It seems to me that people are generally less willing to get involved, even if the situation doesn't involve violence. As an example, this summer I was at the beach with my kids and mother. We were chatting with some other folks when we noticed that a swimmer was removing a buoy that marked the safe swimming area. The swimmer carried the buoy off to his nearby car. Two of us followed the fellow, made note of his car tag number, and asked him what he was doing. As it turns out, he had a marked municipal car and was removing the buoy for repairs. He appreciated being stopped by concerned citizens. He told us that he'd removed at least a dozen buoys over the summer from nearby beaches and that this was the only time he'd been questioned. Had he been a common thief, his action would have cost taxpayers hundreds of dollars, and perhaps compromised swimmer safety.
I don't understand why people are so reluctant to get involved, but we see it on a lot of levels. Not a healthy phenomenon.
To: Think free or die
I don't understand why people are so reluctant to get involved,
Well, if that young man was stealing the buoy and happened to be a minority, you may have been charged with a hate crime. I know it's a bit of an exageration, but lots of kooky things we would have scoffed at five or ten years ago are now true
posted on 09/12/2003 9:50:41 PM PDT
(The slippery slope is getting steeper.)
To: Think free or die; BartMan1
If I recall, one interesting note from the studies was that someone from a rural background was more likely to intervene than someone from a city background. Perhaps this correlates to the Kurdish woman's sentiments?
I think you're onto something, but it also is a very telling notion about the 2000 presidential results map, the real reason the behind red and blue.
posted on 09/13/2003 5:39:45 AM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson