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

[axlryder]

Letting the woman get away was foolish. If there are two people involved in an altercation, both of them should be present when the police arrive. That should be the case regardless of who was at fault. This was a product of social prejudice and ignorance. That said, I can't fault the men too harshly for a number of reasons.

Agree in that when shit goes down everyone should wait for the police.
Also, man and woman intervened not two men - I dont know why people keep getting that wrong.

Sexism.

Man, this just got so meta I need to have a sit down.

In all seriousness, it's because it's not mentioned in the original post, the gender of the two motorist, that is, and so people just assume it was two men who stopped.

So yeah, sexism.

Actually in my case it's because I saw someone else mention that they were two men (or addressed them as two men). Previous to that I don't believe anyone had attempted to clarify (or at least I didn't see it). So really just mistaken information. I'm guessing that some others stumbled across the same post and it went from there. I've only read the first and second page so I dunno.

 

[Neonit]

oh ffs, what are you people discussing.

IT IS SEXISM. THEY MADE A DECISION BASED ON GENDER(and their, apparently false assumptions about genders), THEREFORE - SEXISM.

that there are people who would even argue about that is mind-boggling!

saying "oh, but men are more likely" is EXACTLY the same as saying that Black people, Hispanics, Chinese or what you want are more likely to be criminal.

it is sexism by very friggin definition.

OR it's not sexism, it's that the man was restraining the woman and to the inoccent bystander it looked as if he was the aggressor. Not because he was a man, but because shit happens and people get stuff wrong.

When you only have a split second to react it's easy to make the incorrect decision.

why yes, and the question remains, why did he think it was the man being aggressor. and the most likely answer would be (like you can CLEARLY see in this thread) that it was caused by the misconception of women being UNABLE to be the aggressor. If the roles were reversed (women restraining the man) they would most probably still jump onto the man.

Therefore sexism.

 

[Spearmaster]

If someone had a knife or a club I might intervene, otherwise I might just watch to make sure nothing got completely out of hand till police arrive.

As far as the guys that thought they were running to the rescue...I don't think you can call it sexism but gender bias maybe, which is ingrained in culture but this really seems to be a case of circumstance more than anything, they were helping someone that seemed to be in trouble at the time and I would hope they would do that weather man or woman.

From a social standpoint it would seem to be sexist to help either side in an altercation between a man or a woman regardless of who was in the wrong, which leaves someone in quite a quandary of weather to help someone and be sexist/gender biased or to to remain politically correct and let someone possibly be hurt or worse.

Quite the quandary indeed.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Come on! I know, reading the story after the fact, that the woman was the robber and the man was attacking her just to get his stuff back! How could these two passersby, who probably didn't see anything other than the man attacking the woman, not know that she deserved to be attacked? Fucking sexists.

I don't have to clarify that's sarcasm, do I?

 

[Neonit]

oh ffs, what are you people discussing.

IT IS SEXISM. THEY MADE A DECISION BASED ON GENDER(and their, apparently false assumptions about genders), THEREFORE - SEXISM.

that there are people who would even argue about that is mind-boggling!

saying "oh, but men are more likely" is EXACTLY the same as saying that Black people, Hispanics, Chinese or what you want are more likely to be criminal.

it is sexism by very friggin definition.

OR it's not sexism, it's that the man was restraining the woman and to the inoccent bystander it looked as if he was the aggressor. Not because he was a man, but because shit happens and people get stuff wrong.

When you only have a split second to react it's easy to make the incorrect decision.

why yes, and the question remains, why did he think it was the man being aggressor. and the most likely answer would be (like you can CLEARLY see in this thread) that it was caused by the misconception of women being UNABLE to be the aggressor. If the roles were reversed (women restraining the man) they would most probably still jump onto the man.

Therefore sexism.

First of all, it was a guy and a girl that stumbled across the scene, not two or one man. That's kind of pretty basic information about the situation. Might help to read about it before commenting >_>

Secondly, if you read the actual report, the two witnesses saw a volatile drunk accosting someone and pulled him off of her to stop the fight. When they did this, the woman ran away.

Why does it matter which gender did the two have? thats not whats important here, what is important was that there were two people fighting, and their gender. The gender of people who decided to involve themselves is of no concern.

The second part. Well, if they just came along and asked whenever they would be willing to wait for police, the women would probably start to twitch and try to run away. It would be a lot simpler that way, but sadly a different course of action has been decided, on base which can be considered as sexists.

Thirdly, there is no reason to insult people on the internet, it just reflects poorly on you.

 

[Neonit]

oh ffs, what are you people discussing.

IT IS SEXISM. THEY MADE A DECISION BASED ON GENDER(and their, apparently false assumptions about genders), THEREFORE - SEXISM.

that there are people who would even argue about that is mind-boggling!

saying "oh, but men are more likely" is EXACTLY the same as saying that Black people, Hispanics, Chinese or what you want are more likely to be criminal.

it is sexism by very friggin definition.

