Once more the cork has popped from my bottle of generalization resistance. My first thought was `What the hell!', and my second thought was that these are the urban voters that elect presidents.
"Look, here's the deal": A rape takes place on a NY train car. For 27 stops the other passengers just stood by and recorded a rape take place on their cell phones. I would bet that if this had happened in rural America it would have been guns and fists that came out instead of cell phones.
But hell, what the hey, (sarcasm attempt alert), what do us rubes know about what is the right thing to do, we're just uneducated white trash.
As a caveat, I haven't looked for any more details. They probably wouldn't change my mind. Also, my problem isn't with the illegal immigrant that did the crime, it is with the spineless urban passengers that I hope never to be confused with.
I read about it a couple of days ago. I think it plainly is disgusting not only him, but the onlookers. Anyone with any sense of decency would think that . . . I hope.
I am kinda' at a loss of is it a descent in morals, spectator mentality, as you pointed out disposition of urban dwellers . . . maybe, or the power of the cell phone. I say that because over and over I see in both live and still shots people standing with phones raised recording foul behavior.
Okay, let's give a nod to the cell phone's dominance over our personal lives nowadays, and say that folks should at least learn to punch with their non-phone hand. But that is just humorous ullhockey tsmog. I can't see any possible rationalization for a group of adults standing around while a woman gets raped.
Emphatically agreed! I caught an article on it this morning where it said there would be no prosecution of the onlookers. It stated though a moral issue there is no legal reason for responsibility to report it. It did say that onlookers were using there phones to video it. I give thanks the train employee did report it as that article shared otherwise he could have just stepped off the train and disappeared. Again, disgusting!
I believe it was PA, but lets say NY.
Those who live in NY would probably know that any action they take on behalf of that woman would likely be a crime, in which they would be charged, and convicted.
This is the reality as I know it in places like NY and NJ.
If you were to defend yourself, in your own home, you would be found guilty and convicted of crimes, not the person who invaded your home.
So why would you believe it OK to interfere on the Subway?
This is the society that people wanted in NY... and this is what they get.
I would suggest to any NYer who considers such a reality as despicable or detestable to find another place to live.
I think we have had overhwelming evidence the past year or two as to who is in control in NY and how they want to run that State.
Both there was a rape on a NY and Phil train this week with the same scenario...
Yeah, I realized, after the fact, that I got the city wrong, but I don't think that changes my point.
To your point, whether they fear legal problems or not, a decent person doesn't stand by and watch something like that without trying to help. NYer or Philadelphian. This issue shows a problem a whole lot deeper than just politics and laws.
My buddy Cred is always saying rural America better get used to the idea of urbanization dominating our country's direction, but to hell with that. His idea of Mayberry is wrong. It isn't an idea of backward or naive rubes, it is an idea of moral values and personal integrity.
Moral values and personal integrity, really?
I had a January 6th invasion of the unwashed who were supposed to be upstanding citizens looking like common thugs attacking the "people house", urinating and deficating, defacing, etc. The bigger picture of those that advocate anti-democratic values are far more dangerous and that is not a characteristic of the Left or the city mouse.
They are backward and naive to the extent that they believe that they and their sort corner the market on moral values and integrity. I beg to differ, the phony evangelicals and their hypocritical beliefs is not about true moral values, for example.
Then there was attempted assualt on the Michigan governor, last year.
My point is that the so called upstanding citizens that are part of Mr. Clean and decent America, or boast of hailing from Mayberry, may not be so innocent upon closer analysis.
I have seen "rot" coming from many directions.
Yes, moral values and integrity. I will hang onto my Mayberry values.
"Rot" is a good description of the deficiency I am ranting about. I can't think of any helpful response to your rationalizations or whataboutisms. So I guess we just see things differently on a matter like this one.
GA, Not so fast to make me out to be some sort of ogre taking issue with decent human values...
We don't really disagree, there is this general moral decline, that goes from the Visigoths sacking the Capitol to the apathy and callous behavior of the subway riders. I am seeing stuff on television now that I would not have imagined 40 years ago.
