posts 16 - 30 of 66
mcsd153
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 15

Originally posted by 239bid0073 on September 24, 2020 10:01

On the night of May 25, 1997 Sherrice Iverson was sexually assaulted and murdered by Jeremy Strohmeyer, while his best friend David Cash stood there looking on. In this situation David Cash is just as guilty for the murder as Jeremy is, and the fact that he has not been charged with any crime is a loss for humanity. Many things should have crossed Cash’s mind to make the proper decision in this scenario. He should have thought about the little girl, his best friend and himself. First and foremost he should have thought about what was going to happen to Sherrice, and to her family in the aftermath. And if this wasn’t enough to push him to jump into action. Then he should have thought about what it means to be a friend and call them out when they are doing wrong. As a friend you have to have tough love sometimes because you want the best for that person. And finally if that didn’t encourage him to stand up to this wrong, he should have thought about himself and what he was going to have to live with for the rest of his life. The pain and the replayed images in his head of what he could have done should have been what brought him into action. But as said in the “Trick to Acting Heroically”, heroes don’t think before they act. People have good instincts and just spring into action without thinking about anything but the person or thing they are trying to save (The New York Times). If we want to make change in this world, and see a change in people's actions then there needs to be no exception to when and when it is not okay to be a bystander. Being a bystander is never okay and the more we do it the worse this world is going to be. But because of the technology that exists in today’s world it can be hard to take that first step and call out the problem. According to WBUR in a way our new instincts of documenting everything hinder us from taking that first step to save someone or change a problem. We are more consumed in telling the masses than solving what is right in front of us. This is very scary and concerning, and could lead to the loss of so many lives and the integrity of humanity. Speak up to every little wrong. It may seem small, or like it is not going to amount to anything, but you never know. And the more you do it the easier it will become when you have to spring into action in big cases.

I really like how you walked step by step through what Cash could've/should've done to prevent this horrific accident from occurring. I also want to highlight what you said about sbeing an upstander. It is so important do do anything you can, big or small, to help those around you, especially if you know that yo have the ability to make a difference. The lack of upstanding is "scary and concerning, and could lead to the loss of so many lives and the integrity of humanity. Speak up to every little wrong. It may seem small, or like it is not going to amount to anything, but you never know". I trly agree with this statement and think that we have the room to make so much change in this world if we just speak up and do whats right.

razzledazzle8
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 20

Originally posted by mcsd153 on September 24, 2020 19:21

In my mind, the “Dilemma of the Bad Samaritan” is simple, David Cash was wrong, and should face punishment for his colossal negligence. Sherrice Iverson could have returned back to her family that night, and most likely still be here today to tell the story of that unfortunate night. At no point was it too late to stop Strohmeyer or turn him into the police. I believe that Cash should have stopped his friend the moment he saw him walk into the women’s bathroom, following a young girl 10 years younger than him.

As mentioned in “ The Samaritan’s Dilemma: Should the Government Help Your Neighbor “ by Deborah Stone, in situations that many people witness at once, people can comfort themselves for not doing anything by assuming someone else will. For example, in the “ Nightmare on the 36 Bus” reported on by Brian McGrory, 10 or more people watched an 8 year old boy get beaten to the ground by a much older man. They stood there, feeling that it either wasn't their place, or that they didn't want to be the one to help, assuming someone would have a burst of courage and take the man down. While that logic is also flawed, it does not apply to this situation. David Cash was Sherrice’s only hope, her only chance of survival.

I believe that we have an obligation to act most of the time, unless it poses an immense threat to your safety. You should intervene if you can, or at least call an authority to help. I do think this has some contingencies though. If you know that you have the ability to prevent something from going extremely downhill, take action. However, not every single person can be held to the same standards. For example, if David Cash was not a 17 year old boy but instead a young child witnessing the assault, I would not hold them responsible for not standing up to Jeremy Strohmeyer, since their life could be at risk too. But Cash was not only Jeremy’s size and age, but his best friend.

I firmly believe that David Cash could have saved Sherrice’s life that night, and for that he should be condemned. This dilemma serves to teach us all a lesson; do everything you can, whether it be intervening yourself or calling 911 for help. While it may not always change the outcome of the situation, at least you know that you chose bravery over ignorance. Your actions have power, and that stands true for David Cash, the witnesses on the 36 bus that cold Wednesday night, or the neighbors of Kitty Genovese. They chose to stay silent, to turn a blind eye, resulting in innocent people’s agony.

