Good Sam Stops Purse Snatching

[Theohazard]

Amazing... It seems like there are maybe one or two people with the courage to get involved and do the right thing.

Wow. If I replied to this the way I want to reply, my post would be deleted and I'd get a forum infraction. Instead I'll say this: Don't sit behind your computer and question someone else's courage; not until you actually know why they wouldn't intervene.

I spent four years in the Marine Corps infantry; I've never been one who lacked the courage for a confrontation. In fact, in my early and mid 20s I had the opposite problem. And yet now I might decide not to intervene in a situation like this. Would you look me in the eye and call me a coward?

I have a wife and a baby kid. If I mis-judge a situation and end up being sued, or going to jail -- or both -- I directly hurt my family. So for me to get involved in a situation between strangers there has to be an immediate threat of bodily harm. Otherwise, I might decide not to get involved.

Just a few hours ago I was getting into my car in a parking lot and I saw a guy in a motorcycle helmet yelling and pounding on the window of a young woman in an SUV. Well, no matter what traffic infraction she might have committed against him, that's not OK. But I didn't get involved, I just stopped what I was doing and watched. I was about 15 yards away, and I wasn't going to get involved unless he crossed a line. He pounded on her window once more, then walked to her open passenger window, pointed his finger at her and yelled at her again, and stalked away.

I'm a strong guy, I'm pretty good at fighting, and I carry a gun. But that doesn't mean it's always a good idea to get involved in every altercation between strangers, even if a crime is being committed. And if I choose not to get involved, I can promise you that a lack of courage isn't the reason.

 

[JohnKSa]

So you are advocating "giving it up" in every case?

This is a strawman. Clearly saying what could have been done is not the same as advocating that course of action in every case.

Second, one has to decide what is important in a situation.

In the situation at hand, a person who decides their purse or wallet is important enough to risk falling down and getting run over, or getting crushed between two cars, or possibly being injured by the thieves should they be armed and choose to inflict harm should hold onto the purse/wallet. A person who thinks differently would likely be well served to let go of the purse/wallet rather than be dragged around by a car and risk staying in close proximity to criminals.

In reality, I suspect that the woman acted, not as the result of careful thought, but instinctively. In this case it worked out well for her. The result could easily have been very different.

To do so in every case subsidizes the behavior by positive reinforcement.

I'll go you one further and state that even doing it in most, or even many, cases subsidizes the behavior. That doesn't really change the facts of the situation, in terms of what is a wise course of action for the persons involved.

The situation is very similar to cutting in line (although with very different consequences). It makes perfect sense for people to want to cut in line (or to take other people's possessions) and if those of us in line (or with possessions) allow those with more antisocial tendencies to have their way, then we reinforce their negative behavior.

Now that we've clearly established the situation, a little analysis is in order. So we've established that it's desirable to prevent people from cutting in line or taking other's possessions. We haven't established that doing so is worth the risk entailed, and while it's simple to say that we should always do the right thing (implying that the right thing is to always stand up against anti-social behavior) it's less simple when we realize that not all anti-social persons are willing to simply back down when confronted. Doing "the right thing" could potential result in the death of the person doing the confronting, or even the deaths of bystanders.

It's one thing to decide that stopping a purse snatcher is so important to you that you're willing to risk your life and financial well-being to make it happen. It's another thing entirely to put the life of others nearby at risk in the interest of doing what you have personally defined as "the right thing".

Finally, this is a complicated topic, and it's a disservice to those who approach it rationally to try to boil it down to a false dichotomy as inane as doing it the "right way" or encouraging the criminals through inaction. Even if we were to focus exclusively on the cost/benefit to society, it's more complicated than that. Saving a purse and standing up to criminals is good, but risking innocent lives to accomplish that goal raises some serious questions about what, exactly, constitutes doing "the right thing."

 

[DoubleDeuce 1]

Theo,

As has been said, "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". If you choose to do nothing... what else can be said. Banging on some windshield is far different from dragging a woman holding onto her purse. You have to understand the bad guys also had a weapon... the car.

There could be plenty for someone to do to assist the victim without having to go hands on with the bad guys. Every situation does not require the use of deadly force.

Lastly, I am not calling into question anyone in particular's courage or lack thereof. That is for each to do themselves.

 

[JohnKSa]

As has been said, "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

Who is advocating "doing nothing"? There is a huge range of options for involvement between the extremes of "doing nothing" and pulling a gun out.

 

[Theohazard]

As has been said, "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". If you choose to do nothing... what else can be said.

I would love to have the freedom to get involved in every situation like this, whether it's a purse snatching or a man pounding on a woman's car. I'd love to be able to punish bullies and to help people being victimized by every kind of criminal. But this is the real world and I have real responsibilities, and vigilantism isn't one of them. And yes, your quote above seems to come pretty close to promoting vigilantism.

Banging on some windshield is far different from dragging a woman holding onto her purse. You have to understand the bad guys also had a weapon... the car.

The video was bad enough that it wasn't immediately clear if the woman's life was in danger or if she was just running after the car. Regardless, my decision whether or not to get involved would be made in the heat of the moment, not watching a grainy video on my iPad.

There could be plenty for someone to do to assist the victim without having to go hands on with the bad guys. Every situation does not require the use of deadly force.

I agree. My primary issue is that you questioned the courage of anyone who would choose not to get involved. And I have a problem with that.

Lastly, I am not calling into question anyone in particular's courage or lack thereof.

No, you didn't call anyone out in particular, you just questioned the courage of anyone who said they wouldn't get involved.

 

[DoubleDeuce 1]

Theo,

I too have a problem with people who choose not to get involved in a potential critical incident. In no way am I an advocate of vigilantes. But there are times when you either lead, follow or get out of the way.

 

[Theohazard]

I too have a problem with people who choose not to get involved in a potential critical incident.

See, it again looks like you're advocating vigilantism. That situation I experienced earlier today was a "potential critical incident". Lots of minor confrontations are "potential critical incidents". The key is to only get involved in "likely critical incidents" or "active critical incidents", because if I got involved in every "potential critical incident" I encountered I would've probably been sued and jailed many times by now.

But there are times when you either lead, follow or get out of the way.

I agree, and I'll decide which one to do when I'm faced with a specific situation. But you're calling into question the courage of anyone who chooses to get out of the way, and that's disgusting to me.

Instead of continuing to be offended by your sad Internet bravado, I'm going to end my participation in this thread before I get myself in trouble. Have a good evening.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by DoubleDeuce 1: I too have a problem with people who choose not to get involved in a potential critical incident.

If "getting involved" includes the threat or use of force, doing so could prove to be very unwise indeed unless the actor knows what is happening and what has happened that led to the situation at hand.

What looks for all the world like a "potential critical incident" could turn out to be anything--domestic violence, a plain-clothed arrest, a prank, mutual combat.....

Unless one has a factual basis for a reason to believe that the apparent victim would be lawfully justified to use force (in one state, the requirement is actual knowledge) in his or her own defense, intervention with force would be the last thing to do.

The risks are very real, and they range from financial loss to serious criminal and civil liability and to injury and death.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

As has been said, "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

But there are times when you either lead, follow or get out of the way.

He who lives by the cliché, dies by the cliché, right?

You seem to be complaining about a problem that isn't relevant to this discussion.

 

[Evan Thomas]

That's more than enough bickering for one thread. Actually, it would be more than enough for several.