posts 16 - 30 of 40
SlicedBread
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 14

Originally posted by cnovav on September 15, 2021 17:53

"After reading “Nightmare on the 36 Bus” by Brian McGrory, I began to wonder if David felt any guilt because he did not help Sherrice. This is because the article mentions the fact that Auclair went to help but saw that people were giving him weird stares and he sat back down and “It's a decision he's regretted ever since”. Maybe David Cash truly didn't become an upstander because he truly was scared to get involved, we’ll probably never know, but either way it’s painful to think that he was not able to put his doubts aside to help Sherrice."

I also wonder whether David Cash feels at all guilty about his lack of action in this situation. If he did, it certainly didn't sound like it in the interview clip. I think the things he said in that interview definitely make it even more difficult than it already is for someone to try and empathize with him and from his perspective. I wonder if he did seem like he felt guilty about the situation and said something more thoughtful or empathetic in that interview if it may change how people see the situation.

SlicedBread
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 14

Originally posted by pink12 on September 15, 2021 19:32

"If someone is physically getting hurt then it needs to be taken more seriously then if someone is stealing something from a store. Neither action is right, but to an extent you may need to become more involved."

I also agree that a situation like stealing something from a store and witnessing and being confessed a murder have different obligations for the witness. Stealing also isn't right, but it is different. In that situation someone isn't directly being hurt by the person stealing and isn't as serious of a situation. Subsequently, the obligations for the witness that come with that also aren't as serious.

facingstudent8
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 16

The Dilemma of the Bad Samaritan

Cash certainly should have intervened when he witnessed harm coming to another human being. This was similar to what Daniel Auclair did or rather didn’t do in McGregory’s article. Auclair witnessed a young boy being assaulted by an older man but he did nothing and watched. Since both were witnessing the event and they were able to help the child then they should have done everything in their power to stop harm coming to them. No issue is black and white and I can understand looking the other way under certain circumstances. When someone is being physically threatened in the moment though anyone able to help should help in whatever way they are able whether that involves calling for help or getting involved themself. While there are some rules regarding being a bystander there are not many laws specifically against it, at least not federally. This is interesting especially in the school system because we learn at a very young age to never tolerate bullying and if we ever witness it to not be a bystander and tell a trusted adult. It is interesting because if it is such a stressed point in schools why wouldn’t that be a rule (or law) for the “adult” or “real” world as well. It feels like when we get to adulthood it is just expected not to be a bystander when there should be real repercussions for doing so. As human beings we have a moral obligation to act and intervene when we see another human being being harmed especially when it is in our power to stop it. Some people, however, still feel no obligation or even an urge to help others in need. In the last words of Yoeli and Rand’s article they state “heroes don’t just do good — they do good instinctively” which begs the question “Where does this instinct come from?” Perhaps it is from the repeated instructions from our teachers to never be a bystander and to always act up. But maybe for others the “instinct” could be innate which ties back to the whole nature vs. nurture debate. Is the instinct to help others an innate trait or is it one that can be taught through heavy repetition.
facingstudent8
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 16

Originally posted by strawberry123 on September 15, 2021 19:30

People of most religions have this ideology that life on Earth is purely a test of our character. Whether it being true or not, it creates this notion to be the best version of yourself possible. Helping others, succeeding in personal goals, and obeying the laws and rules of the world places you under the title of a good Samaritan. Now, when speaking on behalf of religion once again, these acts of morality shall reward you in the afterlife, however, some don't believe in this conception of life being purely just a test, so why would they continue to help others and spread kindness whenever possible? This is because of the human instincts that automatically have us act upon wrongdoings without the time to think or process what we should do. In the New York Times, an article about acting heroically ties in with our instincts playing part instead of processing the repercussions. Unfortunately for seven-year-old, Sherrice Iverson, human decency and moral instincts were thrown out the window during the time of her sexual assault and murder by Jeremy Strohmeyer. Although Jeremy was the perpetrator of this awful incident, there was someone else who ultimately left Sherrice to suffer and that is the 18-year-old bystander, David Cash.

In certain situations, most people will agree to be a bystander as the value of the act or the nature of the "wrong" isn't that high. For example, seeing someone cheat on a test and not reporting it may not have the same consequences as seeing someone getting assaulted and not reporting it may. In David Cash's place, being a bystander was absolutely the wrong decision and can be agreed amongst most. With a direct victim being hurt, especially for a seven-year-old girl, Cash's actions should have been governed by his instincts as a human. It is not a situation where his obligations of saying or stopping the crime were questionable at any point as well as having the ability to physically stop his friend from the next stall or simply call for help. Cash not only saw the abuse going on but later had his best friend, Jeremy, confess to the murder yet the two continued on their day. Cash had plenty of opportunities to speak up for this human life that had just been taken away but apparently, no basic morals were in Cash's headspace.

In January of 2000, another young child on the 36 bus was assaulted by what seemed to be his own father. With many witnesses on the bus riding alongside the two and watching blood and tears roll down this eight-year-old's face, no one intervened. Visible actions of assault occurred that night in West Roxbury yet people including a man with a Ph.D., Auclair, did not stick up nor call for help in this child's vulnerable state. As humans, there are unsaid "rules" that we should keep in mind in order for us to govern how we act in times as so. In cases with direct victims, it is almost always best to be an upstander. This doesn't always mean that intervening is right, but calling for help from authority figures may also be best. We have obligations and duties in this world to do the right thing. It is your decision at what stakes and what times it is best to act.