I agree with everything you said in this, especially the first paragraph. Why isn’t Cash charged or punished for anything he did? Like you said, “Sherrice Iverson could have returned back to her family that night” if it weren’t for Cash’s “colossal negligence”. In my opinion, if someone could’ve stopped a murder and chose not to for no good reason, they should be punished. The moment David Cash decided to not stop his friend, he too killed Sherrice Iverson and should be convicted. As you said, “David Cash was Sherrice’s only only hope, her only chance of survival.”

I also agree with what you said about how David Cash wasn’t a little kid who needed to be afraid of Jeremy, they were the same age and size so there was no reason for Cash not to stop him.

239bid0073
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 13

Why David Left The Bathroom

Originally posted by razzledazzle8 on September 24, 2020 16:51

One day in 1997, two best friends, David Cash and Jeremy Strohmeyer went to a casino in Las Vegas looking to play some games and maybe win some money. Later that night, 7 year old Sherrice Iverson, was dead, killed by Jeremy Strohmeyer. David Cash watched as his best friend began to rape and strangle this little girl and chose to leave Jeremy to what he was doing because he said he didn’t want to be a part of it. After Jeremy finished brutally killing Sherrice, he proceeded to tell David what he had done to Sherrice and still David did nothing.


The question is what should have David thought in this situation? Many things should’ve steered Cash in the direction of stopping his friend. Like sam239bid00 said, “he should have thought about the little girl, his best friend, and himself.” First he should've thought about Sherrice’s safety and what his best friend was really capable of doing to her. Then if he didn’t think about that he should have thought about how his best friend could go to jail for this if he was caught. Lastly if he wanted to stop him for selfish reasons he could’ve thought about himself and he could be a hero. Like it was said in New York Times’, “The Trick to Acting Heroically”, people may act as being the hero to be treated differently and get the benefits of being the hero. But David didn’t think to do any of these things, he didn’t think at all.


Witnesses of something wrong being committed have certain obligations to be fulfilled. They need to be an upstander instead of a bystander no matter how large or how little the crime is. People need to just act instead of overthinking situations. For example, “The Nightmare on the 36 Bus” by Brian McGrory, has a witness that regrets not just following his instincts and intervening on the abuse of a little boy. Often people think it’s not their place to intervene but you never know what is going on and should get involved as a precaution, so later you don’t regret it. Us as humans always have this obligation to be an upstander because without that this world would be filled with so much hate and fear; fear of not knowing whether another human will help you or not if you were in trouble.


Also in this new age of technology like in the article, “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age” said, now our first thought is to document the crisis or emergency on our phone instead of helping fellow humans from being in trouble. We shouldn’t have to worry whether or not someone is going to pull out their phones instead of help you from danger. The same article from WBUR talks about a term called the bystander effect which means that “when the presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situation.”


As being a part of the human race, people need help others no matter what. David Cash didn’t do this and he is definitely not the only bystander to do so. People need to break out of the bystander effect and stop overthinking what to do in a crisis and just stand up. We all have the obligation to stand up against what is wrong and not be that bystander.


I would like to comment on your part about how you said David left the bathroom because he didn't want to be apart of the raping and murder. I think that if David did not want to be apart of the murder he would have told someone about what was happening, and confessed. I think his cause of leaving was to not witness and have to come to terms what he already knew to be true. If he didn't want to be apart of the crime he took the first step in leaving the bathroom but his lack of upstanding after he left the bathroom proved he didn't not want to be apart of it.

239bid0073
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 13

We Shouldn't Have To Worry

Originally posted by razzledazzle8 on September 24, 2020 16:51

One day in 1997, two best friends, David Cash and Jeremy Strohmeyer went to a casino in Las Vegas looking to play some games and maybe win some money. Later that night, 7 year old Sherrice Iverson, was dead, killed by Jeremy Strohmeyer. David Cash watched as his best friend began to rape and strangle this little girl and chose to leave Jeremy to what he was doing because he said he didn’t want to be a part of it. After Jeremy finished brutally killing Sherrice, he proceeded to tell David what he had done to Sherrice and still David did nothing.


The question is what should have David thought in this situation? Many things should’ve steered Cash in the direction of stopping his friend. Like 239bid0073 said, “he should have thought about the little girl, his best friend, and himself.” First he should've thought about Sherrice’s safety and what his best friend was really capable of doing to her. Then if he didn’t think about that he should have thought about how his best friend could go to jail for this if he was caught. Lastly if he wanted to stop him for selfish reasons he could’ve thought about himself and he could be a hero. Like it was said in New York Times’, “The Trick to Acting Heroically”, people may act as being the hero to be treated differently and get the benefits of being the hero. But David didn’t think to do any of these things, he didn’t think at all.


