http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07 ... -girl?lite (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/15/19489373-teens-on-bicycles-help-rescue-missing-5-year-old-girl?lite)
good thing they didn't just sit home hiding under the table waiting for the cops to show up.
It's also good they didn't confront him and get themselves kidnapped/killed as well. This is how your SUPPOSE to do NHW.
They didn't take the law into their own hands and try to stop the suspect themselves; instead they waited for the police to do their job.
yeah, they chased him around with bicycles...thats almost like sitting on your ass and doing nothing but call someone else, little girl couldn't been gone if not for them acting and chasing
Too bad they didn't have a gun. They could have just shot the guy.
Quote from: "aitm"yeah, they chased him around with bicycles...thats almost like sitting on your ass and doing nothing but call someone else, little girl couldn't been gone if not for them acting and chasing
Seriously, what are you talking about?
I just said they did the right thing; they didn't engage the criminal, instead they stayed at a safe distance and reported it to the cops. When it was safe, they got the girl out (without engaging a criminal, something civilians SHOULD NOT DO).
Did you want me to say they should have broken into the guy's house and beat the shit out of him? Or was I suppose to say they should have just kept on bicycling around?
I JUST fucking said they did the right thing, and everything works out... and you criticize me for that? So are you the one saying they did the wrong thing?
Quote from: "Jmpty"Too bad they didn't have a gun. They could have just shot the guy.
nah, shooting child molesters while they are trying to kidnap a little girl might upset you.
Quote from: "Shiranu"they didn't engage the criminal
they chased him on bicycles
Quoteinstead they stayed at a safe distance and reported it to the cops.
no they chased the guy on bicycles, the cops were elsewhere in the neighborhood
QuoteWhen it was safe, they got the girl out (without engaging a criminal, something civilians SHOULD NOT DO).
uh, no, they chased the guy on bicycles until the guy pushed the girl out of the car
QuoteI JUST fucking said they did the right thing, and everything works out.?
if they had just called the cops and waited and not chased, the guy would've been long gone as evidenced by the fact that even with the road "blocked" the guy got away.
Quoteuh, no, they chased the guy on bicycles until the guy pushed the girl out of the car...
You're right, I misread that part. However that doesn't change the point that they never engaged the criminal.
Quoteif they had just called the cops and waited and not chased, the guy would've been long gone as evidenced by the fact that even with the road "blocked" the guy got away.
Dude... for the third time no one is saying what they did was wrong; infact, I have said what they did was RIGHT.
They FOLLOWED him, they didn't get close enough to engage him, they didn't engage him... they FOLLOWED him. I'm assuming you are trying to compare it to Zimmerman, but here would be a better comparison...
Kids chase him on bike, then get off the bikes and walk up to the driver window when he is stopped.
That is NOT what happened. They kept themselves safe, they didn't approach the suspect, they called the police and let them do their job.
I honestly don't know at this point which way you are even arguing... I am agreeing they did the right thing and you attack me for that. Given that bit of info, the only thing I can assume is that you therefor think they were in the wrong...
No my point is simple, here we have children chasing a very bad guy on bicylces, chasing the guy because they are trying to save a person, protecting their neighbors.
Zimmerman was in a neighborhood terrified of being victims where people had been shot at and trying to protect his neighborhood from another one who for some reason, spots zimmer in his car and then takes off running (that surely says he is just walking around looking at the species of trees in the area). Zimmerman gave chase because the kid took off running, (according to the script I read)
QuoteNo my point is simple, here we have children chasing a very bad guy on bicylces, chasing the guy because they are trying to save a person, protecting their neighbors.
And they did it THE RIGHT WAY. And that's the sad thing; little kids knew how to handle the situation better than a grown man.
QuoteZimmerman was in a neighborhood terrified of being victims where people had been shot at and trying to protect his neighborhood from another one...
I have no heard this before. I have heard the calls to police, the vandalism/theft, but never of murders happening in that neighbourhood. And if that is true, that is even more reason Zimmerman should not have approached Treyvon.
Quote...who for some reason, spots zimmer in his car and then takes off running (that surely says he is just walking around looking at the species of trees in the area).
"There is the car moving very slowly, following me for several minutes... seems legit!"
Yeah, if there is a car slowly following me for awhile with a guy on the phone in it looking at me, I am taking off too. I guess I'm a fucking criminal who deserves to be shot. Shit.
QuoteZimmerman gave chase because the kid took off running, (according to the script I read)
Which is what the pro-Zimmerman group has being saying he should have done... "If he was so afraid, why didn't he run?".
So if he runs; criminal. If he doesn't; criminal.
they should have prayed. We all know prayer works.
Happy ending Yay!!!!!
:-D Oh yes! Happy ending accept he got away. :x To compare this with Zimmerman is comparing apples to oranges. Solitary
Quote from: "aitm"http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/15/19489373-teens-on-bicycles-help-rescue-missing-5-year-old-girl?lite
good thing they didn't just sit home hiding under the table waiting for the cops to show up.
Quote from: "Shiranu"It's also good they didn't confront him and get themselves kidnapped/killed as well. This is how your SUPPOSE to do NHW.
They didn't take the law into their own hands and try to stop the suspect themselves; instead they waited for the police to do their job.
Boy, that escalated quickly.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "aitm"http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/15/19489373-teens-on-bicycles-help-rescue-missing-5-year-old-girl?lite
good thing they didn't just sit home hiding under the table waiting for the cops to show up.
Quote from: "Shiranu"It's also good they didn't confront him and get themselves kidnapped/killed as well. This is how your SUPPOSE to do NHW.
They didn't take the law into their own hands and try to stop the suspect themselves; instead they waited for the police to do their job.
Boy, that escalated quickly.
Considering we just had a national trial over someone approaching a perceived criminal, not really.
Are you seriously trying to compare the behavior of some unarmed NHW kids who know for a fact that a crime has been commited, and infact know a child has been kidnapped and can even SEE the child in the criminals car, to someone armed seeing someone else possibly acting suspicious? Because this is not just apples and oranges, it is more like apples and cars.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Because this is not just apples and oranges, it is more like apples and cars.
Now you're getting close. Here we have a case of the guy MAY have seen the boys watching him, and that MAY have made him nervous. Or he may have been totally unaware of the kids, and let the girl go for some completely unrelated reason, and just thought that some kids were riding bikes. Apples and aliens who haven't left their home planet, maybe.
Maybe the boys described the car or the man the best they could and police have to do more investigating? But the happy ending was - a little girl was kidnapped and with the help of two teenage boys is safely home. Yes, I'd like the predator locked away but I think he'll have to actually commit a crime for that to come to pass. Sadly.
And I don't think this has one idoda to do with Zimmerman. Nothing at all. Personally.
Myeah. This is the proper way to be a good person. Try to protect people, but don't forget that you are also a people and you have to keep yourself safe to not make a situation even more dangerous and dramatic.
It's what they teach everyone who is trained to respond to emergencies: your own safety comes first. If you forget that, you're only going to make things worse for everyone.
So these kids did the right thing in following the guy until the police showed up.
Quote from: "aitm"Zimmerman was in a neighborhood terrified of being victims where people had been shot at and trying to protect his neighborhood from another one who for some reason, spots zimmer in his car and then takes off running (that surely says he is just walking around looking at the species of trees in the area). Zimmerman gave chase because the kid took off running, (according to the script I read)
...and a kid is dead now because of it. You always seem to leave that part out.
Quote from: "Johan"You always seem to leave that part out.
I didn't realize you needed constant reminders.
I'm pretty sure the point is that you should do something if you can and not just sit back and be a passive observer. Calling the cops is fine and dandy, and you should obviously do so, but more often than not they won't get there in time.
I'm of the mind that if I think I can help, I should. I may not be "trained" to handle a specific situation, and I may have to put my ass on the line, but I should help nonetheless. You do what you can and accept the consequences if things go south.
I really don't get this passive approach some people take. If I think I can help out, I'm not just going to call the police and watch. I'd feel like a piece of shit if someone was hurt because I failed to act.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Johan"You always seem to leave that part out.
I didn't realize you needed constant reminders.
I think you're the one who needs reminding.
The key part is "think I can help out". Many people simply don't think they can help (or their interference would only make the situation worse).
And they might be right, or not. You can never know. But I think most will follow the same line of logic as you; they just arrive at the conclusion that they cannot help out.
I mean; it's really noble to run into a burning building to try and save someone, but if the most likely outcome of that situation is that the firemen will now have to drag two unconscious people out of the building, should you really go in?
Quote from: "Jack89"If I think I can help out, I'm not just going to call the police and watch. I'd feel like a piece of shit if someone was hurt because I failed to act.
And how would you feel if someone was hurt
because you choose to act? There is a reason that jobs meant for professionals are best left to professionals.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Jack89"If I think I can help out, I'm not just going to call the police and watch. I'd feel like a piece of shit if someone was hurt because I failed to act.
And how would you feel if someone was hurt because you choose to act? There is a reason that jobs meant for professionals are best left to professionals.
Completely ignores the fact that the majority of the time the professionals don't show up until it is to late to stop someone from being hurt.
But also completely ignores the fact that trying to help sometimes only makes the situation worse, causing people to get hurt.
It can go both ways, very easily. That's why you shouldn't hold it against people for not willing to risk it.
I think helping to the right degree is what matters. Going past professional help like we've watched too many Bruce Willis movies is where we get into trouble - I think.
Quote from: "Plu"But also completely ignores the fact that trying to help sometimes only makes the situation worse, causing people to get hurt.
It can go both ways, very easily. That's why you shouldn't hold it against people for not willing to risk it.
I don't hold it against someone for not wanting to get involved. I do however hold it against them if they argue no one else should either.
Quote from: "Jack89"I really don't get this passive approach some people take. If I think I can help out, I'm not just going to call the police and watch. I'd feel like a piece of shit if someone was hurt because I failed to act.
I'm with you. Seconds turn into minutes pretty quick and I'm not one for letting criminals just walk away because everyone is looking out the "winder" waiting for a "pro" to finally show up. I think the whole "pro" thing is somewhat laughable considering the most usual action the cops take on a suicide call is shoot the "victim".
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Jack89"If I think I can help out, I'm not just going to call the police and watch. I'd feel like a piece of shit if someone was hurt because I failed to act.
And how would you feel if someone was hurt because you choose to act? There is a reason that jobs meant for professionals are best left to professionals.
Completely ignores the fact that the majority of the time the professionals don't show up until it is to late to stop someone from being hurt.
