learntoquestion ltq discussions

The world isn’t perfect; there are events that all of us have witnessed where individuals are being disrespected, or are in need of our assistance. In the cases of Sherrice Iverson, the boy on the 36 bus, and the victims of the JP fire, each one of those individuals needed help, but received little to none. Are bystanders obligated to assist? one might ask. Good question.

In the case of Sherrice Iverson, Cash should’ve absolutely stopped Strohmeyer and alerted authorities who could handle the situation effectively. In fact, Cash’s following of Strohmeyer to the women’s bathroom indicates to us that he felt slightly uneasy about his friend’s actions. In each of the events leading up to Sherrice’s eventual murder, Cash wandered back and forth physically and mentally due to what was happening in that particular restroom. He had the upper hand; Strohmeyer was his friend and Cash’s father was the (older) adult accompanying them. Unfortunately, the eventual rape and murder of Iverson was not only due to Cash’s misplaced loyalty to Strohmeyer, but also his apathy towards the suffering of people of color. We know this because of his comments during the 60 Minutes interview, ‘‘I do not know this little girl. I do not know starving children in Panama. I do not know people that die of disease in Egypt.’’ It’s extremely interesting that all of his examples pertained to the struggles of people who happened to be Black and Brown. Cash’s intentional swerving of more domestic examples such as an old lady being robbed, or a young boy caught in a fire reveal his biases.

As for the passengers on that one 36 bus, they were probably acculturated to the mantra of ‘‘snitches get stitches’’. Yes, they should’ve gotten involved, but it is understandable that their own fear prevented them. It was probably not the first time they’d seen the man. People tend to ride public transportation at routine times, so it’s not unlikely that they had seen him in his drunken state wander onto the bus. They didn’t want any trouble, but in doing so they left a young boy vulnerable.

In the situation concerning the JP fire, people had probably assumed that there were others already on the phone with 911. Perhaps they felt anxious. They should’ve ensured that help was on the way, however. Everyone should try to assist others in an emergency. It's important to use your voice for good.

Originally posted by 20469154661 on September 27, 2020 16:27

Morals should have governed Cash’s actions. A person witnessing any type of extreme wrongdoing, who is in a place where they can interfere, should always act. Unfortunately, many people don’t let morals or basic human decency govern their actions. That is why there are usually laws in place that create a pressure to make the right decisions and to deter people from making the wrong ones.

David Cash was not the person who assaulted and killed Sherrice Iverson. He was a bystander who chose not to interfere while the crime was taking place or even turn in the perpetrator after he had confessed to murder. David Cash was also responsible for what happened. He should have been held accountable for allowing the assault and murder to happen. David Cash should have faced charges along with Jeremy.

What actions should be taken depend on the nature of the “wrong”. I agree with @madagascar, “ littering it is clearly not on the same level as witnessing a murder”. If you saw someone littering, you might just tell them to stop. If you are witnessing or have any knowledge of a murder, your immediate response should be to interfere or alert people that can. In The Samaritan’s Dilemma: Should the Government Help Your Neighbor, Kendall Egellston pulled over on an overpass to help stranded motorists. When Kendall was asked about it, he attributed his decision to his character. Good samaritans like Kendall think that anyone would not hesitate to act in the same way. This is how it should be for everyone, helping people in need should be a part of your character. The overarching rule is to not be silent or not act at all when you see something you know is not right.

Witnesses should legally be required to at least alert the proper authorities when they see an extreme wrongdoing taking place. They should not be required to become physically involved because that would put them in danger, but if they felt that taking further steps is necessary, then they should be protected by the law and not feel like they are at legal risk. I completely agree with @anonymouse, “There should be a law that prevents someone from being charged for helping a victim”. We always have an obligation to do what we know is right and never turn a blind eye on a wrongdoing. It should be a natural human instinct to help anyone or interfere with a “wrong”. In The Trick To Acting Heroically, four young men thwarted a gunman’s attack on a passenger train. They acted in seconds even though there was great risk involved. Similarly to how the four men acted, stepping in or speaking up should be instinct. The action should be intuitive. The four young men did not hesitate to risk their life. This does not mean that everyone must be willing to risk their lives for others, it simply means that at the very least, you should not be a bystander.

