Good Citizenship... or lack thereof.

[California Tanker]

You will recall in one of the firearms threads I was in dispute with, IIRC, BDS about just what our obligations are as citizens when we see a crime in progress.

The last couple of days have had two incidents of almost diametrically opposed nature.

Whilst trying not to get bored to tears on a conference call a few minutes ago, I brought up CNN and looked at the videos in the news today. One of the videos is of a 91-year-old getting the ever-living crap beaten out of him by a carjacker. I had heard of the incident a day or two ago, but hadn't watched it. Just watching him get pummelled leaves me horrified at the brutality and callousness of the carjacker.
http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/13314386/index.html
Then the security camera zooms out, and you see a half dozen people about twenty feet away just watching. Some of them look plenty hefty enough to be capable of taking on the carjacker on their own, let alone in a group of two or three. Finally, after probably the longest half-minute of the guy's post-retired life, he's let fall to the ground and lies motionless as the carjacker drives off.

What sort of decent person can watch that happen and do sod-all?

On the other hand, also reported in CNN today, a chap shot and killed a police officer. A passer-by picked up the officer's gun, and shot the suspect.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/12/officer.shot.ap/index.html

I'm not sure what to make of it. All I know is that the first incident shows much of what is wrong with today's society.

NTM

[Freddy]

This story does not mention where the passer-by got the gun, but it does say the cop killer ran over the officer with his vehicle after shooting him four times. That was when the passer-by shot the cop killer dead.
http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070514/NEWS/705140404

[wildernesse]

I believe an earlier story I read said that the passer-by picked up the officer's weapon, but it was confusing because the story made some obvious mistakes in keeping up with the last names of the two individuals involved.

[JackDog]

What sort of decent person can watch that happen and do sod-all?

That's a loaded question. Unless you happened to be carrying a gun and wearing a bullet-proof vest, I don't think that anyone would try to intervene in that incident. And this incident is also a perfect example of what law enforcement officers tell you not to do during an attempted robbery or carjacking. If you resist, you'll most likely be assaulted. It's only a car/purse/wallet/whatever, it's not worth your health or life to try to keep it.

And I'm not sure what to think about the other case. It sounds like there was plenty of history between the two men, and without a dashboard video from the patrol car, we'll never know what really happened. Although I do think that it was terribly irresponsible for the passerby to stop at the scene with his child in the car. How would his wife and kid feel if he got shot? A dead hero isn't any good to his family.

[BDS]

I hope the tragic death of his cousin doesn't have a negative impact on Bode Miller's skiing.

[Shelli]

I hope the tragic death of his cousin doesn't have a negative impact on Bode Miller's skiing.He had already resigned from the team according to an article linked to in the above article.

[BDS]

Jeez. I was actually just kidding.

[Shelli]

Oh. :dunno:

[BDS]

More about Bode (which explains why I like him):


He criticized the association for not coming to his defense at the Turin Olympics instead of offering a public apology for him.

"Everybody parties," Miller said. "There's too much emphasis on winning."

Miller entered the Turin Olympics as a major focus of attention, as much for his attitude as his talent after saying on CBS' "60 Minutes" program: "If you ever tried to ski wasted, it's not easy."

Although a flop on the slopes, he left the Games in an upbeat mood.

"It's been an awesome two weeks," he said at the time. "I got to party and socialize at an Olympic level."

[BDS]

To CT:

Personally, I love a good fight, and would gladly jump in to help some old guy who is getting beaten up. What better excuse for a brawl? I just wouldn’t carry a gun around – and I wouldn’t shoot the carjacker even if I was carrying one. I’d also hope that the carjacker was unarmed.

The story on the guy who shot Bode Miller’s cousin is sketchy in details. He certainly seems to have had good reason to think Miller’s cousin was dangerous, and he probably didn’t know the cop was dead, so he was trying to protect him. He wasn’t carrying a gun, however.

[California Tanker]

That's a loaded question. Unless you happened to be carrying a gun and wearing a bullet-proof vest, I don't think that anyone would try to intervene in that incident.

You're saying that people should just stand by and do nothing as a man is potentially beaten to death? (Leaving aside the fact that Detroit doesn't allow people to carry guns in the first place).

And this incident is also a perfect example of what law enforcement officers tell you not to do during an attempted robbery or carjacking. If you resist, you'll most likely be assaulted. It's only a car/purse/wallet/whatever, it's not worth your health or life to try to keep it.