Witnesses of something wrong being committed have certain obligations to be fulfilled. They need to be an upstander instead of a bystander no matter how large or how little the crime is. People need to just act instead of overthinking situations. For example, “The Nightmare on the 36 Bus” by Brian McGrory, has a witness that regrets not just following his instincts and intervening on the abuse of a little boy. Often people think it’s not their place to intervene but you never know what is going on and should get involved as a precaution, so later you don’t regret it. Us as humans always have this obligation to be an upstander because without that this world would be filled with so much hate and fear; fear of not knowing whether another human will help you or not if you were in trouble.


Also in this new age of technology like in the article, “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age” said, now our first thought is to document the crisis or emergency on our phone instead of helping fellow humans from being in trouble. We shouldn’t have to worry whether or not someone is going to pull out their phones instead of help you from danger. The same article from WBUR talks about a term called the bystander effect which means that “when the presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situation.”


As being a part of the human race, people need help others no matter what. David Cash didn’t do this and he is definitely not the only bystander to do so. People need to break out of the bystander effect and stop overthinking what to do in a crisis and just stand up. We all have the obligation to stand up against what is wrong and not be that bystander.


One thing that I really liked that you mentioned was the reality that we now have to worry about weather someone is going to save us or document it first. It did not occur to me to think about my role in this and the possible scenario that this could put me in. I also think this could be a great way to promote upstanding in the sense that this provides empathy. One way to get people to do something is when you get them to feel something. By telling them what could happen to them could encourage them to do the same for others.

crunchysnowball
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 13

Missed Opportunities

Personally, I see David Cash as guilty and nothing less than that. Many questions arise for me when analyzing the crime. David sees that his friend, Jeremy Strohmeyer, is following seven year old Sherrice Iverson into the women’s restroom. He sees Jeremy using both hands to grab the stomach and mouth of the young girl. He sees the blank and unusual look in his friend’s face. He hears Jeremy confess to his crime of murdering Sherrice and continues on with his night and his life as if nothing had happened. With these facts being true, why did David follow his friend into the women’s restroom? What was he doing in the adjacent stall? Why didn’t he report the crime when he had a confession in the palm of his hand?

David Cash had many opportunities to intervene and keep the situation from happening to begin with or at least lower the tragicness of it all. In the video when he says that he tapped Jeremy on the head and gave him a look and some body language. Yet how could all that be done with the barrier of a stall wall between them? He could have pushed his friend off of the young girl or at the bare minimum report the crime after it had happened. In my eyes, there was no reason not to. However, Cash remarks that he did not know this little girl. Therefore insinuating that it was not his problem to take care of. As someone who witnessed a “wrong”, I feel that he has an obligation to be the messenger at the bare minimum. Did he not feel guilty afterwards when he continued his night on the town? These excuses that he makes about it not being his problem or that he couldn’t believe that his friend had done something like that do not make up for the abundance of opportunities he had to stop this tragic event.

Similarly in The Bystander Effect In The Cellphone Age (WBUR), a true good Samaritan remembers trying to clear the house that was on fire, to save as many people as he could, while there were bystanders filming the whole thing. Had that man not run in to warn those people in the burning building, the bystanders filming would have the same ethical standing as David Cash. They both had the option to stop a bad thing from happening yet they chose to watch it all happen. The amount of time that someone has to react to a bad situation is small, it is instinct and as The Trick to Acting Heroically notes, “the heroes overwhelming described their actions as fast and intuitive, and virtually never as carefully reasoned.”

I feel that as humans we always have the obligation to act against wrongdoings if we have the power to do so. Even if we can deduce David’s non-immediate action to the crime when it was happening to fear or disbelief, how can we morally say that he is not responsible after he waits for his friend for 22 minutes after walking after walking out of the restroom, after the hours of fun he had riding roller coasters, after the hours long drive back from Nevada, or even after the days following the crime before Jeremy was taken into custody?