I agree with the statement that "Witnesses should legally be required to at least alert the proper authorities when they see an extreme wrongdoing taking place. They should not be required to become physically involved because that would put them in danger, but if they felt that taking further steps is necessary, then they should be protected by the law and not feel like they are at legal risk" because not everyone has what it takes to get physically involved in a situation. It is key hwoever, that they take some action and alert others who can help. The law should only protect those who took all potential courses of action, with the exception of intervening themselves. Calling the police, yelling for help, and alerting others is bare minimum to help when someone's life is at risk. Those who do nothing when they see injustice are complicit in the outcome and should be treated with the same level of severity as an acomplice to the crime. Sadly we live in a society where we must rely on laws rather than morals to govern our actions, not everyone unless forced will do what it takes to save a life.

It is glaringly obvious that David Cash should have acted and brought attention to the murder and rape of Sherrice Iverson. Cash decided that his friendship with Jeremy Strohmeyer was more important than Iverson’s right to live. If you see someone in danger, you should try to help them. If Cash was worried that he might be hurt by Strohmeyer, he could have called security and Sherrice Iverson may have lived. It can be hard to act in such a high-stress situation where a person’s life is on the line. Most people would say that you should intervene but it can be hard to know how many of them actually would. I believe that there is an obligation to help, but it doesn’t always have to mean that you intervene in a dangerous situation while it is happening. Calling the police is generally the best idea if you want to keep yourself safe. I believe that every person has the right to keep themselves safe before looking out for the safety of others. Obviously, if it’s possible for someone to save a life, they should try to do so, but that’s not always feasible. I disagree with @anonymouse when they wrote “he is as guilty as Jeremy Strohmeyer”. Although Cash poorly handled the situation, ignoring a crime is nowhere close to actually committing it. Cash is guilty to an extent but nobody knows how they would act in a situation unless it happens to them.

In the article “Nightmare on the 36 bus”, we learn of a child being hit by a man who appeared to be a stranger. Nobody did anything to stop him and all the passengers just watched. I don’t think they have to physically restrain this violent man, but they should at least call the police. Daniel Auclair states that he regrets not doing anything to protect the boy on the bus. People can fold under the pressure and fail to do things that they normally would. I agree with @sizzles that “their own fear prevented them” from acting to stop the man who attacked the boy. If you are in a group while something bad happens, you assume that someone else will act. If everyone has this mindset, nothing will be done.

In “The Bystander Effect In The Cellphone Age” the author details an experience where a man risked his life by entering a building that was on fire in order to warn the residents. He passed multiple people who didn’t even call 911, they just watched and took pictures. People always assume that someone else will come to the rescue. I don’t expect these people to run into a burning building but they should bring attention to it and alert the authorities.It can be difficult to act sometimes but if possible, you should try to save the lives of others.

David Cash is just as corrupt and despicable as Jeremy Strohmeyer because he could have easily prevented Sherrice’s death and instead he walked away and allowed his friend to rape and murder her. I believe that Cash should be given the same prison sentence as Strohmeyer because what he did was equally as wrong, and I agree with @anonymouse when they said “he is as guilty as Jeremy Srohmeyer.” He said that he didn’t want to help because he didn’t know the girl and that this situation didn’t involve him and the reason why he didn’t report his friend was because he was his best friend. I believe that Cash has no morals and is sociopathic if he is able to live with what he did because he allowed a little girl to be raped and killed. I am still confused on why he was never convicted because anyone would agree that what he did was so evil. He should not have been allowed to go to college and he should not be allowed to live comfortably and free because Sherrice and her family can’t. I couldn’t imagine what Sherrice’s family must be going through especially when they realized that her life could have been spared if David Cash intervened. This makes me have no hope in humanity if someone allowed a little girl to go through this pain. I just hope David Cash regrets his actions and shows remorse now because he didn’t show any remorse in interviews or videos.

Cash’s actions could have been controlled by his morals and realizing that what Jeremy was doing to innocent Sherrice was extremely corrupt and evil. His morals should have immediately told him that he needed to do the right thing, which was to either intervene or get some help because he could have easily saved Sherrice. I feel that a person has an obligation as a human being to help another human who is being hurt or wronged, because it is the right thing to do and you could be saving someone's life. I don’t think there should be any rules to determine what the nature of wrong is because you should help another person immediately and if you wouldn’t want someone doing that wrong act to you then why would you allow it to be done on another person when you could have intervened. In Massachusetts there is only a Good Samaritan law and no law for bystanders unless it is medically necessary. In Judy Harris’s “The Bystander Effect in the Cell Phone Age,”, she talked about how bystanders are more drawn to documententing what is happening rather than actually helping, because people are less likely to act if other people are already present at the scene. I feel that we do have a moral obligation to help somebody because it is the right thing to do. There are some scenarios where someone could be putting themselves into danger even when they are doing the right thing such as if someone witnesses a crime but live in an area where the crime rate is higher so they could be in danger of getting harmed if they report the crime. This proves Erez Yoeli and David Rands point in “The Trick to Acting Heroically,” because they talked about how people may only help someone else if it doesn’t cost much on the person who is helping them, if they aren't put into danger. I learned that most people who have saved another person’s life usually never think and just act which is very important because it is what saved that person’s life.

