# Domestic Assault in Public: A Case Study



## Urban Trekker (Aug 23, 2021)

This happened last month in my town:









						Hampton Papa John’s employee killed trying to help co-worker being assaulted
					

A Papa John's employee was killed July 22 as he tried to help a female co-worker who was being assaulted in the restaurant parking lot, police say.




					www.dailypress.com
				




I saw this article on my Facebook news feed, but refrained from commenting on it because I knew but I would have been perceived as trolling.

TLDR, a man witnessed another man beating his girlfriend in the parking lot.  He stepped in to try to protect her, but the boyfriend pulled out a gun and shot him dead.

Of course, the comments are going to be full of people praising him for his deed.  I didn't want to be that guy expressing disagreement with what he did.  I know, because I've done it before on articles about similar situations.

I think this is a better place to do it.

I'd really like to think that this is only a mistake that someone who grew up in rural areas all their lives would have made.

I'm of the mind that if a man has the nuts to beat a woman in public, it's probably because he's packing.  That said, I would not get involved unless I was armed myself.  And even then, I might still think twice.  You have to ask yourself whether or not what is going on is worth anyone losing their lives over.

Surely, everyone on Facebook is a badass that would have gotten involved whether they were armed or not; and you'd better not be that guy who takes a different position.

I think that as men, it's in our instinct to protect a woman in danger.  But that hard wiring existed long before the gun was invented.  If I was there with the guy who got involved, I likely would have asked him to stay put and call the police.  Protecting someone from getting a black eye is not worth your life.

Thoughts?  Would you get involved, and would it matter whether or not you were armed?


----------



## CB Jones (Aug 23, 2021)

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 23, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”



So you would say that preventing her from getting a black eye would be worth your life?


----------



## CB Jones (Aug 23, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> So you would say that preventing her from getting a black eye would be worth your life?



I've worked 23 years in law enforcement...so I am used to the risk.

Another qoute I love....

This innoxious and ineffectual character, that seems formed upon a plan of apology and disculpation, falls miserably short of the mark of public duty. *That duty demands and requires that what is right should not only be made known, but made prevalent; that what is evil should not only be detected, but defeated. *When the public man omits to put himself in a situation of doing his duty with effect it is an omission that frustrates the purposes of his trust almost as much as if he had formally betrayed it. It is surely no very rational account of a man's life, that he has always acted right but has taken special care to act in such a manner that his endeavours could not possibly be productive of any consequence.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 23, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> I've worked 23 years in law enforcement...so I am used to the risk.
> 
> Another qoute I love....
> 
> This innoxious and ineffectual character, that seems formed upon a plan of apology and disculpation, falls miserably short of the mark of public duty. *That duty demands and requires that what is right should not only be made known, but made prevalent; that what is evil should not only be detected, but defeated. *When the public man omits to put himself in a situation of doing his duty with effect it is an omission that frustrates the purposes of his trust almost as much as if he had formally betrayed it. It is surely no very rational account of a man's life, that he has always acted right but has taken special care to act in such a manner that his endeavours could not possibly be productive of any consequence.



This is just stuff that sounds nice.  But in reality, a man is dead; when no one would have been had he not gotten involved.  That's the bottom line.


----------



## CB Jones (Aug 23, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> To me, this is just stuff that sounds nice.  But in reality, a man is dead; when no one would have been had he not gotten involved.  That's the bottom line.


No the bottom line is a person stood up for what they thought was right....instead of solely thinking of what is best for himself.

It is sad that he was killed but I'm guessing he felt it was the right thing to do and I respect him for that.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 23, 2021)

I did intervene about a month ago. Helped take a bow and arrow off a meth head. 

And hopefully saved a few guys. 

Just because there is risk doesn't make what you do wrong.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> No the bottom line is a person stood up for what they thought was right....instead of solely thinking of what is best for himself.



So give me a straight yes or no: is preventing her from getting a black eye worth your life?



> It is sad that he was killed but I'm guessing he felt it was the right thing to do and I respect him for that.



It likely never occurred to him that the boyfriend had a gun, which is why he acted.  And for all we know, she's probably going visit her boyfriend in prison, put money on his commissary, and testify for him in court.  This was second degree murder, so he'll probably get a sentence that she can ride out.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

drop bear said:


> I did intervene about a month ago. Helped take a bow and arrow off a meth head.
> 
> And hopefully saved a few guys.
> 
> Just because there is risk doesn't make what you do wrong.



I don't think this falls on the plane of "right versus wrong."  I'm not going to say that what the guy did was "wrong," but I will say that it wasn't a good idea.

The other thing you have to consider: if you're going to risk your life, what is at stake?

I don't know if the guy with the bow and arrow was totally strung out on meth at the time, or how dangerous he would have been with that bow and arrow.

Risking your life to save another life is one thing.  Risking your life for something less than that just isn't a good idea.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> I don't think this falls on the plane of "right versus wrong."  I'm not going to say that what the guy did was "wrong," but I will say that it wasn't a good idea.
> 
> The other thing you have to consider: if you're going to risk your life, what is at stake?
> 
> ...



If a co worker was getting flogged by some guy. I would probably jump in there as well.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> I don't think this falls on the plane of "right versus wrong."  I'm not going to say that what the guy did was "wrong," but I will say that it wasn't a good idea.
> 
> The other thing you have to consider: if you're going to risk your life, what is at stake?
> 
> ...


And how, exactly, are you going to know dangerous the situation is? I am unaware of any way to predict if that person will stop before the other person is fatally injured.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

Dirty Dog said:


> And how, exactly, are you going to know dangerous the situation is? I am unaware of any way to predict if that person will stop before the other person is fatally injured.



Tell you what: if you and I are standing together behind a barbed wire fence and witness such an act taking place, you and I can place a bet on whether or not he's going to kill her.  I'm fairly confident that by saying he's not, I'm going to win that bet.

The fact of the matter is, he had a gun.  If he had any intention of killing her, it wouldn't make sense for him to beat her to death with his hands.  He only pulled out the gun when it was time to face another grown man.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Aug 24, 2021)

I generally support dont get involved, the cornerstone of self defence and in its purest form is, dont get involved unless it effects you. Then moral framework generally expands that to where it expands that based on your own morals.  (it becomes muddled on domestic issues)

Domestic issues really do tend to turn nasty, and you have little context as to why they are happening in the first place, so if you find it obligtory to intervine its best you know what your getting in for.  And contacting the police is normally the best answer.

All the cavites and loopholes for normal third party intervention present themselves with the added dynmic of its a literal internal affair of two people and highly personal.
For all intents and purposes, the female could have done somethign to cause the anger, or struck first, or the reverse could be true.  

If you do intervine, youd need to be able to physically control two people, or gather enough people to, or be very good at wordplay and not relaying emotion to trigger any sort of reaction.   You also have to when restraining watch out for the second party hitting the first, or yourself, as its pretty common for third parties to be attacked by both people if you intervine as far as i can tell(and have been told), and i have seen enough videos of females starting something, and sneaking in hits when security etc detains the male under some moral obligation or something i dont share.

You also have to have the legal right to actually intervine in the first place and then prepare some form of legal defence in case you get arrested and charged for doing it.   Or keep in mind you may be arrested and charged and convicted of a crime.

Addendum:   Id probbly not get invoved for a clear answer, although if i was armed and laws allowed it, id probbly shoot somone trying to fatally injure/kill somone else. Or at least hold them up. (plus your a witness, so could turn on you)


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

Rat said:


> I generally support dont get involved, the cornerstone of self defence and in its purest form is, dont get involved unless it effects you. Then moral framework generally expands that to where it expands that based on your own morals.  (it becomes muddled on domestic issues)
> 
> Domestic issues really do tend to turn nasty, and you have little context as to why they are happening in the first place, so if you find it obligtory to intervine its best you know what your getting in for.  And contacting the police is normally the best answer.
> 
> ...



What you read about in this story is the worst case scenario around here.

The most common thing that happens?  You jump in and try to protect the woman.  And then the woman you were trying to protect joins her boyfriend, and they both end up kicking the $#!+ out of you.

And while you're laid up in the hospital, they're in his bedroom having the hottest sex while laughing about what they did to you.

In truth, I think all men have that "hero complex."  We just have to know when to keep it in check.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> What you read about in this story is the worst case scenario around here.
> 
> The most common thing that happens?  You jump in and try to protect the woman.  And then the woman you were trying to protect joins her boyfriend, and they both end up kicking the $#!+ out of you.
> 
> ...