We ALL pine for the most attractive aspects of the "Mayberry Life". But the insulation of that environment and its residents simply is much more difficult with 10 year olds having cell phones with access to it all, as just one example. When I was in high school, the "bad kids" were found with knives, now they access AR-15s and massacre their classmates. That is happening EVERYWHERE. As unpleasant as much of is, none of it can no more really be avoided than the sun rising in the morning
Most of the subway people did not get involved out fear/apathy/self preservation.
You and many like you are trying to embrace a past world and its values that will be increasingly difficult to find. Relative physical and informational isolation made such a world possible but, no more.
Mayberry is a fictional milieu belonging to another era and ever more difficult to find geographically in the present time.
Like you admitted, you do not know the nature of these people or if any real political or ideological connection to the people and their behavior is even appropriate or fair.
"You and many like you are trying to embrace a past world and its values that will be increasingly difficult to find"
"Mayberry is a fictional milieu belonging to another era"
Damn, damn, and double damn. No, no, no. (it looks like you need a longer handle for your shovel)
You might be right that the values I express are becoming a thing of the past, but that isn't a result of enlightenment. It will be the result of weak-willed dependent, (or just apathetic), people. There is no evolutionary truth that says this is the way it will be. It will only be that way if people allow it.
You say you also believe in the values I am talking about but look at the chain of your responses. You are allowing it. Your explanations seem nothing more than a shoulder-shrugging, 'Yeah, that's the way it is, I don't like it but what you gonna do.'
Here's another angle that might explain why this one has me so worked up. People believe in polls because they examine a cross-section of Americans.The Left and the Right grant them the greatest authority, (when the results suit them). So consider this. I think it is reasonable to speculate that the group of witnessing passengers may represent a cross-section of NY, (or Philly), citizens. Sample size matters in any poll, and this "group" may not be a fair sample size to draw the conclusions I have drawn, but until I hear otherwise I will take the chance of assuming that the group was larger than just a few stragglers. As a starting point, that is a representative sample.
As you can see, if I feel that way, then it must follow that I think you are just rationalizing because you don't want to be associated with the politics of this group. Yet here you are.
However, I don't think you condone such behavior and moral deficiency. I have a sense that you would have jumped in instead of reaching for your phone, but that doesn't change your acceptance and defense of the situation. I know this will sound harsher than I want it to, but I think it is perspectives such as yours that are allowing this to happen.
Just as you say I am painting you as some ogre, I know that my responses are painting me as believing I am some great icon of moral character. I can assure you I am not. I probably have more warts than most. It just sounds that way because I am thunderstruck that folks could think such basics as honesty and personal integrity are traits of another, less developed, era.
You might be right that the values I express are becoming a thing of the past, but that isn't a result of enlightenment. It will be the result of weak-willed dependent, (or just apathetic), people. There is no evolutionary truth that says this is the way it will be. It will only be that way if people allow it.
Thieves are more brazen, stealing more than ever before. Violence is uncertain as to its depravity and frequency. The expectation that each side play by rules in Washington is now thrown to the wind.
While there may be no evolutionary certainty, who is optimistic that a trend that has been in motion for over half a century is just going to reverse itself? Who expects John Wayne or Matt Dillon to come to the rescue?
So, we now refer to Americans becoming weak willed dependent people.
Looking at the last couple years, the irrational attitudes have moved to the forefront. And we all know who is the head of that serpent, don't we?Could that be part of this decay you are speaking of?
Yes, I have political objectives similar to those of most urban people, that does not make me nor them criminals through omission. I do not deny that .
I would have done something, I can't say that I would have been a hero. But I would have called the police at a minimum.
I am not defending what happen d, I resent the idea that some how the behavior of a handful reflects on all urban dwellers or even some of them and link that to the left, liberals and your own self defined slight "dependent people".
I don't allow this to happen, I call the cops and support the prosecution those that can be shown to be accessories to the crime.
All the negatives are at exponential levels today, again I ask you what are going to do?
So, what are you gonna do?
The "group" may be larger than a few stragglers, but your sample size has to be inadaquate to associate this event with generalities about urban city dwellers.
Actually, you didn't (get the city wrong). At least I don't think you did - after looking up several reports (I hadn't heard of it) it seems the train left NYC bound for Philadelphia. The woman was, I believe, taken off somewhere in NJ when a transit authority person outside noticed something odd through the window and called it in. She was removed at the next stop.
