I suppose it's all a case of what the individual considers the 'right' thing to be. There's a general value consensus in most areas, but that's not always representative of the individual, just a reflection of what we've been lead to believe is 'right' by those around us. Depending on where you live, I guess that could differ either way. To a lonely, self-reliant guy living in the slums, the general view might be 'every man for himself - it's a dog eat dog world. You win, you lose' In which case, he'd make a run for it and feel no regret. Amongst subcultural groups, it could be 'Always stick together - look out for your friends', in which case they'd intervene no matter what danger there was, based on the principle of representing bravery amongst their peers, or being seen not to neglect your friends when they need your help. but, for a somebody who's grown up in a well established society, amongst family and friends, in a generally well-to-do neighbourhood, their beliefs might be 'Always help those in need - give others the same treatment that you'd expect in return'. In which case, they might intervene, or they might call the police. So, In the event of someone witnessing somebody else being bullied/robbed - I guess their actions would all be relative to the way they were socialised, and their own personal belief systems. I think it'd just be foolish to assume that everyone's idea of what's 'right' would be the same. Myself, given my own personal values and those of my peers, I'd probably weigh up the odds - If I could get into serious danger, then i'd make them aware that I've seen it and go for help from the police, or a neighbour. If I was confident that I could breakup the dispute, then I'd put myself forward and directly intervene. I wouldn't, however, sacrafice my safety for somebody that I've never met unless I was able to analyse the situation first. Otherwise, I'd inform somebody of authority and allow them to deal with it, and keep an eye out for them afterwards. Whatever happened, I'd still help in some way - that's really all that can be expected of a bystander.
FYI: A watchman is a somewhat obsolescent term for a private security guard. It does NOT mean someone who witnesses a crime and does nothing, which I'm guessing is what you are asking about. Some people will stand around and encourage the person who is committing the unsavory act (robbery, bullying, hate crime, etc.). In that case, the bystander is as bad as the actual assailant. He or she is an accessory, and may further intimidate other bystanders from taking action. In other cases, the bystander may fear for his or her own safety, so does not take direct action. No one is obligated to risk his or her own safety to help anoter, although certainly the victim would hope someone would have the courage to step forward and try. Sometimes even reporting as a witness can be too dangerous. That is the reality in some gang-controlled neighborhoods.
So are we as bad as the vigilantes in Africa who rape women, pillage towns, and kill children, because we know it is happening and yet do nothing to stop it?
fantasy girl... a 'watchman' is a security guard, not an 'onlooker'... i suspect what you really meant was the latter, which is why everyone's perplexed by your first question... and yes, i believe those who stand by and let bad things happen to others [if they are capable of stopping/reporting/objecting to it] are nearly as bad as the perpetrators... if you have to ask why, i don't see that my explaining it will help any... don't you?... what if it was your mother/sister or children being raped and killed?... what would you think of all those enjoying safe, comfy lives looking the other way, or just saying 'how terrible' but not doing anything to stop it?
As I said, there are legitimate reasons to not step in. You will never be labelled a hero for hanging back, but there can be great risk in attempting to intervene, or even in attempting to report it. My daughter's car was vandalized a few days ago. She knows, in general terms, who did it, and why. She was giving rides to someone who was owed money to drug dealers, and they sent her a message. She reported the vandalism, but won't take it any further, for fear of her own safety, She also won't do any more favors for the guy she was giving rides to. And I won't force the issue with the police, even though they obviously foiled the report to the dumpster, because it will only put her at greater risk. But how about the people who stand around and cheer when a woman is being gang-raped? Or who encourage the bully who starts pounding on someone who wore the wrong skin in a bar? It's not all black and white.
Why would you be too weak to do anything about it? That's nonsense, and part of the problem. People believe they can't do anything about it, so they let people suffer. Sometimes it's as simple as letting people in authority know what is going on. Who is too weak to do that?
Rei, I've seen too many situations where those in authority lack either the powerr or te commitment to do anything about the situation, and where those who are the bullies and oppressors hold the power of life and death. It sucks, but sometimes there isn't a damn thing you can do, especially in the short term, without making matters even worse.
( I assume you mean look out, not on looker like maia stated) Yes, because the look out is informing the criminal if someone is coming so that they can get away and more often then not, they are the ones who attack first and they do get a cut of whatever the theif has taken. Same as the one driving the get away car, they are just as bad as the theif. ANy involvement in the crime taking place (unless you are a hostage of course), you are as bad as the one doing the crime. Yes I feel you are if you are just standing by and allowing someone to be bullied. I did in school, and I could have quite easily stepped in and stopped a friend of mine bullying a girl just because of her weight issues, but I thought "It isn't me bullying her, so I'll just let it go. I've done nothing wrong." The girl ended up trying to commit suicide that night, I could have quite easily stopped my friend from doing that. I ended my friendship with the bully that day, and when I was permitted to, I spoke with the victim, apologised to her and we became friends. She was a lovely girl and her weight issues were not actually her fault. Now she is thin again and the one who bullied her isn't and has finally found out what it is like to be on the receiving end of the bully stick! She don't like it at all... Bullying is cruel and there really is no need for it at all. It can cause serious mental problems in people of all ages and can affect young children for the rest of their lives. If you are standing by and allowing it to happen, then you may as well be standing there bullying the person as well because to the victim, it feels as though you were there to back up the bully and that you thought what the bully was doing is ok. If I see someone being bullied, I do what I can to help. If I know I can't help them, I find someone who can, like the authorities. Though, I don't tend to see much, other than in schools, because I don't go out much and don't associate much with people either.
