Domestic Assault in Public: A Case Study

[CB Jones]

@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]

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]

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]

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

@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]

@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.

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]

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]

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

 

[drop bear]

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]

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.

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]

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]

This happened last month in my town:

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

DeShawn “Shawn” Powell was working as a Papa John’s pizza driver on July 22 when he headed out at 7:20 p.m. for what he thought would be a routine delivery. But near the side door…

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?

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

 

[JowGaWolf]

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]

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

View attachment 27160


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

View attachment 27161

Maximum Safety of Bomb squad what it used to be.- Might as well give this guy a bowl and a spatula.
View attachment 27164

Safety maximization for today's bomb squad.

View attachment 27162

View attachment 27163

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.

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

 

[Steve]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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