Like you, I'll take my rural location over something populated by people like that. I'll take it in a heartbeat and if my area ever grows to encompass that kind of apathy I shall move.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 41624.html -- They arrested Fiston Ngoy, 35, who is believed to be homeless, the station reported.
Fishton Ngoy is accused of raping woman on crowded SEPTA train.
Fiston Ngoy was arrested and charged with rape.
Delaware County Jail
Ngoy was charged with rape, aggravated indecent assault and related counts, police said.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/a … s/3295522/
Sinke Zewge faces charges of attempted rape, robbery, assault, unlawful imprisonment and criminal obstruction of breathing in the attack on a northbound train as it approached the 168th Street-Broadway station on Aug. 3.
Decency often takes a back seat to self preservation, especially in a State like NY, or neighboring states that have similar laws.
New York is not a “Stand Your Ground” state. This means that if you can retreat to get out of danger, then you are legally obligated to do so. You can’t claim self-defense in a situation where you had reasonable means to get away from your attacker.
However, after doing some research, it seems that according to NY law, attempting to defend a woman from rape is acceptable reason for the use of force against that offender.
S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter’s conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; o
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.
27 stops and over 30 minutes these apathetic zombies watched this woman be stripped of her clothes and raped repeatedly.
There were actually two such incidents this past week one in Ny train the other on a train in Philadelphia. Both rapists were apprehended, both had rap sheets that listed violent sexual crimes. Detail s do matter... Because they fill in the true depravity of some in our society. I speak of the rapists and the on-lookers.
I consider that the crimes took place in two Urban cities that are well known for violent crime, and apathetic citizens. IMO, Both cities are liberal Democratic enclaves that breed apathetic zombies. So, for me, I will take the Mayberry scenario. I have a better word for this bunch, spineless is too kind.
"my second thought was that these are the urban voters that elect presidents"
Yes, these apathetic zombies do vote. A better question is should someone void of morals, and common empathy even be allowed to vote?
"Yes, these apathetic zombies do vote. A better question is should someone void of morals, and common empathy even be allowed to vote?"
That is the rub, Sharlee, the Constitution protects the right to vote even for those citizens that we don't particularly care for. If they all had the moral fiber that you say is lacking would they not have all voted for Trump last fall?
Yes, we all have the right to vote. And it is wise to consider the moral fiber of a candidate, but more importantly to know, and consider the political party that the candidate ultimately represents, and their ideologies, and their vision for the country. We all know the party comes with the candidate.
So, at this point like no other time, it should be important that when choosing who to cast a vote for -- that it is wise to make sure the package ( president and party) suits your own morals.
The current "package" in no way reflects the moral fiber I am proud of possessing. I feel they hope to disrupt democracy and deplete our freedoms via Government overreach.
Yep, they should be allowed to vote. I think our Constitution has that handled. Both relative to their Right, and to a government structure and judicial system that can deal with whatever problems might arise from that Right.
I might moan about some voter's reasonings, but never their Right to vote. Ain't that noble of me. ;-)
I was going to go deep with my first reply and bring in the words socio-psychological condition? In my view, people's thoughts, feelings, beliefs, intentions, and goals have gone a muck... and are now constructed to interact with others of the same kind. No room for those that do not share all mentioned. -- Otherwise, we seem to now have a huge psychological change in many in our society. It would seem some can accept watching someone be raped or walk over people sleeping in the streets or avoid human fecal matter under their feet without it provoking any emotional response.
We have more of a problem than who should be allowed to vote. My point was to point out our society has many that are void of morals, feelings, and beliefs.
And I predict this would not be the case in a conservative-leaning city... The fist would have been flying, and maybe a gun would have popped out of a purse or two. AS I said consider where the two incidents took place ... Liberal strongholds. Yeah, I said it.
What I picked up from your OP --- you were pointing out the same in a roundabout way.
"Look, here's the deal": A rape takes place on a NY train car. For 27 stops the other passengers just stood by and recorded a rape take place on their cell phones. I would bet that if this had happened in rural America it would have been guns and fists that came out instead of cell phones."
"Also, my problem isn't with the illegal immigrant that did the crime, it is with the spineless urban passengers that I hope never to be confused with"
Looks like a roundabout way to compare two groups with different values, morals. Or did I read what I felt were underlying dog whistles wrong?