In the case of school bullies, there is always someone who can do something. If the teachers can't, then it goes to the police. What police department is so crappy that they can't deal with a teenager who's assaulted someone? Commitment is another issue, but I'm talking ability not commitment. Either that, or they find a way to transfer the student to a school where they will be safe. Or in the case of one girl I knew, they found a way to home school her. I refuse to believe that there are situations involving school bullies where nothing can be done. You just have to know how to do it, and plan for it before something that serious does happen. Every school I know of that has plans for when it does happen, and holds anti-bullying events, has relatively little bullying. Doing something doesn't necessarily mean stopping the bully. Sometimes it's almost invisible. In cases like myself, for example, it's about helping the victim learn how to handle him/herself before it gets too serious. Yes, in some situations it will get worse before it gets better, but it will get better if you know what you are doing.
I'm sorry, but you obviously have never seen a school where the gangs rule. Stop thinking school. Think war zone.
All the schools in this area have anti-bullying strategies and what not, but it doesn't do a great deal. You can plan all you like and think that you know exactly how to deal with it, but no matter how much you know, and how much you plan, there will be cases where nothing can be done to stop it from happening unless you remove every single bully, and then, they are just going to continue to do it at the next school you send them to or even later on in life. Bullying is a cycle that will never end and it just gets worse and worse as life goes on because people have no respect for each other. Simple as that. (sorry for going off topic...)
Do you have any idea what city I live in? I went to school with members of the Bloods, in a school covered in tags. I have seen it, and I know there are programs that can be put into place to reduce these problems. In my city, the police are actively involved in a positive way that makes kids realize that they are good guys, not just people who come in and search for weapons and drugs from time to time. Once that happens, they see the wisdom in what they are saying and are more likely to choose the better options. It's the kids who have said this, not the adults. In some schools that needed extra help, there is a police officer that acts as a youth counsellor who is there all the time. Even our mayor is involved in any way he can by creating and enforcing bylaws regarding guns and providing safe places for kids to go, e.g. community centres. Our focus is more about primary and secondary prevention, which is why it's more successful. It's the same thing as educating kids on the dangers of smoking, before they even considered trying it, and banning smoking in certain places where there are children, instead of focusing on helping people quit once they've already had healthy problems as a result of smoking. Are they always successful? If course not. Do we miss things. Of course we do. I never said that it will always work, just that it can be done, and that you can't allow yourself to believe that there are any hopeless situations. And again, it's not always about eliminating the bullies, Tor, it's also about helping the potential or current victims learn to handle themselves.
Let's see. In the Salt Lake City we have Bloods, Cripps, Surenos, Nortenos, Sinaloan Cartel, Juarez cartel, Folks, People, Barons, Sundowners, Straight Edge, Chosen Few, Skinheads, and several unaffiliated gangs. We've got hispanic gangs, polonesian gangs, southeast asian gangs, white gangs, motorcycle gangs, and even violent activist groups like the Animal Liberation Front. I'm actually suprised I couldn't find any MS-13 activity in the area. The first seven on the list have at least five chapeters each in the area, and the Bloods and Cripps have much more. Here's the kicker this is a relatively safe part of the country. There's a far cry from having Bloods in the school and having gangs rule the school.
There is a difference, for sure. Doesn't change my overall point. That's where outreach to the younger kids, primary prevention, becomes even more important. It's important to understand why kids join gangs, provide alternatives, and show those who are in gangs, who still go to school, that it doesn't have to be that way, and the consequenses of making those decisions. Sounds impossible, but it's not when everyone gets involved.
California's prisons got full, so they shipped them out here and when their sentences ran out they didn't go home. Also, Utah's a popular stopping ground for illegal aliens. But it's still not gangland. All the streets are still safe during the day, and most during the night. The point is that gangs are everywhere, any kid who grew up in an urban environment in the last twenty years or so and didn't go to school with the bloods or the cripps or whoever else was very sheltered indeed. Personally, I think it is impossible given the nature of people, but it's still worth it to make the effort. Even if you can't reach out to them all, the one or two out of a dozen or a hundred would probably make the case that it was very much worth it for them. The problem with that kind of thing is its circular nature. You have to convince everyone to leave that life before they can get involved to convince everyone to leave that life. The solution to the goal is the same thing as the goal itself. We have to make due with trying to do the convincing without having everyone involved. I'm sorry about taking this off topic though. I honestly haven't completely figured out my position on how guilty you are if "forced" to do something, but that doesn't matter in answering the OP's question because no matter the circumstances, the person holding the gun or throwing the punch has always done more to make that shot or punch happen, and they have always had more, and better, chances to stop it from happening. The onlooker can't have the same amount of guilt because they can't have the same amount of responsibility for the act committed no matter if you look at it from the angle of what they actually did or the angle of what they could have done. Cowardice is vile and disgusting, but it is not the same thing as guilt. Edit: I just realized that this whole time in my head I've been replacing "bad" from the OP with "guilty." My answer stays the same though, because in my mind the two words are interchangeable. I'm sorry if I've been arguing something different than what you thought.