As far as i know, Males are only programmed (either genetic or behavorally, or mix of both) to look after females, so wed only truely have one towards females/maybe family memebers.  In a similar vein Mothers have it towards their offspring. 


Also, it really annoys me when people half arsed interject, they are either fighting you, or are doing such a bad job at restraining they just make it more detrimental to yourself.   You know what i mean with the videos you see were someone just grabs one parties arm, while they are actively still fighting with another person and the other persons not restrained in any manner.    I know you dont exactly want to punch somone you like in the face, but thats probbly the best thing you can do if they pull that **** on you.   (i dont always, or usually know who is who in those videos, to see if its in the second persons group coming over to fight)

the only truth in these matters is pretty much, who ever has the best weapon tends to win, so try to keep the best weapon on hand.


----------



## CB Jones (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> So give me a straight yes or no: is preventing her from getting a black eye worth your life?



There is no straight answer.  In that situation you do not have some pre-cog ability to determine what the outcome of events will be.   

But if one of my co-workers was being attacked....yes I would help them.  And if I was being attacked I would expect one of my co-workers or friends to step in and help me.

In the end, everyone has to make those decisions on what they feel they need to do and most of the times it's not whether it's the right or wrong decision but instead it's what the feel they need to do.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> There is no straight answer.


There is, and you're not going to give me one.  Here's why:

If you say "no," then that would mean you conceded to my argument.  You're not going to do that.

If you say "yes," then everyone knows it's a lie that you're going to get called on.

It's okay, you don't have to answer it.  Your refusal to do so says enough.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

Rat said:


> As far as i know, Males are only programmed (either genetic or behavorally, or mix of both) to look after females, so wed only truely have one towards females/maybe family memebers.  In a similar vein Mothers have it towards their offspring.
> 
> 
> Also, it really annoys me when people half arsed interject, they are either fighting you, or are doing such a bad job at restraining they just make it more detrimental to yourself.   You know what i mean with the videos you see were someone just grabs one parties arm, while they are actively still fighting with another person and the other persons not restrained in any manner.    I know you dont exactly want to punch somone you like in the face, but thats probbly the best thing you can do if they pull that **** on you.   (i dont always, or usually know who is who in those videos, to see if its in the second persons group coming over to fight)
> ...


Truth.  And here's another thing you have to consider:

Let's say the immediate scenario goes exactly how you wanted it to.  You successfully kicked the boyfriend's butt, and you walk away patting yourself on the back.  You're a big man now, right?

Wrong.

Odds are, that's not the first time that he's beaten her.  She didn't leave him those other times, so do you think she will after the beating that you cut short?

And here's what makes matters worse: you publicly humiliated that man on her behalf.  So do you think he's going to let that slide when they're alone together?

And you don't even have to put hands on him to get that result.  If you're a really big dude, and you punk him in front of everyone; same thing.  Maybe even worse, since to most men, that's a bigger ego bruise than getting your butt kicked.

That's why I say call the police.  They're the professionals that are trained to handle this, and the result is more likely to be that the boyfriend or husband will be moved to a place where he can't retaliate against the woman.

Edit: My apologies if I'm preaching to choir.


----------



## Steve (Aug 24, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> There is no straight answer.  In that situation you do not have some pre-cog ability to determine what the outcome of events will be.
> 
> But if one of my co-workers was being attacked....yes I would help them.  And if I was being attacked I would expect one of my co-workers or friends to step in and help me.
> 
> In the end, everyone has to make those decisions on what they feel they need to do and most of the times it's not whether it's the right or wrong decision but instead it's what the feel they need to do.


What if the person doing the attacking was one of your co-workers?  Would you help the other guy?


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> Odds are, that's not the first time that he's beaten her. She didn't leave him those other times, so do you think she will after the beating that you cut short?


Thats not even accounting if its not the males fault to begin with.   Being beligerant and victim are two diffrent things.  

And then you have the mental health dynamic of they could have just snapped, or some action snapped them.   And lets be fair, it is how you put it "kicked their butt", i dont think i have seen a single incident of this resolved with a third party restraining (not accounting police, or somone not in uniform with said obligiation) them, it ends up in a fist fight, or something else like that.    

Tangent, it always amuses me how one of the Tenents of TKD is "attack beligerants" or something to that effect, i dont think i need to explain the issue with a tenent preeching extreme predujuice towards fighting parties.  (or at least its one of the 5 in some or tradtioanlly)

Frankly, we are sort of defanged as well, we accept some things as nomral and fine that arent the best, you have full right to personal space, a complete stranger violating it, is cause for alarm and interception using force.   Now there are some logical acceptions with caviates, like if you go to a semi busy place, people coming close is accepted by going there, but the diffrence would be giving people space at every oppertunity or not.


----------



## CB Jones (Aug 24, 2021)

Steve said:


> What if the person doing the attacking was one of your co-workers?  Would you help the other guy?



I would hope so.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

Rat said:


> Thats not even accounting if its not the males fault to begin with.   Being beligerant and victim are two diffrent things.



To put myself in the boyfriend's shoes in the case of him defending himself from his girlfriend, I'd have to consider my geographic location.  My understanding is that if you're up north - like New York or Boston - the "hero complex" is less of a thing up there.  I'd probably feel more free to defend myself from a woman in places like that.

Here in Virginia, I'd probably let her get a few licks in to make sure everybody else sees it before I do anything.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 24, 2021)

I lived in an area where people got shot for not minding their own business.  It was the norm to scan for weapons.  Her life is not worth my life.  In reality, I could get shot and she could still decide to stay with the abuser after my death.  Police have advantages that everyday citizens don't have when dealing with situations like that. 

I also understand that there are other options that I can use that doesn't get me directly in a confrontation.  I was willing to take more risks when I was single, but I can be so carefree with my life when others depend on my well being.  I have to be more responsible with my decisions because it won't just be me who suffers if I die.

The guy could have gotten the license plate and called the police and he would still be alive.


----------



## Buka (Aug 24, 2021)

No worries, fellas, if your sister, aunt, cousin, daughters, whatever is getting assaulted, some of us are going in. Always have, always will. As for the man committing the assault, F him.

As for Boston and the hero complex thing, I don’t quite know what that means….and that’s my home town. We’d just take the body and dump it in what used to be the Quincy Quarries. Man, if that place could talk.

We don’t watch women get beat up. Nope.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> So you would say that preventing her from getting a black eye would be worth your life?



Definitely worth the risk. Which isn't that high.

And part of the reason for that is I think it creates a better society if people are more mindful of others than themselves sometimes.

I like that I am of a culture where people stop and help.






So speaking of risk. Is a society that acts to prevent these sorts of things inherently safer than one that is more concerned with their own self interest?

Mabye ignoring that lady getting a black eye. Means you are actually increasing risk to yourself on a grander scale.


----------



## Steve (Aug 24, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> I would hope so.


I appreciate this, and would hope so, too.  I think confidence in this has taken some hits over the last few years.  Blue wall/blue code etc.


----------



## Steve (Aug 24, 2021)

To the original question, I have intervened in similar situations in the past, and would do it again.  Never run into this situation, but I've run into an adult beating a child more than once.  I've also broken windows out of cars twice, once to save a child and once to save a dog, who were left in the heat.  I've stepped in dozens of times when a member of the public was verbally assaulting a co-worker or employee of mine.  

Reading the article, it seems like the guy tried to intervene in a reasonable manner, didn't just jump in and attack the guy.  He just had the bad luck of running into a genuine lunatic.  You just can't account for that kind of crazy.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Definitely worth the risk. Which isn't that high.


The man who felt the same way is now dead.



drop bear said:


> And part of the reason for that is I think it creates a better society if people are more mindful of others than themselves sometimes.
> 
> I like that I am of a culture where people stop and help.


Darwinism at work, I suppose.



drop bear said:


> So speaking of risk. Is a society that acts to prevent these sorts of things inherently safer than one that is more concerned with their own self interest?


No.  Are other men going to stop or continue beating their girlfriends or wives because of what you did or didn't do in the parking lot?  Of course not.



drop bear said:


> Mabye ignoring that lady getting a black eye. Means you are actually increasing risk to yourself on a grander scale.


Domestic violence is older than the homo sapiens species itself, and it will continue long after we've evolved into something else.  And there's no decision you can make when witnessing it that's going to change that.


----------



## Steve (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> The man who felt the same way is now dead.
> 
> 
> Darwinism at work, I suppose.
> ...


The problem is that you're making a retrospective determination here.  Simply put, you're squaring away the right/wrong determination based on the outcome.  That's not how morality and ethics works, though.  You can't make a decision in the moment based on unintended or unforeseeable consequences that haven't occurred yet.

