Woman robs man on side of road, Two "samaritans" help her because she's a woman

[Eri]

Two passing motorists in Plainfield, New Jersey, rushed to help a woman who appeared to be defending herself against a male robber, only to learn later that the opposite was true.

When police arrived, the man explained that he was actually the victim: The woman had attacked him and he was trying to prevent her from making away with $400 in a case and an expensive gold chain. Unfortunately for him, the Good-Intentioned Samaritans intervened and allowed the woman to flee the scene.

Police were able to corroborate the man's story using gas station surveillance footage. According to the city's Public Safety Director Martin Hellwig, the suspect was still at large, but progress was being made.

http://gawker.com/5936570/passers+by-accidentally-help-robber-by-holding-down-victim

Because clearly any altercation between a man and a woman mean the man is the problem right?

I dunno what else to say really, this all happened because they were being sexist towards men. I'm sure they thought they were about to be a shining example of humanity, but instead, they looked before they leaped.

As far as I can tell, they didn't even bother to ask what was going on before just holding him down assuming he was the problem.

I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to sue them or get them arrested for losing him hundreds of dollars.

 

[Erana]

I dunno what else to say really, this all happened because they were being sexist towards men.

How do you know this?

Both sources in that link state that it appeared that the man was assaulting the woman. I mean, it says, "The victim said he tried to prevent his assailant from leaving the area, engaging her in a physical struggle" so the robbery victim was the person who initiated the physical encounter. What on Earth would have clued them into the fact that the person they saw attacking the other was actually a robbery victim?

Can you not jump to conclusions about sexism and give the well-intending accomplices for stepping into what looked like assault? I feel bad for them; they were just trying to help stop apparent assault, and now strangers on the internet are assuming that they're horrible sexist people who only intervened for glory.

I mean, what if they had walked into something that wasn't a robbery? What if this same gumption had saved a woman from being kidnapped or raped or something? Would they still be terrible, sexist people then?

 

[Eri]

I dunno what else to say really, this all happened because they were being sexist towards men.

How do you know this?

Both sources in that link state that it appeared that the man was assaulting the woman. I mean, it says, "The victim said he tried to prevent his assailant from leaving the area, engaging her in a physical struggle" so the robbery victim was the person who initiated the physical encounter. What on Earth would have clued them into the fact that the person they saw attacking the other was actually a robbery victim?

Can you not jump to conclusions about sexism and give the well-intending accomplices for stepping into what looked like assault? I feel bad for them; they were just trying to help stop apparent assault, and now strangers on the internet are assuming that they're horrible sexist people who only intervened for glory.

I mean, what if they had walked into something that wasn't a robbery? What if this same gumption had saved a woman from being kidnapped or raped or something? Would they still be terrible, sexist people then?

What would have clued them in? How about not assuming because there's a man and a woman fighting, that the man must have caused it?

That's why this entire thing happened, they didn't bother asking. They didn't even try to stop both of them and ask, they both just jumped the man, and watched a thief run away. From the article it even sounds a bit like the woman knew exactly what was about to happen and used it to her advantage.

And sure, if they had saved her, that would've been great, but they didn't. Because they just assumed there is no possible way she could be the one in the wrong.

 

[DirtyJunkieScum]

I dunno what else to say really, this all happened because they were being sexist towards men.

How do you know this?

Both sources in that link state that it appeared that the man was assaulting the woman. I mean, it says, "The victim said he tried to prevent his assailant from leaving the area, engaging her in a physical struggle" so the robbery victim was the person who initiated the physical encounter. What on Earth would have clued them into the fact that the person they saw attacking the other was actually a robbery victim?

Can you not jump to conclusions about sexism and give the well-intending accomplices for stepping into what looked like assault? I feel bad for them; they were just trying to help stop apparent assault, and now strangers on the internet are assuming that they're horrible sexist people who only intervened for glory.

I mean, what if they had walked into something that wasn't a robbery? What if this same gumption had saved a woman from being kidnapped or raped or something? Would they still be terrible, sexist people then?

