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

[Moth_Monk]

Apparently a good lot of the posters here have no sense of irony - or realise that they are demonstrating the OP's point.

Let's put it this way heroes, would you have leaped in there if it were two men fighting?

What about if it was two women fighting each other?

If not, why not? And hence why-oh-f****-why would you feel compelled to if it was a man and a woman?

 

[Wayneguard]

You know what this reminds me of? When you ride upon a robbery-in-progress in Red Dead Redemption and you can't tell who in the fuck is who... then you end up shooting the victim by mistake and losing karma... yeah...

 

[FoolKiller]

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?

They should have stopped the assault, not let either leave until the police arrived to work it out. Or they should stay the fuck out of it. It's pretty simple. If you don't know what the fuck you're doing then get someone else who does. Don't jump in and make assumptions.

 

[Eri]

Snip

Um... who started WHAT? It looked like a man was assaulting someone who was trying to flee, not an open fist fight. If you want to argue anti-male discrimination you need to find a better article, this happened very fast and it looked like the victim was the aggressor. Not to mention that the way you phrased your title looks like you're accusing the two people who intervened knowingly aided a robbery when nothing in the news articles suggest that they were doing anything but stopping what looked like a drunken assault.

That's because they did aid the robber. Intentional or not, they helped her.

 

[hotdogoctopus]

End Statement: Everyone should leave everyone else the hell alone OR carry a gun so that the fight ends before someone shows up.

 

[Pyramid Head]

Snip

Um... who started WHAT? It looked like a man was assaulting someone who was trying to flee, not an open fist fight. If you want to argue anti-male discrimination you need to find a better article, this happened very fast and it looked like the victim was the aggressor. Not to mention that the way you phrased your title looks like you're accusing the two people who intervened knowingly aided a robbery when nothing in the news articles suggest that they were doing anything but stopping what looked like a drunken assault.

That's because they did aid the robber. Intentional or not, they helped her.

SHE BOLTED! How exactly did they help her? Did they hail a taxi for her? The only thing they did was restrain what looked like a drunken aggressor, and even if they knew she was a thief stopping him from attacking still would have taken priority because if you're drunk you aren't exactly about to make a wise decision on what is reasonable force. You're trying to invent a controversy where there isn't one, two pedestrians stopped what looked like a drunken brawl, a thief bolted before they could learn what the fuck was going on, if you and i were there for some reason it probably would have played out exactly the same way.

 

[Eri]

Snip

Um... who started WHAT? It looked like a man was assaulting someone who was trying to flee, not an open fist fight. If you want to argue anti-male discrimination you need to find a better article, this happened very fast and it looked like the victim was the aggressor. Not to mention that the way you phrased your title looks like you're accusing the two people who intervened knowingly aided a robbery when nothing in the news articles suggest that they were doing anything but stopping what looked like a drunken assault.

That's because they did aid the robber. Intentional or not, they helped her.

SHE BOLTED! How exactly did they help her? Did they hail a taxi for her? The only thing they did was restrain what looked like a drunken aggressor, and even if they knew she was a thief stopping him from attacking still would have taken priority because if you're drunk you aren't exactly about to make a wise decision on what is reasonable force. You're trying to invent a controversy where there isn't one, two pedestrians stopped what looked like a drunken brawl, a thief bolted before they could learn what the fuck was going on, if you and i were there for some reason it probably would have played out exactly the same way.

And you're trying to say there is no controversy where there clearly is some. How exactly? What kind of question is that? They held the victim of a ROBBERY DOWN while she ran away with the GOODS. That's the definition of helping someone.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

Well if I wanted to be facetious I could say it's sexism towards the woman because the men 'helping' couldn't possibly think she was a robber.

I guess you wouldn't appreciate me pointing out the fact that this week Essex police failed to protect a woman who had been constantly reporting assaults by her ex for two years. She was shot by her ex along with her 2 year old daughter.

The people who are investigating this failure have turned up two other homicides with a similar record of outright ignoring women who report threats and domestic violence.