If you think about what you're advocating here, it's living a life based on trying to entirely eliminate any personal risk.  You're saying, "I shouldn't try to help someone else, if there is any personal risk involved."  That's cowardice.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> The man who felt the same way is now dead.
> 
> 
> Darwinism at work, I suppose.
> ...



They will more like stop if they think I am going to kick their heads in if I catch them.

The thing is I am sure I can find an incident where bystanders watched an assault that killed that person. I could also find a case study where someone died falling off a ladder.

You can't be too strongly attached to one incident.

Here is mine by the way.






						No Cookies | The Courier Mail
					

No Cookies




					www.couriermail.com.au
				




Otherwise here is an incident where nobody even calls the police.









						Murder of Kitty Genovese - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

Buka said:


> No worries, fellas, if your sister, aunt, cousin, daughters, whatever is getting assaulted, some of us are going in. Always have, always will. As for the man committing the assault, F him.
> 
> As for Boston and the hero complex thing, I don’t quite know what that means….and that’s my home town. We’d just take the body and dump it in what used to be the Quincy Quarries. Man, if that place could talk.
> 
> We don’t watch women get beat up. Nope.



You know what the interesting thing is?  Around here, when you hear stories of a poor soul that got jumped by the boyfriend and the girlfriend that he was trying to protect from him, it's usually a military guy that's from somewhere out in the rural Midwest.  Something about areas with more conservative cultures fosters that hero complex.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 24, 2021)

Buka said:


> No worries, fellas, if your sister, aunt, cousin, daughters, whatever is getting assaulted, some of us are going in.


I would want someone to think it through before trying to rescue my wife.  I rather have someone get good pictures of a license plate and the attacker. Call the police and maybe stall the attacker if possible. Any time spent talking to the attacker is a second not spent on my wife or daughter being beaten.  

I would be more upset if you jump in get, get shot, die, and the attacker gets away.  Because now the attacker isn't just thinking about punching his victim he's now thinking about getting rid of the witness.  Because you jumped in without getting important information, no the police don't have much to go on with trying to find my daughter and the attacker.

I don't think anyone is saying " don't help."  Just be smart about it if you do decide to help.  Use your mind read the situation and make the best choice.

 You can jump in to save a woman, but what happens to her after you beat up her boyfriend.   Maybe they live together. Are you going to be there the next day to save her when the boyfriend beats her up for not helping him fight you.  

I think about these things because I've had to deal with these things.  Just some food for thought.  Choose an option that doesn't get you killed or make things worse.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

Steve said:


> The problem is that you're making a retrospective determination here.  Simply put, you're squaring away the right/wrong determination based on the outcome.  That's not how morality and ethics works, though.  You can't make a decision in the moment based on unintended or unforeseeable consequences that haven't occurred yet.
> 
> If you think about what you're advocating here, it's living a life based on trying to entirely eliminate any personal risk.  You're saying, "I shouldn't try to help someone else, if there is any personal risk involved."  That's cowardice.


Your assuming that I'm making a retrospective determination because the article says that the man was killed.  That's not the case.

I stated in the OP that if a man does something in public that he knows good and well will attract the attention of people that will physically stop him, there's a strong possibility that he's armed.

Cowardice is when you refuse to take a risk where the desired outcome is equal to or greater than that risk.  When the desired outcome is less than the risk, and you take that risk anyway, it's stupidity.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I would want someone to think it through before trying to rescue my wife.  I rather have someone get good pictures of a license plate and the attacker. Call the police and maybe stall the attacker if possible. Any time spent talking to the attacker is a second not spent on my wife or daughter being beaten.


Exactly.  If my wife or daughter was getting smacked around in the parking lot, they're still coming home tonight.  And we can bring the attacker to justice.

I don't want "the good guy" to die over it.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 24, 2021)

drop bear said:


> They will more like stop if they think I am going to kick their heads in if I catch them.


He will stop while you are there but what happens when you leave.  Are you going to take her with you?  Are you going to keep him from going to her place.  Abusers understand that you may have helped today, but you won't be there tomorrow. You also won't be on the call when he starts to do his fake apologies.





Urban Trekker said:


> You know what the interesting thing is? Around here, when you hear stories of a poor soul that got jumped by the boyfriend and the girlfriend that he was trying to protect from him,


I've see this happen before.  I personally experienced the verbal version of this.  One with a female friend and once with my sister in law before I got married.

I promised her boyfriend that I would make a special trip to Australia to fix it, if necessary.  Then I told him it would be a shame if the cops find out that his friend was growing drugs on his farm. Lol.  I think that's what made him stop. Lol.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

drop bear said:


> They will more like stop if they think I am going to kick their heads in if I catch them.


Why are you assuming that people fear you?  Even if, and especially if, they're obviously physically weaker than you, and they're still doing in front you... you've got to wonder why.  You know, maybe that got that "steel courage" in their pocket.



drop bear said:


> The thing is I am sure I can find an incident where bystanders watched an assault that killed that person. I could also find a case study where someone died falling off a ladder.
> 
> You can't be too strongly attached to one incident.


Maybe you could, but how would that refute what I'm saying?



drop bear said:


> Here is mine by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not able to open that article.  It's saying I have to be subscribed.



drop bear said:


> Otherwise here is an incident where nobody even calls the police.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Eh, this ties into more about what I was saying about the way things go up north.  Furthermore, New York being what it was from the 60's to the 80's, they could have assumed that this guy was a gang member and feared retaliation.

That fear really isn't a thing where I live.  Yes, they have gangs here, but they don't control a damn thing.  Gang members get shot by cashiers at stores they were trying to rob all the time here, and those cashiers can go to work the next day with absolutely zero worries.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> Maybe you could, but how would that refute what I'm saying?



Ok. Let's go this way. This case study is where a person fell off a ladder and dies.









						Man dies after fall from ladder | WorkSafe Victoria
					

A subcontractor has died after falling from a ladder at a residential construction site at Rutherglen, in Victoria’s north-east.




					www.worksafe.vic.gov.au
				




Why do people use ladders when there is the risk of death?  People are foolish to use ladders.


----------



## Steve (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> You know what the interesting thing is?  Around here, when you hear stories of a poor soul that got jumped by the boyfriend and the girlfriend that he was trying to protect from him, it's usually a military guy that's from somewhere out in the rural Midwest.  Something about areas with more conservative cultures fosters that hero complex.



Seattle is pretty liberal. Took less than a minute to find a relatively recent example of a guy intervening to help someone else:  Caught on Video: Good Samaritan saves woman from assault, fire at Ballard homeless camp


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Ok. Let's go this way. This case study is where a person fell off a ladder and dies.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What doesn't help is that this is reporting an incident before the investigation was complete.  What I tried to look for was whether or nor there were certain safety precautions that he wasn't following.  For example, is the ladder supposed to be positioned and secured a certain way?  Was he supposed to be wearing a harness?

If there were certain safety procedures and precautions that he failed to follow, then that would make him foolish.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> What doesn't help is that this is reporting an incident before the investigation was complete.  What I tried to look for was whether or nor there were certain safety precautions that he wasn't following.  For example, is the ladder supposed to be positioned and secured a certain way?  Was he supposed to be wearing a harness?
> 
> If there were certain safety procedures and precautions that he failed to follow, then that would make him foolish.



I don't think it matters. If I wanted to look for risk in an activity I could find it. I could then argue that risk makes the person who engaged in that activity foolish.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

Steve said:


> Seattle is pretty liberal. Took less than a minute to find a relatively recent example of a guy intervening to help someone else:  Caught on Video: Good Samaritan saves woman from assault, fire at Ballard homeless camp


But what about the individual?

I don't want to say that political affiliation is going to determine whether or not someone intervenes, but the cultural differences are there.  I don't know what the gun violence is like in Seattle.  But I do know that, when someone not from around here gets involved and gets jumped by the boyfriend and the girlfriend; it's likely because of lack of experience in the setting that they now find themselves in.


----------



## Steve (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> What doesn't help is that this is reporting an incident before the investigation was complete.  What I tried to look for was whether or nor there were certain safety precautions that he wasn't following.  For example, is the ladder supposed to be positioned and secured a certain way?  Was he supposed to be wearing a harness?
> 
> If there were certain safety procedures and precautions that he failed to follow, then that would make him foolish.


You follow every safety precaution for everything you do?  I don't believe that.  Do you read all of the safety precautions in the instruction manual when you buy a new stand mixer or coffee maker?


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

drop bear said:


> I don't think it matters. If I wanted to look for risk in an activity I could find it. I could then argue that risk makes the person who engaged in that activity foolish.