According to Sims, he didn't resist, and got beaten anyway. That's why I'm not a fan of automatic compliance if you have a viable alternative, as you are at the mercy of the good nature of the person who's robbing you.

And I'm not sure what to think about the other case. It sounds like there was plenty of history between the two men, and without a dashboard video from the patrol car, we'll never know what really happened. Although I do think that it was terribly irresponsible for the passerby to stop at the scene with his child in the car. How would his wife and kid feel if he got shot? A dead hero isn't any good to his family.

No, but neither is a loose murderer. People place their life and limb on the line for others routinely, cops, firemen, military, coast guard and so on. A dead coastie isn't any good to his family either. Society is, or should be at any rate, an interconnected collection of people all willing to help each other out, not just a group of people exclusively dependant on another group of people to do certain risky jobs.

NTM

[California Tanker]

Speaking of surviving if you comply... Virginia this morning. These people didn't even have a chance to resist.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2007/05/two_employees_shot_to_death_in.html

Authorities said the gunman walked past a line of customers and immediately opened fire on tellers, killing the first two he shot.

Sources said a customer inside the bank pulled a gun on the robber and briefly held him at gunpoint. That's when the robber took the bank manager hostage and left the bank holding a gun to her head with one hand and a bag of stolen money in the other.

He was shot by lawmen when he tripped on a curb, and he and the bank manager fell to the ground. The money was recovered.

I've no idea why the customer didn't just shoot the guy, but he may have stopped further killings. Incidently, that bank has a gun-free policy.

NTM

[Clutch Munny]

this incident is also a perfect example of what law enforcement officers tell you not to do during an attempted robbery or carjacking. If you resist, you'll most likely be assaulted.

A good example of how front-line "troops" can have skewed a perspective rather than real insight as a result of their experience. Police typically give the same advice regarding sexual assault -- don't physically resist. But psychologists Lita Furby and Baruch Fischhoff did a statistical analysis that showed no support for this advice, and even indicated that physical resistance was the better strategy for avoiding sexual assault.

What explains the incongruence between the data and popularity of the non-resistance advice? One explanation is that law enforcement staff, including police and counselors, encounter a disproportionate number of rape victims who unsuccessfully resisted their attackers and suffered further injuries in the process. Why? Because crime victims who resist make better witnesses in court, and because obvious injuries are often easier to prove in court than the original crime itself. In other words, the process of selecting cases for prosecution seems biased towards cases with sexual assault victims who resisted unsuccessfully and suffered further injury; hence these victims are overrepresented in the investigative and trial processes. (There is a further question of whether victims who resist are also more likely to report the crime.) So law enforcement personnel are probably faced with biased personal experience and anecdotes, making it seem to them that physical resistance to assault is correlated with a failure to escape the attackers or a failure to minimize the harm suffered in the attack.

[peepnklown]

The people who were watching were all text messaging their favorite singers on American Idol and could not be bothered by an old man getting beat.

[Dingfod]

Although I do think that it was terribly irresponsible for the passerby to stop at the scene with his child in the car. How would his wife and kid feel if he got shot? A dead hero isn't any good to his family.Sometimes a person does not think of those things, they just take action. Remember the guy in NYC that saved the guy having a seizure from getting killed by a subway train? He leapt into action leaving his two small children standing there on the platform to save someone he didn't even know.

Personally, I love a good fight, and would gladly jump in to help some old guy who is getting beaten up. What better excuse for a brawl? I just wouldn’t carry a gun around – and I wouldn’t shoot the carjacker even if I was carrying one.Boy, I could, maybe not to kill, but kneecaps at least.I’d also hope that the carjacker was unarmed.Like the person I mentioned above, you might not even think about that. That could be very much to your detriment.

[California Tanker]

A good example of how front-line "troops" can have skewed a perspective rather than real insight as a result of their experience. Police typically give the same advice regarding sexual assault -- don't physically resist. But psychologists Lita Furby and Baruch Fischhoff did a statistical analysis that showed no support for this advice, and even indicated that physical resistance was the better strategy for avoiding sexual assault.


The impression I get from talking with the various humble beat cops I routinely encounter is that they unofficially tend not to support the official line. Ever notice how the 'we advise not resisting' line usually comes from a Chief of Police (Politically appointed or elected) or his spokesman, and also usually in the format of "While we believe Jane Smith was justified and acknowledge her success in this case, we do not recommend that others follw this course of action." I've also noticed a disparity between 'line' and 'official' points of view on firearms policy around these parts, as particularly evidenced by SFPD Officer's Associtation legal action.

