Philadelphia Train Sexual Assault (Content Warning I guess, because this one is BAD)

[CriticalGaming]

They didn't do anything because they will have remembered the hijackings back in the 1970s, when the passengers would almost always be released, and the terrorists had control of the cockpit, which gave them a vastly more devastating threat than a gun: the ability to crash the plane.

The passengers attempted to storm the cockpit on the last plane almost certainly because it was significantly later than the others. News of the other planes had come through to those with mobile phones and they realised that they had nothing to lose.

You're right. Just comparing the phenomena. I'm sure if phones could record video back in 2001, people on those planes would have been filming the hijacking the same way. It's the same kind of thing just happening in a different era.

I have a hard time getting upset over people not being a hero in either instance because being a hero is fucking hard and not everyone can just spring up to do it.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Paralyzed out of fear, but maintaining the presence of mind to break out their phones, find the camera app, switch to video and record the whole thing? I'm sorry, they don't get the "trauma" pass in this case.

Well remember, we are always on our phones these days right? Everyone, all the fucking time, and it's comfortable. So because the phone is such a comfortable place, it's easy for it to become the first instinct to grab (for the wrong thing in this regard) out of comforting reflex. So IMO, i don't think the behavior is all that unreasonable. It's not great behavior and showcases a problem we have with technology in a lot of ways but that's not really the crux of the argument here.

I highly doubt everyone just thought it would be fun to record a rape happening in front of them. So I'm much more likely to get the "shock" response out of it tbh.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Well remember, we are always on our phones these days right? Everyone, all the fucking time, and it's comfortable. So because the phone is such a comfortable place, it's easy for it to become the first instinct to grab (for the wrong thing in this regard) out of comforting reflex. So IMO, i don't think the behavior is all that unreasonable. It's not great behavior and showcases a problem we have with technology in a lot of ways but that's not really the crux of the argument here.

I highly doubt everyone just thought it would be fun to record a rape happening in front of them. So I'm much more likely to get the "shock" response out of it tbh.

That's my point. Technology has afforded us a view of reality that dehumanizes each other. The world isn't one we share so much as it is something we observe without appreciation of consequence. That's not an excuse, but a direct allegation that people need to do better, especially in cases such as this.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Diffusion of responsibility/bystander effect. And apparently a far more straightforward example than the murder of Kitty Genovese.

As an individual, you are likely to think that surely someone's called for help, there are so many witnesses. So the rational decision given the situation and surrounding culture and everything else that is relevant is to... film it, I guess? Apparently so, according to this impromptu and informal experiment.

 

[CriticalGaming]

That's not an excuse, but a direct allegation that people need to do better, especially in cases such as this.

Sure, but that is still asking someone to put themselves deliberately into danger and very few people have the guts to do that. Is it fucked up they fucked filmed it, yes, but it is a knee jerk reaction to a situation in which nobody truly know's how to act in.

 

[Adam Jensen]

Paralyzed out of fear, but maintaining the presence of mind to break out their phones, find the camera app, switch to video and record the whole thing? I'm sorry, they don't get the "trauma" pass in this case.

Yeah, fuck these people. Why did everyone feel the need to record the act? It's not like something as bad as a literal rape wouldn't become viral. One video is fuckin' enough. But noooo, they all had to record it instead of helping the poor woman.

In a case like this, the other people are as guilty as if they are literal accomplices. Fuck each and every one of them (in the ass, with a cheese grater).

 

[Xprimentyl]

Sure, but that is still asking someone to put themselves deliberately into danger and very few people have the guts to do that. Is it fucked up they fucked filmed it, yes, but it is a knee jerk reaction to a situation in which nobody truly know's how to act in.

Still does not excuse anyone who filmed and didn't call the cops. They didn't have to physically intervene, but seeing as filming literally took more effort than calling the cops, it was clear efforts were misguided at best, and voyeuristic, selfish, and perversely callous at worst. Saying a guy killed his wife because she cheated on him doesn't excuse him of murder; adultery was his motivation, but beyond that, there's nothing to excuse.

So we're clear, I'm saying I know why people didn't get involved, but filming and not acting in the most passive way possible is indicative of a culture that prioritizes spectacle over basic, human decency. I don't care why they did what they did; I care that they didn't do what they should have done.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Still does not excuse anyone who filmed and didn't call the cops. They didn't have to physically intervene, but seeing as filming literally took more effort than calling the cops, it was clear efforts were misguided at best, and voyeuristic, selfish, and perversely callous at worst. Saying a guy killed his wife because she cheated on him doesn't excuse him of murder; adultery was his motivation, but beyond that, there's nothing to excuse.

So we're clear, I'm saying I know why people didn't get involved, but filming and not acting in the most passive way possible is indicative of a culture that prioritizes spectacle over basic, human decency. I don't care why they did what they did; I care that they didn't do what they should have done.

I mean that's a fair opinion to hold. I'm just not so willing to assume everyone on the train was THAT big of a piece of shit to make such a deliberate filming choice. I feel like the more logical explaination is the comfort reflex thing.