Only if there are established procedures in place to mitigate or eliminate the risk, and they were ignored.

Think more along the lines of sex without a condom.  If you get a chick pregnant because you weren't wearing a condom, that's foolish.  That's not the same thing as saying that the act of sexual intercourse, in and of itself, is foolish; which is basically what you're trying say that I'm saying.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

Steve said:


> You follow every safety precaution for everything you do?  I don't believe that.  Do you read all of the safety precautions in the instruction manual when you buy a new stand mixer or coffee maker?


We all have our moments of stupidity.  If I burn my finger on the coffee maker, I'll own that.


----------



## Steve (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> But what about the individual?
> 
> I don't want to say that political affiliation is going to determine whether or not someone intervenes, but the cultural differences are there.  I don't know what the gun violence is like in Seattle.  But I do know that, when someone not from around here gets involved and gets jumped by the boyfriend and the girlfriend; it's likely because of lack of experience in the setting that they now find themselves in.


Gun violence is on the rise here like everywhere else.  What I can tell you is that the guy was in Ballard.  30 years ago, Ballard was a bunch of old norskis and swedes, but now it's a case study for the rich/poor divide in Seattle...  teslas parked next to derelict RVs... brand new million dollar walkups next to a tent city.  The people who live in Seattle are mostly very liberal, and Ballard in particular.  All that to say, I don't know this guy's political affiliation, but if I were a betting man, smart money's that he votes blue.


----------



## Steve (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> We all have our moments of stupidity.  If I burn my finger on the coffee maker, I'll own that.


Okay, so there's a spectrum involved.  You're cool with some risk, just not above some threshold.  Simply put, I think we are agreeing that we're all fools... just a matter of where one draws the line on the bravery/cowardice spectrum.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

Steve said:


> Okay, so there's a spectrum involved.  You're cool with some risk, just not above some threshold.  Simply put, I think we are agreeing that we're all fools... just a matter of where one draws the line on the bravery/cowardice spectrum.


I told you where I draw mine.  The desired outcome has to be equal to or greater than what I'm risking.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> I told you where I draw mine.  The desired outcome has to be equal to or greater than what I'm risking.



So then no ladders. Because you can die.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> Only if there are established procedures in place to mitigate or eliminate the risk, and they were ignored.
> 
> Think more along the lines of sex without a condom.  If you get a chick pregnant because you weren't wearing a condom, that's foolish.  That's not the same thing as saying that the act of sexual intercourse, in and of itself, is foolish; which is basically what you're trying say that I'm saying.




Ok. But I do MMA and am much more functional at fighting than the average Joe so the risk is less for me.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Ok. But I do MMA and am much more functional at fighting than the average Joe so the risk is less for me.



I've really gotta come to your gym, because apparently training there makes you bulletproof.


----------



## Buka (Aug 24, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I would want someone to think it through before trying to rescue my wife.  I rather have someone get good pictures of a license plate and the attacker. Call the police and maybe stall the attacker if possible. Any time spent talking to the attacker is a second not spent on my wife or daughter being beaten.
> 
> I would be more upset if you jump in get, get shot, die, and the attacker gets away.  Because now the attacker isn't just thinking about punching his victim he's now thinking about getting rid of the witness.  Because you jumped in without getting important information, no the police don't have much to go on with trying to find my daughter and the attacker.
> 
> ...


Okay, duly noted. I will not jump in to save anyone you love. 

Oh, I so want to bump into you right now.


----------



## CB Jones (Aug 24, 2021)

This is such a weird thread in that it feels like it is an argument for acting cowardly.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> This is such a weird thread in that it feels like it is an argument for acting cowardly.



I'm just going to be frank: if you treat your life as if it's worth preventing someone else from getting a black eye, that's not bravery. That's just pure bravado, and nothing else.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

Here's what's really telling: the fact that the woman involved in this didn't even care enough to tell the guy that her boyfriend had a gun.

The people you're willing to die for don't even give a damn about you.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 24, 2021)

Buka said:


> Okay, duly noted. I will not jump in to save anyone you love.
> 
> Oh, I so want to bump into you right now.


I would never ask you or anyone else to physically jump in to save someone I love. I wouldn't even ask you to do that for me.Your life is just as important as those I love.  Don't waste by doing things that may take you away from those who love you and depend on you.


----------



## Buka (Aug 24, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> This is such a weird thread in that it feels like it is an argument for acting cowardly.


Yet, still we would save them. Cuz, you know.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> The people you're willing to die for don't even give a damn about you.


Exactly.  For me personally. I will always try to help.  But to throw my life away on a situation I may not fully understand is not something I take lightly.  

Not every woman is a damsel in distress.  I've seen too much on the streets to think that.  I treat situations like that the same way I treat 2 guys fighting.

People can hate me for being like this, but unless I have a professional duty.  I just don't jump in with a super cape thinking I'm trying to save someone.  All I can tell them is "Don't hate me. Hate the streets." Cause that's what's out there.  If it's not like that where they live then they should feel blessed and fortunate.


----------



## Buka (Aug 24, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> This is such a weird thread in that it feels like it is an argument for acting cowardly.


Hey, CB, if we sit by and do nothing do you think we can still get a Participation Trophy?

That would be kinda cool.


----------



## CB Jones (Aug 24, 2021)

Buka said:


> Hey, CB, if we sit by and do nothing do you think we can still get a Participation Trophy?
> 
> That would be kinda cool.



Absolutely....because we fully supported them emotionally.....physically, not so much.


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Exactly.  For me personally. I will always try to help.  But to throw my life away on a situation I may not fully understand is not something I take lightly.
> 
> Not every woman is a damsel in distress.  I've seen too much on the streets to think that.  I treat situations like that the same way I treat 2 guys fighting.
> 
> People can hate me for being like this, but unless I have a professional duty.  I just don't jump in with a super cape thinking I'm trying to save someone.  All I can tell them is "Don't hate me. Hate the streets." Cause that's what's out there.  If it's not like that where they live then they should feel blessed and fortunate.



Yes!  If she's in a relationship with a dude who's a straight up thug, she's likely a Jezebel herself.  I was thinking that the whole time but didn't want to say it earlier, because I don't want to be accused of victim-blaming.  But many of these women out here are more than willing to throw hands with a man.  I don't know why, because they're not going to win, yet they do it anyway.


----------



## CB Jones (Aug 24, 2021)

@JowGaWolf    Just curious....does your wife know of your opinion on her getting attacked in public?

I would be interested in her reaction if you explained that if she was being attacked you would prefer no one helped her.

I can only imagine my wife's reaction if I told her.....if someone was to violently attack you, I hope no one helps you.  You are just gonna have to take that **** whooping and we will report it afterwards.

I don't think she would appreciate my concern for a stranger over her well being.


----------



## CB Jones (Aug 24, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> Yes!  If she's in a relationship with a dude who's a straight up thug, she's likely a Jezebel herself.  I was thinking that the whole time but didn't want to say it earlier, because I don't want to be accused of victim-blaming.  But many of these women out here are more than willing to throw hands with a man.  I don't know why, because they're not going to win, yet they do it anyway.



Ah....the gold medal for mental gymnastics goes to...


----------



## Urban Trekker (Aug 24, 2021)

I'm fairly certain that if my wife knew her attacker to carry a gun and be more than willing to use it, she'd likely feel a deep sense of guilt over that person's death if she didn't warn them.

Treating yourself as expendable as not a noble thing.  I don't understand why people think it is.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 24, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> @JowGaWolf    Just curious....does your wife know of your opinion on her getting attacked in public?
> 
> I would be interested in her reaction if you explained that if she was being attacked you would prefer no one helped her.
> 
> ...


Sorry to disappoint you.  But here's the run down on who knows what.

In 11th grade I told my brother not to start fights or get himself in unnecessary trouble because I wont' always be there to help him out.  I told him not only to not depend on me that way, but to also not depend on others helping him.   The 2 times he got jumped by multiple attackers, I wasn't there. I was in college and even if I wasn't I wouldn't have gone to the same location that he did.  No one helped him, in both cases.

As for my wife.  Last week a car rolled up on us in a suspicious manner.  I handed her my the house keys as I prepared to try to take down whoever I could as quickly as I could with a staff, if they got out of the car wrong.  My wife told me that she thought I gave her the keys so she could help me fight.  I told her I gave her the keys so she could run home and get help while I tried to do what I can with the people in the car.  I told her it doesn't make things better to throw her life away too.