broskiii
Charlestown, MA, US
Posts: 10

Stand Up Even If It's Hard

“The Bad Samaritan” is such an interesting dilemma that I think people should read about at least once in their lives. I just want to start off by saying that I went into this assignment not knowing what a samaritan was and what makes a person a “good” or a “bad” one. When I finished watching the video, I knew exactly what it meant when the video refers to David Cash as a “bad samaritan”. As 239b8d0073 has already explained, both David Cash and Jeremy Strohmeyer were at a casino when Jeremy decided to sexually assault and murder 7 year old Sherrice Iverson while David stood there and watched. I 100% agree with what 239b8d0073 had said before and I just want to quote something that they/he/she said as well. “ … he should have thought about himself and what he was going to have to live with for the rest of his life.” This quote really stuck out to me because that was the moment that I decided to step into David’s shoes. When I started to look at things from his perspective, I thought of all the memories they spent together and how much David must have cherished those memories. In that span of 22 minutes, he probably took some time and decided to self-reflect and to see if what he just saw was real. When Jeremy came out and confessed to David, I think, because of his sudden confession was so bizarre, he couldn’t fathom having remorse over Sherrice even if he saw what had happened to her. His subconscious told him to stop worrying about Sherrice and how her family might deal with the aftermath, so he decided to leave it alone. At this point, he felt no remorse and no guilt toward the Iverson family. Unforgivable. He should be convicted and spend his time in jail for what he did to both Sherrice and Jeremy. For Sherrice, she could be living her life right at this moment and growing up to be a strong independent woman, if he decided to stop Jeremy. He could have helped Jeremy by reporting him sooner or at least tell him to stop assaulting a child in the bathroom. He could have taken that extra step to morality but he decided to do nothing and kept silent.

This dilemma reminds me of what happened in “Nightmare on the 36 Bus.” A boy around the age of 8 was brutally abused by a man on the bus and the witnesses around him did nothing. The bus driver kept driving and the witnesses just kept to their business. As butterfly123 mentioned, the guilt from the boy kept Auclair awake at night and he was distraught from not being able to save an 8 year old from being assaulted. It is clear that Cash didn’t even bat an eye to thinking that he did something wrong as we saw from the interview. It also brings me to another question, where are all the witnesses in the casino and what were they doing? There must have been security guards around if there is security footage of Jeremey and David walking out of the bathroom. Why didn’t anyone notice anything suspicious with two grown males walking into a women’s restroom?

This reminds me of what had happened in, “The Bystander Effect In The Cellphone Age.” There was a house fire and even though there were people witnessing the fire, no one took the courage to go into the house and tell the residents that it was on fire, except for one man. Everyone else was recording and posting their videos of the fire on social media, but no one took the plunge to help the residents inside the building. This leads me to believe that being aware is more important than actually helping out. Once the emergency vehicles got to the scene, the people went back to their phones and went back to their children's baseball game. This is a sight that I cannot bear to see.

The obligation a person has when they witness a crime is to report it or at least to do something about it rather than just standing and watching. I can’t wrap my head around the amount of guilt and trauma a person must face when they choose not to report a murder. For David’s case, he chose not to report it because Jeremy was his best friend. Reporting a crime is an unspoken rule that should’ve been known to all and should apply to all as well. You should still report a crime even if the perpetrator is your friend or family. The fact that David didn’t do so is unforgivable. We have an obligation to become a voice for those who are silenced and we have to act whenever we can even if we are afraid of doing the wrong thing and butting into someone else’s business.

alberic25
boston, massachusetts, US
Posts: 14

Basic Humanity

The story of the “Bad Samaritan” is a rather disturbing story that shows how sometimes humanity can be extremely flawed. The actions portrayed by Cash completely disregard basic morals and humanity. I believe that Cash was just as involved in the crime as Jeremy. By blatantly ignoring the events happening he proves that he is okay with what Cash is doing to this to the little girl. The quote that he says shows even more proof of his part in the crime because he says that since he didn’t know the little girl it wasn’t his responsibility to stop his friends. Most people will have a basic want to help others, especially if their lives are in danger. Cash should’ve had this instinct to help and do whatever he could to save the little girl's life. Like described in the document The TRick to Acting Heroically almost every normal human will put their life on the line to help someone else, and this was proven by a series of testing. Every Single time the person would help the other person. This basic humanity is also shown in the document The Bystander Effect in the Cell Phone age. The man throws himself into a fire to save a family. This brings me to the idea of deciding what is wrong or not. The article talks about how people just sat there recording the fire instead of helping. This doesn’t seem as unethical as Cash blatantly letting his friend rape and kill a girl basically right in front of his face, however it is definitely wrong. The idea of what is right and wrong is a really subjective topic. Filming tragic events is really normalized in our society, therefore to the people doing it they don’t consider it to be a crime or to be extremely unethical. However it truly is because you could be saving someone's life instead of getting something to post to your instagram. Rules could be placed against not helping someone if you’re a witness however they would be extremely debatable. You can’t set a rule that you have to be a good person, it should just come naturally.
alberic25
boston, massachusetts, US
Posts: 14

Originally posted by freemanjud on September 24, 2020 12:36

Thanks 239bid0073 for posting first... Lots to think about here.

Just FYI--and to everyone: Break your post into paragraphs! It's far easier to read! Thanks.