You got me, although I didn't think of my inference as a dog whistle, the inference that urban dwellers are primarily Left and Democrat-leaning was there. I realize that is an overly broad generalization, so I tried to stick with the rural vs. urban point. I don't support the Left making the same generalizations about the Right either, so I have to make my point about a group and not about "all." There could have been "conservatives" in that group of onlookers too, so it isn't only about politics. But, it certainly involves politics when that aspect of their, (urban dwellers), values is a primary contributor to forming those values.
To be clear, I don't blame politics for that group's moral deficiency, but I do feel it is a part of the problem. This urban issue paints a picture of an urban mindset that sees everything as an `It's all about me' perspective. What "all about me" rationalization motivated the folks in that group? Was it a `who cares, it ain't me' attitude? Or a fear of getting hurt worry? Or a fear of legalities, or, or . . . Or what? What would make a group of a variety of "normal" Americans stand by and watch instead of aiding a fellow human? The Left blames the Republicans for the "mindset" of the Jan. 6th folks, so is it fair to blame the Left for these urban dwellers' mindset? You know, that 'ol goose and gander thing. ;-)
The important political aspect of this issue has been mentioned frequently by many on the Left; urban areas are becoming the majority in our nation and they are primarily Democrat voters and there is no longer a place for "Mayberry" values in the path of our nation's future. (that is a bit extreme, but it carries my point) I don't want those values, as illustrated by this incident, to control our government.
I view mindset as a somewhat learned, a collection of thoughts and beliefs that end up shaping an individual's thought habits. It to me is clear, conservatives and liberals are like night and day. Urbanization in my view attributed to the wide mindset difference. Those that are urban dwellers have more exposure to crime and many other variables that come with living in a large city. This could work to instill different thoughts and beliefs that end up in different thought habits.
This is something that over decades has become a clear reality. It has left us with a very split society in regard to philosophy, which has left us with very distinctly different values. Keep in mind there are always exceptions, not all that live in urban areas keep the same thoughts or values. Individualism needs to be considered.
In my view, Mayberry is not in danger in any respect. One only must consider Jan 6th... IT indicates that many are fighting back against what they PERCEIVE as a true danger. Even though it was in no respect the way one should go about exhibiting displeasure. Many today have come to the point of generally being done with what is seen as a departure from what made America a strong great nation --- Democracy, values, morals, and freedom.
Conservatives are strong-natured and as a rule, they choose to observe and stay above the fray. This was true until now. Now, many of us see it is time to climb down and get into the fray. All that lofty indignation will not benefit us any longer.
"I don't want those values, as illustrated by this incident, to control our government."
Nor do I... If you are opposed to the values that the present administration( which your statement clearly infers) is exhibiting you need to make sure to vote your conscience. You also might speak out more strongly against what is going on in Washington.
The other side speaks out very strongly to promote their agenda. They have no problem with doing that... No problem at all.
That stuff is a lot more specific than I would say. As I think more about it, the politics seem less important, and valid, as a label for this group. I think it is secondary to why an urban group would act as described. The only politics that I see are that urban voters have traditionally voted Democrat.
Confused... The first paragraphs of my comment pretty much-covered psychology, not politics, the mindset that can be attributed to urban folks. I did add my view in regard to your Mayberry reference. Which was purely view-oriented.
I have followed the thread and all the various comments. It would appear your main concern was the bystander's lack of morals, values and that you 'SOMEWHAT" attributed it to living in an urban setting. I would have taken the hook. However, some of your verbiages IMO did appear on the political side.
I found it odd in your opening comment that you did not care about details. If I am right about the point you were trying to share, details certainly would have helped you get your point across. ( that appears to express those bystanders were in the wrong morally not to help this woman)
One detail that could have supported your claim --- the train stopped 27 times, and people entered that rape scene and left the scene --- no one helped this woman. Finally, an off-duty transportation employee called 911.
So, these details do add to this picture and IMO it does in some respect support that urbanities could be more apt to look the other way... However, the point some have made here is that compartmentalizing can be a problem.
I spent a good part of my young adult life in a city, so I can truly say my mindset can become jaded due to day-to-day experiences. Think one word, self-preservation. One can become beaten down, and become apathetic for many reasons. One big reason, one fear... Is it an excuse? Yes. Does it bode poorly for our society in regard to morals? Yes.
