Interrogation: What Should You Do in This Scenario?

[wrobel]

Imagine you are walking along the street in the night. Suddenly you see several criminals which have gripped a woman, they are robbing her and going to rape her. The woman is screaming. The criminals are likely forearmed.
What will you do

1) I will call the police, then wait for them and conduct them to the place. In this case the time will possibly be lost
2) I will enter the fight and perhaps I will be killed or crippled.

 

[Pepper Mint]

Imagine you are walking along the street in the night. Suddenly you see several criminals which have gripped a woman, they are robbing her and going to rape her. The woman is screaming. The criminals are likely forearmed.
What will you do

1) I will call the police, then wait for them and conduct them to the place. In this case the time will possibly be lost
2) I will enter the fight and perhaps I will be killed or crippled.

In my case, she got a high chance of being robbed and raped. But I will take pictures all the guys from behind for later use of them at the police stations. I will play hide and seek with them, probably make more noise to detract them from their currently intense sexual urge, separate them then try to kill one by one, etc.

 

[Sophia]

As I am a petite woman, I couldn't do anything against a group of men.
I would call the police. It depends on the circumstances if there was a place where I could make a video or take pictures of them from the distance where they couldn't see me. If there was no such a place to hide I would run away in fear.

 

[wrobel]

Thanks. I forgot to say the question is for men

 

[ProfuselyQuarky]

What a disturbing thread

 

[Choppy]

This question seems to play into some of the common misconceptions about sexual assault. That's not to say that situations like the example listed don't ever occur, but in most cases of sexual assault there is a pre-existing relationship of some sort between the assailant(s) and the person who survives the assault. The nature of the narrative also plays into the idea of a woman "screaming" and while I'm sure that happens in some cases, it's the absence of consent that defines the crime as opposed to the presence of blatant struggling and resistance.

The criminals are likely forearmed.

They would probably have some difficulty in the execution of their crimes without forearms.

 

[rootone]

If there are several guys, possibly armed, it's unlikely I could help the victim by direct intervention. (unless I am James Bond and it's just a movie)
I would probably try to alert anyone and everyone I could, nearby residents, people in shops etc, passing motorists, whatever, and at some stage the police.
Gang rapes on the street involving weapons are not exactly commonplace though are they?
Not even in Afghanistan or other such places where anarchy tends to be the law as far as I know.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Call the police immediately. Then, from a safe distance, call to the attackers and let them know you called the police and they'll be there any second. Then use rootone's idea of trying to rouse a counterforce of nearby people.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

I would have a difficult time stopping myself from intervening if my daughter weren't with me, even if there were a weapon (I keep a pistol in my car). I have a short-fuse for both bullies and cowards. I have intervened in physical altercations many times since childhood. There were too many times I needed someone to protect me from beatings. Nobody was ever there to stop it. So, I couldn't live with such cowardly behavior now that I can defend myself and others.

What if it were your daughter- would any of you intervene then? Or would you just wait for someone else to take care of it?

 

[rootone]

Somebody else would have to take care of it if I was already dead.
I did once manage to stop some drunk teenagers from molesting each other on a bus though.
It was easier than I thought, Just told them to stop being so frigging annoying and loud.

 

[wrobel]

Thanks all.
In old times almost each man knew that his first task was to save and to defend and he knew that it was better to be dead than to be coward. He knew what dignity was. In the present time the terrorists are ready to die for their mad ideas but almost all of us are not ready to jeopardize our lives for saving somebody.

 

[256bits]

Thanks all.
In old times almost each man knew that his first task was to save and to defend and he knew that it was better to be dead than to be coward. He knew what dignity was. In the present time the terrorists are ready to die for their mad ideas but almost all of us are not ready to jeopardize our lives for saving somebody.

Which old times is that?

 

[wrobel]

till 30th-40th of the past century I guess

 

[micromass]

Thanks all.
In old times almost each man knew that his first task was to save and to defend and he knew that it was better to be dead than to be coward. He knew what dignity was. In the present time the terrorists are ready to die for their mad ideas but almost all of us are not ready to jeopardize our lives for saving somebody.