Originally posted by Fidget on September 27, 2020 14:02

It is very obvious that Jeremy Strohmeyer is to blame for the murder and assault of 7 year old Sherrice Iverson, however David Cash does not deserve to walk free for this crime. Cash’s actions were completely and totally wrong, holding his friendship with Strohmeyer over the justice and life of Iverson, was completely irresponsible and childish. In my opinion, silence is violence. Not reporting Iverson’s murder, even though he blatantly knew that Strohmeyer spent a prolonged period of time in the restroom with her, and also confessed to murdering her, was simply not enough to push Cash to report him. What is worse, is that they went about their night as if this had never happened, visiting another casino and later the Amusement park. As Brian McGrory writes in his article, called the Nightmare on the 36 bus, where a little boy is attacked in the middle of the bus yet no one steps in, humans have a tendency to just, “mind their own business” in a way, where they’d rather not get involved. That is despicable. That story, not so much different to our own Iverson case, except there were multiple David Cash’s , and it takes place in a more public area. Furthermore, the people on the bus we bystanders, maybe less of a bad Samaritan, but still bystanders as this little boy was beaten by a drunk man he likely was not related to. They are all David Cash’s in a way, because their silence allowed for this man to physically assault that poor 8 year old boy.

Even though in the state of Nevada, there was no Good Samaritan law, it is just morally incorrect to not report this tragic occurrence. Cash further condemns himself by adding, “I do not know this little girl… I’m not going to lose sleep over someone else’s problem.” The idea that someone can think of a murder that they witness and play a key role in, is borderline sociopathic. The lack of empathy Cash displays is worrying, as never once does he verbally tell Strohmeyer to stop and leave the girl alone, he simply decides that he doesn't want to witness what will happen in this event and exits the scene without telling anyone. Had he been in Sherrice’s point of view, locked in a restroom at 3 am with a strange man, grabbing and muffling your screams, while another man watches, at only 7 years old, unaware and confused by the situation, he would have hoped the other man would say something, and help him. However Cash does not display this level of empathy. He does not feel obligated to speak out, to condemn his best friend.

Not taking accountability in this case, in order to save yourself is disgusting, cruel and selfish. In my opinion, you should always act. This is something that the article, “The Trick to Acting Heroically” written by Erez Yoeli and David Ran, supports. In this article, the key to acting heroically is to not stop and think, to act instinctively no matter the cost. David Cash was expected to put away the cost of telling people what Jeremy Strohmeyer had done, and personally, I expected for him to try to intervene, to hop over that stall divide and rip Strohmeyer off of Iverson. By not acting, by thinking that he does not know that girl, that he knows his friend, and thinking what would happen to him or Strohmeyer if he had intervened is heartbreaking. It is difficult to to look at someone, lacking so much empathetic, not even attempting to intervene, as if I were David Cash, I would be over that divider the second I saw Strohmeyer holding that little girl that way. Maybe it’s because I am an empath, maybe it’s because I feel like I have some human decency. I do not think I could live with myself after I realized I had let that little girl be tortured and murdered. However David Cash lives, and is still going about his life as if nothing had happened. By not telling anyone, his father, security, anyone, he allowed Sherrice to be murdered and to suffer for 22 long minutes, until Strohmeyer finally exited the restroom. While Strohmeyer may have committed the murder, but Cash is guilty of a crime he will escape from, allowing for the murder and assault of seven year old Sherrice Iverson.

I agree- Cash's complete lack of empathy really was borderline sociopathic. I really wonder what was going through his head at the time and what kind of a life he's living now. Even in his Los Angeles interview, his face was blank and he showed no empathy. I worry that he learned no lesson and that his life now is no different than what it would have been, had Sherrice not been murdered that night.