Originally posted by 239bid0073 on September 24, 2020 10:01

On the night of May 25, 1997 Sherrice Iverson was sexually assaulted and murdered by Jeremy Strohmeyer, while his best friend David Cash stood there looking on. In this situation David Cash is just as guilty for the murder as Jeremy is, and the fact that he has not been charged with any crime is a loss for humanity. Many things should have crossed Cash’s mind to make the proper decision in this scenario. He should have thought about the little girl, his best friend and himself. First and foremost he should have thought about what was going to happen to Sherrice, and to her family in the aftermath. And if this wasn’t enough to push him to jump into action. Then he should have thought about what it means to be a friend and call them out when they are doing wrong. As a friend you have to have tough love sometimes because you want the best for that person. And finally if that didn’t encourage him to stand up to this wrong, he should have thought about himself and what he was going to have to live with for the rest of his life. The pain and the replayed images in his head of what he could have done should have been what brought him into action. But as said in the “Trick to Acting Heroically”, heroes don’t think before they act. People have good instincts and just spring into action without thinking about anything but the person or thing they are trying to save (The New York Times). If we want to make change in this world, and see a change in people's actions then there needs to be no exception to when and when it is not okay to be a bystander. Being a bystander is never okay and the more we do it the worse this world is going to be. But because of the technology that exists in today’s world it can be hard to take that first step and call out the problem. According to WBUR in a way our new instincts of documenting everything hinder us from taking that first step to save someone or change a problem. We are more consumed in telling the masses than solving what is right in front of us. This is very scary and concerning, and could lead to the loss of so many lives and the integrity of humanity. Speak up to every little wrong. It may seem small, or like it is not going to amount to anything, but you never know. And the more you do it the easier it will become when you have to spring into action in big cases.

Post your response here.

I really like the last part of your response when you say to speak up to every little wrong. It is really important that we are careful to always push ourselves to do the right thing, even though sometimes we think we can't help, we should always try.

alberic25
boston, massachusetts, US
Posts: 14

Originally posted by razzledazzle8 on September 24, 2020 16:51

One day in 1997, two best friends, David Cash and Jeremy Strohmeyer went to a casino in Las Vegas looking to play some games and maybe win some money. Later that night, 7 year old Sherrice Iverson, was dead, killed by Jeremy Strohmeyer. David Cash watched as his best friend began to rape and strangle this little girl and chose to leave Jeremy to what he was doing because he said he didn’t want to be a part of it. After Jeremy finished brutally killing Sherrice, he proceeded to tell David what he had done to Sherrice and still David did nothing.


The question is what should have David thought in this situation? Many things should’ve steered Cash in the direction of stopping his friend. Like 239bid0073 said, “he should have thought about the little girl, his best friend, and himself.” First he should've thought about Sherrice’s safety and what his best friend was really capable of doing to her. Then if he didn’t think about that he should have thought about how his best friend could go to jail for this if he was caught. Lastly if he wanted to stop him for selfish reasons he could’ve thought about himself and he could be a hero. Like it was said in New York Times’, “The Trick to Acting Heroically”, people may act as being the hero to be treated differently and get the benefits of being the hero. But David didn’t think to do any of these things, he didn’t think at all.


Witnesses of something wrong being committed have certain obligations to be fulfilled. They need to be an upstander instead of a bystander no matter how large or how little the crime is. People need to just act instead of overthinking situations. For example, “The Nightmare on the 36 Bus” by Brian McGrory, has a witness that regrets not just following his instincts and intervening on the abuse of a little boy. Often people think it’s not their place to intervene but you never know what is going on and should get involved as a precaution, so later you don’t regret it. Us as humans always have this obligation to be an upstander because without that this world would be filled with so much hate and fear; fear of not knowing whether another human will help you or not if you were in trouble.


Also in this new age of technology like in the article, “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age” said, now our first thought is to document the crisis or emergency on our phone instead of helping fellow humans from being in trouble. We shouldn’t have to worry whether or not someone is going to pull out their phones instead of help you from danger. The same article from WBUR talks about a term called the bystander effect which means that “when the presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situation.”


As being a part of the human race, people need help others no matter what. David Cash didn’t do this and he is definitely not the only bystander to do so. People need to break out of the bystander effect and stop overthinking what to do in a crisis and just stand up. We all have the obligation to stand up against what is wrong and not be that bystander.


I agree with you when you said that you can't overthink and you just need to act. Cash definitely overthought the idea of stopping his friend or even turning him in. He proves this by stating that he didn't want to get his best friend in trouble. If you're scared of the consequences you will never be able to live your life fully. Overthinking a situation could be the difference between someone living or dying.