13 years ago my wife used to walk by herself.  I would warn about not paying attention to her surroundings because she shouldn't assume that someone would save her.   One day a car started following her my wife wasn't aware.  She was fortunate enough to that a woman who had seen her walking before in the past noticed the car stalking.  So the lady drove beside my wife as she walked home.  The lady didn't get out of her  car to confront the stalkers.  She stayed in her car and just served as a presence.  My wife didn't understand what I was saying all those times until that day.  Now she knows and understands.  What the reality of what I was saying and how close she came to being kidnapped.  Now she walks in a way that she takes her own safety in her hands and doesn't expect that someone will be around to save her.  Nor does she ask of it.

My wife is from the Philippines.  These cases scared my wife greatly.  I train my family self-defense from the concept that no one is around to help.  If someone comes to help, then great.  Consider yourself lucky.  I train them from the concept of being caught alone and not base their safety on the assumption that "someone will surely help."  Even when I teach self-defense classes.  The lessons are always.  Do A,B,C, until you can get help.   It's never Do A, B, C, until help comes because help may never come.










My wife fully understands my opinion about her getting attacked in public.  She knows better than you.  Ask her who should up when she was being sexually assaulted.  Ask her did she save herself or did someone else save her.  



CB Jones said:


> I would be interested in her reaction if you explained that if she was being attacked you would prefer no one helped her.


See.  Again.  No one in here is saying "Don't help"  The issue isn't about someone not helping.  You guys want to jump into conflicts like you got a "S" your chest thinking you can just physically jump into conflict and duke it out like somebody's scared of you.  I've known too many dudes wouldn't hesitate to shoot you or stab you on the spot.  Or catch you later when you are by yourself.

I asked my wife about it.  I asked her would she want someone to give their life to help her.  She said. No.  She said that's very selfish of the person.  She say what good does it do for her the person to die for for her not to be out of danger. 

So there's your answer.  Yes my wife know's about what I've been saying and has answered your question directly.  Happy?  It may not be satisfying answer you were expecting but it's an answer.   Also she told me that she doesn't want to answer anymore questions from this group.  So there's that.



CB Jones said:


> I can only imagine my wife's reaction if I told her.....if someone was to violently attack you, I hope no one helps you.


Again.  No one has made such a statement or implied such a statement.  Stop making stuff up.  Stop trying to put people in a "Villian" box just because they have other ways to help that don't involve them getting shot, killed, or stabbed.  



CB Jones said:


> You are just gonna have to take that **** whooping and we will report it afterwards.


There are a lot of people who gets just this.  I base my self-defense on the scenario no one is there to help you.  Why should I count on someone to save me?  Why should I expect it?  Not everyone has my back.  As for those that do.  I know they will help me out if I'm attacked.  I they they will help my wife out if she's attack.  I also know that those same people aren't always with her.  



Urban Trekker said:


> I'm fairly certain that if my wife knew her attacker to carry a gun and be more than willing to use it, she'd likely feel a deep sense of guilt over that person's death if she didn't warn them.


This is exactly what my wife said.  This is when she made the statement that it's selfish.  She said if she knew if the guy who was attacking her had a gun, she wouldn't want someone to risk their life in that manner.  

She also said that it was a tough question because it all depends. She said the woman should fight back first.  She also asked if the woman asked for help.  Then she told me that the teen that I helped in Australia came up to her months later and told her that he never said thank you for helping him when that man wanted to beat him up.  So he thanked my wife.  So today I learned something new. lol.



Urban Trekker said:


> Treating yourself as expendable as not a noble thing. I don't understand why people think it is.


Exactly.  And I think this is what bothers me the most.  So many here are clearly making it seem as if the first option is to physically confront a man beating a woman.

Listen to 1:23 and what she says.  Then listen to what they said at 2:03.   Dude probably should have called thes cops.  Get some video recording or if he didn't have a phone.  Use his words to try to diffuse the situation.  You and I have the same perspective as what was said in this video but yet we are the one's who are monsters.  lol





According to some of the comments made in here.  This guy would be considered a coward for not busting up the boyfriends grill.  All I'm saying is people should be smart about how they help people.





This guy is a punk.  He should have punched the guy.  Yet the guy who died was the guy who followed the advice some people have given here.  The guy who survived is the guy who did what I've been saying "Be smart about helping people"


----------



## Anarax (Aug 24, 2021)

It's tragic what happened to the young man who intervened, may justice be served. 

The factors/criteria of when and when not to get involved are near limitless and difficult to define with absolute certainty. Some situations I would get involved, others I wouldn't.

It seems with situations like these there are dominantly two schools of thought: Individual vs Community. Some believe that you should focus on yourself and prioritize your safety. Others believe that we as a community are responsible for one another, even strangers. Both of these ideologies have multiple manifestations in our laws and society. I think the shaming of either side makes it difficult to understand their reasoning. Calling one side reckless or the other cowardly is where the conversation gets lost. I don't think either is inherently right nor wrong, there are just different outlooks.   

We all have someone we would fight tooth and nail for, the only difference is *WHO* we will fight tooth and nail for. I think people would be more inclined to protect a loved one than a tweaker on the streets.


----------



## Buka (Aug 24, 2021)

See those guys there? That's the Parish priest we grew up with - the first one defrocked by the Vatican in the Cardinal Law sex abuse scandal. With him, another charmer, Whitey Bulger.

These are the kind of ash holes (and all their merry men) we dealt with growing up, long before I was a cop. We didn't let them get away with anything then. And we (me and mine) aren't about to let a woman get attacked by anyone now. 

It was a little looser before. We threw a few guys off a bridge for raping a girl back in the day. he landed on the railroad tracks. Broke both legs, some ribs and his elbow. But we pulled him off before the 10:10 train came by. Then we turned him in, and he was convicted. 

Different now, of course. Our tactics are better, experience has taught us a great deal, and we have better lawyers than they do.

But screw standing by and letting the innocent get hurt or killed. You just have to know how to speak the right language. 

It's how I was raised, how I trained my whole life, and I sure as hell ain't about to change now.

You all do what you have to do, we will too.


----------



## CB Jones (Aug 24, 2021)

@JowGaWolf 

I apologize for the joke....it was in poor taste looking back at it.

But we come from opposite schools of thought.  I believe if you have the ability to help someone in need...you should.

And the people around me know they can depend on me if things go to hell.  Maybe I am an idiot as UT claimed but I don't care I'm going to stand by my principles.  And I'm going to do what I feel is right.

When my college roommate and friend were jumped in the dorm parking lot by 5 guys....I didn't take notes to give to the police.  I came to help.  All 3 of us took an **** whooping but my friends would have been much worse off had I not helped.

And it's not about being a "superman"...its just about doing what you think is right regardless of the outcome.

I've worked narcotics and violent crime for 12 years....in our unit you don't look at the possible outcomes and decide if the risk is worth it....if your team member is in danger you go help them even if it puts your life at risk.  

I disagree with the attitude of its not my problem or don't hate the man hate the streets.  I believe in standing up for what you believe in even when there are risks and I respect those that do.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 24, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> @JowGaWolf
> 
> I apologize for the joke....it was in poor taste looking back at it.
> 
> ...


No problem  I just  got a little too caught up. next time use ha ha ha's lols and Jowgawolf "ITS A JOKE" "PLEASE REMOVE THE STICK" lol.

 I agree with you on all point in general.  But I also recognize that your profession provided you with a lot of options and advantages that most everyday people don't have.  You had training and support for your profession to deal with such aggressive situations.  I can't say the same thing.  Even with martial arts and self-defense training, neither are substitutes for the training and support that is found in law enforcement.  The only way I would take on your duties to serve and protect is if I was in law enforcement.   For me to do otherwise would make me a vigilante.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 24, 2021)

Anarax said:


> Some believe that you should focus on yourself and prioritize your safety. Others believe that we as a community are responsible for one another, even strangers. Both of these ideologies have multiple manifestations in our laws and society. I think the shaming of either side makes it difficult to understand their reasoning. Calling one side reckless or the other cowardly is where the conversation gets lost. I don't think either is inherently right nor wrong, there are just different outlooks.


I agree.  Prioritizing safety is done by everyone including police.  The reality is a dead good guy helps no one.   From fire fighter's to police and everything in between.  Their safety is prioritized.  Firefighters can't save lives if they pass out from the smoke and fumes.  Police can't save lives without the equipment that they use,  doctors can't save lives if they catch the disease that they are trying to cure.   This is even the same with the Military.