Any reference for that since I find that hard to believe.

 

[Pepper Mint]

Thanks all.
In old times almost each man knew that his first task was to save and to defend and he knew that it was better to be dead than to be coward. He knew what dignity was. In the present time the terrorists are ready to die for their mad ideas but almost all of us are not ready to jeopardize our lives for saving somebody.

It's likely cultural differences and failed anger management.

Thanks. I forgot to say the question is for men

And thus people chain themselves with more stereotypical thoughts, many of which are eradicated in younger generations.

 

[wrobel]

Any reference for that since I find that hard to believe.

references for what? did not you know about heroism of ordinary civilians during World War II?for example

And thus people chain themselves with more stereotypical thoughts, many of which are eradicated in younger generations.

Which stereotypical thoughts do you mean?

 

[micromass]

references for what? did not you know about heroism of ordinary civilians during World War II?for example

Sure. But you said "almost each man". Just saying that there was a big resistence movement proves nothing other than that there were some very brave individuals. Furthermore, you wouldn't know whether such a resistence movement would happen now or not since we're not in a world war.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Myself, I'm fond of the even older days, when each man knew he had to kill a dragon and save a princess.
I can provide ironclad anecdotal evidence of that being true.

 

[wrobel]

But you said "almost each man".

I said "almost each man knew". To know what you must do and to do that is not the same. But when everybody knows what good and evil are, then in the critical situation you will find a lot of people who follow their duty. And look at this thread: nobody believes that only the second possibility from my question is right.

since we're not in a world war.

O, indeed? please recall me how many acts of terrorism do we have from the last two weeks ?

 

[micromass]

I said "almost each man knew". To know what you must do and to do that is not the same. But when everybody knows what good and evil are, then in the critical situation you will find a lot of people who follow their duty. And look at this thread: nobody believes that only the first possibility from my question is right.

Why do you think the first possibility is good and the second is not? To be honest, if I see 10 strong guys harassing a woman, trying to stop them is foolish and egotistical. Calling the police is the only thing that will really save her.

O, indeed? please recall me how many acts of terrorism do we have from the last two weeks ?

That constitutes a world war now? Cool, whatever you like to use as definition, but I think that a few (very horrible) acts of terrorism doesn't really weight up to what happened in a world war.

 

[micromass]

And yean, people in the last world war really did know the difference between good and evil, didn't they? Hmmm... Holocaust, atomic bombing, dresden bombing,... Yep, sounds like people who know who to do good!

 

[wrobel]

Why do you think the first possibility is good and the second is not?

I think 2) is good ( I have corrected the misprint).

To be honest, if I see 10 strong guys harassing a woman, trying to stop them is foolish and egotistical. Calling the police is the only thing that will really save her.

Ok. You have called the police what will you do next? At least what you consider you ought to do?

 

[micromass]

I think 2) is good ( I corrected the misprint).Ok. You have called the police what will you do next?

I don't know. It depends on the situation. I can start bragging here how I would attack them or whatever. But I can't. It all depends on what happens at the moment itself. You know, some people freeze, some people flight, some people fight. I can't tell what I would do. The situation in a crisis is not something I control, and I won't pretend them.

I don't think a person is evil or bad though if he chooses not to attack the guys. I think you're mistaking bravery for goodness.

 

[wrobel]

I don't know.

I do not know about myself too. But I believe the second variant is right.

I don't think a person is evil or bad

No I did not intend to blame anybody, I don't even know what I would do.

 

[micromass]

I do not know about myself too. But I believe the second variant is right.

Is it? If I attack the guys and get injured or die, then who will take care of my children? Who will get money to pay for their food? Without me they'll be orphans and have nobody in this world. Do you still think the second variant is right?
What if I'm the only doctor in the village, and I die while attacking the guys? Then a lot of people in the village would die because I foolishly risked my life.