In other words, the process of selecting cases for prosecution seems biased towards cases with sexual assault victims who resisted unsuccessfully and suffered further injury; hence these victims are overrepresented in the investigative and trial processes.

This makes sense, and may be true, at higher levels. Beat cops/detectives are not going to be much involved in the selection process for prosecutions, they're going to investigate all claims, hand them to the DA, and the DA will then make his selection: The lower echelons of the force will not suffer from the 'filtering' effect of seeing which cases are selected for prosecution. The higher echelons will. There's an army phrase which may well be appropriate for police as well: "Echelons above reality"

NTM

[BDS]

It seems obvious to me that physical resistance will probably prevent some sexual assaults, but may result in more serious injuries or in death when it does not. Same with resisting a robbery, or a carjacking.

The person involved can make the judgment about whether the risk is worth the possible benefit better than someone who is generalizing and does not know the particulars. If someone is holding a gun to your head or a knife to your throat, the risk of death may not be worth the slight chance that you can prevent the rape – let alone the chance that you can prevent your car from getting jacked.

The "don't resist" advice may be geared to situations like this -- it seems reasonable to tell potential rape victims that there is no dishonor in failing to resist when the odds are stacked against them. Otherwise, they may think, "Death before dishonor." It seems likely that this may be one motivation for the standard police advice to potential victims.

[Clutch Munny]

A good example of how front-line "troops" can have skewed a perspective rather than real insight as a result of their experience. Police typically give the same advice regarding sexual assault -- don't physically resist. But psychologists Lita Furby and Baruch Fischhoff did a statistical analysis that showed no support for this advice, and even indicated that physical resistance was the better strategy for avoiding sexual assault.


The impression I get from talking with the various humble beat cops I routinely encounter is that they unofficially tend not to support the official line. Ever notice how the 'we advise not resisting' line usually comes from a Chief of Police (Politically appointed or elected) or his spokesman, and also usually in the format of "While we believe Jane Smith was justified and acknowledge her success in this case, we do not recommend that others follw this course of action."
Despite having some family members and several friends on various police forces, I haven't made a statistical study of the difference between official advice on resisting crimes and the unofficial advice from beat cops, with either the care or the numbers to reach any reliable conclusion about whether it is only police chiefs, spokespersons, or counselors who say such things, or the relative frequency with which beat cops say otherwise, or whether police chiefs used to be beat cops, and so forth.

In other words, the process of selecting cases for prosecution seems biased towards cases with sexual assault victims who resisted unsuccessfully and suffered further injury; hence these victims are overrepresented in the investigative and trial processes.

This makes sense, and may be true, at higher levels. Beat cops/detectives are not going to be much involved in the selection process for prosecutions, they're going to investigate all claims, hand them to the DA, and the DA will then make his selection: The lower echelons of the force will not suffer from the 'filtering' effect of seeing which cases are selected for prosecution.
Much investigation happens after charges are laid; and the cases that are investigated at greater length in the first place are those for which there is a greater chance of getting a prosecutor to lay charges down the road. Beat cops and detectives may field all manner of complaints, in the first instance, but the prosecutability of cases will play a great role -- plausibly the largest role -- in determining the kinds of cases they spend the most time and effort investigating. But I did at first allude merely to the cases that are "encountered", rather than more accurately talking about the cases on which police experience may be disproportionately focused. So your point about fielding complaints is a fair cop, so to speak, and it's good that I clarify this.

There's an army phrase which may well be appropriate for police as well: "Echelons above reality"
No doubt each echelon says it about the ones above it. The question is whether it's interestingly true of the higher but not the lower.

[JackDog]

You're saying that people should just stand by and do nothing as a man is potentially beaten to death? (Leaving aside the fact that Detroit doesn't allow people to carry guns in the first place).

[...]

According to Sims, he didn't resist, and got beaten anyway. That's why I'm not a fan of automatic compliance if you have a viable alternative, as you are at the mercy of the good nature of the person who's robbing you.

I'm just saying that you saying that the witnesses aren't decent people isn't fair. Unless you're a trained law enforcement officer you'll probably do more harm than good.

And if you watch the video, Sims certainly was resisting. It starts in the middle of the beating, but you can see the carjacker trying to pry the keys out of Sims hand while Sims other hand is holding on to the door handle. Maybe he was stuck between the door and the other car, but he was clearly resisting giving up his keys.