In some places the same community that one lives in the same community that kills it's own residence. If it was easy, then a lot of our problems in the US would have been solved.  When you look at a tree, which part is the most important part?  The part lower dirty part or the beautiful part with the flowers?  What causes the most damage?  Disease of the roots or Disease of the flowers?   It may sound simple, but anyone who does gardening will tell you.  It's not as easy as focus on one and ignore the other.


----------



## Buka (Aug 25, 2021)

Long, slow, deep breaths are good. Smile afterwards.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 25, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> I've really gotta come to your gym, because apparently training there makes you bulletproof.


You are still equating stepping in to help someone with getting shot. 

Because of one incident.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 25, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> Tell you what: if you and I are standing together behind a barbed wire fence and witness such an act taking place, you and I can place a bet on whether or not he's going to kill her.  I'm fairly confident that by saying he's not, I'm going to win that bet.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, he had a gun.  If he had any intention of killing her, it wouldn't make sense for him to beat her to death with his hands.


Because people such as you're describing are always totally logical.


Urban Trekker said:


> He only pulled out the gun when it was time to face another grown man.


Since this is just rampant silliness...
Nah.... I already shot him.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Aug 25, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree.  Prioritizing safety is done by everyone including police.  The reality is a dead good guy helps no one.   From fire fighter's to police and everything in between.  Their safety is prioritized.  Firefighters can't save lives if they pass out from the smoke and fumes.  Police can't save lives without the equipment that they use,  doctors can't save lives if they catch the disease that they are trying to cure.   This is even the same with the Military.
> 
> In some places the same community that one lives in the same community that kills it's own residence. If it was easy, then a lot of our problems in the US would have been solved.  When you look at a tree, which part is the most important part?  The part lower dirty part or the beautiful part with the flowers?  What causes the most damage?  Disease of the roots or Disease of the flowers?   It may sound simple, but anyone who does gardening will tell you.  It's not as easy as focus on one and ignore the other.


To an extent.

Fire fighters wont pointlessly take risks over self preservation, but they are fully expected to and employed to do a dangerous job and take risks when the assessment is apt. 

Basically they wont enter a building thats fully burnnt out rescue somone that hasnt made a sound in a while as they are obviously dead, but they would enter a burning building, or attempt to grab somone whos still alive from one.    

the sort of hole i see people falling in is that, there is acceptable risk, and these are naturally dangerous jobs, you can only mitigate the risk so far, and there is a line where its acceptable and not.   I 100% take the stance of, and to put it blunty, they are expected to die and volnteered to die in lieu of a civilian.  I dont really want to get into politics, but if you maximise safety, you cannot do the job of police, fire&rescue or soldiering, they are innately dangerous, if you want to be safe or not take the risk quit or choose a less risky position, like support staff.   And there are private sector jobs that people do that are dangerous and they dont get nearly as much fan fare as these public ones do, and some are in a similar field like private secuirty.   

Basically, these jobs exist due to how societies have evolved and the growing specilisation of society.   Now this is a big generalisation as the circusmtances and evolution of these services is diffrent in each country, as well as their modern function.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Aug 25, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> This happened last month in my town:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I would get involved. I would call 911.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 25, 2021)

Rat said:


> I dont really want to get into politics, but if you maximise safety, you cannot do the job of police, fire&rescue or soldiering, they are innately dangerous, if you want to be safe or not take the risk quit or choose a less risky position, like support staff.


You still maximize safety.  Maximizing safety doesn't always mean 100% safety.  The modern firefighter's equipment provides more safety than the guys from 1800.   The safer these guys are when doing their job the better they will be able to do their jobs and the more people they will be able to save and the more fires they will be able to put out.

Fireman Safety Maximization from the 1800






Modern Fireman Safety Maximization - This allows them to go into places that the 1800 guys couldn't reach





Maximum Safety of Bomb squad what it used to be.- Might as well give this guy a bowl and a spatula.  




Safety maximization for today's bomb squad.









Future bomb squad robots will probably be a version of the Atlas robot.  As they are able to go places that today's robots can't go.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 25, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> You still maximize safety.  Maximizing safety doesn't always mean 100% safety.  The modern firefighter's equipment provides more safety than the guys from 1800.   The safer these guys are when doing their job the better they will be able to do their jobs and the more people they will be able to save and the more fires they will be able to put out.
> 
> Fireman Safety Maximization from the 1800
> 
> ...


Those bomb squad guys are on a whole different level of crazy.


----------



## Steve (Aug 25, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> I told you where I draw mine.  The desired outcome has to be equal to or greater than what I'm risking.


To you.  Desirable to you.


JowGaWolf said:


> I would never ask you or anyone else to physically jump in to save someone I love. I wouldn't even ask you to do that for me.Your life is just as important as those I love.  Don't waste by doing things that may take you away from those who love you and depend on you.


Well, let's be clear, the goal isn't for both people to die.  It's for everyone to live.  The discussion here is about risk and whether people are willing to risk potential injury or death to help someone else, or are trying to suggest that cowardice is smart. 

If anyone's interested, Gandhi had a lot to say about cowards.  He had zero tolerance for cowards, and suggested that if you do not have the capacity for violence in the defense of yourself and others, you cannot choose non-violence.  In other words, choosing violence or non-violence is a choice.  Cowardice isn't a choice.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 25, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> Those bomb squad guys are on a whole different level of crazy.


I looked at the guys with apron flapping in the wind with dishwasher gloves and all I could think was.  "Maybe I'm better off not surviving"  lol.  Definitely takes a special kind of person to do that type of job.


----------



## Steve (Aug 25, 2021)

Anarax said:


> It's tragic what happened to the young man who intervened, may justice be served.
> 
> The factors/criteria of when and when not to get involved are near limitless and difficult to define with absolute certainty. Some situations I would get involved, others I wouldn't.
> 
> ...


Individual vs community and a commitment to the common good is something I've been thinking and talking to friends about A LOT recently.  Manifests in situations like this... emergencies and such.  But also in things like, are you going to wear a mask or not?  Are you getting vaccinated? 

For what it's worth, there are some evil dudes in the world, but most of those tweakers are victims.  They do bad things and need to be accountable for those things.


JowGaWolf said:


> I looked at the guys with apron flapping in the wind with dishwasher gloves and all I could think was.  "Maybe I'm better off not surviving"  lol.  Definitely takes a special kind of person to do that type of job.


I was a munitions specialist in the air force, and I can tell you that it definitely takes a certain mentality to work around high explosives all day, every day.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 25, 2021)

Steve said:


> The discussion here is about risk and whether people are willing to risk potential injury or death to help someone else,


Yeah if this is the first option that comes to mind then the person is already in the wrong mind set.

If that kid knew before hand that he would die by trying to assist his co-worker. I guarantee, that he would have come up with another option.   That other option is probably the option that should have been taken in the first place.  Call 911.  Which would have been more likely to accomplish the goal of no one dying.

So when I read your statement, the first thing that comes to my mind is:  What are my options?   Am I risking potential injury or death because there are no more viable options?  Am I choosing the one that will allow me to save the person without getting myself killed or injured.  For me if there are no more options for me to take and I think I can get out of the worse case scenario by physically confronting then I may take the risk.  If I don't think I'll survive the worst case scenario then I may not take the risk. 

A lot just depends on who it is, and if I'm a civilian or a law enforcement agency.   Sort of how EMS won't go into an area where there's an active shooter.  They understand that if they die then they can't help someone.  So I'll have to quickly determine if my best help will be given before or after an attack.  Do I try to save the person before, during, or after the attack.

In the case of the pizza driver.  It's not sure if the gun was originally for killing the lady or if it was originally for the first guy the boyfriend thought was talking to his girlfriend.  If it's the gun was some random guy that he thought was talking to his girlfriend, then it's not the lady who is in danger.  It was the guy who tried to help who was in danger. 

Maybe the girl took it outside because she thought her boyfriend would attack one of the males inside the store.  Maybe she was the one trying to protect the others? Maybe it was unfortunate timing that the driver came back at the time that he did.  From the outside we think it's the woman that is in the most danger, when in reality it's someone else in the building who is in more danger.  

It's just really difficult to tell one way or the other.  Like trying to help out a lady dealing with an abusive boyfriend who is there to shoot the guy he suspects is talking to his girlfriend.



Steve said:


> If anyone's interested, Gandhi had a lot to say about cowards. He had zero tolerance for cowards, and suggested that if you do not have the capacity for violence in the defense of yourself and others, you cannot choose non-violence. In other words, choosing violence or non-violence is a choice. Cowardice isn't a choice.


Quotes are often out of context so I took a look at the context that it may have been said in.  Here's some of the context.
When Ghandi made quotes about Cowards, was he speaking in the context of India being independent of British Rule or was he talking about him approaching a guy abusing his girlfriend?  It matters greatly in the context that one may define someone as being a coward. 

