http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/05/justice/f … us-beating
I'm not looking for arm chair quarterbacking, or people trying to show off about how much more they would have done, when most who say such things likely would not have.
I want honest, balanced analysis about whether the driver made the right decision. If he should have intervened, clearly explain why, and how it would have helped.
If not, why not?
That was easy, the answer is NO. The bus driver made the right decision and was proactive and reasonably prudent as to how he handled the matter.
In the face of his relative age, school bus policy and the sheer number involved in the assualt, he could have put his own safety in danger and that was not part of the job description. Calling the police was the wise and only course of action in this case.
So this thought doesn't apply - because of a policy?
"Archaic Impertenance", really? GA, that is beyond the pale. John Wayne and the cavalry doesn't just come over the ridge in the nick of time anymore. The very real possiblity of being pummuled by 3 teenaged toughs can make a lifetime impression on a 64 year old man. You're sensible, he, the driver, did what you would have done, called the police. This is just a slight more than merely looking on and doing nothing. Would you have an alternate plan?
There are times when one has to act on his or her own conscience regardless of the policy but we all have to be prudent enough to know when such behavior is justified, and this situation is not one of them. Reckless, impulsive behavior on the part of driver could have make it all that much worse.
P.S, if George Zimmerman had used better judgment, followed 'policy' and listened to the advice of law enforcement professionals, we would not have had a 'Trayvon Martin" tragedy. This cowboy mentality is all too infectious, and It is properly described by the word "archaic".
Just a little something to think about over your lunch.....
Have a nice day, Cred2
Obviously we are poles apart regarding the bus driver's actions, so be it, but regarding your "John Wayne" comment...
Isn't that the point? Sometimes you can't wait for the cavalry, sometimes we have to be the cavalry, hence the quote.
Apparently that is no longer a valid view for many. But it still is for me. The concept of the quote is not archaic impertinence to me - but then again, you have to remember that I'm just an old fossil with archaic ideas.
My self-respect is more important to me than self-serving rationalizations. In this case, the situation doesn't seem to preclude intervention to me - but it is obvious that others see it differently.
So, once again, policy be damned! You folks live by your standards and I'll live by mine.
As for the Zimmerman reference... take a minute to regain your footing Cred - you are over-extended. That straw isn't even in the neighborhood of relevancy.
"Isn't that the point? Sometimes you can't wait for the cavalry, sometimes we have to be the cavalry, hence the quote."
I don't deny that, it is just that that line is just drawn at differing points for different people. The world is full of heroes, Schlindler comes to mind.
I am not going into the lions den without preparation, Zimmerman acted on the concept of 'self respect" too?
Others do see it differently. Pick your battles carefully or do they decide that discretion is the better part of valor?.
I can accept all but the Zimmerman reference, come on Cred, I don't see it as relevant.
Your explanation makes sense. In general I agree.
But don't you see a problem when someone attempting to help someone else - in a less than perfectly safe situation - is now considered to be a hero? Isn't it a sad indictment of today's morals when "doing the right thing" is now seen as heroic? When any chance of injury is reason enough for inaction?
If I were the bus driver, in the same situation, I would have tried to intervene. And I would not have felt my actions were heroic or macho. Just right.
the Zimmerman reference is my point that policy and protocol has its place in our choice of what actions we take in a situation. These were set as guides that would be good 90% of the time in resolving a situation in the best manner for all parties involved. As for the other 10%, it may then be time for a colorful metaphor.
We live in a very litigious society, anything beyond helping the little old lady across the street, could have unanticipated consequences. Even if the driver were only 30 and worked out daily, would his involvment in restraining the other teens be at a cost to him, his job? It gets complicated when minors are involved. As disheartening as it is, we have all heard the stories. Getting involved in the affairs of others automatically puts you at risk, and when you aware of that and choose to act anywayt in the interest of the other party, you are heroic...
On the bus, you saw someone getting hurt. You would have reacted, naturally. But many of us, would pause and consider what was at stake.
I see a girl drowing in a river, but if I can't swim what are the chances of my being able to save her?
It's interesting to read that some would be prepared to use the force that would be required to make a difference in this situation.
Watching the clip I have deduced that nothing short of full incapacitation of at least two of the attackers was the only option that someone intervening could take. I wonder if those without training understand just how much violence would have to be undertaken to assist this conclusion.
My own personal thoughts are that I would have intervened however I have had years of training and have been in many similar situations, I also know there was a real chance of serious injury and court action having been there before.
As a last thought don't let the age of these moronic thugs make you believe they would be any easier to deal with, it once took myself and two others to restrain a 14 year old boy who had stabbed another security officer.
Greetings again Sooner28,
Hopefully your intentions weren't to sound as haughty and uppity, (snicker), as that paragraph sounds to me.
As this appears to be an opinion issue, and I am a curmudgeon, I had the urge to offer one,
but... as I pondered your wants - the urge passed
If you would have intervened, that's perfectly acceptable, but it's often easy to guess at the tone of the response whether one would have, or rather it is blowing smoke, the way George Bush and Ted Nugent talked about how noble it was to fight in war, but both dodged the draft. Their tones betray them.