I think what should’ve governed David Cash’s actions was Sherice Iverson’s well-being. Throughout his whole interview and judging by his actions, it shows that Cash only cared about his friend Jeremy and himself. Cash says things like, “it was completely out of character” and “ I understand that but he’s also my best friend, you know we’re taking AP English together”. Also, Cash talks about how he tapped his friend on the head, gave disapproving looks, and left because that’s something he didn’t want to see. Even after Strohmeyer confessed to murdering Iverson, Cash said he couldn’t fathom his friend being a murderer. Not one time did Cash show worry for Iverson. The whole time he was only looking out for his friend, instead of thinking about how a 7-year-old girl was being harmed. Not only did he only care about how it was going to affect Strohmeyer, but he also left when he decided it wasn’t good for him to stick around and see. If he just had verbally told Strohmeyer to stop or told somebody and got help, there would’ve been nothing to see. Cash had so many chances to stop Strohmeyer, yet not once did think about Iverson. I think if Cash just had stopped being selfish and had been concerned for Iverson, he would’ve stopped Strohmeyer. Even after his friend confessed to a murder, he didn’t stop to think about Iverson dead in a bathroom, Cash and Strohmeyer just kept going and having fun at a different casino. Also, in the interview Cash showed no remorse for Iverson, saying how his life shouldn’t stop and how he didn’t know “this little girl”. Just the way he doesn’t even acknowledge Iverson, the girl his best friend murdered and assaulted, just shows he had no interest in her well-being.

When people witness something wrong they have to take action. Although I know it may be scary, there are many ways to stand up for what is right. For example, in Cash’s situation, he could’ve tried much harder to stop Strohmeyer’s actions. To start, when he saw Strohmeyer walked into the women’s restroom following Iverson, a little girl, that should’ve automatically been a red flag, and he should’ve reported it then. Then, when he was tapping Stromeyer’s head and giving “disapproving looks”, he should’ve verbally said stop or pulled Strohmeyer away. If he had the effort to balance on a toilet seat and look over a stall door, he could’ve tried harder to stop it. Next, when he left the bathroom, he could’ve told security, his father, or any worker at the casino about what was happening, if he truly wanted to help and Strohmeyer to stop. The last chance he had to take action was after Strohmeyer confessed, he again could’ve told any adult or workers to get help, and even after a 4-hour trip home, he could’ve called the police once he got home away from Strohmeyer. With all these changes to take action against Strohmeyer’s wrongdoings, it really a moral problem for Cash. We always have an obligation to act against wrongdoings, if your morals are in the right place, wrongdoings should urge you to take action. Sometimes people may think, “I don’t want to step in and risk my safety or anything to help”, but in most cases there are many opportunities to help and then don’t always have to be extreme. There are many ways to take action without being directly involved in situations. For example, telling an adult or someone trusted to help stop wrongdoing, is a great way to take action but at the same time not be directly the person stopping it. Our actions can sometimes be life or death, even if it makes the smallest difference, it still helps. After witnessing something wrong, and realizing it is wrong, having to urge and genuine desire to go against what you saw should sprout, leaving you to act.

Being a bystander never does any good. When seeing events unfold in front of your eyes, sometimes it’s easy to stare and react from a far, but helping and taking action will make the biggest difference for the victims of the situation. After reading, “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age” by Judy Harris, I learned that people’s natural reactions is to document the sometimes horrific and terrifying events in front of them instead of getting help. I think that this article connects with the story of the “Bad Samaritan” because all the people recording on their phones had no regards for the people inside the burning house, and had no urgency to call 911 or alert the people inside. This is similar to the way Cash reacted, having no regard for Iverson and doing nothing to help the people being affected. Another way they are connected is how after seeing the burning building, the two baseball team continued playing as if nothing happened and Cash continued life as if he didn’t report a murder he could’ve prevented. Bystander behavior comes with the sad fact that the bystander does not think of the lives that might be at risk or affected. While being a bystander, you have so much time to think about you’re risks in helping and processing what’s going on. Although I think it’s never okay to be a bystander, after reading, “The Trick to Acting Heroically” by Erez Yoeli and David Rand, showed a counter argument to why it can be hard to step in. In this article it talks about how when most people act heroically it’s usually without thinking and reflecting on the potential risks. I know that when things happen out of nowhere without thought, it’s so much easier to take initiative, but sometimes we have to put others first, as their consequences may be worse than our own. This showed me that when people reflect on the consequences they must have to face, it might be easier to be a bystander. However, I think we should all try to take into consideration of even when thinking of risks, we still do our part in helping others.