SlothsPoopOnceAWeek
Chestnuthill, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13

Ignorance is Bliss

Witnessing a crime is just as bad as committing it if you did nothing to stop it. If the crime will permanently effect someone else’s life, or even if you just would not like the same to happen to you, why allow it to happen to someone else? This is where the golden rule that we have all heard since we have been little kicks in. Treat people the way you want to be treated. Understandably, sometimes intervening can risk yourself, and some would like to take the risk to save others. Something that Cash should have done is tell someone, if he was too scared to intervene himself. Leaving the bathroom 2 minutes after entering, he could have went to a security guard and told him what he had witnessed. Instead, he ignored the problem and continued on with his life. Ignorance is bliss, some say.


An obligation that someone who is witnessing something is to at least try to do something. It does not have to be jumping in, but rather calling for authority to do so, or anyone else to assist them. In most situations, people are scared to be the one to help or step in in situations. This was described in the article, “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age.” There was a fire, and many had gathered around to witness and take pictures, but no one stepped in to check if there were people in the house or make sure people were safe. No one thought to do so, as they thought someone else had it covered. The theory that people don’t step in in large groups has been tested, and been documented on youtube videos which I have watched before.


In the article, “Nightmare on the 36 Bus,” a boy was being assaulted, but help was no where to be found. Witnesses believed that the man who was assaulting the boy was his father. Rather than trusting their instinct, they overthought the outcome and therefor allowed a boy to be assaulted. This was also presented in the article “The Trick to Acting Heroically,” where people were asked after acting heroically what they were thinking. They said, “It wasn’t really a conscious decision.” David Cash, after witnessing his friend assault a girl that neither of them knew, just walked away. Not acting in situations like David Cash or the people on the 36 bus can result in serious consequences, even if they don’t effect the bystanders. They witnessed a crime that was harming someone, but did nothing. As a bystander like everyone, I would like to say we have an obligation to intervene and act as often as we are able to. If we are able to help someone, to prevent situations from escalating, to save a life or two, we should.

ilikekiwis
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13

Empathy and Compassion as Moral Guides

The moral “laws” that should guide one’s actions are empathy and compassion. YES, the phrase “imagine if you were in their shoes” is extremely cliche but it is 100% true. David Cash had no reason to be influenced by any bystander effect as explained by Judy Harris in her 2015 article for WBUR. He was the only one present at such a horrid crime, so he could not have been influenced by mass psychosis to stand and watch. A murder is different from a fire obviously. While people are in danger both times, there are no conflicting issues with who is the murderer and what their morals are during a fire. Jeremy Strohmeyer assaulted and killed Sherrice Iverson, of which David saw the assaulting part. With no one else present, it should be your duty to report something, even if you can’t get physically involved because it may endanger you. Calling 911 is a very easy task that can be done from afar that should be done in almost every situation, regardless of its severity. The incident described in Nightmare on the 36 bus is slightly more similar to that in the Bad Samaritan interview. The passengers did absolutely nothing when a boy was getting beat up by the man. A witness explains that after getting up to go intervene, he sat back down because he figured that it may be some family business. David Cash, on the other hand, knew perfectly that Sherrice and Jeremy had no connection at all.

If you were the little boy on the 36 getting beat up by an adult, whether it is your father or a stranger, wouldn’t you want help? If you were a girl getting assaulted and strangled by a teenager, wouldn’t you want help? David Cash explained that he didn’t know her as he doesn’t “know the starving children in Panama… [or] the people that die of disease in Egypt,” but this comparison is illogical because he has only heard those stories and has never seen them. With Sherrice, David Cash literally saw what was happening to her and felt no emotional remorse. David may have given Jeremy a look of disapproval or judgement over the bathroom stall, but no verbal or physical action such as pushing Jeremy or calling 911 occured. When you become friends with someone, especially best friends, it is because of their personality. David and Jeremy were best friends for years, so David most likely assumed that he knew everything about Jeremy. He claimed in the interview that he could not imagine his best friend committing such a crime, even after Jeremy confessed. When David saw the violent nature of Jeremy and the fact that Jeremy killed an innocent little girl, that should have tipped him off that there is a part of his best friend that he doesn’t know. To murder an innocent human takes a dark soul and mind that cannot possibly be outweighed by good nature.

ilikekiwis
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13

Originally posted by mcsd153 on September 24, 2020 19:21

In my mind, the “Dilemma of the Bad Samaritan” is simple, David Cash was wrong, and should face punishment for his colossal negligence. Sherrice Iverson could have returned back to her family that night, and most likely still be here today to tell the story of that unfortunate night. At no point was it too late to stop Strohmeyer or turn him into the police. I believe that Cash should have stopped his friend the moment he saw him walk into the women’s bathroom, following a young girl 10 years younger than him

.