Also bare in mind, that the article merely states that SOME people held up their phone, it isn't even clear if anyone was filming at all. It also isn't clear just how much people saw. They figure about 40 witnesses but the article states that it is unclear how much those 40 people would have seen at any given time. So the allegations of people filming are implied. People held up their phones, but it doesn't say they held them up pointed at the assault happening. It could very well be that they were just trying to bury their heads in the sand, too scared to try and do anything about it.

Again also the assumption that SOMEONE must be calling 911 is a chain thought that could very well lead to nobody calling 911, especially if some bystanders came and left off the train during this. A person leaving the train surely must have gone to call the cops, or if walking onto the train then surely one of these passengers must already have called the cops right?

 

[Adam Jensen]

Again also the assumption that SOMEONE must be calling 911 is a chain thought that could very well lead to nobody calling 911, especially if some bystanders came and left off the train during this. A person leaving the train surely must have gone to call the cops, or if walking onto the train then surely one of these passengers must already have called the cops right?

Bystander effect is an explanation, but it is not and it will never be an excuse.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Bystander effect is an explanation, but it is not and it will never be an excuse.

"This is what humans normally do in this situation" is usually a pretty good excuse.

 

[Trunkage]

They didn't do anything because they will have remembered the hijackings back in the 1970s, when the passengers would almost always be released, and the terrorists had control of the cockpit which gave them a vastly more devastating threat than a gun: the ability to crash the plane.

The passengers attempted to storm the cockpit on the last plane almost certainly because it was significantly later than the others. News of the other planes will have come through to those with mobile phones and they realised that they had nothing to lose.

Remember when hijackings were fun

 

[CriticalGaming]

Remember when hijackings were fun

Like hitting the rng button on your destination. "I was going to Phoenix, but Egypt could also be fun."

 

[Samtemdo8]

1. Who are the names of the perpatrator and victim?

2. I really think this should be precedent to have Station Guards in the train and in the subway halls. If Airports have tight security, why not Subways?

 

[Samtemdo8]

You know what the situation reminds me of?

This is the equivalent of a herd of sheep running away in fear or sometimes ambivalence when a wolf attacks and eats one of their own.

 

[CriticalGaming]

1. Who are the names of the perpatrator and victim?

The victim isn't named in the article but the attacker is.

 

[Gordon_4]

1. Who are the names of the perpatrator and victim?

2. I really think this should be precedent to have Station Guards in the train and in the subway halls. If Airports have tight security, why not Subways?

Airports - International ones especially - have tight security because they are literally the gates to the kingdom.

 

[09philj]

Some guys tried to mug me and my friend once. There were a few other people around but I don't really blame them for not getting involved because they looked pretty old and frail and there were five of them. My friend did get beaten fairly badly, although nothing was broken, and I scared them off with some theatrics. If that hadn't worked I would have been in trouble because I'm not really cut out for actual violence; I'm a 5'4" weakling with no self defence training. I had to rely on my ability to convey that I had both the methods and desire to visit grievous bodily harm onto the assailants. If a person has no confidence in their ability to introduce more violence into a violent situation, nor a flair for the dramatic that will let them give that impression, it will be difficult for them to intervene without confidence that they'll be assisted by those around them.

 

[CM156]

So, let me just start with a nice disclaimer that I am only analyzing the legal aspect of this issue involving bystanders. I am not and will not analyze the moral aspects. None of what I say should be taken as legal advice. I am not licensed in The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and if you have legal issues you should contact a competent attorney in good standing in your jurisdiction.

At Common Law (at least in the United States), there exists no general duty to rescue. It means that, in general, you can just generally watch crimes happen in front of you without getting involved. The series finale of Seinfeld lied to you, Good Samaritan laws protect people who do intervene from legal liability, but do not compel action Now, some states do have requirements that if a person witnesses a certain crime (rape, murder) that they must at least notify law enforcement assuming they are able to do so safely. I am unable to find if PA has such a law. Also, at least as far as I have seen, such laws are misdemeanors that are rarely (if ever) enforced in the states where they exist.

There are cases where people do have a duty to render care, for example, doctors to patients and parents to children. But there does not exist this duty in general at least in the United States (some Civil Law countries have different rules) So there is almost certainly nothing these people can be charged with.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Remember when hijackings were fun

Yep.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I have a hard time getting upset over people not being a hero in either instance because being a hero is fucking hard and not everyone can just spring up to do it.

It's not that hard.

Like, there are obvious limits. As soon as a weapon is involved things get a bit different. But accepting that you're going to take a beating from someone isn't that hard to do, and I say this as a tiny disabled person. You just need to be angry. Really, really angry. I guess it probably gets easier the more violence you have experienced, but once you've crossed that mental threshold of knowing you're going to take a beating, the adrenaline kicks in and the rest is easy.

So I think my real issue here is that I don't understand why seeing someone being sexually assaulted on a train wouldn't make someone that angry, or why anyone would choose the long term trauma of having done nothing over the short term trauma of having been beaten up.