It doesn't ignore it. It just accepts it because doing so is the better option.
No, it wasn't a national trial. It was a local trial covered extensively by national media. Big difference.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Jmpty"Too bad they didn't have a gun. They could have just shot the guy.
nah, shooting child molesters while they are trying to kidnap a little girl might upset you.
Seriously? Did you just say that? To a father of three young children? Fuck you.
I really, really, really hope aitm is just snarking and doesn't actually think that shooting would have been a good idea here.
Quote from: "Jmpty"Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Jmpty"Too bad they didn't have a gun. They could have just shot the guy.
nah, shooting child molesters while they are trying to kidnap a little girl might upset you.
Seriously? Did you just say that? To a father of three young children? Fuck you.
judging by your previous posts it seemed you would object to someone taking the law into their own hands...
This thread is unlikely to have a good outcome..
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"This thread is unlikely to have a good outcome..
nah, I'm just a conversing with some folks, some who get a lil testy when folks refuse to agree with them..go figger.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"This thread is unlikely to have a good outcome..
nah, I'm just a conversing with some folks, some who get a lil testy when folks refuse to agree with them..go figger.
The irony there being that you are attacking people who agreed with you that the kids doing the right thing.
I almost missed the joke and thought you were being serious.
Quote from: "Shiranu"[
The irony there being that you are attacking people .
No, the irony in your response is that I have not attacked anyone. At all. Feel free to review any of my posts and find any one where I have resorted to profanity in my response or belittled anyone personally, go ahead, i will wait. And when you are done, go back through several threads and do the same, and when you have compiled your list, please present it. Then I suggest you review your own for the same reasons.
Quote from: "Plu"I really, really, really hope aitm is just snarking and doesn't actually think that shooting would have been a good idea here.
you must have misread the posting. Jmpty advocated shooting him, I think.
QuoteNo, the irony in your response is that I have not attacked anyone.
My first response...
QuoteIt's also good they didn't confront him and get themselves kidnapped/killed as well. This is how your SUPPOSE to do NHW.
They didn't take the law into their own hands and try to stop the suspect themselves; instead they waited for the police to do their job.
...me agreeing with you that they did the right thing.
Your response...
Quoteyeah, they chased him around with bicycles...thats almost like sitting on your ass and doing nothing but call someone else, little girl couldn't been gone if not for them acting and chasing
... a confrontational response to me agreeing with you.
You confronted (attacked) my position that was in agreement with yours. And how exactly is,
"nah, shooting child molesters while they are trying to kidnap a little girl might upset you." not attacking someone?
You call that attacking someone? Wow. Then you must consider what you say to people to be acting like a fucking ass suckin fuck head. Really, you should examine your treatment of people on this forum before you ever suggest I attacked anyone.
Non, the less I apologize for hurting your feelings, I will make sure to keep you on a list for kinder, gentler treatment.
Quote from: "aitm"You call that attacking someone? Wow. Then you must consider what you say to people to be acting like a fucking ass suckin fuck head. Really, you should examine your treatment of people on this forum before you ever suggest I attacked anyone.
Non, the less I apologize for hurting your feelings, I will make sure to keep you on a list for kinder, gentler treatment.
I consider it attacking people because IT IS.
No fucking shit I have attacked people, infact I'm going to do it right now... you're coming across as being an intentionally dense cunt right now who thinks people don't see right through his veiled insults... but then cries like a little bitch because, "OHHHH BOO HOOO PEOPLE AGREED WITH ME, I BETTER ARGUE WITH THEM FOR IT!
That is what you DO when you disagree with someone... you attack what they said! And that's what I did before now with you, but you are proving you came in here to be the victim, and you can go suck a fat chode if you think I will respect you for that.
The difference is I don't run around and say, "Oh, I never did anything wrong! It was everyone else disagreeing with me!".
And then you end it off with some coy little bullshit. You didn't come in here for a discussion, you came in here for people to disagree with you... and then when no one did, you STILL attack them! So no, I think maybe it is us who should worried about not offending you princess, since you apparently came into this thread to be offended.
But oh no, its everyone else picking on poor little you... guys, get the nerf bats, we don't want to hurt poor A's feelings by agreeing with him! But don't say anything when he throws insults back, it might hurt his poor wittle feelings!
Edit: And oh yeah, I am the big, bad forum bully! I go around attacking everyone and everyone else cowers before me! No one else on this forum has EVER thrown a personal attack, it was all big, bad Shiranu! This is a forum of saints and angels who never, EVER get into heated arguments or start throwing around insults at people who disagree with them! Because there aren't posters who CHRONICALLY offer NOTHING to the threads but insults and douche-baggery... NOPE its all just me stinkin' up the place. Go fuck yourself.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"I don't hold it against someone for not wanting to get involved. I do however hold it against them if they argue no one else should either.
Watch a 10 year old girl get mowed down on her bike by some neighborhood hero in his car who didn't see her because he was too busy looking in the bushes while he was driving trying to find the suspicious bad guy he was following because he thought just calling the cops wasn't good enough and maybe you'll change your tune. Then again, maybe not. I have no idea what value anyone else places on the lives of innocent 10 year old girls. So maybe putting that girls live at risk is worth the off chance that a petty thief might get caught to you. It certainly isn't to me, but your values may be different. To each his own I guess. But don't you dare fucking hate me because I think not putting others at risk counts for something. Don't you ever.
Quote from: "Shiranu"whiny blather!
meh..coming from the forum whiner...
non-the-less as I said earlier, I will try to treat your condition with special gloves.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Shiranu"whiny blather!
meh..coming from the forum whiner...
non-the-less as I said earlier, I will try to treat your condition with special gloves.
Man, you don't know anyone now a days...
I honestly thought you were a decent poster, minus the fact all you ever post is stalker comments (in humour, I get it, not criticizing the content just the repetitiveness of it). But seriously... playing the victim, starting a thread to have people disagree with you and then when they agree with you you STILL go on a bitch fit and attacking them for agreeing with you...
If it makes you feel better, you actually made me feel something... disappointment. Disappointment in myself for not seeing through your bullshit sooner. You can at least take pride in that, in terms of forum douche nozzles, you were the least obnoxious about it until now.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Edit: And oh yeah, I am the big, bad forum bully! I go around attacking everyone and everyone else cowers before me! No one else on this forum has EVER thrown a personal attack, it was all big, bad Shiranu! This is a forum of saints and angels who never, EVER get into heated arguments or start throwing around insults at people who disagree with them!
He really hasn't attacked you at all this thread, and you really are the most confrontational person I've yet met on this forum. (You got into a 4 page flamewar with me because you can't tell the difference between attacking a position and attacking a bad argument. I was less touchy than that at the age of 14.) The fact that the rest of us aren't exactly saints doesn't change the fact that your vitriol-to-substance ratio is so high it would make the leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church blush. If the phrase "pick your hill to die on" ever applied it should apply here. There is nothing on this forum worth losing your shit over to the degree you typically do.
QuoteHe really hasn't attacked you at all this thread, and you really are the most confrontational person I've yet met on this forum.
No, he just continued to argue with me and others WHEN WE AGREED WITH HIM, and then made snide remarks about child abduction being acceptable. Golly gee willikers, what ever could be wrong with that?
QuoteThe fact that the rest of us aren't exactly saints doesn't change the fact that your vitriol-to-substance ratio is so high it would make the leaders of the Westboro Baptist Church blush.
Yeah, when people say stupid shit I call them on it. And if you think I am the most confrontational person on here, I can tell you haven't been here long. In terms of most of the people we use to have, I am mild. And unlike them, I don't blow up on people for no reason; I do it because they say something I find really fucking stupid. But we still have at least two people here who I would put FAR above me in that ratio. And when its about arguments we have had 100 times before, I see little reason to act like, "Oh maybe this time it will get through to them!".
And lets also be fair; I post FAR more often than most of those people, so its rather common sense that you would see more of me than anyone else.
QuoteThere is nothing on this forum worth losing your shit over to the degree you typically do.
If you aren't getting upset about people saying other's must be okay with child abduction, with young kids being stalked and murdered... then I honestly don't give a shit what you have to say.
I'm an emotional person, and when people say that shit I get upset. I don't hold grudges except for one person on this forum who has been a bigot and an asshole since day 1. That doesn't mean when I walk away from the computer I am going to still be throwing lamps and flipping chairs, it just means when I respond I am not going to pussyfoot around pretend to respect them when they present an opinion I have no respect for.
Quote from: "Shiranu"No, he just continued to argue with me and others WHEN WE AGREED WITH HIM, and then made snide remarks about child abduction being acceptable. Golly gee willikers, what ever could be wrong with that?
You don't get to play the victim card when you fire the first shot (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=944024#p944024), sorry to burst your bubble.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Yeah, when people say stupid shit I call them on it.
So when you do it, it's calling people out. When I do it, I'm being obnoxious. Sorry, I'm calling bullshit. I've yet to insult anyone for any opinion they have, no matter how nutty I think it is. For you it seems to be second-nature.
Quote from: "Shiranu"And if you think I am the most confrontational person on here,
> you really are the most confrontational person I've yet met on this forum.
Now you're just not reading what I'm saying. Again. This is how our last fight started. I daresay it's how most of your fights that I've seen start.
Quote from: "Shiranu"I can tell you haven't been here long.
Gee, what gave you that impression? It couldn't be the little spot under my avatar that says how long I've been a member here.
Quote from: "Shiranu"In terms of most of the people we use to have, I am mild. And unlike them, I don't blow up on people for no reason; I do it because they say something I find really fucking stupid. But we still have at least two people here who I would put FAR above me in that ratio.
Stalin and Mao were worse than Saddam Hussein. Doesn't make Hussein a nice guy.
Quote from: "Shiranu"If you aren't getting upset about people saying other's must be okay with child abduction, with young kids being stalked and murdered... then I honestly don't give a shit what you have to say.
There's getting upset, and there's losing your shit. If you lose your shit, you come across as a pile of emotions with no rational thought going on in your head. We make fun of a lot of people who do that on this forum: most of them are called theists.
You can be upset and still make a cohesive point with a minimum of insults thrown in. There is a time and a place for losing your shit. An internet forum is neither.
Quote from: "Plu"The key part is "think I can help out". Many people simply don't think they can help (or their interference would only make the situation worse).
And they might be right, or not. You can never know. But I think most will follow the same line of logic as you; they just arrive at the conclusion that they cannot help out.
Then don't help. I really don't know how to answer that. I suppose a person has to know his or her limitations. If it's me, I'm going to give it a go if I think there's a chance I can help.