OR it's not sexism, it's that the man was restraining the woman and to the inoccent bystander it looked as if he was the aggressor. Not because he was a man, but because shit happens and people get stuff wrong.

When you only have a split second to react it's easy to make the incorrect decision.

why yes, and the question remains, why did he think it was the man being aggressor. and the most likely answer would be (like you can CLEARLY see in this thread) that it was caused by the misconception of women being UNABLE to be the aggressor. If the roles were reversed (women restraining the man) they would most probably still jump onto the man.

Therefore sexism.

First of all, it was a guy and a girl that stumbled across the scene, not two or one man. That's kind of pretty basic information about the situation. Might help to read about it before commenting >_>

Secondly, if you read the actual report, the two witnesses saw a volatile drunk accosting someone and pulled him off of her to stop the fight. When they did this, the woman ran away.

Why does it matter which gender did the two have? thats not whats important here, what is important was that there were two people fighting, and their gender. The gender of people who decided to involve themselves is of no concern.

The second part. Well, if they just came along and asked whenever they would be willing to wait for police, the women would probably start to twitch and try to run away. It would be a lot simpler that way, but sadly a different course of action has been decided, on base which can be considered as sexists.

Thirdly, there is no reason to insult people on the internet, it just reflects poorly on you.

It does matter that you got he genders of the witnesses wrong, because it shows that you haven't actually looked into it and know very little about what actually happened. If you don't know the basic facts, how can anyone take your opinion of the situation seriously?

Wait for the police? Okay. You do that if this ever happens to you. Me personally? If I see a drunk person attacking someone, I'm going to try to break it up while I wait for the police to come. You know, in case one of them, I don't know, gets hurt or killed.

Insult? There was no insult. That you are trying to imply there was, reflects on your attitude, no the comment.

IIRC i mentioned "they", and "he" in my previous posts. None suggests that i got the genders wrong, especially seeing as i consider them to be non-issue.

Two, seeings as they were not police officers, what they should do is pull those people apart and then call the police, not restrain one, and let the other roam free.
As of now they can be considered accomplices to crime. They wont of course, because that would be stupid, but in the end, they did help commit the crime.

Trust me - i did break a few of fights, and i DO know that its often easy to pinpoint the culprit, once they both stand apart.

 

[Neonit]

oh ffs, what are you people discussing.

IT IS SEXISM. THEY MADE A DECISION BASED ON GENDER(and their, apparently false assumptions about genders), THEREFORE - SEXISM.

that there are people who would even argue about that is mind-boggling!

saying "oh, but men are more likely" is EXACTLY the same as saying that Black people, Hispanics, Chinese or what you want are more likely to be criminal.

it is sexism by very friggin definition.

OR it's not sexism, it's that the man was restraining the woman and to the inoccent bystander it looked as if he was the aggressor. Not because he was a man, but because shit happens and people get stuff wrong.

When you only have a split second to react it's easy to make the incorrect decision.

why yes, and the question remains, why did he think it was the man being aggressor. and the most likely answer would be (like you can CLEARLY see in this thread) that it was caused by the misconception of women being UNABLE to be the aggressor. If the roles were reversed (women restraining the man) they would most probably still jump onto the man.

Therefore sexism.

First of all, it was a guy and a girl that stumbled across the scene, not two or one man. That's kind of pretty basic information about the situation. Might help to read about it before commenting >_>

Secondly, if you read the actual report, the two witnesses saw a volatile drunk accosting someone and pulled him off of her to stop the fight. When they did this, the woman ran away.

Why does it matter which gender did the two have? thats not whats important here, what is important was that there were two people fighting, and their gender. The gender of people who decided to involve themselves is of no concern.

The second part. Well, if they just came along and asked whenever they would be willing to wait for police, the women would probably start to twitch and try to run away. It would be a lot simpler that way, but sadly a different course of action has been decided, on base which can be considered as sexists.

Thirdly, there is no reason to insult people on the internet, it just reflects poorly on you.

It does matter that you got he genders of the witnesses wrong, because it shows that you haven't actually looked into it and know very little about what actually happened. If you don't know the basic facts, how can anyone take your opinion of the situation seriously?

Wait for the police? Okay. You do that if this ever happens to you. Me personally? If I see a drunk person attacking someone, I'm going to try to break it up while I wait for the police to come. You know, in case one of them, I don't know, gets hurt or killed.

Insult? There was no insult. That you are trying to imply there was, reflects on your attitude, no the comment.

IIRC i mentioned "they", and "he" in my previous posts. None suggests that i got the genders wrong, especially seeing as i consider them to be non-issue.

Two, seeings as they were not police officers, what they should do is pull those people apart and then call the police, not restrain one, and let the other roam free.
As of now they can be considered accomplices to crime. They wont of course, because that would be stupid, but in the end, they did help commit the crime.

Trust me - i did break a few of fights, and i DO know that its often easy to pinpoint the culprit, once they both stand apart.

