What Would You Have Done?

For those saying they would intervene... here's the problem:

In the situation presented by the OP, I don't know enough to interject myself into the situation. My best option is to simply be a good witness. Someone less risk averse may feel it's worth the risk to save the life of a stranger.

I think it's wrong to belittle those of us unwilling to risk our life, liberty, and happiness. The reality is that we aren't superheroes, and we have no moral or legal obligation to act like one.

Click to expand...

CA_Libertarian wrote:

For those saying they would intervene... here's the problem:

In the situation presented by the OP, I don't know enough to interject myself into the situation. My best option is to simply be a good witness. Someone less risk averse may feel it's worth the risk to save the life of a stranger.

I think it's wrong to belittle those of us unwilling to risk our life, liberty, and happiness. The reality is that we aren't superheroes, and we have no moral or legal obligation to act like one.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I saw a post that was belittling any of the responses to not to intervene.But maybe I missed it. I certainly wasn't trying to belittle anyone. So, I apologize if I came across this way.

The decision of whether or not to intervene is a very personal one. I'm just saying that this is what I think I would do (given the advantage of not having to make a split-second decision).

I have not been in a bar room brawl, but I have fought competitively in judo and know that someone being body-slammed could very easily sustain life-threatening injuries if not experienced in giving and receiving such throws. The scenario was body-slammed (presumably, onto concrete), unconsciousness, a couple of more blows while unconscious, and moving an unconscious person with unknown injuries, which itself could exacerbate an injury to become a life-altering injury.

At what point do I say enough...regardless of who was "right" and who was "wrong"? I say, for me, it's the point of unconsciousness. Boxing matches, judo matches, other martial arts matches do not allow the contest to go beyond this point. Why?

This is the point at which thefightis so one-sided that, for me, to stand by and do nothing would be a violation of my conscience.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I saw a post that was belittling any of the responses to not to intervene.But maybe I missed it. I certainly wasn't trying to belittle anyone. So, I apologize if I came across this way.

The decision of whether or not to intervene is a very personal one. I'm just saying that this is what I think I would do (given the advantage of not having to make a split-second decision).

Click to expand...

For those saying they would intervene... here's the problem:

You don't know why they're fighting, who instigated it, etc. Maybe the guy getting his face beat against the pavement was trying to rob the bigger guy. Maybe little guy pulled a weapon and the bigger guy is in fact acting in self defense! Maybe big guy doesn't know you and thinks you're an accomplice trying to continue the robbery. Maybe he fears for his life and decides to go down fighting by charging you with the knife he took off the little guy. BOOM!

IF you hit your target, two things could happen. You stop your target, killing an innocent man who was in a fight for his life. You go to jail, get charged, lose your job, maybe your wife leaves you because she can't take the stress of the situation, maybe you beat the rap... maybe you get a few years for manslaughter. Either way your life is FUBARed. Or you don't stop your target (see next paragraph for potential fallout of failing to kill your target).

OR you experience what most people do in SD situations - a drastic decrease in accuracy - and fail to even hit your target. He closes with you goes to work defending himself. Maybe he kills you, maybe you just spend the rest of your life dealing with debilitating injuries and pain. Maybe you just have some cool scars. But wait, what happened to the 7-10 rounds you put down range without hitting your target? Perhaps you kill a bystander (see previous paragraph for potential fallout of killing an innocent person).

In the situation presented by the OP, I don't know enough to interject myself into the situation. My best option is to simply be a good witness. Someone less risk averse may feel it's worth the risk to save the life of a stranger.

I think it's wrong to belittle those of us unwilling to risk our life, liberty, and happiness. The reality is that we aren't superheroes, and we have no moral or legal obligation to act like one.

Click to expand...

No, it wasn't you. Someone voiced their disgust with people like me, who would most likely not intervene with two grown men fighting.

Click to expand...

CA_Libertarian wrote:

No, it wasn't you. Someone voiced their disgust with people like me, who would most likely not intervene with two grown men fighting.

Click to expand...

If I offended you, you have my apologies. While I might disagree with you, I certainly have a high degree of respect for you and your opinion.

My response earlier in this thread was not only fueled by my distaste for Kitty Genovese scenarios, but by a California bashing post that came along with it.

Click to expand...