"Hopefully your intentions weren't to sound as haughty and uppity"
If anyone knows about that you would
Uh Oh, was that a "lt takes one to know one" inference?
If so, you are probably right. I always have done better with requests than demands.
But, since you so artfully tricked me into engaging in this thread; I will offer my opinion as I originally intended.
Of course I think the bus driver should have tried to intervene.
Unless certain death or incapacitation would result from intervention - which I did not perceive to be the case in the video, I think he was was wrong.
Is it just the type of incident, a teenage fight, that allows others to feel the bus driver did right?
Is it that he followed policy that justifies folks being ok with his actions?
Would you still feel he did the right thing if the incident was a young teenage girl screaming for help as she was being raped in the same brutal manner?
Policy be damned. The video does not show the driver being threatened if he interfered. And, to me, the circumstances appear to show more probability that he may have been able to helpfully intervene, even if only enough to lessen the severity of the beating - than that obvious injury awaited any such effort.
So, yes, I do think the bus driver was wrong. And I do think you folks saying he was right - are wrong.
And I could really go on a much longer rant railing about cowardice, personal responsibility, not wanting to get involved, but I won't - because this is an opinion issue. I have mine you have yours.
But, you ALL are wrong! I would rather suffer recover in the hospital than living with the thought that I stood by and did nothing - on a possibility!
ps. Since Uninvitedwriter tricked me into meeting your demands - what is your opinion?
pss. I sense the possibility for the perception that there may be tension between us - I hope that is not true. It is not my intention.
'But, you ALL are wrong! I would rather suffer recover in the hospital than living with the thought that I stood by and did nothing - on a possibility!'
GA, are we not being a little strident this afternoon? As always, I welcome your contribution to this discussion.
But, speak for yourself!
Hmm... I'm pretty sure that I made it clear, several times, that I was speaking for myself.
I'm also sure I made it clear my responses were only my opinions - not facts to be proven or dis-proven.
Strident? Well, Sooner28 did ask for an explanation for our opinions. Wasn't mine clear?
Actually I mostly agree, except for the rape analogy.
I think he should've called police, intervened by pulling the guys off and telling them the police would be there any minute, and if he was charged with assaulting a minor (which he probably would've been), he should've gone to the media to show how stupid said charge was.
Of course, this all assumes he wasn't in bad physical health. That part I don't know.
Like Credence said, I just didn't want the John Wayne types saying how much they would've intervened when they wouldn't have actually done so.
I don't interpret you to be that way.
Thanks for your view Sooner28.
I hope others interpret my response as you did, I was not offering a macho "John Wayne" response.
Except for the crudeness of the image it conjures, why do you have a problem with the rape analogy?
Aren't both a case of by-standers refusing to get involved? Or are you saying the example is too severe, as in, of course no one would just stand by in that case?
But speaking of Cred's quote;
"GA, that is beyond the pale. John Wayne and the cavalry doesn't just come over the ridge in the nick of time anymore.
It seems we have interpreted if differently. I read it to say the days of the good guys coming to the rescue are long gone. Which I don't see as a positive thing.
Since I have already responded to Cred, I'm sure he'll pop back in and explain if I misunderstood his intent.
I'm not really sure what to say, but I just wanted to warn people that that video is EXTREMELY UPSETTING and people should be warned before they watch it.
People have been conditioned by the propensity of the judicial system to apportion blame to those who intervene, in my opinion and after 26 years in the security industry the driver did exactly the right thing, society is to blame for the attack of the three thugs, the judicial system will fail to deal with them properly and the driver will be vilified forever.
If anyone can explain to me how the driver could have intervened without the use of force then I may be prepared to change my opinion.
I too agree that the bus driver did the best he could do based on watching a video. When you're in your sixties you become limited in what you're capable of doing. Plus I believe the laws are such that they hinder people from wanting to get involved. Should one of these juveniles have gotten hurt by the efforts of the bus driver I'm quite certain it would be the bus driver who would be on trial.
Once again I say age matters because if I with the bus driver and in my twenties I would've relished intervening.
by Aya Katz3 years ago
I've often been accused of being arrogant, and it's usually by people who disagree with me about something. I've noticed that some of my favorite historical personages have also been accused of arrogance. What exactly...
by vveasey3 years ago
If Martin's hand was covering Zimmerman's mouth as he claims, wouldn't the screams have sounded muffled? Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found on Martin's hands so was it Zimmerman or Martin screaming?
by Doodlehead4 years ago
This question is addressed to Republicans---How many of you have heard about the bus driver in Tampa who got "lost" driving the Virginia delegates to the convention center? I am just curious .....
by SpanStar4 years ago
Robert Zimmerman brother of George Zimmerman has stirred the issue of racism.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 … 79949.htmlClearly listening to Robert Zimmerman he appears to be a educated young man and one...
by SparklingJewel8 years ago
"It is one thing to hold fast to the pro-abortion position as a matter of a personal opinion, it is quite another to force someone else to compromise their moral integrity."To read the rest of the article go...
by Whitney9 years ago
What's the difference between a break and breaking up?My interpretation was that a break was you're still technically together but you're spending time apart, whereas a break is that you're no longer together..
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.