Quote from: "Plu"I mean; it's really noble to run into a burning building to try and save someone, but if the most likely outcome of that situation is that the firemen will now have to drag two unconscious people out of the building, should you really go in?
I say make a judgement call. In the four or five minutes (or longer) it takes the fire trucks to get there, you might be able to drag that first unconscious person out of the building before it becomes engulfed in flames. If you wait, that person burns to death. Your call.
Funny you should say that though. About 2 weeks ago my son and I were driving home and saw some smoke above the rooftops just around the corner from our house. I drove around the corner and saw thick black smoke billowing from the top of the house and around the edges of the roof. The front door was open but I didn't see anyone, not even in the neighbors' yards. It was kind of spooky that nobody was in sight. I told my son to call 911 and ran to the front door. I checked it out and didn't see any flames so I stepped in and yelled out, "is there anyone in here?" Just then a young man, maybe 15, stepped around the corner hugging a big fat furry cat, both of them covered with soot. They were OK and went out the front door. Another young man came from the kitchen and exited the house as well. He told me that there was no one else in the house. I went back to my car and my son said the fire trucks were on their way. Both the young men looked OK so we left, not wanting to block the street. We heard the sirens as we went around the corner.
Sorry, went out to get food. Got Whataburger... I mean, you get what you pay for. It was alright, but meh...
QuoteYou don't get to play the victim card when you fire the first shot, sorry to burst your bubble.
So he takes a stab at people saying vigilantism is wrong by implying this was a case of vigilantism done right, I agree with him that this was a case of Neighbourhood Watch being done right... to which he attacks me for agreeing with him... and that makes me the aggressor?
I don't think it works that way, when you agree with someone its very hard to say that's "firing the first shot"...
QuoteSo when you do it, it's calling people out. When I do it, I'm being obnoxious. Sorry, I'm calling bullshit. I've yet to insult anyone for any opinion they have, no matter how nutty I think it is. For you it seems to be second-nature.
I have never called you obnoxious.
The only two people being obnoxious in this thread that I have seen so far is me for my manner of speaking and aitm for the implied insults. And I didn't insult, and haven't insulted aitm, for his arguments; infact, as you may have noted and I have pointed out several times in this thread, I AGREE with his arguments that this was NHW done CORRECTLY... what I HAVE insulted him over were the implied insults, acting like everyone is out to get him when we are AGREEING with him and then implying that we find child abuse acceptable.
QuoteGee, what gave you that impression? It couldn't be the little spot under my avatar that says how long I've been a member here.
I don't look who says what and all of that jazz over there. I did look after and posted that and saw, hey I was correct, but normally I don't look at who is posting what, I look at what the content was. When you look at WHO is saying what you tend to come into it with a bias.
QuoteThere's getting upset, and there's losing your shit. If you lose your shit, you come across as a pile of emotions with no rational thought going on in your head. We make fun of a lot of people who do that on this forum: most of them are called theists.
If you say so. When people are actually interested in debate then I oblige; however as was proven here he had no intention of starting any type of debate; when he was agreed with he goes on the offense and starts arguing with people who are agreeing with him, then implies that we find child abduction acceptable. At that point he loses any and all rights to respect.
I don't particularly care if I don't come across as rational in this thread because there was zero reason to be... this thread was a farce to begin with to throw insults and have a persecution complex and I am not going to give that shit an iota of legitimacy.
QuoteYou can be upset and still make a cohesive point with a minimum of insults thrown in. There is a time and a place for losing your shit. An internet forum is neither.
No, a rational argument is not a place for it. Thankfully, there wasn't one before this.
Quote from: "Shiranu"So he takes a stab at people saying vigilantism is wrong by implying this was a case of vigilantism done right, I agree with him that this was a case of Neighbourhood Watch being done right... to which he attacks me for agreeing with him... and that makes me the aggressor?
I don't think it works that way, when you agree with someone its very hard to say that's "firing the first shot"...
I think you need to look up the definition of a backhanded compliment. Well, backhanded agreement in this case.
Quote from: "Shiranu"I have never called you obnoxious.
I was venting about statements made by Johan in another thread; guess I should have clarified.
Quote from: "Shiranu"If you say so. When people are actually interested in debate then I oblige; however as was proven here he had no intention of starting any type of debate; when he was agreed with he goes on the offense and starts arguing with people who are agreeing with him, then implies that we find child abduction acceptable. At that point he loses any and all rights to respect.
Again, I would question if you were really agreeing with him at all. You may
think you did, but that post wasn't even directed at me and even I knew you were only going to elicit a bad response with such a backhanded statement.
Quote from: "Shiranu"I don't particularly care if I don't come across as rational in this thread because there was zero reason to be... this thread was a farce to begin with to throw insults and have a persecution complex and I am not going to give that shit an iota of legitimacy.
Then don't engage in the discussion. The world is not going to end if you ignore one thread OP that you know will only end in a flamewar. Avoiding flamebait is a common practice. If you didn't think the OP was bad enough, aitm's first response should have been your hint that he just wanted a fight rather than a debate. (From your perspective.)
QuoteI think you need to look up the definition of a backhanded compliment. Well, backhanded agreement in this case.
He started off with an implied insult, I responded that they did the right thing, nothing more, nothing less. You can take me saying that they did things the right way as opposed to Zimmerman as a backhanded agreement, but he was the one implying this had anything to do with Zimmerman in the first place through his stab at the GZ thread.
QuoteAgain, I would question if you were really agreeing with him at all. You may think you did, but that post wasn't even directed at me and even I knew you were only going to elicit a bad response with such a backhanded statement.
I wonder what the point of bluntly saying, "Damn, these kids did the right thing, unlike the other person this thread is a reference to." when that is somehow misconstrued as disagreement that they did the right thing. Should I have therefor just said they did the wrong thing?
QuoteThen don't engage in the discussion. The world is not going to end if you ignore one thread OP that you know will only end in a flamewar. Avoiding flamebait is a common practice. If you didn't think the OP was bad enough, aitm's first response should have been your hint that he just wanted a fight rather than a debate.
As I said in my last post to him, I honestly did not know he was that type of poster. That is why I was so thrown off on the first couple of posts; I honestly did not know wtf was going on because I did not think of him as being that type of guy. And I'm not going to not speak my mind because I agree with someone; that pretty much defeats the point of speaking your mind.
Quote from: "Shiranu"As I said in my last post to him, I honestly did not know he was that type of poster. That is why I was so thrown off on the first couple of posts; I honestly did not know wtf was going on because I did not think of him as being that type of guy.
Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that point, because my reading of this thread suggests either you starting the fight or you responding to flamebait. Either way, in the same situation I would have just left it alone. If I know going in that I will accomplish nothing by arguing (or arguing further as the case may be), I just don't see the point.
Quote from: "Jack89"I suppose a person has to know his or her limitations.
Which is the problem. Because most people don't know their limitations. No one intends to see a little girl get run over by a car for instance when they decide to follow a suspicious person they see in the neighborhood. But without proper training, most people would have no earthly idea what risks are being imposed on others by the actions they're taking. Nor would they have any earthly idea of the proper way to manage and mitigate those risks to others as effectively as possible. Good intentions and ignorance can get people hurt very easily. But most people don't think about that until after someone gets hurt.
I know what I'm trained to do and I know what I'm not trained to do. And I know that people get hurt when good intentions are combined with a lack of training. I have no trouble letting professionals do the work of professionals. I have no trouble letting amateurs with no training do the work of professionals on their own property where the risk exposure is limited to themselves only. But the moment you carry that risk out on the street where my family and my neighbors will be exposed to it, I have a problem with that.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Jack89"I suppose a person has to know his or her limitations.
Which is the problem. Because most people don't know their limitations. No one intends to see a little girl get run over by a car for instance when they decide to follow a suspicious person they see in the neighborhood. But without proper training, most people would have no earthly idea what risks are being imposed on others by the actions they're taking. Nor would they have any earthly idea of the proper way to manage and mitigate those risks to others as effectively as possible. Good intentions and ignorance can get people hurt very easily. But most people don't think about that until after someone gets hurt.
I know what I'm trained to do and I know what I'm not trained to do. And I know that people get hurt when good intentions are combined with a lack of training. I have no trouble letting professionals do the work of professionals. I have no trouble letting amateurs with no training do the work of professionals on their own property where the risk exposure is limited to themselves only. But the moment you carry that risk out on the street where my family and my neighbors will be exposed to it, I have a problem with that.
Well, there's a long history of average people helping other average people, and I for one think that's a good thing. Some places actually encourage laymen to help their fellow human beings by passing Good Samaritan laws. Other places have Duty to Rescue laws which hold people liable when they fail to come to the rescue. These are laws that encourage and compel nonprofessional people to help each other because it's the humane and right thing to do.
Nonprofessionals with good intentions help and save people everyday, much more so than professionals. It's called being a human being. Sure, sometimes they mess it up and people get hurt, but more often than not they help more than they hinder.
You can go ahead and wait for "professionals" if you want, but I certainly won't, and I certainly hope other people will help me out if I need it before the "professionals" arrive.
The reason that Good Samaritan laws exist is because it's common enough an occurance that someone "helping" causes accidents that they needed a law to prevent these people from all getting severe punishment for their screw-ups. If it was a rare enough thing, we wouldn't have those laws, because those situations would be handled on a case by case basis.
(That, or the US justice system is so alien to me that I can't say anything useful about it :))
Quote from: "Plu"The reason that Good Samaritan laws exist is because it's common enough an occurance that someone "helping" causes accidents that they needed a law to prevent these people from all getting severe punishment for their screw-ups. If it was a rare enough thing, we wouldn't have those laws, because those situations would be handled on a case by case basis.
(That, or the US justice system is so alien to me that I can't say anything useful about it :))
Think about it. The reason people are protected from being punished for messing up is to remove the disincentive of punishment from the equation. People shouldn't be afraid to help others for fear of legal action.
If legislators wanted to discourage Good Samaritan behavior the disincentive would be desirable and this particular law would be counterproductive.
The reason people are protected from being punished for messing up is also because they mess up a lot.
I don't think anyone wants to discourage Good Samaritan behaviour, but the reality is that they fuck up often enough that laws are needed to prevent people from going to jail over it. The fact that they had to remove the fear of going to jail for mucking up just shows that it's a very realistic outcome of trying to help.
Quote from: "Shiranu"It's also good they didn't confront him and get themselves kidnapped/killed as well. This is how your SUPPOSE to do NHW.