The scenario as in the OP is just simplistic. Right and wrong are way more complicated than this.

 

[russ_watters]

Thanks all.
In old times almost each man knew that his first task was to save and to defend and he knew that it was better to be dead than to be coward. He knew what dignity was. In the present time the terrorists are ready to die for their mad ideas but almost all of us are not ready to jeopardize our lives for saving somebody.

It sounds to me like in "the old times" you describe, people were stupid. And I'm saying this as a former member of the military, the entire point of which is to risk your life to save others.

references for what? did not you know about heroism of ordinary civilians during World War II?for example

I think the problem here is that you made a bad comparison and fundamentally misunderstand how the military approaches fighting.

 

[russ_watters]

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.

George S. Patton
http://mobile.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgespa102496.html

For he that fights and runs away,
May live to fight another day ;
Demosthenes

A quick Google finds some discussions of the idea suggesting that though not universal, the idea of a glorious death in war was common in the west up until about WWI, when people realized how stupid it was to consider dying of gas poisoning in a trench to be "glorious."

Preservation of troops was mainstream after that and after WWII and Vietnam, protection of everyone grew in favor. That's a lot of the reason why today western wars kill orders of magnitude fewer people than earlier wars.

 

[wrobel]

It sounds to me like in "the old times" you describe, people were stupid. And I'm saying this as a former member of the military, the entire point of which is to risk your life to save others.

How do you find a line between cowardice and not-to-be-stupid?

 

[russ_watters]

How you define a line between a stupid risk and a cowardice?

It's pretty straightforward: cowardice is an emotion leading to action taken or not taken due to fear. A stupid risk is an action that costs a lot and is likely to fail. There is no line between them because they are unrelated concepts. For example, playing the lottery is a stupid risk, but choosing not to play the lottery has nothing to do with cowardice.

 

[wrobel]

I updated the question please see above

 

[russ_watters]

I updated the question please see above

The answer stays the same: there is no line because the concepts are not related.

 

[wrobel]

The answer stays the same: there is no line because the concepts are not related.

O no! they are related very much. Every coward justifies himself by argument that the risk was stupid and that he is saving his life for further battles. Everybody who was in army knows this.

 

[russ_watters]

O no! they are related very much. Every coward justifies himself by argument that the risk was stupid and that he is saving his life for further battles. Everybody who was in army knows this.

That's being a coward and a liar. If you make a decision based on fear, that's cowardice, period. But that still doesn't make the issues logically related.

Also, note that for the military, the decisions are generally not even made by the person who fears the outcome. Some general or admiral does the risk calculation and decides what orders to give. Cowardice should not factor into the calculation because he is not personally at risk.

 

[micromass]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the point here. If I don't enter the fight, the woman will be harmed and I will feel bad. But if I do enter the fight, it is almost certain the woman and I will be harmed. So there is no objective benefit for me to enter the fight. The only reason for me to enter the fight is because it would make me feel good. So entering the fight is just a selfish desire not to feel bad, it has no actual benefits.

 

[Evo]

Why do you think the first possibility is good and the second is not? To be honest, if I see 10 strong guys harassing a woman, trying to stop them is foolish and egotistical. Calling the police is the only thing that will really save her.
That constitutes a world war now? Cool, whatever you like to use as definition, but I think that a few (very horrible) acts of terrorism doesn't really weight up to what happened in a world war.

I have to agree with micromass. What happens when you are in a war and what happens when there are isolated terrorist events are very different.

If you see a gang attacking someone and you are unarmed, the best thing you can do is call the police, perhaps video the action to help identify the culprits, and perhaps go to a safe location and make a distracting noise to let them know they have been seen. Otherwise, you will just be another victim, especially if they are armed. You do not know if they are on drugs, which makes them even more dangerous. It's sad, but true. You cannot fool yourself into thinking that you can intercede in a situation like this if you are unarmed and untrained and come out alive.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the point here. If I don't enter the fight, the woman will be harmed and I will feel bad. But if I do enter the fight, it is almost certain the woman and I will be harmed. So there is no objective benefit for me to enter the fight. The only reason for me to enter the fight is because it would make me feel good. So entering the fight is just a selfish desire not to feel bad, it has no actual benefits.