Originally posted by Earl Grey Tea on September 27, 2020 16:39

The amount of privilege that allowed David Cash to look his friend dead in the eyes while they were murdering someone and choose not to do anything is extremely disappointing. The amount of privilege that allowed him to walk out and wait for Jeremy to finish, and then continue on to another casino right after is sickening. The amount of privilege that allowed him to continue on living his life because he was “not going to lose sleep over somebody else’s problem” is unfortunately normal. I wonder if Sherrice happened to see David’s face poke over the bathroom stall, and if so I wonder what she was thinking when she saw him give Jeremy a quick disapproving look and then leave.

During the interview, although Cash showed very little remorse, he did say that the event was tragic and that he gave Jeremy a warning look at the time that was apparently clear it meant stop. In that case, David Cash had some idea of what right and wrong must have meant, and that is what should have governed his actions.

After reading your response a the paragraph about privilege caught my eye. This quote from your paragraph in particular is what made me think of question,“ I wonder if Sherrice happened to see David’s face poke over the bathroom stall, and if so I wonder what she was thinking when she saw him give Jeremy a quick disapproving look and then leave.” This quote made me think that if Iverson did see Cash, what if she thought that he was going to help her. That then made me think of all the times people have been bystanders and how if the victims in the situation saw, how it would make them feel. It hurts to know that some victims may have been given false hope of getting help from the people around, but yet the people deciding to ignore or do nothing instead. Also in your response, you talked about how Cash showed very little remorse, which I definitely agree with. I wrote about that too in my response. I agree that if Cash knew that what he was doing was wrong, he should've done something.

Originally posted by leafinthewind on September 27, 2020 21:03

It is glaringly obvious that David Cash should have acted and brought attention to the murder and rape of Sherrice Iverson. Cash decided that his friendship with Jeremy Strohmeyer was more important than Iverson’s right to live. If you see someone in danger, you should try to help them. If Cash was worried that he might be hurt by Strohmeyer, he could have called security and Sherrice Iverson may have lived. It can be hard to act in such a high-stress situation where a person’s life is on the line. Most people would say that you should intervene but it can be hard to know how many of them actually would. I believe that there is an obligation to help, but it doesn’t always have to mean that you intervene in a dangerous situation while it is happening. Calling the police is generally the best idea if you want to keep yourself safe. I believe that every person has the right to keep themselves safe before looking out for the safety of others. Obviously, if it’s possible for someone to save a life, they should try to do so, but that’s not always feasible. I disagree with @anonymouse when they wrote “he is as guilty as Jeremy Strohmeyer”. Although Cash poorly handled the situation, ignoring a crime is nowhere close to actually committing it. Cash is guilty to an extent but nobody knows how they would act in a situation unless it happens to them.

In the article “Nightmare on the 36 bus”, we learn of a child being hit by a man who appeared to be a stranger. Nobody did anything to stop him and all the passengers just watched. I don’t think they have to physically restrain this violent man, but they should at least call the police. Daniel Auclair states that he regrets not doing anything to protect the boy on the bus. People can fold under the pressure and fail to do things that they normally would. I agree with @sizzles that “their own fear prevented them” from acting to stop the man who attacked the boy. If you are in a group while something bad happens, you assume that someone else will act. If everyone has this mindset, nothing will be done.

In “The Bystander Effect In The Cellphone Age” the author details an experience where a man risked his life by entering a building that was on fire in order to warn the residents. He passed multiple people who didn’t even call 911, they just watched and took pictures. People always assume that someone else will come to the rescue. I don’t expect these people to run into a burning building but they should bring attention to it and alert the authorities.It can be difficult to act sometimes but if possible, you should try to save the lives of others.

I agree with what @leafinthewind says about how people are afraid of getting hurt themselves, and that everyone has the mindset that someone else will step in especially if they are in a group. People are so afraid of putting themselves into a stressful and dangerous situation that they forget what is morally right. I really liked when they said "people can fold under the pressure and fail to do things that they normally would" and I feel that people like to believe they would help another person out but when they get the opportunity to they are frozen with fear.

Originally posted by madagascar on September 26, 2020 21:14

Legally, I do believe that there should be more laws like the Good Samaritan law as well as the Sherrice Iverson act that require witnesses to speak out and say something. Because there was no law in 1997, David Cash can never be charged for his involvement, or lack of involvement, in the murder of Sherrice.

I think your last paragraph is really a great conclusion. To start of, I definitely agree that there should be laws in place the require witnesses to speak up. When people are given no choice but to speak up, I feel like a lot of situations can be solved and given justice because what the witnesses saw will help. I also really like your statement about his involvement with the murder, and then you juxtaposing it with his lack of involvement. I think that sentence highlights, how being a bystander did more harm than help, and how truly even though Cash did not physically murder Sherrice, his actions and choices could've prevented it.