 

[Beliyal]

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 read the whole thread (because I have nothing better to do with my life). There's a few things that I'm interested in.

First, something is fishy about this whole thing. The article states that the man explained he was the victim of robbery only when the police arrived. Also, you said "they didn't even bother to ask what was going on before just holding him down...". My question is; why didn't HE bother to tell? Judging by the article, they saw him attacking the victim, held him down, allowed the woman to escape, called the police, waited for the police to arrive and only then did the victim say that he was robbed? Wouldn't it be logical to inform the two meddling people of what happened before they let the attacker "flee"? How much time did all this take? It's hard to tell these thing as nobody else was there to witness it. So, maybe we should hold our judgment.

However, I checked one of the longer articles where it states:

The victim attempted to pursue but soon lost sight of her, Hellwig added.

This means that the robbed man did indeed say that he was robbed by the woman and the people restraining him apparently immediately let him go upon learning the truth. Otherwise, he wouldn't have time to run after her. So, I dare say that it was a mistake based on miscalculation and a lack of knowledge of how it all started.

Second, while I'm on it, we can't possibly know how that scene looked like to two random passing people. Maybe they saw the moment when the man was seriously physically assaulting the woman. Maybe he was significantly bigger. Maybe he looked extremely threatening. Maybe he was yelling. Maybe he was hitting her at the moment when they jumped in. As I said in the previous point, we should hold our judgment. At least when it comes to accusations of sexism.

And third, if it was two men brawling, I bet the outcome would be the same. The one who was currently in the position of attacking the other would be pinned down, while the false victim would escape. Same in case of two women. Of course, this is hypothetical, but in situations like this, human beings process information quickly and see only what's currently happening and cannot see the past events that led to that situation. Therefore, the two "samaritans" saw one person attacking the other and of course helped the "victim" of physical assault. The gender of each person is irrelevant in my opinion. But hey, we'll never know.

 

[mindlesspuppet]

from an outside perspective its far more likely to see a male attacking a female rather than the other way around. the assuption was wrong in this case but its still more likely

You're kidding right? This right here is exactly the sort of thing OP is talking about.

There are plenty of women out there that just flat out wail on guys because they know the guy is expected not to do anything back. As a child, I saw it my mother do it. I saw it in college practically every time someone's girlfriend got too drunk. I see it multiple times a week in "bad" neighborhoods. I see it when I go to the bars.

I've seen more instances women attacking men, then men attacking men, men attacking women, and women attacking women combined. Women think they get a free pass when it comes to assaulting males, because they pretty much do. Males aren't going to report this sort of thing, it's a pride thing, it's a social thing, it's what been engraved into our brains.

 

[marche45]

I probably would have done the same thing(if i weren't such a pacifist) or at the very least(since their was 2 people) pull them away from each other.
Is it sexism?Maybe.Chances are though,that if you see 2 people fighting,your probably going to assume the bigger person is at fault(which is probably going to be the man.)

 

[infinity_turtles]

That statement was poorly phrased on his part. Had he said and/or or limited it to the genre one could argue that those who don't play them probably suck at them, or cite some of the studies regarding gender preference of genre respectively. But saying "or suck at them" in relation to all games? I don't think that's a defensible statement.

If I could be bothered do spend half the day googling demographics of FPS players (let alone simply borderlands players) and demonstrate that 90% of them are men Boudica still wouldn't accept that it wasn't sexism. And they would be right to do so - it is mildly sexist (although also quite funny imo).

So first things first, this might come off as a little venty, but you just gave me the opportunity for a mini-rant on something I missed when it was a hotter topic. Point being if the following rant sounds accusatory, it's not. Granted, having typed this first, I might not be able to build up the steam for the rant I wanted to make, making this little bit seem a bit pointless, but hey, at least it shows I had rage about this topic at some point.