As mentioned in “ The Samaritan’s Dilemma: Should the Government Help Your Neighbor “ by Deborah Stone, in situations that many people witness at once, people can comfort themselves for not doing anything by assuming someone else will. For example, in the “ Nightmare on the 36 Bus” reported on by Brian McGrory, 10 or more people watched an 8 year old boy get beaten to the ground by a much older man. They stood there, feeling that it either wasn't their place, or that they didn't want to be the one to help, assuming someone would have a burst of courage and take the man down. While that logic is also flawed, it does not apply to this situation. David Cash was Sherrice’s only hope, her only chance of survival.

I believe that we have an obligation to act most of the time, unless it poses an immense threat to your safety. You should intervene if you can, or at least call an authority to help. I do think this has some contingencies though. If you know that you have the ability to prevent something from going extremely downhill, take action. However, not every single person can be held to the same standards. For example, if David Cash was not a 17 year old boy but instead a young child witnessing the assault, I would not hold them responsible for not standing up to Jeremy Strohmeyer, since their life could be at risk too. But Cash was not only Jeremy’s size and age, but his best friend.

I firmly believe that David Cash could have saved Sherrice’s life that night, and for that he should be condemned. This dilemma serves to teach us all a lesson; do everything you can, whether it be intervening yourself or calling 911 for help. While it may not always change the outcome of the situation, at least you know that you chose bravery over ignorance. Your actions have power, and that stands true for David Cash, the witnesses on the 36 bus that cold Wednesday night, or the neighbors of Kitty Genovese. They chose to stay silent, to turn a blind eye, resulting in innocent people’s agony.

Post your response here. I agree that "Cash should have stopped his friend the moment he saw him walk into the women’s bathroom, following a young girl 10 years younger than him." It's a completely immoral to do that in the first place. I hadn't thought about that when writing my post. In my post, I talked about the impossibility of any good nature of your best friend would outweigh the fact that they killed an innocent person. Yet before the murder, I don't think it's possible to still be friends with someone who was following any girl, especially such a young girl. It's nearly pedophilia if Jeremy was just a year older (he was 17 at the time of the murder I believe.) It should have been much easier to stop Jeremy when entering the bathroom than when Jeremy was already assaulting Sherrice.

ilikekiwis
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 13

Originally posted by SlothsPoopOnceAWeek on September 25, 2020 14:24

Witnessing a crime is just as bad as committing it if you did nothing to stop it. If the crime will permanently effect someone else’s life, or even if you just would not like the same to happen to you, why allow it to happen to someone else? This is where the golden rule that we have all heard since we have been little kicks in. Treat people the way you want to be treated. Understandably, sometimes intervening can risk yourself, and some would like to take the risk to save others. Something that Cash should have done is tell someone, if he was too scared to intervene himself. Leaving the bathroom 2 minutes after entering, he could have went to a security guard and told him what he had witnessed. Instead, he ignored the problem and continued on with his life. Ignorance is bliss, some say.


An obligation that someone who is witnessing something is to at least try to do something. It does not have to be jumping in, but rather calling for authority to do so, or anyone else to assist them. In most situations, people are scared to be the one to help or step in in situations. This was described in the article, “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age.” There was a fire, and many had gathered around to witness and take pictures, but no one stepped in to check if there were people in the house or make sure people were safe. No one thought to do so, as they thought someone else had it covered. The theory that people don’t step in in large groups has been tested, and been documented on youtube videos which I have watched before.


In the article, “Nightmare on the 36 Bus,” a boy was being assaulted, but help was no where to be found. Witnesses believed that the man who was assaulting the boy was his father. Rather than trusting their instinct, they overthought the outcome and therefor allowed a boy to be assaulted. This was also presented in the article “The Trick to Acting Heroically,” where people were asked after acting heroically what they were thinking. They said, “It wasn’t really a conscious decision.” David Cash, after witnessing his friend assault a girl that neither of them knew, just walked away. Not acting in situations like David Cash or the people on the 36 bus can result in serious consequences, even if they don’t effect the bystanders. They witnessed a crime that was harming someone, but did nothing. As a bystander like everyone, I would like to say we have an obligation to intervene and act as often as we are able to. If we are able to help someone, to prevent situations from escalating, to save a life or two, we should.