They didn't take the law into their own hands and try to stop the suspect themselves; instead they waited for the police to do their job.
Wouldn't have happened if
GUNZ!
Quote from: "Jack89"Some places actually encourage laymen to help their fellow human beings by passing Good Samaritan laws. Other places have Duty to Rescue laws which hold people liable when they fail to come to the rescue. These are laws that encourage and compel nonprofessional people to help each other because it's the humane and right thing to do.
Apples to oranges. Helping someone who has fallen or might be having a heart attack is a very different situation than trying to chase and/or catch suspected or known criminals. I know of no good samaritan laws that require untrained citizens to approach or pursue known or suspected criminals.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Jack89"Some places actually encourage laymen to help their fellow human beings by passing Good Samaritan laws. Other places have Duty to Rescue laws which hold people liable when they fail to come to the rescue. These are laws that encourage and compel nonprofessional people to help each other because it's the humane and right thing to do.
Apples to oranges. Helping someone who has fallen or might be having a heart attack is a very different situation than trying to chase and/or catch suspected or known criminals. I know of no good samaritan laws that require untrained citizens to approach or pursue known or suspected criminals.
I disagree. If anything, the difference is simply a matter of prevention rather than reaction. Helping other people shouldn't be restricted to bad things that have already happened. If I see a stranger talking to the neighbor's kid, or someone climbing a fence, I'll certainly ask them what their doing and respond appropriately. I'm not going to wait for something bad to happen then call police and hope they get there in time. And they likely won't.
I have approached suspicious looking people in my neighborhood on several occasions and asked them what their doing. I'm polite about it and no one has attacked me yet for doing so. In fact, most people I've approached are pretty cool about it.
In my experience I haven't found people to be as incompetent as you seem to think they are. Sometimes yes, but mostly not. Having the proper training is great, and if there's someone around that's more capable than you, yield to their expertise. But if not, you don't wait for someone with a badge or certificate to show up if you can make a difference.
On that note, professionals can fuck things up just as bad as a layman.
Quote from: "Jack89"I disagree. If anything, the difference is simply a matter of prevention rather than reaction. Helping other people shouldn't be restricted to bad things that have already happened. If I see a stranger talking to the neighbor's kid, or someone climbing a fence, I'll certainly ask them what their doing and respond appropriately. I'm not going to wait for something bad to happen then call police and hope they get there in time. And they likely won't.
I have approached suspicious looking people in my neighborhood on several occasions and asked them what their doing. I'm polite about it and no one has attacked me yet for doing so. In fact, most people I've approached are pretty cool about it.
In my experience I haven't found people to be as incompetent as you seem to think they are. Sometimes yes, but mostly not. Having the proper training is great, and if there's someone around that's more capable than you, yield to their expertise. But if not, you don't wait for someone with a badge or certificate to show up if you can make a difference.
On that note, professionals can fuck things up just as bad as a layman.
get ready for more zimmermans.
From Salon.com
Just weeks ago, I returned to New York City from Fire Island on a Sunday evening, and decided to stop by my office.
After I let myself into the office, I noticed some Caucasians mingling around. I paid them no mind, since our office often has off-hours visitors who rent the common space.
"Can I help you?" said a middle aged white man, testily.
"No," I shot back. "But I can I help YOU?"
"What do you mean?"
"I work here," I said. "This is MY office."
"Oh," he said, stepping back slightly. "I saw you and just wanted to make sure things are OK."
"Thank you, George Zimmerman," I said.
Weeks later, my sarcastic one-off is more painful to me than I could ever have imagined. George Zimmerman's acquittal leaves me feeling so nauseous.
This office exchange has been common to me my whole life. A testy "Can I help you?" doubles as a passive-aggressive demand for me to justify my presence even where I belong. Thankfully, I have never encountered an armed white person on the other end of that presumption.
Trayvon Martin paid for that common presumption with his life.
Zimmerman's stooges and apologists claim that his deadly encounter had nothing do with race. And that his trial and acquittal have nothing to do with race. His defenders effectively portrayed him as a hapless Samaritan who got in over his head. Meanwhile, they tarred Trayvon as a menace who failed to properly justify his existence.
These presumptions colored every moment of the Police Department's botched initial reaction and the trial.
How does an armed adult defy the policy, chase down a youth, kill him, and then turn around and call it self defense? Defense from what? A fleeing kid? Was Trayvon Martin seen for his humanity? Or as a "fucking punk"? Are black men seen for our humanity or as three-fifths of a fucking punk? This verdict will have devastating consequences. It is an implicit green light for every paranoid, sub-intelligent, vigilante racist to go on victimizing black youth. Trayvon Martin is dead for no reason other than being black.
Why do Zimmerman and some Americans feel entitled to police black and brown people like vigilantes? Why did the Sanford Police Department test a dead boy's body for drugs in "standard operating procedure," yet failed to test a live man's body for alcohol or drugs? Why did the Sanford Police Department fail so miserably during the critical immediate hours after arriving on the scene?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since our juridical Establishment often turns its head – or even winks – at the prevalence of racial profiling and police brutality against black and brown people, why should anyone be surprised by Zimmerman's chase? Or by his acquittal? Implicitly and explicitly, the law condones his racial paranoia. The so-called rationales used to design and peddle "Stand Your Ground" laws and "Stop and Frisk" laws, and immigrant policing laws, fuel a vigilante mentality allowing some Americans to feel entitled to self-police others.
Even before the verdict, the Police Establishment warned black people not to riot – as though that were a foregone conclusion – without delivering Zimmerman's supporters the same warning. The warning not to riot – in its substance and tone – recirculates the dogma of "black men as menace." The chase, the trial, the warnings not to riot, the acquittal all compound the passive-aggressive profiling of black and brown people.
And yet. Legions of white people are heartbroken by Trayvon's death, and Zimmerman's acquittal. Legions of white people do not make it their business to self-police people of color. Many people of all races feel solidarity with the boy. "We are all Trayvon."
This sordid affair has everything to do with race, but not race alone.
Not just a cautionary tale on racial profiling and vigilante justice, Trayvon's needless death is a devastating lesson on the paranoid logic of gun capitalism. Zimmerman claims he didn't feel safe. Did Trayvon feel safe? What about his safety? After all, the youth was shot by a multi-racial vigilante assailant – with a troubling history with law enforcement — in a multiracial gated community.
When will we muster the resolve to stop deaths from gun violence? For goodness sake: Why wouldn't the Aurora shooting and the Newtown massacre force us all to confront the illusory sense of safety in our communities?
Regeneration Through Violence, The Fatal Environment, Gunfighter Nation: Richard Slotkin's masterful historical trilogy on this country's long-standing love affair with vigilantism, cruelty, and gun violence reveals as much about Zimmerman and this tragedy as does his trial transcripts – or any news media. This tragedy rips bare all the thorny issues Richard Slotkin exposes in that brilliant trilogy.
The questions demand: How does a legal establishment maintain justice in a world getting browner by the day? And in a nation that feels the need to "regenerate" itself through violence? What will this country do to keep young people safe?
Slotkin trilogy shows us how America's frontier myths still dominate our violent politics and culture. So, in painful ways, the man who occupies the Oval Office, in all his blackness, is irrelevant.
From the highest levels of power designing our drone policy to the inept local trenches of Florida policing, we remain a gunfighter nation. From Trayvon to the kids in Newton, young people are vulnerable to mentally ill or paranoid or racist adults with guns. The acquittal is yet another frank reminder of who writes our laws, who enforces our laws, and the very presumptions guiding our laws.
Zimmerman's acquittal is a blunt reality check about how power works in America.
He snapped at a guy for saying "can I help you?"
Quote"Can I help you?" said a middle aged white man, testily.
he snapped because the guy said it testily...
don't be testily...if that's a thing.
Quote from: "Jack89"He snapped at a guy for saying "can I help you?"
in·fer
/in?f?r/
Verb
Deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
Synonyms
conclude - deduce - gather - imply - induce
Quote from: "Jack89"I disagree. If anything, the difference is simply a matter of prevention rather than reaction. Helping other people shouldn't be restricted to bad things that have already happened. If I see a stranger talking to the neighbor's kid, or someone climbing a fence, I'll certainly ask them what their doing and respond appropriately. I'm not going to wait for something bad to happen then call police and hope they get there in time. And they likely won't.
I have approached suspicious looking people in my neighborhood on several occasions and asked them what their doing. I'm polite about it and no one has attacked me yet for doing so. In fact, most people I've approached are pretty cool about it.
In my experience I haven't found people to be as incompetent as you seem to think they are. Sometimes yes, but mostly not. Having the proper training is great, and if there's someone around that's more capable than you, yield to their expertise. But if not, you don't wait for someone with a badge or certificate to show up if you can make a difference.
I don't think you and I are talking about the same kinds of situations. Everything you're describing is pretty benign, takes place on foot and for the most part is nonconfrontational. What I'm talking about is people actively trying to catch bad guys.
If the stranger you approached and questioned suddenly took off running, would you chase him? If you wouldn't then we're on the same page. If you would then you're putting innocent people at risk for no good reason and I think that's a bad thing.
QuoteOn that note, professionals can fuck things up just as bad as a layman.
That fact in no way makes it ok for you to put others at risk by trying to be a hero. Run over a little girl in your car. Then tell her parents that you were distracted because you were trying to follow a suspicious looking person to see if they were going to rob a house or something and see if they say 'oh well since you were trying to keep the neighborhood safe, that makes it ok, have a nice day'.
Helping others is great. Exposing others to risk in order to do it, not so much.
QuoteRun over a little girl in your car. Then tell her parents that you were distracted because you were trying to follow a suspicious looking person to see if they were going to rob a house or something and see if they say 'oh well since you were trying to keep the neighborhood safe, that makes it ok, have a nice day'.
oh boy we get to play "what if".....I love what if..
you see a guy drag a woman across the yard, and instead of helping, you call the cops, then sit and watch while he beats her to death with a bat and then drags three kids out and beats them to death too.....you tell the rest of the family you would have helped but you are a pussy....they say "okay, have a nice day".
Quoteyou see a guy drag a woman across the yard, and instead of helping, you call the cops, then sit and watch while he beats her to death with a bat and then drags three kids out and beats them to death too.....you tell the rest of the family you would have helped but you are a pussy....they say "okay, have a nice day".