[California Tanker]

Looks like the only thing keeping him up was the fact that he was pinned by the door to the other car. As soon as the car door closes, Sims falls to the ground motionless. As for resisting before any punches are thrown, Sims' account is otherwise:

http://cbs2.com/watercooler/watercooler_story_134212720.html
"He wanted a light for a cigarette. Just at that time, he threw a punch at me," Sims said.

See also a different incident. http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/topstories_story_069113016.html
No warning, just punch first, rob later.

Unless you're a trained law enforcement officer you'll probably do more harm than good.

How much more harm could there be? You are looking at a potential loss of life right there.



NTM

[BDS]

Intervening would probably not need to involve jumping on the carjacker and physically restraining him. It need not involve shooting him, either. One could run toward him, yelling, “Hey! What the hell are you doing! Come on, everyone! Let’s stop this guy from beating up an old man!”

He’d immediately stop beating the old guy, because his attention would be attracted to a more immediate threat. He might (or might not) run away, instead of continuing with his carjacking. If he did pull a gun, you could still run away, and he probably wouldn’t shoot.

I suggest telling the carjacker what to do: “Hey! We’re calling the police right now! You’d better just run on foot, or you’re off to prison for sure! We have the car license plate number!”

By the way, I’ve actually done this, and it worked. I was in Chicago, driving along Kedzie Ave (plenty of traffic, none of whom were doing anything). On the side of the road were two guys brutally beating a third guy. The guy being beaten was on the ground, curled in a fetal position, and the other two guys were kicking him -- hard. I was driving by myself. I pulled my car toward them (up onto the curb), honking my horn and turning on my blinkers. Then I jumped out of the car and started yelling at the guys: “I’ve called the police, they’re on their way…” I was ready to jump back in the car and peel out if one of them pulled a gun.

Fortunately, they both took off running. The guy who was being beaten then jumped up (groggily) and ran off, too. Unfortunately, he ran in the same direction as the guys who were beating him (presumably because he didn’t know which direction they ran in and was not thinking clearly). So I yelled to him to run the other way, which he did.

[California Tanker]

That was rather well done. Tip of the hat to you.

NTM

[JackDog]

Looks like the only thing keeping him up was the fact that he was pinned by the door to the other car. As soon as the car door closes, Sims falls to the ground motionless. As for resisting before any punches are thrown, Sims' account is otherwise.

Yes, but if you look at the video, the old man isn't giving up his car keys. Seems like resisting to me.

Unless you're a trained law enforcement officer you'll probably do more harm than good.

How much more harm could there be? You are looking at a potential loss of life right there.

Harm to yourself or to other innocent bystanders.

If he did pull a gun, you could still run away, and he probably wouldn’t shoot.

You never know how a criminal with a gun will act, and if someone's willing to pull a gun on a stranger, they're certainly willing to use it.

[BDS]

That was rather well done. Tip of the hat to you.

NTM

Thanks. I was pleased with myself -- although part of my point is that I helped the victim without putting myself in more than minimal danger. I was probably 40 yards away from the guys at the closest and within a yard of my open car door.

It was still scary, because it didn't look like a fight -- it looked like some revenge or gang beating.

To Jackdog: True: you certainly hope nobody ever pulls a gun on you. However, you measure the odds. Probably the guy doesn't have a gun; if he does he probably won't shoot it; if he does shoot it, he probably won't hit you. Nobody suggests (I hope) that innocent bystanders are required to charge into the face of a .357.

[California Tanker]

Yes, but if you look at the video, the old man isn't giving up his car keys. Seems like resisting to me.


From the first punch, (The second link shows more of the start of the attack) his hand doesn't look like it moves at all, even to when the crook opens the hand up and takes the keys himself. I think it's less likely to be resisting as simply having been shocked into inactivity by the first punch.

Harm to yourself or to other innocent bystanders.

Harm to one innocent bystander is acceptable, and harm to two is not? What sort of logic is that? One guy is already having the crap beaten out of him for doing nothing wrong, yet others should remain inactive because they're lucky enough that it didn't happen to them that time?
And if you're the poor unfortunate on the receiving end, would you not want someone to assist you?
"Hi! I'm a volunteer firefighter, but I'm not going to go into the house to rescue you as a burning beam might fall on me and hurt me"

NTM