Post your response here. I completely agree that David cash was able to live his life in bliss. He even felt no emotional remorse. He graduated high school, went to college nearly untouched (i doubt the protests did much to his ego), and continues living a happy life free of the horrors of social media to this day. He got to go home while Sherrice never did. Even on the 36 bus, the boy, the man, and the witnesses got to go home. The witness on the bus felt so much more remorse even the the boy went home alive (though horrible injured and traumatized) This really rightfully pins David Cash as one without any empathy and even one without humanity.

crunchysnowball
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 13

Originally posted by ilikekiwis on September 25, 2020 16:31

The moral “laws” that should guide one’s actions are empathy and compassion. YES, the phrase “imagine if you were in their shoes” is extremely cliche but it is 100% true. David Cash had no reason to be influenced by any bystander effect as explained by Judy Harris in her 2015 article for WBUR. He was the only one present at such a horrid crime, so he could not have been influenced by mass psychosis to stand and watch. A murder is different from a fire obviously. While people are in danger both times, there are no conflicting issues with who is the murderer and what their morals are during a fire. Jeremy Strohmeyer assaulted and killed Sherrice Iverson, of which David saw the assaulting part. With no one else present, it should be your duty to report something, even if you can’t get physically involved because it may endanger you. Calling 911 is a very easy task that can be done from afar that should be done in almost every situation, regardless of its severity. The incident described in Nightmare on the 36 bus is slightly more similar to that in the Bad Samaritan interview. The passengers did absolutely nothing when a boy was getting beat up by the man. A witness explains that after getting up to go intervene, he sat back down because he figured that it may be some family business. David Cash, on the other hand, knew perfectly that Sherrice and Jeremy had no connection at all.

If you were the little boy on the 36 getting beat up by an adult, whether it is your father or a stranger, wouldn’t you want help? If you were a girl getting assaulted and strangled by a teenager, wouldn’t you want help? David Cash explained that he didn’t know her as he doesn’t “know the starving children in Panama… [or] the people that die of disease in Egypt,” but this comparison is illogical because he has only heard those stories and has never seen them. With Sherrice, David Cash literally saw what was happening to her and felt no emotional remorse. David may have given Jeremy a look of disapproval or judgement over the bathroom stall, but no verbal or physical action such as pushing Jeremy or calling 911 occured. When you become friends with someone, especially best friends, it is because of their personality. David and Jeremy were best friends for years, so David most likely assumed that he knew everything about Jeremy. He claimed in the interview that he could not imagine his best friend committing such a crime, even after Jeremy confessed. When David saw the violent nature of Jeremy and the fact that Jeremy killed an innocent little girl, that should have tipped him off that there is a part of his best friend that he doesn’t know. To murder an innocent human takes a dark soul and mind that cannot possibly be outweighed by good nature.

I found your response to bring up some original points that I had not even thought of when analyzing this whole situation. When you said that David "was the only one present at such a horrid crime, so he could not have been influenced by mass psychosis to stand and watch", it really made me think about how much more severe his crime was. In the house fire situation and the incident in Nightmare on the 36 bus, those people were partaking in the bystander effect, which by no means makes them any less detrimental to the situation, but it does give them some point of understanding that we can give them. We can at least give people the benefit of the doubt that they were afraid of their own safety in the situation. However, there are no points of understanding we can give to David Cash, he was, in my eyes safe from any significant harm (being a tall white male), he didn't have external pressures like you said, and also he had many times where he could have safely called for help or report what happened.

Facinghistorystudent
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 11

never turn a blind eye


David Cash, a 17 year old boy at the time, witnessed his best friend, Jeremy Strohmeyer rape and murder seven year old Sherrice Iverson in a casino in Las Vegas on May 25,1997. He did nothing. He proceeded to go on with his night pretending as though his friend had not just done these cruel acts, even though he admitted them to him. In an interview with The Los Angeles Times, David spoke out about how he did not say anything because “He doesn’t know her” and that he does “not know the starving children in Panama.” This idea that he does not know her so it’s not his problem creates this new mentality of blindness. He does not believe that it is his job to stop someone from doing wrong, just because he can, which led him to develop the title of “the bad samaritan.”


This is not the only story that has presented a similar figure like David. As told in “The bystander effect in the cell phone age,” people would rather take pictures and document tragic events instead of stepping up and helping. This is clearly a problem because the people who are truly being hurt do not get the help they need because people are not speaking up. This is also portrayed in “The trick to acting heroically” because it tells of the idea that people only speak out or help others if it will be for their personal benefit.

These three events are not isolated. People observe events and do not speak out about them every single day, despite the fact that it is morally wrong. Of course there are different levels of severity for not speaking up, but it is our civic duty as human beings to help people if we are able to when they are in trouble. For example, David’s duty to help was much different than people who film accidents happening. David was there in real time and could really have done something to help. He was not outnumbered, he was not injured or in any sort of danger, the only reason he did not do anything was because he did not want to, which is incredibly frightening and disheartening. People who observe events such as fires and car accidents do have a responsibility as well, but sometimes there are situations that are too extreme, especially if people would be risking their own lives to save others.

posts 16 - 30 of 66