There is no doubt in my mind that both Jeremy Strohmeyer and David Cash are 100% guilty of the crimes they committed. Although Strohmeyer committed a much worse crime than his friend Cash did, it does not at all soften the blow of either of their actions that early morning in a Nevada casino. The bottom line is that morals should come before friends, and that Cash should have turned his friend in immediately after finding out what had happened. I liked @madagascar’s point that “basic human decency and morality should have governed Cash’s actions.” Although I do not believe Cash is as responsible as his friend in Sharrice’s death due to the lack of action in reporting Strohmeyer, I believe not explicitly telling him to stop while they were in the bathroom together definitely makes him as guilty as Strohmeyer. Cash had the potential to stop Sharrice from being assaulted but chose to walk away and not get help, making him an accomplice in her murder in my eyes. There were so many opportunities to stop Strohmeyer himself, to get help if he was incapable of doing it himself, to turn him in after realizing what had been done, but Cash never acted until he was caught. I agree with @20469154661’s statements that Cash was responsible, that “He [David Cash] should have been held accountable for allowing the assault and murder to happen. David Cash should have faced charges along with Jeremy.”

Something we are taught at a young age is the Golden Rule, telling us to treat others the way you want to be treated, which should still applied as you grow older. An idea that directly rivals the Golden Rule is the Bystander Effect, meaning that instead of helping someone if they need it like you’d want someone to do for you, you sit and watch as the situation develops despite the fact that you could intervene and stop it. I would think that if Cash were in a situation in which he was fearing for his life while a friend of the attacker watched, he would want the friend to intervene and stop Cash from being assaulted, but he wouldn’t and didn’t intervene when he was the friend who was watching. Just as Cash was uncomfortable watching the situation in the bathroom and left with no thought of getting help, the article on Nightmare on the 36 Bus shows a similar reaction from the others on the bus as they watched the young boy get hit repeatedly. The idea of minding your own business and not getting involved in situations that don’t involve you may be good in theory and on smaller scale things, but in situations like assault in both The Bad Samaritan and Nightmare on the 36 Bus getting involved would absolutely b the right thing to do.

In The Trick To Acting Heroically, practically everyone who was interviewed said that there was no thought put into risking their lives to save someone, that being a hero was in instinctive decision. I find this especially interesting because these people put their lives on the line for a chance that someone, a complete stranger, would survive even if the one acting heroically died trying to help. I think we would all like to believe that helping someone and preventing them from assault or death on our behalf is something we would do on instinct, but I’m not really sure of it. While I do believe that those who attempted to save avictim in the article previously mentioned acted on instinct, I don’t believe it is an instinct that everyone has. An instinctive idea that most people are familiar with is the idea of a fight or flight instinct, and those in the article had the instinct to fight in that particular face of stress and danger, while David Cash’s instinct was flight. I think we should take into account that those in The Trick To Acting Heroically were more likely to become victims of the crime they stopped than Cash was, as Cash was close enough to the attacker to go on a car ride that was multiple hours long with him and his dad, something you most likely wouldn’t do with someone you’re not very close too. Saying that something should be an instinct completely ignores what an instinct is, as instincts are innate traits developed from early hominoids we evolved from. Sure you can train a boxer to fight their instinct of flinching when someone punches them, but developing an instinct to put your own live at risk for a complete stranger? Definitely easier said than done, as irritable as it may be.

After carefully listening to and dissecting the story that David Cash told about Sherice Iverson’s death, one is forced to ask themselves first and foremost-what is wrong with David Cash. It seems like he has no common sense or moral compass at all for him to react the way he did when his best friend whispered in the ear of a seven year old girl while restraining her, “shut up or I’ll kill you.” I think his actions should have been governed by empathy, morality, or any type of common sense, but instead they were governed by selfishness, laziness, and stupidity. When one witnesses something that is so clearly wrong, they have an obligation to do what they can to prevent it, especially when no one else is helping the situation. This seems to me like it should just be human nature for one to do what they can to help another in a struggling situation. In “The Trick to Acting Heroically” it was written, “After collecting interviews given by 51 recipients and evaluating the transcripts, we found that the heroes overwhelmingly described their actions as fast and intuitive, and virtually never as carefully reasoned.” This quotation is shocking to me as those who have this innate instinct to help are deemed heroes when that seems like common courtesy in many situations. This is however not always the case. It was written in “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age”, “When my husband mrst ran toward the burning house, he noticed a passerby taking pictures. 'Wow, look, a fire!' the man said, walking around to get a good angle for his shots.” Many people’s first instincts in bad situations is to be a bystander and not to help others. It’s very easy to write things off as someone else’s problem but I think that if you have the means to help write someone’s wrong, you have a duty to do it, especially if no one else is and you are witnessing the situation firsthand. Some wrongs have a very clear path for others to make it right such as David Cash telling Jeremy to let Sherice go and getting someone else to help if he refused. Everyone always has an obligation to help in situations such as this. I think the degree of the wrong also has something to do with it, but still, if there is a way for you to help with a bad situation, you always should in my opinion. I think laws about witnessing or knowing about a crime are necessary since it has been made clear that people don’t always act and instead remain a bystander.