To be fair we don't have enough information to judge, it doesn't say whether they saw the struggle initiate or exactly what was going on at the time, they were just involved in a physical struggle witnessed by the people who intervened and they judged that the man was the aggressor. They might have jumped to the conclusion because she was a woman, they might not.

Personally I don't feel that bad for them. Maybe they'll think a little harder next time about the correct course of action when witnessing an apparent assault. The guy who lost $500, now he gets my sympathy.

 

[Erana]

How about not assuming because there's a man and a woman fighting, that the man must have caused it?

The article said that the man did cause it. At least, the part where they were in a physical tussle.

"The victim said he tried to prevent his assailant from leaving the area, engaging her in a physical struggle, when the passing motorists apparently intervened"
AKA:
Man gets mugged.
Man attempts to aprehend assailant, engaging her in a physical struggle.
(passing motorists arrive in time to see this part of the encounter, but not the initial robbery)
Passing motorists attempt to restrain the person they saw attacking another.

I don't see where they jumped to any sexist conclusions. They just tried to stop a physical encounter between two people.
Oh, and also, "the entire situation was complicated by the fact that the victim was intoxicated and spoke limited English."
Yeah. That's going to make everything clear as day.
If you saw a drunk man attacking a woman, would you stop to ask "Hey, did that women attack you first?" or try to get the two people off of each other?

Because they just assumed there is no possible way she could be the one in the wrong.

And how do you know that? Can you read minds from a distance through time?

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

If the guy was man-handling the woman at the time to get his case back, then it would have looked like assault... I would have done the same thing by helping her...

If I had actually seen her robbing him then it would have been different, and I wouldn't help her, I would help him...

This isn't a case of sexism, it is a case of misinterpretation based on the timing of the perception of the event!

 

[omega 616]

so the robbery victim was the person who initiated the physical encounter.

What? The woman tried to rob first and unless she had psychic powers, I assume she did it physically. Imagine a person snatches your handbag, you tackle that person to the ground, are you the attacker or just trying to get your bag back?

The woman obviously played on the knight in shining armor coming to save her, plus the fact it would be assumed she was the one being attacked.

I bet two certain people feel very foolish right about then.

 

[Eri]

And how do you know that? Can you read minds from a distance through time?

Pretty simple really. Because as I've said multiple times now, they immediately restrained the man. No questions, no nothing, just immediately jumped him.

If they thought there was even the slightest possibility she was a problem, they would've done something, or at least tried to keep her at the scene. But they didn't. They had the right person, and they knew it.

 

[WoW Killer]

So, if you came across two people in a physical struggle, your first thought would be to calmly walk up to them and say "excuse me sir and madam, what appears to be the problem here?", while they're still clawing at one another?

 

[Eri]

So, if you came across two people in a physical struggle, your first thought would be to calmly walk up to them and say "excuse me sir and madam, what appears to be the problem here?", while they're still clawing at one another?

My first thought would be to separate them, not dogpile the guy. They had two people, one for each person to keep them off each other, but that's not what happened.

 

[Erana]

If they thought there was even the slightest possibility she was a problem, they would've done something, or at least tried to keep her at the scene. But they didn't. They had the right person, and they knew it.

Where the fuck are these assertions that they were restraining the man because "Oh shit, he's a dude, this must be all his evil works!" OK, exaggeration, but seriously. Where does, "They had the right person, and they knew it" come from?!

What they saw was a struggle between a drunk man and a woman. What they were probably doing is trying to stop people from hurting each other. If they managed to restrain one individual, and the other one flees, then success! Fight has ended. If the woman continued to fight, they would have probably tried to restrain both of them.

If it had been two men just fighting, if good Samaritans had broken up the fight, and one was drunk and couldn't speak the local language and the other one left the situation when given the opportunity, all without the robbery deal, would we be having this conversation?

Do you honestly think they were trying to stop the tussle for glory or to be knight and knightess in shining armor or something? It really just sounds like they were trying to diffuse a physical fight, and the thief just got lucky. I really don't think these guys deserve to be antagonized.