In a country that sees women as a second class citizens.  I'm pretty sure his context of cowardice was not addressing that.  In such a country where there is a caste system, arranged marriages, and a cultural acceptance of abusing women.  I'm pretty sure that his quotes about being a coward are directed towards India's independence from the British.

Ghandi was said that he slept naked with young girls and some being is own family members as a way for him to experiment to see if he would be tempted to have sex.   I don't know how men's brains work but laying in the bed with a brother's wife or a niece, or teenage girls would probably tempt someone to kill that person.  Which is ironic because Ghandi was assassinated. 

Anyway. Context is everything


----------



## Steve (Aug 25, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Quotes are often out of context so I took a look at the context that it may have been said in.  Here's some of the context.
> When Ghandi made quotes about Cowards, was he speaking in the context of India being independent of British Rule or was he talking about him approaching a guy abusing his girlfriend?  It matters greatly in the context that one may define someone as being a coward.



Both.  He actually speaks specifically about both.  I really think you should do some more research into the context, and then give some more time to thinking about the relevance that his comments and thoughts have on this discussion. I agree that context matters, and given the context of his philosophy on cowardice, non-violence, bravery, and personal safety and accountability vs the common good, his words are very relevant.  If you don't see that, I encourage you to do a little more than a quick google search. 

This is similarly true with MLK Jr.  Choosing a path of non-violence is bravery at great personal risk, not cowardice. 

You're literally suggesting that a person should do a personal risk/reward evaluation prior to taking any action.  

"I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.

The strength to kill is not essential for self-defence; one ought to have the strength to die. When a man is fully ready to die, he will not even desire to offer violence. Indeed, I may put it down as a self-evident proposition that the desire to kill is in inverse proportion to the desire to die. And history is replete with instances of men who, by dying with courage and compassion on their lips, converted the hearts of their violent opponents."


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Aug 25, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> You still maximize safety.  Maximizing safety doesn't always mean 100% safety.  The modern firefighter's equipment provides more safety than the guys from 1800.   The safer these guys are when doing their job the better they will be able to do their jobs and the more people they will be able to save and the more fires they will be able to put out.
> 
> Fireman Safety Maximization from the 1800
> 
> ...


 I knew i should have included this in the orignal, but we may have been operating under diffrent defintiion sof "maximising safety", as to me those changes are largely driven by the times and technology avalible and present and standards of them changing. 

Not fully related but intresting tid bit, i dont know to what extent, but the rollout for breathing apertus would have been due to lots of things in modern structures burning toxic, from at least when electrics became common, wood doesnt burn toxic.    Id imagine old fire fighters would follow the rule of thumb wild fire duties have, in that you cycle people out due to slowly suffociating themselves from the smoke. (they used to wear really thick woolen garb to protect from heat)   Cant say the extent for civil duties, but i 100% can say, the royal navy rolled out Breathing apertus for PPE due to the elctronics and plastics on ships burning toxic, and enough people dying from inhilation of it.     Unless i butcher how smoke kills, as long as you get a sufficent amount of oxygen back in you before X peroid of exposure, you should be fine. (to an extent) That is as i say, non toxic smoke.

And the issue with EoD isnt normally where the machine and person can go, its that you cant do the safest option all the time.  (that being blow it up/shoot out its detantor portion or something)   I need to look into that one, machines cant really do complicated disarms and are used for probing pretty much, as well as transporting a charge over and closer controlled detonations. (there is a weird, sort of bomb disarming breeching charge thing that they can be mouted to, i think it serves a similar purpose to a person shooting a device with a  rifle, its to try and shoot what ever the bit that detonates the main explosive off, without detonating it)

Wonderful, as usual i remmeber some important details after i finish writing the main piece.    As far as i understand explsoives, you need a catalyst  to set off the main charge, disarming is usually removing the catalyst that sets off the main charge, or just detonating the thing at a safe lcoation/making the location safe to detonate it.   thats as far as my explosives knowledge goes for EoD, or in general.    Way better wording than "they shoot the thingy that makes the bigger thingy go kaboom".

Not really arguing just semi intresting tid bits.  (well i find them intresting)    Heat exuastion is a issue in both the EoD suits and fire suits, especially for fire as you are directly exposed to heat.  Which some people may overlook.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 25, 2021)

Steve said:


> You're literally suggesting that a person should do a personal risk/reward evaluation prior to taking any action.


Not only themselves, but of the situation that they face.  It happens all the time.

Your personal safety is directly tied into your ability to help someone.  The moment you are incapacitated is the exact moment you'll no longer be able to help.  It happens all the times with hostage situations and cops arriving on the scene of domestic abuse.  

Am I the only one that understand this approach?


----------



## Steve (Aug 25, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> Not only themselves, but of the situation that they face.  It happens all the time.
> 
> Your personal safety is directly tied into your ability to help someone.  The moment you are incapacitated is the exact moment you'll no longer be able to help.  It happens all the times with hostage situations and cops arriving on the scene of domestic abuse.
> 
> Am I the only one that understand this approach?


Okay.  So, you're saying the issue here is that the 20 year old, papa john's delivery guy's mistake was that he didn't use his training in the Edmond Way domestic call protocol?


----------



## CB Jones (Aug 25, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> When Ghandi made quotes about Cowards, was he speaking in the context of India being independent of British Rule or was he talking about him approaching a guy abusing his girlfriend? It matters greatly in the context that one may define someone as being a coward.



Gandhi Jayanti: Why non-violent Mahatma Gandhi preferred violence to cowardice


----------



## drop bear (Aug 25, 2021)

Steve said:


> Okay.  So, you're saying the issue here is that the 20 year old, papa john's delivery guy's mistake was that he didn't use his training in the Edmond Way domestic call protocol?



Hindsight suggests he did the wrong thing. 

I mean papa John guy could have if knowing the outcome taken his own gun, stuck up on the guy and killed him. 

Or knowing girlfriend wasn't going to get shot or beaten to death. Backed off and called the cops. 

The issue is how do you proceed when you don't know the outcome before hand.


----------



## Anarax (Aug 25, 2021)

Steve said:


> For what it's worth, there are some evil dudes in the world, but most of those tweakers are victims. They do bad things and need to be accountable for those things.


It's unfortunate how severe the homeless situation has become in the US. I agree, regardless how tough your life as been no one is exempt from accountability.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 25, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> Gandhi Jayanti: Why non-violent Mahatma Gandhi preferred violence to cowardice


Thanks. I appreciate the time you took to get that.  I'll definitely read up on it.


----------



## CB Jones (Aug 25, 2021)

In the end, everyone has to make the decision for themselves...and take responsibility for the consequences and repercussions of those decisions.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 25, 2021)

CB Jones said:


> Gandhi Jayanti: Why non-violent Mahatma Gandhi preferred violence to cowardice


The article was confusing because some of the things that were said were said by a lawyer and not Ghandi.  So I added the full quote below.


Full Quote:
"*My non-violence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice.* I can no more preach non-violence to a coward than I can tempt a blind man to enjoy healthy scenes. Non-violence is the summit of bravery. And in my own experience, I have had no difficulty in demonstrating to men trained in the school of violence the superiority of non-violence. *As a coward, which I was for years, I harboured violence. I began to prize non-violence only when I began to shed cowardice. Those Hindus who ran away from the post of duty when it was attended with danger did so not because they were non-violent, or because they were afraid to strike, but because they were unwilling to die or even suffer an injury.* A rabbit that runs away from the bull terrier is not particularly non-violent. The poor thing trembles  at the sight of the terrier and runs for very life. (YI, 28-5-1924, p178) "

So to me it seems like he's talking about people who he considers close friends and family.   I only say this because he uses the phrase "Dear ones."  Usually when people say that phrase they are referring to family and close friends.  People in general do that use the phrase "Dear ones." to reference strangers.  But then he contradicts himself and says that Non-Violence is superior to violence.  So what I'm thinking is that If Ghandi is your brother then he won't leave you in a fight, but he also won't fight back because nonviolence is superior to violence.  

He also mentions that he was a coward because he harboured violence.  Which is strange because he said that he rather choose violence than cowardice, But then states that he was a coward for choosing violence.