I feel as though David’s actions were governed by the fact that he felt a sense of loyalty to his friend, he says during the interview that even after Jeremy tells him that he committed the murder he still couldn’t fathom that his best friend from Ap English had done such a crazy thing. When someone witnesses something wrong being done, without a question they should take action in some way, whether that be to speak up or intervene themselves. However it's interesting how the human mind lets you make so many excuses that could stop you from taking action. In the news article Nightmare on Bus 36 Daniel A. says that he and the other passengers saw the boy get literally punched by an unidentified old man that he looked extremely fearful of, however because they believed it was the boy's father, he opted to not act. This shouldn’t be the case, there shouldn’t be a reason that anything wrong is being casted aside and shunned. If a child is getting abused by someone he knows that's even more of a reason to act, however giving yourself a reason not to act makes it easier for you to live with yourself knowing that you haven’t. After David tapped Jeremy on the head, got no response, and left, he was content with the fact that he tried. When he says that he can’t be sad forever, and that his life is going to continue at the beginning of this video is very saddening because he keeps the same, non sympathetic, non regretful tone.The golden rule, treat others how you want to be treated, is the basis of why you should not be a bystander. As I mentioned before you always have an obligation to act in some way, it is definitely difficult now a days, with technology changing the bystander effect, like mentioned in, “The Bystander Effect In the Cellphone Age”, however we as a people should strive to make it easier to speak up for others, and not shame those who do, and rush to speak before we document and record things.

Cash should've been held responsible for this crime as well. He was a literal witness, he saw everything first hand. The reason for why he didn't intervene is beyond me. Just because your best friend committed a crime, doesn't mean that they are exempt from the law. He should've turned Strohmeyer in.

It's similar to "Nightmare on the 36 Bus". A young boy was getting beat by an older man and Auclair didn't step in to help him. I understand why the bus driver didn't ask for help. She probably would've lost her job or something. But if I was in her position, I would try to signal for help in some non verbal way.

In "The Trick to Acting Heroically", it says something about how heroes don't think, they just do. If Cash thinks he's a hero, he's sorely mistaken. He had to think about whether or not to turn his AP English friend in, and he chose not to. Cash deserved to get some sort of punishment, and it's a shame the law was different at the time.

Looking at the murder or Sherrice Iverson, Cash's decision to do nothing when he obviously had the choice to save a life is, despite being the clearly wrong choice, horrifyingly understandable. While I believe, and would like to think that I would do the right thing, a terrifying though is that I wouldn't. I believe Cash did not choose to intervene because he felt "bad" for his for his friend and maybe he was just placed in a moment of disbelief that his trusted friend would do something like this. He clearly states, and I believe his actions show that he was uneasy about the situation, such as him following Strohmeyer, or Cash tapping him on the head. Cash is very clearly in the wrong here, but despite the obligation to help just seeming like common sense, he chose not to. I believe we do have an obligation to act, especially in this situation, but in other situations, this obligation doesn't seem as clear cut. Considering the "Nightmare on the 36 Bus," I again would like to believe I would take action. I think I would definitely call the police or maybe even speak up against the man who is abusing the child, but what if I wouldn't? Other people being there, as well as the fact that I don't know exactly what is going on might influence my choice. The thought that the others might help or maybe even the fact that no one else is helping so I shouldn't might influence my choice. Lastly, "The Bystanders Effect in the Cellphone Age" I believe has the most complex dilemma. I would again like to believe that I would bang on the door and hopefully save anyone inside from the fire, but In reality, would I? I honestly don't think I would. And that thought terrifies me. What if someone died because of my inaction? My stupidity? This is why I believe it is harder to make a decision like this in public. Other people's inaction may make me uncertain that my choice is the right course of action. In the end, I believe the easiest decision is Cash's dilemma. That is because I would know the situation and I would know that I could make a difference. But what of the other two? I don't know if I would do something. That is the hardest part of these situations, because, even though we all think we would help because that is "the right thing to do", would we?