 

[Eri]

If they thought there was even the slightest possibility she was a problem, they would've done something, or at least tried to keep her at the scene. But they didn't. They had the right person, and they knew it.

Where the fuck are these assertions that they were restraining the man because "Oh shit, he's a dude, this must be all his evil works!" OK, exaggeration, but seriously. Where does, "They had the right person, and they knew it" come from?!

What they saw was a struggle between a drunk man and a woman. What they were probably doing is trying to stop people from hurting each other. If they managed to restrain one individual, and the other one flees, then success! Fight has ended. If the woman continued to fight, they would have probably tried to restrain both of them.

If it had been two men just fighting, if good Samaritans had broken up the fight, and one was drunk and couldn't speak the local language and the other one left the situation when given the opportunity, all without the robbery deal, would we be having this conversation?

Do you honestly think they were trying to stop the tussle for glory or to be knight and knightess in shining armor or something? It really just sounds like they were trying to diffuse a physical fight, and the thief just got lucky. I really don't think these guys deserve to be antagonized.

I don't think their overt-conscience thoughts were "IT'S HIS FAULT" and then they proceeded on.

My point is they didn't even have to think about it, because they just knew he was the problem. That's the whole sexist part, what other possibility could it have been if not his fault? They gave no other thought.

 

[Erana]

If they thought there was even the slightest possibility she was a problem, they would've done something, or at least tried to keep her at the scene. But they didn't. They had the right person, and they knew it.

Where the fuck are these assertions that they were restraining the man because "Oh shit, he's a dude, this must be all his evil works!" OK, exaggeration, but seriously. Where does, "They had the right person, and they knew it" come from?!

What they saw was a struggle between a drunk man and a woman. What they were probably doing is trying to stop people from hurting each other. If they managed to restrain one individual, and the other one flees, then success! Fight has ended. If the woman continued to fight, they would have probably tried to restrain both of them.

If it had been two men just fighting, if good Samaritans had broken up the fight, and one was drunk and couldn't speak the local language and the other one left the situation when given the opportunity, all without the robbery deal, would we be having this conversation?

Do you honestly think they were trying to stop the tussle for glory or to be knight and knightess in shining armor or something? It really just sounds like they were trying to diffuse a physical fight, and the thief just got lucky. I really don't think these guys deserve to be antagonized.

I don't think their overt-conscience thoughts were "IT'S HIS FAULT" and then they proceeded on.

My point is they didn't even have to think about it, because they just knew he was the problem. That's the whole sexist part, what other possibility could it have been if not his fault? They gave no other thought.

How the fuck do you know what they were thinking..? I'll say it again: Unless your a tele-chronologic mind-reader, you can't know what they were thinking.

They were trying to help stop a fight between two people, and that's all we can know at this point. They do not deserve you or anyone on the internet putting words into their mouths minds, and accusing them of being sexist.

 

[Eri]

If they thought there was even the slightest possibility she was a problem, they would've done something, or at least tried to keep her at the scene. But they didn't. They had the right person, and they knew it.

Where the fuck are these assertions that they were restraining the man because "Oh shit, he's a dude, this must be all his evil works!" OK, exaggeration, but seriously. Where does, "They had the right person, and they knew it" come from?!

What they saw was a struggle between a drunk man and a woman. What they were probably doing is trying to stop people from hurting each other. If they managed to restrain one individual, and the other one flees, then success! Fight has ended. If the woman continued to fight, they would have probably tried to restrain both of them.

If it had been two men just fighting, if good Samaritans had broken up the fight, and one was drunk and couldn't speak the local language and the other one left the situation when given the opportunity, all without the robbery deal, would we be having this conversation?

Do you honestly think they were trying to stop the tussle for glory or to be knight and knightess in shining armor or something? It really just sounds like they were trying to diffuse a physical fight, and the thief just got lucky. I really don't think these guys deserve to be antagonized.