Don't back pedal and try to pretend you knew the genders involved. You thought it was a guy and it's plain to see. Flipping now just looks desperate.

Roam free and restrain one? Did you not read any actual reports of the case at all? They pulled the violent drunk away from the woman and she ran away. They didn't jump on some random man and sit around telling the woman it'd be okay. She was a thief and she ran like the fucking wind after they got the guy off her lol.

This might sound shocking to you, but when you come across a drunk person accosting and fighting a screaming individual, you might assume the loud drunk one is stirring some trouble and you might want to pull them off of the other.

Im not backpeddaling, i just still stand by my point that its not an issue to me, so i didnt even gave it much thought. you obviously do, and i wonder why? why does it matter to you?

 

[Stripes]

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?

When you witness a scuffle, clearly not knowing the whole story (if they had witnessed the whole thing rather than part of it they probably wouldnt have gone for the man), you dont let someone just run away. If this had been two men theres a good chance they wouldnt have let anyone just leave. The fact is they let someone run away from a fight they knew nothing about, the only reason for that would be that that person was a woman. Because they assumed it was the man because he was male that man has lost a lot of money and a thief is walking free.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

They had two people, one for each person to keep them off each other, but that's not what happened.

You have never tried to restrain someone who doesn't want to be restrained before, have you?

When people who want to do something are being restrained, they fight back twice as hard. That's why you see things like 4 or 5 cops holding down one person. If they're drunk or on some kind of drug, its even worse because then the more standard pain compliance stuff may not work because of the chemical high they're on.

Did these two men fuck up, oh my yes, big time. However based on what they saw at the time, coupled with what they perceive to be the most likely scenario, they acted. In this case, sadly, the facts of the situation have made what should have been total strangers helping someone they thought was in trouble, into a clusterfuck.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Care to back that up with some statistics? Or other facts?
EDIT:
Sorry, meant "sources"

Sure:

U.S. Department of Justice 2009 National Former Prisoners Survey puts the number at slightly below 10% for all forms of sexual assault.

According to the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/nprec/20090820155502/http://nprec.us/files/pdfs/NPREC_FinalReport.PDF) the number is anywhere from 6.5% in some prisons to 15.9% in others.

The Justice Department puts the number at 4.7% but admits it could be "even twice that."

Cindy Struckman-Johnson et al., Sexual Coercion Reported by Men and Women in Prison, 33 J. Sex Res. 67 (1996); see also Cindy Struckman-Johnson & David Struckman-Johnson, Sexual Coercion Rates in Seven Midwestern Prison Facilities for Men, 80 Prison J. 379, 383 (2000)

So we'll say 10% at most for prison sexual assault.



Now for women:

20% of women on college campuses will endure some kind of sexual assault before they leave school.

Douglas, K. A.; et al. (1997). "Results from the 1995 national college health risk behavior survey.". Journal of American College Health 46: 55?66.

The National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics put the number "anywhere between one fifth and one quarter." https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

Is that enough for you? My statement that women are more likely to be victims of sexual violence in the real world than men in prison is correct by a large margin.

These statistics are hard to pin down exactly but there is essentially no possible way to not see a higher prevalence of sexual assault amongst women, even if you to
ok the highest prison statistics and the lowest general rape statistics.

Well, I still have a few gripes.

According to the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/nprec/20090820155502/http://nprec.us/files/pdfs/NPREC_FinalReport.PDF) the number is anywhere from 6.5% in some prisons to 15.9% in others.
Something that could also lower the number:

Something to consider: This was the percentage of rapes per year. In some facilities, 15.9% of all inmates experienced rape per year
+: 55% of all reported cases of sexual assault aren't substantiated by the staff, meaning they won't influence official rape statistics.

Also, the "low" number is only for rapes in the 12 months time period prior to the survey.
And 15% of all inmates in ONE YEAR does not sound like a small number anymore. Nor does 10%.


Whilst the women were asked for rape having taken place during their lifetime.

Studies for annual rape of women go with 5%
^ Mohler-Kuo, M.; Dowdall, G., Koss, M., Weschler, H (2004). "Correlates of Rape while Intoxicated in a National Sample of College Women". Journal of Studies on Alcohol 65: 37?45..
^ Kilpatrick, Dean. "Drug Facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study".


In the end, I would still despute the claim that women have it better than men in correctional facilites, even when it comes to sexual assault, as several studies indicate, that men in facilities have it as bad as women, if not worse, but absolute numbers for a direct comparison are quite hard to come by. I have not found absolute numbers for prisoners raped, which makes a direct comparison nigh impossible.

 

[Vault Citizen]

I hope that they catch her.

 

[chadachada123]

The two passerbyes acted in a very stupid fashion.

Neither of them thought to ask the dude what his problem was? No one thought to stop the girl to see if she was okay?

At least give the dude a moment to explain that the other girl was GETTING AWAY WITH HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS STOLEN FROM HIM?

Reverse the roles and you would get a very different reaction.