Alternatively, you intervene, and he beats you to death along with all the other people. Seems like a much better outcome, I guess? At least you didn't die a pussy or something? :-k
Quote from: "Plu"Quoteyou see a guy drag a woman across the yard, and instead of helping, you call the cops, then sit and watch while he beats her to death with a bat and then drags three kids out and beats them to death too.....you tell the rest of the family you would have helped but you are a pussy....they say "okay, have a nice day".
Alternatively, you intervene, and he beats you to death along with all the other people. Seems like a much better outcome, I guess? At least you didn't die a pussy or something? :-k
That's the way I would look at it, seriously. I don't think I could live with myself if I didn't at least try to help and an innocent person died.
That's really noble and all, but at the end of the day you'll still be dead.
Not really. My 45 has better range than his bat.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Not really. My 45 has better range than his bat.
And we're back round to "only help if you are not putting yourself at risk by doing so".
Quote from: "Plu"Alternatively, you intervene, and he beats you to death
Then it's your fault, because you know, walking up and talking to him probably scared him or something.
I'm not willing to take the risk that someone who is beating another person to death in plain sight still has enough mental capacity to give a damn about being seen and talked to. In fact, I'd be willing to bet good money that they're completely fucking insane at that point.
Unless you people think that beating on someone with a bat is still rational behaviour, in which case... stay the fuck away from me :roll:
Quote from: "Plu"That's really noble and all, but at the end of the day you'll still be dead.
That would only be true if I failed, something I would try real hard not to do. Fear of failure doesn't justify wrong action, or inaction in this hypothetical scenario.
Since we're playing what ifs ..... Would you want someone to jump in and help you if you were getting the shit beat out of you, or would you be ok with that someone calling the police and watching until they arrived?
Quote from: "Jack89"That's the way I would look at it, seriously. I don't think I could live with myself if I didn't at least try to help and an innocent person died.
So question for you. Are you a single fella? Because believe it or not, I can relate to the line of thinking you're talking about here. But then I met my wife. And suddenly coming home alive every day mattered. It mattered because she mattered. And I made a promise to someone I deeply cared about that I would do everything in my power to get home alive every day. That sort of thing can really chance your priorities.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Jack89"That's the way I would look at it, seriously. I don't think I could live with myself if I didn't at least try to help and an innocent person died.
So question for you. Are you a single fella? Because believe it or not, I can relate to the line of thinking you're talking about here. But then I met my wife. And suddenly coming home alive every day mattered. It mattered because she mattered. And I made a promise to someone I deeply cared about that I would do everything in my power to get home alive every day. That sort of thing can really chance your priorities.
Divorced and have 2 grown sons. I was also a career soldier for 21 years, an SF medic for most it. I know what you're talking about. I examined that aspect of it on many occasions and decided that if I couldn't retain my dignity, I wouldn't be much good to my family, or myself for that matter.
To add to that, I'm not only responsible for being there for them, I'm also responsible for setting a good example by being a decent human being.
Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Jack89"That's the way I would look at it, seriously. I don't think I could live with myself if I didn't at least try to help and an innocent person died.
So question for you. Are you a single fella? Because believe it or not, I can relate to the line of thinking you're talking about here. But then I met my wife. And suddenly coming home alive every day mattered. It mattered because she mattered. And I made a promise to someone I deeply cared about that I would do everything in my power to get home alive every day. That sort of thing can really chance your priorities.
Divorced and have 2 grown sons. I was also a career soldier for 21 years, an SF medic for most it. I know what you're talking about. I examined that aspect of it on many occasions and decided that if I couldn't retain my dignity, I wouldn't be much good to my family, or myself for that matter.
To add to that, I'm not only responsible for being there for them, I'm also responsible for setting a good example by being a decent human being.
Oh put your biceps away soldier boy. My dignity is just fine as is my standing as human being.
Quote from: "Johan"Oh put your biceps away soldier boy. My dignity is just fine as is my standing as human being.
Wow, what an insulting, condescending non-answer. Are you just chronically incapable of developing real arguments, or do you somehow think statements like this actually constitute one?
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Johan"Oh put your biceps away soldier boy. My dignity is just fine as is my standing as human being.
Wow, what an insulting, condescending non-answer. Are you just chronically incapable of developing real arguments, or do you somehow think statements like this actually constitute one?
A condescending post gets a condescending response.
Quote from: "Johan"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "Johan"Oh put your biceps away soldier boy. My dignity is just fine as is my standing as human being.
Wow, what an insulting, condescending non-answer. Are you just chronically incapable of developing real arguments, or do you somehow think statements like this actually constitute one?
A condescending post gets a condescending response.
There is no way you could construe his post as being condescending unless you're just looking for a fight. You made an assertion that a married man would never follow the "self-sacrifice" line of argument. Jack89 demonstrated that this was presumption on your part. In other words, you got schooled. Your decision to get butthurt about this is hardly his fault.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Not really. My 45 has better range than his bat.
But instead, before you get to your holster, one of the assailants notices you Looking and has already taken out a pistol from his cock hammock and decides to shoot you in the face.
On wait, it's another gunz thread. Just ignore my hypothetical, I'm sure in real life nothing like this could ever happen.
Quote from: "Jack89"Since we're playing what ifs ..... Would you want someone to jump in and help you if you were getting the shit beat out of you, or would you be ok with that someone calling the police and watching until they arrived?
I don't know. In this situation I would most likely not be in any kind of rational state of mind anymore, so whatever it is I want should probably be ignored anyway, if you want to make some kind of rational decision about the situation.
Also Jack, you don't think that just maybe, with 21 years of being a professional soldier, you are just a
little above average and just maybe, you shouldn't except the rest of the world to feel just as capable as you do? This,
again, rolling back into "only act if you're not putting yourself at risk"?
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Not really. My 45 has better range than his bat.
But instead, before you get to your holster, one of the assailants notices you Looking and has already taken out a pistol from his cock hammock and decides to shoot you in the face.
On wait, it's another gunz thread. Just ignore my hypothetical, I'm sure in real life nothing like this could ever happen.
Anything can and does sometimes happen in real life Fidel. But since our hypothetical assailant was a (singular) guy beating a woman to death with a baseball bat I'd be willing to take that chance. Other than SWAT, most cops don't spend a lot of time shooting. Since I practice with my 45 just about every week I'd put my chances of being able to stop said assailant at least as good as your average police officer.
(//http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f158/popeyespappy/Tactical/KimberCarryCombo.jpg)
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Not really. My 45 has better range than his bat.
But instead, before you get to your holster, one of the assailants notices you Looking and has already taken out a pistol from his cock hammock and decides to shoot you in the face.
On wait, it's another gunz thread. Just ignore my hypothetical, I'm sure in real life nothing like this could ever happen.
Anything can and does sometimes happen in real life Fidel. But since our hypothetical assailant was a (singular) guy beating a woman to death with a baseball bat I'd be willing to take that chance. Other than SWAT, most cops don't spend a lot of time shooting. Since I practice with my 45 just about every week I'd put my chances of being able to stop said assailant at least as good as your average police officer.
[ Image (//http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f158/popeyespappy/Tactical/KimberCarryCombo.jpg) ]
And if you miss and the hit the woman instead? Or a bystander? Oh wait I forgot, that's impossible and could NEVER happen. Forget I mentioned it.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"There is no way you could construe his post as being condescending unless you're just looking for a fight. You made an assertion that a married man would never follow the "self-sacrifice" line of argument. Jack89 demonstrated that this was presumption on your part. In other words, you got schooled. Your decision to get butthurt about this is hardly his fault.
If you say so.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"There is no way you could construe his post as being condescending unless you're just looking for a fight. You made an assertion that a married man would never follow the "self-sacrifice" line of argument. Jack89 demonstrated that this was presumption on your part. In other words, you got schooled. Your decision to get butthurt about this is hardly his fault.
I read it as a pretty condescending answer too. now, two wrongs don't make a right but it was a huge dick swinging answer. I don't need anyone's resume...or pictures for that matter.
I'm married with three young kids that I provide for. I am certain I will do anything including give my life up to protect them and my wife but that doesn't necessarily extend to anyone else. I would do what I can but it doesn't include dying if i failed. My family comes first, I come second and everyone else comes a distant third.
Doesn't mean i ignore when things happen or just "call the police" which only in America is that seen as a bad thing. I know my limitations and can gauge those vs the situation.
Quote from: "Plu"Quote from: "Jack89"Since we're playing what ifs ..... Would you want someone to jump in and help you if you were getting the shit beat out of you, or would you be ok with that someone calling the police and watching until they arrived?
I don't know. In this situation I would most likely not be in any kind of rational state of mind anymore, so whatever it is I want should probably be ignored anyway, if you want to make some kind of rational decision about the situation.
Since you avoided my question, I'll give you my answer to it. Yes, I would most definitely want someone to help me if I was getting my ass kicked. Who wouldn't? And since I think it would be right for someone to help me, how can I not think it right for me to reciprocate in kind? Especially if the victim appears to be innocent, whether it's me or someone else.
Quote from: "Plu"Also Jack, you don't think that just maybe, with 21 years of being a professional soldier, you are just a little above average and just maybe, you shouldn't except the rest of the world to feel just as capable as you do?
It's interesting how you phrased that - "feel just as capable." Are you speaking of confidence? My grandfather was a concrete finisher and my dad was an electrician. They were both confident and capable men who would help people out in a heartbeat, however they could. You don't have to be a professional to get involved.
Quote from: "Plu"This, again, rolling back into "only act if you're not putting yourself at risk"?
You don't think I would be putting myself at risk?
Quote from: "Johan"Oh put your biceps away soldier boy. My dignity is just fine as is my standing as human being.
I was hoping for a more dignified response.
QuoteSince you avoided my question, I'll give you my answer to it. Yes, I would most definitely want someone to help me if I was getting my ass kicked. Who wouldn't? And since I think it would be right for someone to help me, how can I not think it right for me to reciprocate in kind? Especially if the victim appears to be innocent, whether it's me or someone else.
I don't consider it avoiding the question. My wants, in a situation where someone else who doesn't know me is supposed to put his life in danger, are pretty much irrelevant. I want people to be rational and not go and get themselves killed trying to be the hero.
And I'm willing to accept the consequences for that.
Quote from: "Jack89"I'm pretty sure the point is that you should do something if you can and not just sit back and be a passive observer. Calling the cops is fine and dandy, and you should obviously do so, but more often than not they won't get there in time.
In time to what? Zimmerman wasn't observing a crime in progress. He wasn't even observing a crime that might occur in the immediate future. The cops might not have gotten there in time to ... prevent a non-thing from happening?
QuoteI'm of the mind that if I think I can help, I should.