So where from here? Can you offer a constructive solution to help turn back time? Is there really a solution to the problem of apathetic citizens?
Relax Sharlee. You are taking my comments for a lot more than they are intended. That is probably my fault. I am adjusting and probably not doing a good job of it.
I understand the points that all have been making, both the nays and the yeas. Taking any of those points as stand-alone considerations will probably yield more agreement than disagreement, but when you put them all together — in the scenario of the OP — they offer a whole picture that is different from the individual points.
For instance, Islandmom's, (and Cred's), points about fear, and related things like disability, which certainly and importantly, impact a "witness' action, are understandable. And I can see other valid rationals for individually not physically interacting. It is the group thing, (an assumption that may bite me), and another assumption of the variety of that group that fired me up.
My OP wasn't really about the "whys" or party affiliation, (ok, that was a secondary point), it was about the character structure of rural vs. urban. In this specific incidence, it involves, what I consider, serious moral implications. That is why I didn't get into the specifics. If the incident is as I perceived the media presentation saying it was then the specifics, (beyond the extreme), don't change anything.
Well, GA, I am sorry that the "Mayberry scenario" simply cannot apply everywhere. I would prefer not to live in New York City, but I don't want to live in Petticoat Junction either.
You seem to imply that urban voters are deficient and that you are somewhat dismayed, based solely on an unfortunate event in the nation's largest metropolis, that they, too, have the right to vote.
It may be cause for dismay for conservatives, but this urbanization is a growing trend rather than otherwise and I can only tell them that they will have to "go with the flow".
You say the "Mayberry scenario cannot apply everywhere," and I say "Why the hell not?" Consider what is being discussed; the reaction to a moral offense by one group over another. I say the urban group has no moral compass when they stand by, (through a dozen train stops), as a man assaults and rapes a woman.
By my statement, I say that would have never happened in rural America. The crime might happen, but I am confident those bystanders won't just stand by and watch. Yet you say that is a Mayberry scenario." Geesh. Are you really defending the group on that train by saying human values are archaic Rube values? Are you saying city dwellers don't care as much about their fellow humans as country folk do.
Damn, you have me wound up. Attributing the basic tenet of defending the defenseless into an outdated country trait. Really? Or did I misunderstand your Mayberry reference?
To be clear, by the example of this incident, I am definitely saying that those urban commuters are deficient. Morally and civically so. And I am saying that they are your folks.
Also, I am not dismayed that they have the Right to vote. I am dismayed that they do vote. Is this exchange as simple as a stark picture of the difference between country and city folk values?
I do consider it, a particularely callous act from an area known for such occurrences. A heinous event like this occurred in New York City during the mid 1960s, a rape of a woman on a street within earshot of several residences.
Crime can occur anywhere these days, the idea that country life is an impenetrable shield is an illusion. With millions located in one area, sheer arithmetic says there are going to be more issues. What happened at the New York subway is not some sort of standard to gauge city dwellers in general. For every NYC there are other large metro areas, can anyone state that such callous behavior is commonplace to large cities outside of New York? It is a mass criminal act, and in an alternate reality if there were a court room large enough, I could haul them all in as accessories to the crime. There are a lot of people and just that more an opportunity for the heinous to be more frequent and flagrant.
I say THAT urban group was morally deficient and not generalize. The world dominated by city mouse verses the country mouse is different. I have heard more than my fair share of horror stories regarding the NYC subway system and its passengers.
Living in very large cities like LA, Chicago, and New York brings with it a certain pressure associated with daily life and that is why I don't live there.
Of course, the callousness of that moment can not be excused, but it is aberration rather than a pattern. These people are my folks only to the extent that they support and vote Democrat and left in their preferences and that is as far it goes. Because, like me, they distrust Republicans and conservatives, generally, they are compelled to have their voices heard. That is generally true regarding residents of the vast majority of urban areas across the country.
I remember you expressing your desire scale down to a life of country living. I have lived in both environments over time. From the standpoint of safety, there is a basic advantage. Fewer people make for fewer problems,
A charitable response can only say you misunderstood the point of the OP.