Originally posted by vintage.garfield on September 27, 2020 20:04

There are many instances where bystanders are helpless to intervene with reasons such as shock, fear, physical inability, or merely just nonchalance. In David Cash’s case, he decided to do nothing when his best friend, Jeremy Strohmeyer, assaulted and murdered little Sherrice Iverson due to the very fact that they were best friends and that Cash did not know Sherrice. He even said, “It’s a very tragic event, okay? But the simple fact remains: I do not know this little girl. I do not know starving children in Panama. I do not know people that die of disease in Egypt,” but the fact that David was there when Jeremy was restraining Sherrice makes the situation a lot more personal than being unaware of people suffering in other countries like Egypt.

As @Fidget says, the idea that David did not feel any empathy or guilt from not doing anything to save Sherrice is borderline sociopathic. It seems that his loyalty to Jeremy outweighs a little girl’s life. It’s quite terrifying how he didn’t feel any remorse for the girl’s death even after witnessing the last moments of her life. Even if I was personally there as David and did nothing, I would feel extremely guilty and wouldn’t know what to do with myself.

In “Nightmare on the 36 Bus” by Brian McGrory, a young boy was heavily abused by a man on the 36 Bus while all of the passengers looked away. Auclair was one of the passengers on the bus and saw what the man did to the boy. In this situation and in David's situation, both men were faced with the decision of whether to intervene to help a stranger, and although Auclair did not intervene, he felt extremely guilty for his lack of action and could barely sleep unlike David, who said that he was “not going to lose sleep over someone else’s problems.”

This statement by David is extremely odd, however, because Sherrice’s problem WAS his problem too and he should be held accountable for his inaction even if the Sherrice Iverson Law was not yet a thing yet. As @penguinsintherain said “By staying silent you are making the active decision to walk away when you are responsible to do something about the wrong that you are witnessing.”

Someone who was directly affiliated with him was hurting a little girl, but David decided not to take ANY part and did not feel anything for the little girl even after Jeremy admitted to murdering her. They even spent a few more hours driving and played in another casino as if nothing’s happened. He had so much time to reevaluate the situation and report Jeremy. It’s almost as if Jeremy told David that he was going to assault an murder Sherrice and David agreeing and leaving so that they could hang out more after. This makes him an accomplice to Sherrice’s murder.

In “The Trick to Acting Heroically” by Erez Yoeli and David Rand, it mentions a game theory model called the “envelope game” where one player has the opportunity to help the second player every round. Each time Player 1 decides to help, there will be an envelope with a price, indicating how much that decision cost. Player 2 only has the ability to watch and decide whether or not to end their relationship with Player 1. This applies to real life where David has choices (multiple even) throughout the entire night. In the interview, David doesn’t mention any risks he had to consider but the very fact that Sherrice was a stranger made him decide to not help her at all.

As humans, I believe that we all have a connection to each other, even if we are strangers because of our ability to put ourselves in each other’s shoes. As mentioned before, there are many reasons for not acting in a dangerous situation, but David did not feel ANYTHING for Sherrice Iverson. If one of my friends or my brother did something atrocious like Jeremy did and I was there to see it, I would be in shock and I’m honestly not sure what I would do in that kind of situation, but even with a flurry of emotions such as shock and betrayal, I would eventually report them regardless of their affiliation to me. Their affiliation with me ends if they did something like that because it says a lot about me if I stayed friends with a murderer and/or a rapist. Even without a law in place, human decency would cause me to do something about the situation, not just for my satisfaction, but because that is my role as a citizen in a society.

I also thought it was very strange that David didn't feel any kind of remorse for Sherrice or a strange feeling towards Jeremy afterwards. When you mentioned Auclair's reaction from Nightmare on the 36 Bus, this made me wonder how David was not getting second thoughts on the whole incident as if he was unbothered. Auclair felt so much guilt afterwards, but David directly heard it from Jeremy that he killed Sherrice did not even made feel any type of emotions. I feel like I would resonate with how you would feel as well because, "I would be in shock and I’m honestly not sure what I would do in that kind of situation, but even with a flurry of emotions such as shock and betrayal." Even if I cared about a friend THAT much, I would feel disappointed and, frankly, scared of what they can do to me.