If someone's life or safety is in IMMEDIATE danger, yes. Not if you think that the clothing a person is wearing makes it your responsibility to confront him.
QuoteI may not be "trained" to handle a specific situation
Like knowing the difference between the immediate danger to life or safety and a kid walking down the street, minding his own business?
QuoteYou do what you can and accept the consequences if things go south.
Something Zimmerman didn't do. A kid is dead because he "did what he could", but he blames the victim.
QuoteI really don't get this passive approach some people take. If I think I can help out, I'm not just going to call the police and watch.
Watch WHAT? A kid walking down the street?
QuoteI'd feel like a piece of shit if someone was hurt because I failed to act.
Who was being hurt? Other than Trayvon Martin, I mean. If I witnessed an adult fighting with a kid, I'd certainly help. And it wouldn't be the adult I'd be helping.
But how about the heart of the matter? What crime was being committed here that you'd take action to prevent? Walking While Black? Being in a neighborhood that Zimmerman thought he shouldn't be in? Wearing a hoodie?
Quote from: "Jack89"Yes, I would most definitely want someone to help me if I was getting my ass kicked.
By someone you had threatened?
"He hit me BACK, so I had to kill him."
If you start something, you should accept the responsibility for starting it, not ask for help to make it worse.
QuoteBut how about the heart of the matter?
Yes, lets get back to that. A community that had been beset with crime and had the cops called out 421 times in 18 months. A recent rash of robberies that were not only suspected by black youths but also caught one, and a gun shooting. So, now you are the guy looking out for your neighbors and along comes a perfect match to what has been terrorizing the neighborhood for over a year. You call the cops and you follow him to make sure if he does something you can witness it. So far, what is wrong with that? According to what I have read, ole george does not get out of the car until martin takes off running and then pursues and then is informed not to and stops. Up until that point I have nothing against anything he has done, according to what I have read of the scripts. If this scenario is correct, what has he done so far that is wrong?
Quotealong comes a perfect match to what has been terrorizing the neighborhood for over a year.
A black kid? Boy, if that's all it takes to be a "perfect match" I can probably point you to a few hundred "perfect matches" in every city block...
Quote from: "Plu"Quotealong comes a perfect match to what has been terrorizing the neighborhood for over a year.
A black kid? Boy, if that's all it takes to be a "perfect match" I can probably point you to a few hundred "perfect matches" in every city block...
QuoteThe next day police discovered the stolen laptop in the backpack of a young black man, which led to his arrest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin)
yes, a perfect match. I suggest you read the article.
QuoteUp until that point I have nothing against anything he has done, according to what I have read of the scripts. If this scenario is correct, what has he done so far that is wrong?
Nothing. It's what he does next which is wrong... he gets out and pursues him again, and this time verbally confronts him.
I'm not reading anywhere in the article that it was the same "young black man". They probably would've mentioned it if it was the same kid, don't you think? Which leads me to believe it was probably some other person.
Quote from: "Shiranu"QuoteUp until that point I have nothing against anything he has done, according to what I have read of the scripts. If this scenario is correct, what has he done so far that is wrong?
Nothing. It's what he does next which is wrong... he gets out and pursues him again, and this time verbally confronts him.
I have cannot find anything that says george got back in his vehicle and followed, even the map you posted on a different thread shows just one location for his vehicle, no doubt after chasing he was told to stop and he said he would but continued to walk looking as he had "lost sight of him".
And I, for one, if I was being followed, I would not walk by my house, I would most certainly go in where Dad was and other people were and call the damn cops.
I am NOT being an apologist for georgy, but I do not think his reactions to what he was trying to do was wrong, no doubt I wish the shooting had not happened and I would have no issues if they found him guilty in some manner for that. My objection, my only objection is that people claim his action that night precipitating the shooting were wrong, and I disagree with that. I would do the same thing, and would hope anyone would as well.
Quote from: "Plu"I'm not reading anywhere in the article that it was the same "young black man". They probably would've mentioned it if it was the same kid, don't you think? Which leads me to believe it was probably some other person.
my apologies, by "perfect match" I would assume a young black male similar to another young black male would fit the description of the recent sightings more than say, a young black male to a overweight 80 yr old white man wouldn't you think so?
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Jack89"Yes, I would most definitely want someone to help me if I was getting my ass kicked.
By someone you had threatened?
"He hit me BACK, so I had to kill him."
If you start something, you should accept the responsibility for starting it, not ask for help to make it worse.
Now you're changing the "what if" mid stream to try to support your position. Kind of dishonest.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Jack89"I'm pretty sure the point is that you should do something if you can and not just sit back and be a passive observer. Calling the cops is fine and dandy, and you should obviously do so, but more often than not they won't get there in time.
In time to what? Zimmerman wasn't observing a crime in progress. He wasn't even observing a crime that might occur in the immediate future. The cops might not have gotten there in time to ... prevent a non-thing from happening?
QuoteI'm of the mind that if I think I can help, I should.
If someone's life or safety is in IMMEDIATE danger, yes. Not if you think that the clothing a person is wearing makes it your responsibility to confront him.
QuoteI may not be "trained" to handle a specific situation
Like knowing the difference between the immediate danger to life or safety and a kid walking down the street, minding his own business?
QuoteYou do what you can and accept the consequences if things go south.
Something Zimmerman didn't do. A kid is dead because he "did what he could", but he blames the victim.
QuoteI really don't get this passive approach some people take. If I think I can help out, I'm not just going to call the police and watch.
Watch WHAT? A kid walking down the street?
QuoteI'd feel like a piece of shit if someone was hurt because I failed to act.
Who was being hurt? Other than Trayvon Martin, I mean. If I witnessed an adult fighting with a kid, I'd certainly help. And it wouldn't be the adult I'd be helping.
But how about the heart of the matter? What crime was being committed here that you'd take action to prevent? Walking While Black? Being in a neighborhood that Zimmerman thought he shouldn't be in? Wearing a hoodie?
I wasn't specifically talking about the Zimmerman/Martin situation and I did not say act blindly either. I don't appreciate you implying that I was.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Plu"I'm not reading anywhere in the article that it was the same "young black man". They probably would've mentioned it if it was the same kid, don't you think? Which leads me to believe it was probably some other person.
my apologies, by "perfect match" I would assume a young black male similar to another young black male would fit the description of the recent sightings more than say, a young black male to a overweight 80 yr old white man wouldn't you think so?
I have no reason to believe one young black male would look similar to another young black male. Nor do I have any reason to believe that because the first young black male was arrested, there's any reason to believe that the second young black male, even if he does look a bit like him, is also up to no good, just because he looks like the other guy.
This is almost starting to sound racist. There's no reason to believe that if you're young, black, and you look like a guy that once got arrested, you're suddenly a suspicious character.
Quote from: "Plu"I have no reason to believe one young black male would look similar to another young black male.
Operator: 911, what is your emergency
Caller: Uh yeah, there is a lone cat walking down the along the sidewalk near some houses.
Operator: A cat? Sir? Did you say a cat?
Caller: yes, the last few days we have had some stray dogs chasing people and growling at them so I wanted to report this cat.
Operator: Sir I am not following you. You said you had some dogs threatening people but your calling about a cat?
Caller: Yes, I don't want to appear to be a racist.
:roll:
Are you implying that all young black males are automatically suspicious, because some young black males have been caught performing illegal actions? Because that's very much what it sounds like, and your latest response isn't helping.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteSince you avoided my question, I'll give you my answer to it. Yes, I would most definitely want someone to help me if I was getting my ass kicked. Who wouldn't? And since I think it would be right for someone to help me, how can I not think it right for me to reciprocate in kind? Especially if the victim appears to be innocent, whether it's me or someone else.
I don't consider it avoiding the question. My wants, in a situation where someone else who doesn't know me is supposed to put his life in danger, are pretty much irrelevant. I want people to be rational and not go and get themselves killed trying to be the hero.
And I'm willing to accept the consequences for that.
I'm trying to understand you position on this because you seem sincere, but I'm having trouble following your reasoning. Maybe it's a cultural thing, or the difference between being raised in and urban rather than a rural community. I don't know, but it seems pretty rational to want help if your in trouble, and it makes a lot of sense for people to help others who are in trouble.
I agree that people should be aware of their limitations and respond accordingly, but to say you shouldn't try because you might get hurt, or because you're not a "professional" is a cop-out in my book, and irrational at a community level. If you advocate inaction, aren't you promoting apathy and indifference? Aren't you just welcoming more problems in your community if it's known that people in it are indifferent and won't take action?
Personally I want to live in a community where people look out for each other and help out to the best of their abilities. I want to know that my neighbors will help in an emergency and not just sit back and wait for emergency services to arrive. The 2 young men in the OP's post are a good example of what i'm advocating. It was a bit risky chasing that car on their bicycles, but by doing so, they may have saved that little girls life, or maybe not. Who knows? But, by demonstrating that they were willing to do so is in itself a plus for their community. They're showing that the neighborhood is being watch and they may have just influenced others to take a more active role. I certainly know that if others are looking out for me, I'll feel an obligation, a duty, to look after them.
I don't see that type of involvement as being heroic, I see it as being a good person. To be honest, I think your view that others shouldn't jump in to help you because they might get hurt or killed, is unnecessarily heroic. Self-sacrifice is certainly noble, but not too smart if it can be avoided. Something else to consider, if people in your neighborhood are prone to get involved, there may be more than one person helping out.
I'm not advocating inaction, I'm advocating very careful action. There is probably not a very large difference between our positions except I consider myself (and other people) a lot less capable than you do. If I see a kid beating up ather kid, I'll step in. If I see a grown man beating up another grown man, I'm not going to step in because I don't consider myself capable of taking on a grown man, which means I'll only increase the number of people that get beaten up. And if both are still up and standing, then getting involved either means picking sides (which is dangerous because you have no idea what's going on) or trying to break them up (which basically means now you're now standing between two angry men, and is thus also dangerous)
It might also just be that you'd be willing to help if there's a 50/50 chance while I would consider anything under 90/10 chance of success to be an unwise idea. And while rationally speaking I'd want help when I'm in trouble, it doesn't mean that any random dude jumping in and getting involved is actually going to help me. It might just make matters worse. So unless that person is damn sure that he's going to be able to solve the problem, I'd rather he didn't try. And it also wouldn't make me feel any better if the person jumping in got himself killed or hurt.