It wasn't about which big city it happened in, (I got that wrong, it was in Philly), or any rationalizations about larger populations having more criminals like this guy, or even that the crime couldn't happen in rural America, (I previously admitted that it surely could), it was about the moral deficiency of a mixed `group' of everyday citizens that could stand by and only record what was happening.
It's that simple bud. I still say you will never see such a reaction from a group of `rural' citizens. And that difference is the difference between our thinking. You can shrug it off as 'meh', it's just what it's like in the city. But I say there is the real Right vs. Left battle you should be fighting in. Not this partisan Republican Right-winger stuff you seem hung-up on.
So, the left are the apathetic criminals involved in the outrage in NewYork, and then there was January 6th. How does the Right vs. Left battle properly align? Can the country mouse really afford to boast?
We simply live in a world today, where the good guys does not necessarily wear the white hats. You obviously are associating morality and such with one side over the other?
Nope, my point wasn't about "apathetic criminals," Left or Right. It was about the different values of urban vs. rural folks. Political and ideological affiliation is only important as one of the "whys." They are not the defining lines you want them to be.
Now, you tell me what the color of your hat has to do with whether you would stand by and record a woman being raped?
I am speaking of a general principle that applies over much of life, today.
It is a generalization to ascribe what happened at the subway to general urban values, rather than an aberration. I still think that the brush you use to distinguish between your analysis of urban verses rural values is far too broad.
I prefer diversity as it tends to lead to more accepting and open minded people, that tends to be urban.
I feel like I am getting pulled into that hole with you. Let's stop.
My OP was a generalization. I said it was. More than once I think.
Even now, your inference that this might have been an aberration seems to deny the urban reality that this behavior isn't an aberration at all, it is just the most recent horrible incident.
It would seem GA OP was more so pointing out not the perpetrator of the crime, but the bystanders of the crime. The difference, possibly how different segments of our society might have handled a violent crime diffently. It is clear the crime happened on an urban train, and most likely the bystanders/people on the train were urban dwellers.
First, could you consider the difference between the crimes in regard to moral fortitude? It seems a crime of perversion, a sexual crime of perverted desire which is looked at by society as abnormal or unacceptable should not be compared with a crime of a political protest. Although a crime, not a crime of perversion. Crimes of perversion as a rule provoke very different emotions. Example --- your daughter or son was raped versus your daughter or sone was hurt while protesting. Which would evoke more gut emotion?
In my view, and I could be wrong, your comment indicates you possibly do not weigh the severity of a given crime but look at all crime as equal. The comparison of violent rape witnessed by bystanders to that of a political riot does not seem logical. Yes, both witnessed crimes, were crimes... one was a crime of perversion that had a man overpowering a woman, one would think in this incident a bystander would bring forth the emotion of revolution, empathy, and the common emotion to come to the aid of someone being attacked violently.
Emotions that would be normal for what occurred on Jan 6th, might include bystanders being angry at what was being witnessed, a feeling of disappointment, need for answers. A hope that law enforcement would come to the forefront and get the riot under control. In the case of a riot, it would not be prudent for bystanders to jump in to stop the violence, but depending on what would be a social norm. --- Which would be letting the police handle the riot.
In the case of the woman being raped, there was no law enforcement on the train, and it would not be expected they would be available to help this woman. It would be left up to citizens. In this case, none helped the woman, it is really factual no one reacted emotionally to help her... They certainly outnumber the criminal. It would appear humanity failed, and this COULD indicate a societal problem.
"The difference, possibly how different segments of our society might have handled a violent crime diffently. It is clear the crime happened on an urban train, and most likely the bystanders/people on the train were urban dwellers"
Well, Sharlee,That, too could very much be more conjecture than anything else.
A crime of political protest, interfering with the proper machinery of governance, threatening lives? I consider that a crime that, at the very least, is of equal magnitude.
Humanity did fail and it is a societal problem, a certain amount of it is just a reflection of our current world.
"That too could very much be more conjecture than anything else".
Good retort... Got to give this one to you. There was little to nothing reported on the bystanders, only that there were several, and many pulled out their cells to film the rape. So, factually we have incomplete information. And information truly matters and should matter. Especially when being accusatory of a group of people.
Makes me think of the Seinfeld finale where they went to jail for their callous behavior when it was displayed in a small town during their road trip.