I don't think their overt-conscience thoughts were "IT'S HIS FAULT" and then they proceeded on.

My point is they didn't even have to think about it, because they just knew he was the problem. That's the whole sexist part, what other possibility could it have been if not his fault? They gave no other thought.

How the fuck do you know what they were thinking..? I'll say it again: Unless your a tele-chronologic mind-reader, you can't know what they were thinking.

They were trying to help stop a fight between two people, and that's all we can know at this point. They do not deserve you or anyone on the internet putting words into their mouths minds, and accusing them of being sexist.

This same logic applies to you as well. You can't possibly know what they were thinking, so it is just as valid to take my position on it.

And I bet that man didn't deserve having his money and necklace stolen, but you know what? That obviously didn't stop them from handing it over to her under the guise of trying to save her.

 

[itsthesheppy]

If they thought there was even the slightest possibility she was a problem, they would've done something, or at least tried to keep her at the scene. But they didn't. They had the right person, and they knew it.

Where the fuck are these assertions that they were restraining the man because "Oh shit, he's a dude, this must be all his evil works!" OK, exaggeration, but seriously. Where does, "They had the right person, and they knew it" come from?!

What they saw was a struggle between a drunk man and a woman. What they were probably doing is trying to stop people from hurting each other. If they managed to restrain one individual, and the other one flees, then success! Fight has ended. If the woman continued to fight, they would have probably tried to restrain both of them.

If it had been two men just fighting, if good Samaritans had broken up the fight, and one was drunk and couldn't speak the local language and the other one left the situation when given the opportunity, all without the robbery deal, would we be having this conversation?

Do you honestly think they were trying to stop the tussle for glory or to be knight and knightess in shining armor or something? It really just sounds like they were trying to diffuse a physical fight, and the thief just got lucky. I really don't think these guys deserve to be antagonized.

I don't think their overt-conscience thoughts were "IT'S HIS FAULT" and then they proceeded on.

My point is they didn't even have to think about it, because they just knew he was the problem. That's the whole sexist part, what other possibility could it have been if not his fault? They gave no other thought.

How the fuck do you know what they were thinking..? I'll say it again: Unless your a tele-chronologic mind-reader, you can't know what they were thinking.

They were trying to help stop a fight between two people, and that's all we can know at this point. They do not deserve you or anyone on the internet putting words into their mouths minds, and accusing them of being sexist.

This same logic applies to you as well. You can't possibly know what they were thinking, so it is just as valid to take my position on it.

And I bet that man didn't deserve having his money and necklace stolen, but you know what? That obviously didn't stop them from handing it over to her under the guise of trying to save her.

Their insights to their state of mind are just as valid as yours; that is to say, not valid whatsoever and full off assumptions.

If they intervened because they assumed that a man and a woman fighting meant the man was the aggressor, then it was likely because they were working off of what is typically the safest assumption. While nobody in their right mind will claim that female-on-male abuse doesn't exist, it exist in smaller proportion to male-on-female. Also, given that men are naturally larger and stronger than women, if you walk into a situation and see a man and a woman in a physical altercation and you have no knowledge whatsoever of the situation beforehand, most people are going to default into assuming it is the man being the aggressor because that would better sync with how we expect the world to operate.

It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got to work with. It doesn't mean they're sexist, it just means that they are reacting to a situation using the tools our society has equipped them with.

 

[Erana]

If they thought there was even the slightest possibility she was a problem, they would've done something, or at least tried to keep her at the scene. But they didn't. They had the right person, and they knew it.

Where the fuck are these assertions that they were restraining the man because "Oh shit, he's a dude, this must be all his evil works!" OK, exaggeration, but seriously. Where does, "They had the right person, and they knew it" come from?!

What they saw was a struggle between a drunk man and a woman. What they were probably doing is trying to stop people from hurting each other. If they managed to restrain one individual, and the other one flees, then success! Fight has ended. If the woman continued to fight, they would have probably tried to restrain both of them.