The kids in the opening article did alright. They followed behind a guy in a car, but they didn't confront him, they didn't follow him into shady areas, and we can't know what they'd have done if he turned around. But it's very easy to go from "following him around heroically" to "following him into a dark alley and getting shot".
I've seen enough newspaper articles to the gist of "boy jumps into pond trying to save drowning kid. Both will be buried next week." to be advocating people jumping in unless they really know what they're doing.
Quote from: "Jack89"Personally I want to live in a community where people look out for each other and help out to the best of their abilities. I want to know that my neighbors will help in an emergency and not just sit back and wait for emergency services to arrive.
You'd probably like living in Plainfield, NJ then. Citizens there like to do exactly what you're talking about. When a couple of people saw a robbery in progress they jumped in and captured the guy. And also let the prostitute who was trying to rob him get away with what she took from him.
//http://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/wpix-female-thief-foils-good-samaritans,0,4538572.story
Hey but they were only trying to help so what's the harm right? It makes the community better and that's what's important.
Here's a guy who stopped an attack on a woman.
//http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/14/local/la-me--toddler-shot-20110914
Sure his 3 year old is dead now but I'd bet he'd tell you he'd do it again because it makes the community better that's what important.
Oh boy! We get to troll the net looking for shit to bolster our arguments!
Looky here! This is the community you want to live in!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwxiCVVGnZ8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwxiCVVGnZ8)
And more, this should make your chest stick out in pride at the in-action of your fellow citizens..
http://newsok.com/dozens-of-witnesses-w ... le/3658191 (http://newsok.com/dozens-of-witnesses-watch-as-woman-is-stabbed-to-death-at-downtown-oklahoma-city-bus-hub/article/3658191)
Yessir, you and your "kind" make me proud of humanity.
The first is problematic. A dozen bystanders over a prolonged time not acting is bad enough, but not reporting it pushes it far into "nobody in this thread is ok with this" levels. That should have been a group intervention, and even I would've gotten involved, because it's a no-risk situation if you're 12 to 2.
The second on the other hand is not very surprising. If the first sign of something happening is the sound of screams, blood gushing and someone lying on the ground being stabbed repeatedly, then everyone's first action should be "what the fuck" and by the time they get to their senses, the victim is dead and the situation is over. I don't blame anyone for that one. (except the guy with the knife, obviously.)
Also, none of these stories would be any better if they added "heroic bystander also stabbed to death". If you're going to intervene... make sure you're safe before you do it. Go in as a group. Don't attack the guy(s). Corner them. Call the authorities. It's what any kind of respectable emergency service worker should also tell you... because it's the best way to intervene in these situations.
Let us all hope we get to live in our respective chosen neighborhoods.
Giving up? :)
Quote from: "Plu"Giving up? :)
how much more beating can we give this dead horse? :rollin:
As long as there's arguments and stories and stuff... plenty. I'm not yet convinced that there's simply two sides that are equally valid, like with some of the other debates that keep popping up here.
Here's someone I wouldn't mind having as a neighbor. I like this guy's attitude.
[youtube:1h5mddff]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI1LSGgi4D8[/youtube:1h5mddff]
Quote from: "aitm"Let us all hope we get to live in our respective chosen neighborhoods.
I suspect that every neighborhood has its share of people who think like me as well as people who think like you. Having more or less of one type is not what is going make any neighborhood great or rotten.
Thinking about it a bit more, I'm now actually kinda curious what you think the proper response to the second story you posted would have been?
Are you expecting random bystanders experiencing a seriously traumatic event to act faster than what appears to be a nearby professional security officer? That seems a bit much, don't you think? But even assuming the officer wasn't there, what do you think they should have done in the about 10 seconds that this act probably took?
I mean; I can understand the idea of people trying to help, but this is just a terrible example... there's nothing anyone could've done to save this women if the first sign of trouble is her being stabbed in the back.
Quote from: "Plu"Thinking about it a bit more, I'm now actually kinda curious what you think the proper response to the second story you posted would have been?
Are you expecting random bystanders experiencing a seriously traumatic event to act faster than what appears to be a nearby professional security officer? That seems a bit much, don't you think? But even assuming the officer wasn't there, what do you think they should have done in the about 10 seconds that this act probably took?
I mean; I can understand the idea of people trying to help, but this is just a terrible example... there's nothing anyone could've done to save this women if the first sign of trouble is her being stabbed in the back.
Additionally it's pretty well known psychology that, in group settings, people simply do not help. Our mind just doesn't work like that; someone has to (generally) be singled out and forced to help, unless you are lucky and someone who has been trained to deal with shock, high stress situations is present.
It's why if someone is bleeding out on the street, a whole crowd will gather but do nothing; so many people feel they don't know what to do, that someone is better than them for the job is present, etc.. So random tip of the day; if you are bleeding out in public, point or describe specifically one person from the crowd to help you, it forces them to help you or else look like a terrible person infront of the group. And surprisingly, it works.
Quote from: "Plu"Thinking about it a bit more, I'm now actually kinda curious what you think the proper response to the second story you posted would have been?
Are you expecting random bystanders experiencing a seriously traumatic event to act faster than what appears to be a nearby professional security officer? That seems a bit much, don't you think? But even assuming the officer wasn't there, what do you think they should have done in the about 10 seconds that this act probably took?
I mean; I can understand the idea of people trying to help, but this is just a terrible example... there's nothing anyone could've done to save this women if the first sign of trouble is her being stabbed in the back.
Additionally it's pretty well known psychology that, in group settings, people simply do not help. Our mind just doesn't work like that; someone has to (generally) be singled out and forced to help, unless you are lucky and someone who has been trained to deal with shock, high stress situations is present.
It's why if someone is bleeding out on the street, a whole crowd will gather but do nothing; so many people feel they don't know what to do, that someone is better than them for the job is present, etc.. So random tip of the day; if you are bleeding out in public, point or describe specifically one person from the crowd to help you, it forces them to help you or else look like a terrible person infront of the group. And surprisingly, it works.
The proper response? Some here think we shouldn't even follow a would be thief down the street, preferring to lock the door, call the cops and once the guy is out of site its someone else's problem. How can we expect anyone to exhibit the courage to stop a rape or help prevent a murder?
We all might think we know what we would do in certain situations. Some of us are a bit more..er.....adventurous than others and have acted. Everyday across the world humans exhibit courage and selflessness to help total strangers, some die in the attempt, it is in my opinion that this is what makes the human a grand creature. Why people would suggest that we curtail that response, temper it, hide it, bury it, forget about it is beyond me. That trait itself is the very backbone of the human history.
Now we suggest that we wait for someone more trained in certain situations because well, lets face it, if someone else can do it and I don't have to show that I am just to frightened to help, I will use the excuse that someone else should do it and come up with a litany of more excuses to justify it. And since a lot of people seem to do this in situations we can all point to those situations and say, "see, thats what they did and they must be right because thats what people do."
No. I will always argue for action, even at the risks involved because "no action" tears more of the social fabric that binds us until no one will help at all.
QuoteSome here think we shouldn't even follow a would be thief down the street, preferring to lock the door, call the cops and once the guy is out of site its someone else's problem. How can we expect anyone to exhibit the courage to stop a rape or help prevent a murder?
Weird, I have yet to see anyone argue that. Oh well...
Quote from: "aitm"Some here think we shouldn't even follow a would be thief down the street, preferring to lock the door, call the cops and once the guy is out of site its someone else's problem.
I'm curious to know how exactly one identifies a would be thief. Or do you just follow everyone whom you don't know personally?
QuoteNo. I will always argue for action, even at the risks involved because "no action" tears more of the social fabric that binds us until no one will help at all.
Tears more of the social fabric? Really? Drama much? But I get that you're all manly and willing to take risk in order to save society and we know it and all that. But what about when those risks brought about by your actions are incurred by others instead of by you? Is that just the price we have to pay so that you can see to it that the social fabric goes untorn?
Quote from: "Shiranu"Additionally it's pretty well known psychology that, in group settings, people simply do not help. Our mind just doesn't work like that; someone has to (generally) be singled out and forced to help, unless you are lucky and someone who has been trained to deal with shock, high stress situations is present.
It's why if someone is bleeding out on the street, a whole crowd will gather but do nothing; so many people feel they don't know what to do, that someone is better than them for the job is present, etc.. So random tip of the day; if you are bleeding out in public, point or describe specifically one person from the crowd to help you, it forces them to help you or else look like a terrible person infront of the group. And surprisingly, it works.
Don't know where you heard that, but that's not what I've experienced. I've done some civilian EMS work and it was pretty common to see people helping when we arrived on scene. I've also done some humanitarian relief work and with just a little encouragement and direction people are more than willing to help out, and happy to do so. In fact, I've seen people who were pretty lackluster and average shine in crisis situations, like they just needed a reason to be awesome. Yes, military and other professional types will usually jump in and make themselves useful during a crisis, but they're conditioned to, so I guess that doesn't really count. But I'll tell you what, everyone feels fucking amazing when they make a difference. Why do you think that is?
Most people naturally empathize with others in a crisis and want to help if they can. It's called compassion and that's how people think. I think most who don't are usually too scared to do what they know they should do, or don't know what to do, and feel like shit when they think about it later on. I can think of a couple of times when I was younger when I don't think I did enough, and I still feel guilty about it. Hell, even when you do everything you possibly can and someone dies on you, you feel terrible and you never forget it. But when you save someone... Holy shit that's a good feeling. Perhaps that's a good indication of what people should do.
I don't know what to say about those people who really don't care, other than I truly pity them.
I obviously cant link you to what we learned in class, but this was both in Psychology and in an article I had previously seen. I will look for the second one...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect)
QuoteThe bystander effect is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely related to the number of bystanders. In other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help. Several variables help to explain why the bystander effect occurs. These variables include: ambiguity, cohesiveness and diffusion of responsibility.
A bit dated, but here is one video on it...
[youtube:2cvib59u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSsPfbup0ac[/youtube:2cvib59u]
Now, no one saw him injured so I am not sure how that play's into the equation; perhaps actively witnessing the act helps kick people into action. I would also assume there are some differences between location (big city vs small city) and other things.
That said, group dynamics are very... interesting, for lack of a better word. It doesn't mean people are bad people, it doesn't mean people don't care, it just means our brains are not very well designed pieces of machinery and sometimes don't work the way we would expect them to.
That's just sad. I would guess your assumptions about big cities is probably correct.
Quote from: "aitm"The proper response? Some here think we shouldn't even follow a would be thief down the street, preferring to lock the door, call the cops and once the guy is out of site its someone else's problem. How can we expect anyone to exhibit the courage to stop a rape or help prevent a murder?