I’m firmly hoping that post COVID America is going to see a continuation of remote jobs, allowing people to escape the animalistic nature of densely populated areas and a rebirth of common decency.
I think your point about urban vs rural is absolute B.S. So I won't waste time on that.
About the outrage... Yes! It is disgusting, especially the part of the phones. They should be ashamed.
But we know nothing about the people on the train (at least I don't). How many? Were they adults? Young, old people? Men, women? Local people? Regular people, "bad" people?, and so on. We could say anyone should have intervened, and that's true. But I can't say all of them were amoral deficient persons, and worse, because they are "urban" people. Remember Best?
On May 26, 2017, Rick Best, a technician for the city of Portland, Oregon, was heading home on a commuter train when a man began shouting racist and anti-Muslim slurs at two teenage girls – one Black and one wearing a hijab. Best and two other men did exactly the right thing: They confronted the attacker and told him to stop harassing these girls. The attacker then pulled out a knife and stabbed all three, killing Best and one of the other men.
To make a stupid generalization like that is absurd. Expected from some here, but not from you, I must say.
To sit and video a violent crime on a phone, without phoning for help, is amoral. IMO, anyway; you are free to disagree.
Now I am the one that is surprised. And a little dismayed too. I would have thought our years of participation would surely leave you with the impression that I would hold the thought of the OP.
To set the record straight, right is right, and wrong is wrong. Any other position,( ie. defense of the wrong), is just mitigation and rationalization. Of course, rationalizations can be completely valid and pertinent, and mitigating factors are also very important. Those are decisions each of us makes.
As for the details, you are right, I don't know the things you said I don't know. For all I know the car could have been packed but the attacker might have been protected by a dozen armed gang members. But none of such scenarios have been indicated.
We know that the "people" in the car were at least more than a couple. Beyond that we are left to are our life visions of train/subway cars—from empty to packed.
From there, we part ways even more. Your Richard Best example makes me feel even gloomier. How can your example be taken, (as you present it), other than that sometimes there is risk to doing the right thing and it would be stupid to take a risk just to do the right thing. (yes, that is a simplistic interpretation, but when all the other stuff gets boiled away that is the very message you end up with).
Could someone there be scared? That was my point. To say all the people there were morally deficient is a stupid generalization.
Btw, Im not defending the passengers, Im saying your generalization is BS.
Yes, someone could be scared. And someone could be too frail or weak or disabled. Your point is good. But, what about the others? I doubt the majority of those witnesses fit either of those categories? If able-bodied folks were the majority among that group then I think it is a fair generalization to see this as I do.
In case you're interested in more details, I was just checking The Hill (not related to this issue) but read this just now.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc … iladelphia
Delaware County DA says police account of train rape near Philadelphia 'simply not true'
- Delaware County District Attorney - the narrative that people just watched it happen and took video for their own gratification is "simply not true."
- The district attorney said that two people may have taken video and one of them "probably" alerted SEPTA of the assault.
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
Do you think people who are "electors" have the right to vote against who people voted for?Christopher Suprun, a Texan and a Republican is one of the 538 people chosen to be "electors" - meaning one of those who will cast their vote in the Electoral College in a few weeks. ...
by James 6 years ago
Should citizens, including felons, have a Constitutional right to vote not dependent on state law?The founding fathers' original draft the Constitution avoided direct stance on who got the privilege to vote. Instead they purposely gave the States the power to determine who could vote. They...
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
If you want to know what Democrats are guilty of...simply see what they are accusing others of doing. THAT is what they're guilty of doing."Will Democrats accept election loss? New report says no.But there is another, equally pressing question: Will Democrats accept the results of the...
by Mike Russo 16 months ago
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/25/10102594 … -black-vot
by David Stillwell 10 years ago
As voters, Why are we excepting either Romney or Obama as presidential candidates for 2012.The argument over leadership and leadership abilities, lost job, jobs sent overseas, economic policy, foreign policy, national and foreign debt, national banking and international banking issues, has raged......
by Friendlyword 10 years ago
I'm not sure is this will work again:One day after I wrote a hub about the illegal attempts by Governor Rick Scott and his Secretary Of State to purge Blacks, Latinos and Elderly voters from Florida voter rolls; a Florida Judge and the United States Attorney General said they were in violation of...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|