My girlfriend doesn't really play video games. She does however keep up on videogame news so she knows what's coming out if she wants to get me a gift, because she's awesome. Upon hearing about Borderlands 2's "Girlfriend mode" and recalling that I own the first, she got super excited and pre-ordered it immediately. Her talking to me the next day and talking about all the stuff she'd checked out on the game and in general being really excited about it is the first I heard about "Girlfriend mode". Despite not being a big fan of Borderlands or FPS titles in general, this got me really excited about the prospect of playing the game with her. I would have probably never picked up the game otherwise. The fact that they called it "Girlfriend mode" got her attention, and is the reason it's being bought in this case. I would go as far as to say the choice of name has noticeably, if in a rather small way, improved my life.

People getting pissed at the name derived from statistics and people getting pissed at an incident that defies the statistics being treated like it follows them are not the samething. One judges an innocent individual on premade assumptions and then acts on them, one attempts to evoke a mental image, which ambiguous word choice would make difficult, of what seems the most statistically likely positive aspect of the feature.

 

[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.

 

[Pyramid Head]

Snip

Um... who started WHAT? It looked like a man was assaulting someone who was trying to flee, not an open fist fight. If you want to argue anti-male discrimination you need to find a better article, this happened very fast and it looked like the victim was the aggressor. Not to mention that the way you phrased your title looks like you're accusing the two people who intervened knowingly aided a robbery when nothing in the news articles suggest that they were doing anything but stopping what looked like a drunken assault.

That's because they did aid the robber. Intentional or not, they helped her.

SHE BOLTED! How exactly did they help her? Did they hail a taxi for her? The only thing they did was restrain what looked like a drunken aggressor, and even if they knew she was a thief stopping him from attacking still would have taken priority because if you're drunk you aren't exactly about to make a wise decision on what is reasonable force. You're trying to invent a controversy where there isn't one, two pedestrians stopped what looked like a drunken brawl, a thief bolted before they could learn what the fuck was going on, if you and i were there for some reason it probably would have played out exactly the same way.

And you're trying to say there is no controversy where there clearly is some. How exactly? What kind of question is that? They held the victim of a ROBBERY DOWN while she ran away with the GOODS. That's the definition of helping someone.

Oh dear fucking Jah, do i have to write this on a sledgehammer and hit you in the face with it? They didn't know that she was a thief. Not to mention the fact that the victim DID give chase after the robber bolted but lost sight of her, so obviously they did wisen up. You're implying otherwise, you're implying they're helping someone whom they knew was a thief because her victim was a male, and that is complete utter bullshit. Besides, even if they did know she was a thief, do you think the scenario would have played out differently? Stopping the victim from attacking the thief still would have taken priority because the victim was drunk and drunks aren't exactly known for drawing the line between necessary and excessive force. Ultimately regardless of whether or not the thief escaped, the people who intervened didn't do anything wrong, they didn't openly aid the thief, she ran before they knew what was going on, and they obviously let the victim go because he did give pursuit. They had no way of knowing what was going on and the victim needed to be stopped from killing the thief anyway, so once again, you're crying sexism and foul when all that happened was someone was stopped from attacking and someone else ran away, that was the only thing the motorists did, they didn't know about the theft and your allegation that they knowingly helped a thief because she was a woman is ridiculous. And before you try to claim that isn't what you said you did imply there was open sexism in your original post and have been trying to defend your language as far as the motorists helping a thief, so maybe next time read the full fucking story and make sure there actually is something valid to complain about.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

Erm

Even if the majority of people who buy Borderlands 2 are male that IN NO WAY proves that their significant other is bad at video games.

That is the worst piece of reasoning I have ever seen.

In other news I practice reflex tests online to improve my skill at fps games. I got 98% yesterday. Woo.

 

[-|-]

That statement was poorly phrased on his part. Had he said and/or or limited it to the genre one could argue that those who don't play them probably suck at them, or cite some of the studies regarding gender preference of genre respectively. But saying "or suck at them" in relation to all games? I don't think that's a defensible statement.