"*hose Hindus who ran away from the post of duty when it was attended with danger did so not because they were non-violent, or because they were afraid to strike, but because they were unwilling to die or even suffer an injury."*
I think I understand this part.  Being non-violent means someone on your side is going to get their butts kicked.  The duty that he's probably referring to was the duty to allow another to physically beat you.  You must not run away from the beating, but you must take the beating.  We see this same mindset in the civil rights marches in the U.S.  The unwilling to die or even suffer an injury comment is interesting because of the video below.  When he was asked if he was willing to die for what he believed in, he hesitated and then said that it was a bad question.  It's at the end of the video.






I don't think he would apply this to coming to the defense of a woman being beaten by an abusive man.  I think his quote is more in line with someone fighting for a greater cause such as India's independence from British rule.







Source: The Gospel of Non-violence | Mind of Mahatma Gandhi


----------



## Steve (Aug 26, 2021)

I think what you're struggling with is the idea that in order to choose non-violence, one must have courage.  You're missing the forest for the trees.  

There is additional information online.  Between Cowardice and Violence | Gandhi's views on Peace, Nonviolence and Conflict Resolution

And there are other things around, if you look.  It's a pretty deep well, and my recommendation is to read it to understand it in general.  If you read it only looking for things relevant to this thread, you risk missing the entire point.  One thing to consider, though, is that he speaks mostly about individual actions and individual choices, and how those add up to collective behavior.


----------



## CB Jones (Aug 26, 2021)

Logic is the last refuge of a coward - Clive Barker

I think this is a great qoute.

I believe often times we look for logic to justify and excuse cowardly actions.  

Instead of just being honest with ourselves that we lacked the self confidence to act or were too afraid to act.   We come up with  excuses or assumptions of why it was smarter not to.  It's  a cowardly logic.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 26, 2021)

I think these are great quotes

It is a good thing to learn caution from the misfortunes of others. ~ Publilius Syrus
Caution comes too late when we are in the midst of evils. ~ Sir Walter Scott


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 26, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> Exactly. If my wife or daughter was getting smacked around in the parking lot, they're still coming home tonight.


You hope. That's the problem with your assertions here. You've decided the beating isn't lethal, but the intevention is likely not going to end well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 26, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> Yes!  If she's in a relationship with a dude who's a straight up thug, she's likely a Jezebel herself.  I was thinking that the whole time but didn't want to say it earlier, because I don't want to be accused of victim-blaming.  But many of these women out here are more than willing to throw hands with a man.  I don't know why, because they're not going to win, yet they do it anyway.


And now we get to the victim blaming. Well done.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 26, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> I'm fairly certain that if my wife knew her attacker to carry a gun and be more than willing to use it, she'd likely feel a deep sense of guilt over that person's death if she didn't warn them.
> 
> Treating yourself as expendable as not a noble thing.  I don't understand why people think it is.


Please don't ever call the cops because you think there's something dangerous going on.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 26, 2021)

Steve said:


> I think what you're struggling with is the idea that in order to choose non-violence, one must have courage.  You're missing the forest for the trees.
> 
> There is additional information online.  Between Cowardice and Violence | Gandhi's views on Peace, Nonviolence and Conflict Resolution
> 
> And there are other things around, if you look.  It's a pretty deep well, and my recommendation is to read it to understand it in general.  If you read it only looking for things relevant to this thread, you risk missing the entire point.  One thing to consider, though, is that he speaks mostly about individual actions and individual choices, and how those add up to collective behavior.


I think we have a little pot and kettle going on here.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 26, 2021)

gpseymour said:


> You hope. That's the problem with your assertions here. You've decided the beating isn't lethal, but the intevention is likely not going to end well.


Agree. It is easy to say on a forum "I would handle an encounter in X manner". It is a whole different thing when you are in the moment and have to assess things in a matter of seconds.


----------



## Steve (Aug 26, 2021)

dvcochran said:


> I think we have a little pot and kettle going on here.


Do tell.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Aug 27, 2021)

Steve said:


> I think what you're struggling with is the idea that in order to choose non-violence, one must have courage.  You're missing the forest for the trees.
> 
> There is additional information online.  Between Cowardice and Violence | Gandhi's views on Peace, Nonviolence and Conflict Resolution
> 
> And there are other things around, if you look.  It's a pretty deep well, and my recommendation is to read it to understand it in general.  If you read it only looking for things relevant to this thread, you risk missing the entire point.  One thing to consider, though, is that he speaks mostly about individual actions and individual choices, and how those add up to collective behavior.


Pacifisms weird.     Now i dont really know **** about Ghandi, but as far as i recall the release of india as a colony/terrtiory was the threat of rebbelion, international community threats and the promise of releasing it after WW2.        its also sort of odd, if you realise if the Indians didint fight in WW2, their land would have just been occupied by japan.    Say what you want but if you have no sticks, and a group of people has all the sticks, the group of people with the ticks tends to have final say.    Pacifists are always protected by non pacifists or are nihilists if they take it to the no violence under any cirucmstances level.    

(and this is going off the sterytype ghandi/cultrual myth ghandi, not the real ghandi)

As for the link, i have no idea what that website is, is it acredited and trust worthy as the source being "from the mind of ghandi" implies he wrote it, right there and then.   Its not really a soruce unless you can prove he wrote it somehwere.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 28, 2021)

Rat said:


> Pacifisms weird.     Now i dont really know **** about Ghandi, but as far as i recall the release of india as a colony/terrtiory was the threat of rebbelion, international community threats and the promise of releasing it after WW2.        its also sort of odd, if you realise if the Indians didint fight in WW2, their land would have just been occupied by japan.    Say what you want but if you have no sticks, and a group of people has all the sticks, the group of people with the ticks tends to have final say.    Pacifists are always protected by non pacifists or are nihilists if they take it to the no violence under any cirucmstances level.
> 
> (and this is going off the sterytype ghandi/cultrual myth ghandi, not the real ghandi)
> 
> As for the link, i have no idea what that website is, is it acredited and trust worthy as the source being "from the mind of ghandi" implies he wrote it, right there and then.   Its not really a soruce unless you can prove he wrote it somehwere.


I've always looked at non-violence as "The willingness to be the Victim."  It is something that is done when you want to show the worst of a ruling class.  No one like a ruling class to beat those who have done nothing.  Dogs and fire hoses against a group who is only marching and stating how unfair they are being treated, proves the reason for the march without a doubt.   It is a "chess move" that requires sacrifice.  

If the ruling class is smart enough then they would handle such situations with care.  Going overboard or not showing care for the citizens in such a imbalance way will only turn the citizens against the ruling class.  Crime is bad, but Civil Unrest is the worst as it usually highlights troubles within the system or highlights those who would take power by force.   Acting with force will only give the ruling class justification for responding with force. That is the real strength on non-violence protests.  It's the quickest way to gain support.

Compare Jan 6th with BLM protests over the summer.  One was by force and not many people got behind that.  The other was non-violent and the world followed.  I don't see non-violence in the same light that Ghandi sees it, or should I say as he claims to see it.  There are limitations to non-violence.  It's not a one size fits all.  Ghandi learned that the hard way when he tried to use the same approach with India and what is now Pakistan.  

He also learn the weakness of non-violent protest.  It only works when you have a lot of people doing it.  It doesn't work if you are the only one who is doing the non-violent protest.  It also must be visible to many.  Me non-violent protest in my home doesn't work.  The other big issue is the weakness of only having one person lead the way.  Get rid of that person and the support will fall.  Have multiple organizations supporting the non-violent protest and it becomes a harder thing to kill.

I don't think non-violence would work against a group who wishes your kind to no longer exists.  History has proved that there are many who are willing and able to wipe out a group of people or a culture.  taking a non-violent approach will just make their jobs easier.


----------



## chodanbo (Sep 4, 2021)

Urban Trekker said:


> This happened last month in my town:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He could have helped by calling 911.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 4, 2021)

JowGaWolf said:


> I've always looked at non-violence as "The willingness to be the Victim."  It is something that is done when you want to show the worst of a ruling class.  No one like a ruling class to beat those who have done nothing.  Dogs and fire hoses against a group who is only marching and stating how unfair they are being treated, proves the reason for the march without a doubt.   It is a "chess move" that requires sacrifice.
> 
> If the ruling class is smart enough then they would handle such situations with care.  Going overboard or not showing care for the citizens in such a imbalance way will only turn the citizens against the ruling class.  Crime is bad, but Civil Unrest is the worst as it usually highlights troubles within the system or highlights those who would take power by force.   Acting with force will only give the ruling class justification for responding with force. That is the real strength on non-violence protests.  It's the quickest way to gain support.
> 
> ...



Violent protest doesn't work if you are the only person doing it either.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 4, 2021)

drop bear said:


> Violent protest doesn't work if you are the only person doing it either.


Does no good to beat a dead horse either.


----------