If it had been two men just fighting, if good Samaritans had broken up the fight, and one was drunk and couldn't speak the local language and the other one left the situation when given the opportunity, all without the robbery deal, would we be having this conversation?

Do you honestly think they were trying to stop the tussle for glory or to be knight and knightess in shining armor or something? It really just sounds like they were trying to diffuse a physical fight, and the thief just got lucky. I really don't think these guys deserve to be antagonized.

I don't think their overt-conscience thoughts were "IT'S HIS FAULT" and then they proceeded on.

My point is they didn't even have to think about it, because they just knew he was the problem. That's the whole sexist part, what other possibility could it have been if not his fault? They gave no other thought.

How the fuck do you know what they were thinking..? I'll say it again: Unless your a tele-chronologic mind-reader, you can't know what they were thinking.

They were trying to help stop a fight between two people, and that's all we can know at this point. They do not deserve you or anyone on the internet putting words into their mouths minds, and accusing them of being sexist.

This same logic applies to you as well. You can't possibly know what they were thinking, so it is just as valid to take my position on it.

And I bet that man didn't deserve having his money and necklace stolen, but you know what? That obviously didn't stop them from handing it over to her under the guise of trying to save her.

Yeah... no. Being unable to prove things either way doesn't make everything valid.
And another thing- I never claimed to know what was running through their minds.
By your "logic," I could also claim that the two Samaritans were secretly accomplices to the woman, or that they were all actually aliens, and the gold chain was a magic mcguffin that would free their extraterrestrial race from being slaves to space squids.

I postulated on what their goals were, yes, but that was only to explain that there is a very real possibility that their actions were not guided by latent sexism, particularly one that seems most logical to me, considering the events reported by those articles. And I'm doing this because I think its wrong for you to rush to condemn people as sexist, using things you're coming up with on the spot and are claiming to be their thoughts.

 

[WoW Killer]

My first thought would be to separate them, not dogpile the guy. They had two people, one for each person to keep them off each other, but that's not what happened.

So you separate them. The man flails and shouts nonsense through alcohol infused breath, while the woman appears less hostile. Who would you expect needed more restraint, and hence turn towards? It would only take a moment for the woman to escape. You can't physically force her to remain where she is if she's not being aggressive.

I've actually been in a situation where a fight broke out between a man and a woman and when the woman was clearly the aggressor. When the man is holding his arms up in defence covering his face while the woman is the one shouting and flailing, it's very very obvious what's going on, and of course it is the woman you go to restrain. You restrain the one that appears most hostile, and I see nothing to suggest that's not what happened here.

 

[FamoFunk]

Wat.

They aren't sexist at all, they saw a Man physically restraining a Woman and decided to help. I highly doubt, unless you're the police, you'd hold them both back and try and find out what the problem was, you'd help the person that looks like they're in trouble which at the time was the Woman.

 

[JeffBergGold]

Two passing motorists in Plainfield, New Jersey, rushed to help a woman who appeared to be defending herself against a male robber, only to learn later that the opposite was true.

When police arrived, the man explained that he was actually the victim: The woman had attacked him and he was trying to prevent her from making away with $400 in a case and an expensive gold chain. Unfortunately for him, the Good-Intentioned Samaritans intervened and allowed the woman to flee the scene.

Police were able to corroborate the man's story using gas station surveillance footage. According to the city's Public Safety Director Martin Hellwig, the suspect was still at large, but progress was being made.

http://gawker.com/5936570/passers+by-accidentally-help-robber-by-holding-down-victim

Because clearly any altercation between a man and a woman mean the man is the problem right?

I dunno what else to say really, this all happened because they were being sexist towards men. I'm sure they thought they were about to be a shining example of humanity, but instead, they looked before they leaped.

As far as I can tell, they didn't even bother to ask what was going on before just holding him down assuming he was the problem.

I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to sue them or get them arrested for losing him hundreds of dollars.

I always told people white knights are dangerous, this article only verifies it even more. Getting robbed by a woman? White Knights jump in as accomplices to robbery.