If I could be bothered do spend half the day googling demographics of FPS players (let alone simply borderlands players) and demonstrate that 90% of them are men Boudica still wouldn't accept that it wasn't sexism. And they would be right to do so - it is mildly sexist (although also quite funny imo).

So first things first, this might come off as a little venty, but you just gave me the opportunity for a mini-rant on something I missed when it was a hotter topic. Point being if the following rant sounds accusatory, it's not. Granted, having typed this first, I might not be able to build up the steam for the rant I wanted to make, making this little bit seem a bit pointless, but hey, at least it shows I had rage about this topic at some point.

My girlfriend doesn't really play video games. She does however keep up on videogame news so she knows what's coming out if she wants to get me a gift, because she's awesome. Upon hearing about Borderlands 2's "Girlfriend mode" and recalling that I own the first, she got super excited and pre-ordered it immediately. Her talking to me the next day and talking about all the stuff she'd checked out on the game and in general being really excited about it is the first I heard about "Girlfriend mode". Despite not being a big fan of Borderlands or FPS titles in general, this got me really excited about the prospect of playing the game with her. I would have probably never picked up the game otherwise. The fact that they called it "Girlfriend mode" got her attention, and is the reason it's being bought in this case. I would go as far as to say the choice of name has noticeably, if in a rather small way, improved my life.

People getting pissed at the name derived from statistics and people getting pissed at an incident that defies the statistics being treated like it follows them are not the samething. One judges an innocent individual on premade assumptions and then acts on them, one attempts to evoke a mental image, which ambiguous word choice would make difficult, of what seems the most statistically likely positive aspect of the feature.

I agree (and you're a lucky guy).

The whole "it wasn't sexist because of statistics" thing going on at the start of this thread was a load of old bollocks. The so-called "samaritans" were just acting based on current societal norms and got it wrong - it doesn't make them sexist, just mistaken. I would have probably acted in the same way, or, more likely, ran away as I'm a bit of a coward really. In the same vein, finding something like "girlfriend mode" funny because it plays on various gaming steroetypes doesn't make you a sexist either.

 

[peruvianskys]

I love how you conveniently forget that male prison rape is an equally bad (if not a larger problem) in US prisons than female rape (as opposed to "sexual assault" which can constitute whistling at a woman). Let's also just ignore that you can find prison rape jokes in most modern sitcoms, and how no one seems to give a fuck males are subjected to inhumane prison conditions IN FUCKING WESTERN SOCIETY, with rape even being used as an incentive for good behavior in prisons. No, this is not hyperbole, do some research you man hating femnazi.

Sexual assault cannot include "whistling at a woman." That isn't true. Please don't make things up. "Sexual assault" as a legal term means any forced sexual interaction (defined far more strictly than whistling, I assure you) between an aggressor and a non-consenting victim.

Most studies put the number of men who are sexually assaulted or raped in prison at around 11%-20%. It's hard to pin down an exact number. But even at the highest estimation, the number of men raped in prison is lower than the percentage of women raped outside prison. When it comes to sexual violence, the inhuman conditions that men suffer in prison are actually better than the ones women suffer through every day. That's an incontrovertible fact.

I hate prisons. I think our prison system is disgusting and terrible and I am actively involved in the local get-books-to-prisoners program in the town over that has a prison. I detest jokes about rape anywhere, male or female, on television or in books or whatever. Don't assume I don't care. I'm just saying that, if we're honest, women are essentially "in prison all the time" when it comes to sexual violence.

I'm also a man, and a proud man without an ounce of shame. Don't call me a man-hater or a feminazi or any other stupid term.

+ MEN IN PRISON have it better than WOMEN NOT IN PRISON? Are you nuts?

In terms of probabilities of sexual violence, yes.

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.

I think it was more "drunk person attacking another drunk person who was holding a valuable object." If I saw two men or two women in the same situation, I would have totally gone towards the person holding the object and fighting with the drunk person. Maybe gender had something to do with it but I think in general there was probably no conscious decision made either way; it was just a reaction, and one that happened to be misinformed.