You spot three neighborhood teen thugs beating your handicapped 7 year old brother. He is wailing. You are screaming at them to stop. You remove your skates and launch them while running towards the group, totally missing. You don't want to fight them, you just want them to stop. There was no phone. There were no adults or cars that were passing to flag down. Running around screaming around for help would have done no good. The benefits were that there were fewer kicks to his head. I took a "stupid risk". It was common for attacks like this to happen in the neighborhoods where we spent most of our childhood. I had already witnessed the outcomes and knew their intentions. I had to try to stop them. It is nothing to do with bravery here. I just couldn't live with it at the moment, an admittingly selfish motive on my part.

I think the situation the OP is describing is very rare to begin with. Robberies often happen with minimal physical injury and are over quickly. If a weapon is even present, it usually isn't used. Gang rapes probably don't occur in a place where a person would witness it. Having both happen at the same time is unusual. I think my decision would be made by determining the intention of the group firstly. If a person is being raped, then raising a verbal alarm, calling the police and keeping a safe distance would likely stop it. If a person was being robbed, then they should comply. And unless the person was receiving possibly fatal blows, then others should probably not intervene. I reckon that I posted with some bias because of past experience. I meant more so along the times that the groups intention seemed life-threatening to the person or they were receiving possible death blows, that they should intervene to sabotage the attack, not to fight them. I meant it would be more cowardly not to act when a persons was being beaten to near death. He had serious health problems and hadn't been out of leg braces for very long at the time, his bones broke more easily than other childrens.

I apologize to anyone I offended for being biased in my prior post. I still haven't forgiven myself for letting go of those skates and for not keeping nearby- they thought he was alone.

 

[256bits]

It is nothing to do with bravery here. I just couldn't live with it at the moment, an admittingly selfish motive on my part.

You did the right thing, for you and your brother.
Selfish on your part - not on your life. Altruistic behavior to help out members of your group and looking out for one another. If such an act is selfish, it is for the benefit of the group as a whole, which can lead to a better outlook for the individuals as they are all carried along as a complete unit. Besides the closer bonding of the group members that comes from such occurances, the "forces" outside the group will be less inclined to interfere with the individuals of the group and the group itself. consider it an invisible wall of protection.

Looking at the situation and analyzing it from just an 'individual" point of view can lead to an incorrect and incomplete solution.
Helping out someone you do not know, even at the risk of the helping individual coming to harm, and of having no immediate return on the investment of the action of intervention. The intervention can signal to the attackers that this community looks out for one another, and future possible attacks against members of the community, including your mother or sister, may not happen just because of that. There can be a real benefit for direct intervention of an individual for the community, even if at the expense of the individual.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If I saw someone I knew getting dragged away to be hurt I probably would try to leap into action. But that doesn't make it the best thing to do. In a fight I might be able to hold my own against one other guy, providing that he is relatively unskilled. Against multiple people I, like almost everyone, would get hurt and achieve little.

Now there is a chance that just by entering the fray you drive off the thugs. Because they just wanted an easy target or are afraid of drawing more noise etc. But you don't know that from the start. What you do know is that the situation is much more likely to be resolved satisfactorily if you get help, calling the police and yelling for people to come.

This idea that men used to be MEN who would heroically throw themselves at impossible odds is ridiculous because a) it's highly unlikely that people are any less brave than they were (though they are demonstrably less violent) and b) it's not the best way to save anyone.

Consider a different, less evocative scenario: you see a man being dragged down a raging river. Do you:

1) Call for help, maybe trying to get a stick or something to drag him out

or

2) Kick off your shoes and dive right into the rapids to save him