Are too many people not willing to help in an emergency?

[Scotty]

A terrorist with a knife slashed and stabbed people on a subway in London. A couple of men confronted him, but most just stood around watching or holding up their cameras. A man with a knife is dangerous, but if he is mobbed by a number of people he can probably be brought down pretty easily. When no one is willing to confront him he can do as he wishes. I wonder what it says about all those men who just filmed it instead of trying to help.

The 33-year-old said he and another passenger took on a man to protect passing children and kept up the fight until police arrived.

Mr Pethers, 33, said: ‘There were other adult men standing there, just filming it on their phones. There were so many opportunities where someone could have grabbed him.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3348758/Man-29-charged-attempted-murder-Tube-station-two-men-attacked-man-allegedly-declared-Syria.html

[cybercoma]

Confronting someone with a knife is not like the movies.

[Boges]

Perhaps if everyone had a gun this wouldn't have happened.

[Wilber]

Perhaps if everyone had a gun this wouldn't have happened.

You would probably have dead people instead of a couple of injured people.

[-1=e^ipi]

If it were a woman being under attack, you bet people would be jumping in to help. But if it is a man under attack, people are far less willing since men have less value to society (due to memetic evolution and the fact that women have more reproductive utility). The lack of empathy towards men is a big issue in society.

‘There were other adult men standing there, just filming it on their phones. There were so many opportunities where someone could have grabbed him.’

And there were also women. What is with the sexist attitude that it is only men that are suppose to help people in need? Either people of all sexes should be expected to help, or no one should be expected to help.

[Argus]

IAnd there were also women. What is with the sexist attitude that it is only men that are suppose to help people in need? Either people of all sexes should be expected to help, or no one should be expected to help.

Women are physically weaker than men and less likely to have any experience in physical confrontation. It's also simply much more in the nature of men to jump forward in situations where people are in trouble. Not saying women don't ever do it, but it's comparatively rare compared to men. If you look at videos on You Tube of people falling off subway platforms, its the men who jump down after them. If you look at people pinned under cars, it's the men who rush in to push them off. When someone is physically attacked, its the men who step up. That's part of what it means to be a man, even if some people seem to have forgotten it.

[Boges]

GENDER ROLES!!!

[Big Guy]

I agree that it does make one wonder when you see poeple standing around while one or two others are creating carnage.

I assume that the first reason is self-preservation. It is one thing to be brave and yet another to be foolish. To be unarmed and attack someone who is armed is not an intelligent thing to do unless one is trained in armed combat. Also, to get involved into a potential deadly conflict, one must be sure which side (and why) they are supporting.

It may seem brave on the onset to hit the gun wielding "suspect" with a two by four only to find out you almost killed a law enforcement officer trying to take down and drug pusher.

I do find it interesting that the advice to hostages has changed over the years. It used to be the advice was to follow instructions, do what you are told to do and wait for the hostage negotiators. Now, with recent happenings, hostages are encouraged to fight and resist because there are usually far more hostages then perps and they can be overwhelmed by numbers. That still seems a little lame unless one or two hostages takes the initiative.

I understand that now, when there is a "mass shooting in progress", law enforcement does not set up perimeter, establish a base, assign negotiators etc - they now come running in with guns blazing in an attempt to minimize the numbers killed.

Basically, I think people will react very differently depending on who is in danger and the number of options available.

[msj]

If it were a woman being under attack, you bet people would be jumping in to help. But if it is a man under attack, people are far less willing since men have less value to society (due to memetic evolution and the fact that women have more reproductive utility). The lack of empathy towards men is a big issue in society.

Um, no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese

[-1=e^ipi]

Um, no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese

It says a lot if you have to go back to 1964 for an example. That was over 50 years ago.

Women are physically weaker than men and less likely to have any experience in physical confrontation.

On average. Short men are on average physically weaker than tall men. Old men are on average weaker than young men, etc.

There are many women that are perfectly capable of helping others if they are in need of help.

It's also simply much more in the nature of men to jump forward in situations where people are in trouble.

Maybe, maybe not. But sexist gender roles do not help.

[msj]

It says a lot if you have to go back to 1964 for an example. That was over 50 years ago.

But it is the modern day example.

I'm sure there are others: after all, there is still so much violence against women surly lots of it is still ignored just like the good old days.

[msj]

. Not saying women don't ever do it, but it's comparatively rare compared to men. If you look at videos on You Tube of people falling off subway platforms, its the men who jump down after them. If you look at people pinned under cars, it's the men who rush in to push them off. When someone is physically attacked, its the men who step up. That's part of what it means to be a man, even if some people seem to have forgotten it.

Oh, and don't forget that if you look at who is usually strapping bombs to themselves: men.

Or shooting up schools: men.

Or Planned Parenthood sites: men.

The list goes on and on.

The world would probably be a better place if men just stood and watched rather than got involved in anything.

[-1=e^ipi]

But it is the modern day example.

Over half a century ago is modern day? That is a strange definition.

it is still ignored just like the good old days.

I think some people are stuck in the past and are unwilling to acknowledge that society changes.

Oh, and don't forget that if you look at who is usually strapping bombs to themselves: men.

Or shooting up schools: men.

Or Planned Parenthood sites: men.

It's almost like there are societal gender roles that cause this behaviour... If only there existed groups that try to address these issues...

[msj]

Over half a century ago is modern day? That is a strange definition.

It's almost like there are societal gender roles that cause this behaviour... If only there existed groups that try to address these issues...

For the ahistorical, or young and naive, 50 years seems like a long time ago.

On an evolutionary time scale it's nothing.

We are not blank slates.

There are real biological differences between men and women and, yes, technology and modern society has rendered men useless.

But not to worry, some day technology will catch up and spade women too.

Then we will all be equal.

Edited December 8, 2015 by msj

[-1=e^ipi]

There are real biological differences between men and women.

Are you implying that men are biologically violent or something?

[msj]

No, explicitly.

Edited December 8, 2015 by msj

[Bryan]

I would definitely want to help someone being attacked like that, but me getting diced up too isn't going to help anyone. Call the police. See if there is anything around that you can use as a weapon. But get within 25 feet of him while unarmed? Not a chance -- I have to think about my wife and kids too.

[eyeball]

A terrorist with a knife slashed and stabbed people on a subway in London. A couple of men confronted him, but most just stood around watching or holding up their cameras. A man with a knife is dangerous, but if he is mobbed by a number of people he can probably be brought down pretty easily. When no one is willing to confront him he can do as he wishes. I wonder what it says about all those men who just filmed it instead of trying to help.

I recall some statistic I heard at a first responder training course that during an 'ordinary' emergency 1 - 2 people out of ten can be expected to do something and that most will need to be told to move or act and a couple will either lose it or curl up in the foetal position.

Edited December 8, 2015 by eyeball

[-1=e^ipi]

No, explicitly.

Wow, the sexism.

[msj]

Wow, the sexism.

Consider the facts about male violence which don't even need to be listed here.

[Black Dog]

It says a lot if you have to go back to 1964 for an example. That was over 50 years ago.

Yes because that was the last time something like that happened. Good lord.

[bill_barilko]

Today there was an emergency of a kind in front of my building an injured Raccoon was being harassed by some Crows-I came inside and called Wildlife Rescue since I was just leaving/couldn't be around when they showed up I authorised them to use my parking spot!

Aren't you proud of me!?

Edited December 9, 2015 by bill_barilko