomes whether police should move sleeping homeless people who are not injured or severely ill. There was a big scandal a couple decades ago because the police were shoving homeless people out of more affluent areas, which was decreasing the visibility of the problem but worsening the problem itself. The homeless were collecting under overpasses and in other places where they were less visible and had less access to the help and services they needed.
ohh really? yikes! My lecturer used it as an example in her presentation literally last week
Yeah the guy who rolled him over is odd. You can clearly see what looks like blood on the floor under him... yet he just lays him back down!
I'd guess the original woman ran away the second the attacker turned his attention from her to the victim. So she may not have been around to know he got stabbed.
I remember seeing a TV movie about that 1960s NYC case. I think it was for real.
That's exactly what I thought. What, did she not take a moment to say 'thank you' and notice the person who helped her out was stabbed?
I live in London, which isn't too dissimilar to NYC, and I could imagine something like this happening here too. Anyone who spends enough time in a big busy city will eventually become desensitized to the multitude of crazies and drunks. You also don't know who may freak out and attack you so you learn to mind your own business. They probably assumed he was drunk since there didn't appear to be a pool of blood, which might have gathered some attention.
It's of course a terrible shame but it's easy for any of us to sit and point fingers. None of you know for certain what you would have done faced with the same factors in that situation.
I certainly would not have taken a photograph.
What any of you say you would do is unproven.....I'll paraphrase another mac members signature and say "i'll be busy counting the spoons"
Yeah, that was rude but especially so knowing the real situation and outcome. (which mister photo taker probably didn't) Absolutely NOT justifying that but I would hope that obnoxious photo was taken because he thought the person was drunk. There are a lot of photos on the internet of drunks passed out awkwardly in public.
Perhaps this topic is better off in the PRSI
Very common and very sad, I think it's because many people naturally tend to pass responsibility if there are others around.
The news this morning said they both fled. It sounded like the two knew each other. So, maybe it wasn't a mugging so much as a domestic dispute. Just a guess though.
Snopes does not confirm or debunk the Kitty Genovese story. When using her name only, a more modern variant is the only search result.
A few years ago I was with a bunch of drunk friends who were singing their wee hearts out. We were walking from one village to the next. This place is so sparse it doesn't even have a name, people just name their location after the hill they're set upon. So for miles there are only 8 or so houses.
A car (a rare sight at this time of the night) pulled up to us and said "we've had reports of women screaming"... either the people who called the police were having a joke or they just couldn't sing that well.
All you have to do is sing and the police turn up around here.
This world makes me so sick. Theres no explanation for this. Thats complete bull. Ill tell you what the explanation is, WERE JUST CRUEL AND HEARTLESS. Just another homeless man right? Scum of the earht right? These people that just walk away..or roll the man over see that he's stabbed and still walks away...now THAT is scum of the earth. This man died saving that woman...and what did that woman do? obviously NOTHING if he was there for a whole hour or so before anyone came to rescue him..and then by that time he was dead. These people that risk they're lives to save a life that dont appreciate it, are the true angels. I am sorry but "bystander effect"? thats nothing but a heartless excuse. Theres no scientific reason. The scientific reason is people are just sick in they're heads. Taking pictures? Wheres the bystander effect to that huh? Its lies. Stop making excuses for us heartless people, and see it for what it really is.
Personally I find hugely over-emotional reactions to situations one couldn't fully understand without having been there to be somewhat sickening well.
Have a nice day!
I really want to argue your points. But don't want to take this thread off topic. So let's just agree that you're wrong
FWIW, there have been psychological/sociological studies done based on the Kitty Genovese story that basically indicated that the more people there are around, the less likely people are to help a stranger in distress. Basically people figure that either a) if nobody else is doing anything there must be nothing wrong, or b) someone else will do something, and I don't have to stick my neck out.