Excuses, but no answers. What did you expect people to do in the specific case you mentioned, where you were of the impression that people should help? How could anyone have prevented this murder from happening?
QuoteDon't know where you heard that, but that's not what I've experienced. I've done some civilian EMS work and it was pretty common to see people helping when we arrived on scene.
Those are usually people with some experience in emergency care, they're trained to ignore the bystander effect and get to work. I know a few of them, they always jump right on situations where needed, but everyone else just stands around because they aren't sure what to do.
QuoteI've also done some humanitarian relief work and with just a little encouragement and direction people are more than willing to help out, and happy to do so.
A little encouragement and direction are indeed just what people need to break the spell of the bystander effect. You only need one guy who takes charge and directs people to make them snap out of it and help, but if there's nobody willing to be that one guy, nothing happens.
Also, the bystander effect usually doesn't happen in smaller communities, because it requires you to not know the victim and be in a large group; as soon as someone familiar with the victim shows up they will most likely try to help. That's why it's mostly a big-city thing.
Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Jack89"Yes, I would most definitely want someone to help me if I was getting my ass kicked.
By someone you had threatened?
"He hit me BACK, so I had to kill him."
If you start something, you should accept the responsibility for starting it, not ask for help to make it worse.
Now you're changing the "what if" mid stream to try to support your position. Kind of dishonest.
What change? Zimmerman caused the initial threat. He even admitted it - he, a white man, followed Martin, a black teen-ager, in a truck. That, in the eyes of a black teen-ager in the south, is a potential threat. That Zimmerman may not have understood that he constituted a threat in Martin's mind isn't Martin's fault. Martin reacted to what he probably considered a clear and present danger - his right in any state, and especially one with a stand your ground law.
Quote from: "Plu"Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Plu"I'm not reading anywhere in the article that it was the same "young black man". They probably would've mentioned it if it was the same kid, don't you think? Which leads me to believe it was probably some other person.
my apologies, by "perfect match" I would assume a young black male similar to another young black male would fit the description of the recent sightings more than say, a young black male to a overweight 80 yr old white man wouldn't you think so?
I have no reason to believe one young black male would look similar to another young black male. Nor do I have any reason to believe that because the first young black male was arrested, there's any reason to believe that the second young black male, even if he does look a bit like him, is also up to no good, just because he looks like the other guy.
This is almost starting to sound racist.
It's not "beginning to sound racist", it's a textbook case of racial profiling. If the perpetrator is a young black male, young black males are suspects. (They tried something like that in New England, Boston, I think, and most people were outraged.) If the perpetrator had been a young white male, and a black adult shot another young white male, and made the claim that he was a perfect match - because he's young, male, white and wearing a hoodie (those were the matching elements) - everyone would be howling "racism".
QuoteHe even admitted it - he, a white man...
Just to interrupt, and I agree with the rest of your last post and this one, but Zimmerman is 3/4ths Latino, not white.
Which doesn't really change anything because Latino's can be racist as well. Racism isn't just an issue plaguing the white/black communities...
QuoteIf the perpetrator is a young black male, young black males are suspects.
yeah, that would be stupid because everyone knows that if a black male is a suspect then we should check out the white guys.
"HEY TSA, I got a job applicant for you"
Quote from: "aitm"QuoteIf the perpetrator is a young black male, young black males are suspects.
yeah, that would be stupid because everyone knows that if a black male is a suspect then we should check out the white guys.
"HEY TSA, I got a job applicant for you"
Sorry, but if you are profiling people based on their race... that is racial profiling. You can make excuses for it all you want, but... there is just no way you can argue that it's not racial profiling.
If the EXACT SAME events happened in a black neighbourhood to a white kid, and the black shooter said, "Hey, there have been white kids committing crimes here lately!"... you really think anyone would even think about saying, "But it's okay, because he only stalked the kid because he was white!". Hell no.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "aitm"QuoteIf the perpetrator is a young black male, young black males are suspects.
yeah, that would be stupid because everyone knows that if a black male is a suspect then we should check out the white guys.
"HEY TSA, I got a job applicant for you"
Sorry, but if you are profiling people based on their race... that is racial profiling. You can make excuses for it all you want, but... there is just no way you can argue that it's not racial profiling.
well if you're looking at black males when a white one is the suspect we call that stupid....a special kind of stupid.
I'm sorry, but I don't want people to say... "There is an olive skinned person in my neighbourhood... I should therefor stalk him because someone else with a similar skin colour to him committed a crime before!", and I don't think you want people to say the same to you.
I don't believe in treating people like criminals because they have a different skin colour than me, and I don't think people of other races want to be discriminated against either because they have a darker skin tone than me. People should be treated like criminals for committing a crime, not because they have dark skin or their last name is Mohammad. That is bluntly racist, no matter what excuses one wants to make for it.
:rollin: some of you guys will be a real gut buster when the zombie apocalypse is upon us.....
Quote from: "aitm"The proper response? Some here think we shouldn't even follow a would be thief down the street, preferring to lock the door, call the cops and once the guy is out of site its someone else's problem. How can we expect anyone to exhibit the courage to stop a rape or help prevent a murder?
We all might think we know what we would do in certain situations. Some of us are a bit more..er.....adventurous than others and have acted. Everyday across the world humans exhibit courage and selflessness to help total strangers, some die in the attempt, it is in my opinion that this is what makes the human a grand creature. Why people would suggest that we curtail that response, temper it, hide it, bury it, forget about it is beyond me. That trait itself is the very backbone of the human history.
Now we suggest that we wait for someone more trained in certain situations because well, lets face it, if someone else can do it and I don't have to show that I am just to frightened to help, I will use the excuse that someone else should do it and come up with a litany of more excuses to justify it. And since a lot of people seem to do this in situations we can all point to those situations and say, "see, thats what they did and they must be right because thats what people do."
No. I will always argue for action, even at the risks involved because "no action" tears more of the social fabric that binds us until no one will help at all.
To Do or not to Do...........
I always vote "Do".
http://4thgearconsulting.com/blog/do-so ... -its-wrong (http://4thgearconsulting.com/blog/do-something-even-if-its-wrong)
Quote from: "Colanth"What change? Zimmerman caused the initial threat. He even admitted it - he, a white man, followed Martin, a black teen-ager, in a truck. That, in the eyes of a black teen-ager in the south, is a potential threat. That Zimmerman may not have understood that he constituted a threat in Martin's mind isn't Martin's fault. Martin reacted to what he probably considered a clear and present danger - his right in any state, and especially one with a stand your ground law.
We weren't talking about the Zimmerman case. At least I wasn't.
Aitm, you're either totally failing to read any posts or willfully ignoring all of them.
Nobody says "if a black guy committed a crime, we should check out white guys to see if they did it."
That's incredibly stupid to say, and possible even stupider for you to think we'd think like that.
Everyone is saying "if black person A committed a crime and was arrested, black person B is not automatically a suspect."
Disagreeing with that... well, that's being a racist. The fact that two people superficially look alike has nothing to do with whether or not they're suspicious or doing anything wrong. If you feel that, just because he has the same skin color, gender and age and wears a hoodie, he should be treated as a suspicious person, then I guess you're more of a racist than you realise.
Quote from: "Plu"The fact that two people superficially look alike has nothing to do with whether or not they're suspicious or doing anything wrong.
The article clearly, clearly CLEARLY stated that several times the suspects in the robberies were described as young black men. Ergo, NOT YOUNG WHITE MEN, NOT YOUNG HISPANIC MEN, NOT YOUNG ORIENTALS. Can you grasp what that means or do walk around with a sign that says, "I pretend to be anti-racist to the point of being stupid"?
Tell you what, just to placate you and your internet pretentious righteousness, if I ever hear of a suspect in my neighborhood (not across the city because that would be profiling) wearing a white shirt and blue jeans, I will make sure to call 911 to report people wearing red shirts and black pants as well, I am sure everyone will appreciate the police wasting their time for the sake of political correctness.
And because I am so fair I will let you have the last word, because I am tired of your pretentious self-righteous blather.
I'll just repeat the last word, because I've nothing left to add.
QuoteAitm, you're either totally failing to read any posts or willfully ignoring all of them.
Quote from: "Plu"I'll just repeat the last word, because I've nothing left to add.
QuoteAitm, you're either totally failing to read any posts or willfully ignoring all of them.
He seems to be reading them just fine, from where I'm looking.
Then you feel that it's acceptable to mark all young black males as suspicious because some of them are suspects in robberies?
Quote from: "Plu"Then you feel that it's acceptable to mark all young black males as suspicious because some of them are suspects in robberies?
If it's the best description you have, looking out for young black males at the time of night these robberies tend to happen in the area they happen is a sensible thing to do. Once you have something better to go on, you can narrow it down.
If tracking down a criminal based on a general description is racist, you have a very odd idea of what racism is. If I say I saw a burglar who appeared to be Latino, you're not going to look for people of African, East Asian, European, or Middle Eastern descent. If you do look for those because narrowing it down to Latinos is "racist," you're an idiot. Likewise, if I also say this person appeared to be male, you're also not going to look for a female suspect because you think doing otherwise would be sexist; that would be stupid. If I say he appeared to be middle aged, you're not going to look for someone very young or very elderly. You're going to look for someone matching the general description I gave you, most likely within the general area where the crime was committed.
But if they say "it's a college aged white female" and I call the police every time a college aged white female walks around my neighbourhood, and then stalk them to see if they do something suspicious, how long do you think it would take for them to tell me to cut the crap?
Quote from: "Plu"But if they say "it's a college aged white female" and I call the police every time a college aged white female walks around my neighbourhood, and then stalk them to see if they do something suspicious, how long do you think it would take for them to tell me to cut the crap?
Probably very quickly,
particularly if you're not observing them doing something suspicious. Underlined the key part there for you.
I'm still missing from this whole story where zimmerman saw his target do anything more suspicious than being in the area and looking around, though. Which doesn't sound suspicious at all.
Quote from: "Plu"I'm still missing from this whole story where zimmerman saw his target do anything more suspicious than being in the area and looking around, though. Which doesn't sound suspicious at all.
According to Zimmerman, he observed Martin looking into the windows of houses. Granted, we only have Zimmerman's word on this, but it's still a far cry from "looking around."
Ok. If he meant stopping to look inside, or going into someone's yard for it, that'd qualify as acting suspicious. I couldn't get that part out of any of the articles.
(Of course anyone would be flagged as suspicious for that behaviour, too.)