I like what you said about what religion has to do with being a good samaritan. It is a very interesting lens to look through since the religions like Christianity speak to the benevolence of the "lord and savior Jesus Christ". There are many followers and leaders of Christianity who preach "love thy neighbor" when they don't follow it themselves. I say this because so often in the news nowadays we see politicians preaching love thy neighbor and being a good samaritan while they are not exhibiting these behaviors themselves and it is really quite hypocritical.

dinonuggets
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 13

The Bad Samaritan Dilemma

When David saw Jeremy restraining and threatening Sherrice from the adjacent bathroom stall, he knew Jeremy was about to do something truly terrible so he walked out. He himself admitted it - he didn’t want to get in in the middle of some kind of horrible situation. The fact that he knew Jeremy was going to further assault Sherrice should have sparked some kind of action from David. The Samaritan’s Dilemma mentions how groups of people witnessing a “wrong” are less likely to intervene because they assume someone else will. David was the only bystander in the situation so he should have felt personally obligated and responsible to attempt to stop Jeremy. One might think David would have felt guilty after deciding to leave, like Auclair from The Nightmare on the 36 Bus when he witnessed a boy being assaulted and did nothing. However he expressed no guilt which is shocking because he knew he was the only one who could have lessened or stopped the severity of the Sherrice’s assault.

There are so many possible scenarios with perpetrators and victims and the line of when one should feel obligation to intervene is fuzzy. I can imagine it’s easier said than done to step in when someone is in danger with an immediate threat. However if there are multiple witnesses I think each one of them should feel more obligated to act. If one person steps up others may feel more empowered to do so and maybe even feel less fearful or endangered. I think if one person had intervened with the little boy’s assault on the bus, other passengers would have taken their lead and helped. If there is only one witness, it may be much scarier but there is more responsibility on that person to be of help. If that one witness's life were to be endangered if they acted, it is more understandable to not get directly involved. But walking away and doing absolutely nothing is never an option.

dinonuggets
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 13

Originally posted by strawberry123 on September 15, 2021 19:30

People of most religions have this ideology that life on Earth is purely a test of our character. Whether it being true or not, it creates this notion to be the best version of yourself possible. Helping others, succeeding in personal goals, and obeying the laws and rules of the world places you under the title of a good Samaritan. Now, when speaking on behalf of religion once again, these acts of morality shall reward you in the afterlife, however, some don't believe in this conception of life being purely just a test, so why would they continue to help others and spread kindness whenever possible? This is because of the human instincts that automatically have us act upon wrongdoings without the time to think or process what we should do. In the New York Times, an article about acting heroically ties in with our instincts playing part instead of processing the repercussions. Unfortunately for seven-year-old, Sherrice Iverson, human decency and moral instincts were thrown out the window during the time of her sexual assault and murder by Jeremy Strohmeyer. Although Jeremy was the perpetrator of this awful incident, there was someone else who ultimately left Sherrice to suffer and that is the 18-year-old bystander, David Cash.

In certain situations, most people will agree to be a bystander as the value of the act or the nature of the "wrong" isn't that high. For example, seeing someone cheat on a test and not reporting it may not have the same consequences as seeing someone getting assaulted and not reporting it may. In David Cash's place, being a bystander was absolutely the wrong decision and can be agreed amongst most. With a direct victim being hurt, especially for a seven-year-old girl, Cash's actions should have been governed by his instincts as a human. It is not a situation where his obligations of saying or stopping the crime were questionable at any point as well as having the ability to physically stop his friend from the next stall or simply call for help. Cash not only saw the abuse going on but later had his best friend, Jeremy, confess to the murder yet the two continued on their day. Cash had plenty of opportunities to speak up for this human life that had just been taken away but apparently, no basic morals were in Cash's headspace.

In January of 2000, another young child on the 36 bus was assaulted by what seemed to be his own father. With many witnesses on the bus riding alongside the two and watching blood and tears roll down this eight-year-old's face, no one intervened. Visible actions of assault occurred that night in West Roxbury yet people including a man with a Ph.D., Auclair, did not stick up nor call for help in this child's vulnerable state. As humans, there are unsaid "rules" that we should keep in mind in order for us to govern how we act in times as so. In cases with direct victims, it is almost always best to be an upstander. This doesn't always mean that intervening is right, but calling for help from authority figures may also be best. We have obligations and duties in this world to do the right thing. It is your decision at what stakes and what times it is best to act.

I agree with what you said about how directly intervening is not always the best option and one can alert authority figures instead. I feel like this is understandable if your life were to be in danger. And I also agree that we all have a choice of when to act and in what situation, but simply walking away like David should never happen.

iris almonds
Posts: 16

Originally posted by booksandcandles on September 15, 2021 21:07

David Cash's actions, or non-actions, during the rape and murder of Sherrice Iverson were completely inexcusable. He walked away from the situation and, in the process, sentenced a young girl to die. So what should he have done? Honestly, in this case, anything would have been better than what actually happened. He could have called the police, he could have protected Sherrice physically or even verbally. There are certain moral obligations a person has when witnessing a crime, such as interfering to try and help the victim or stop the perpetrator. Cash should have been motivated by the fact that someone was being hurt and he had the power to stop it. The particular detail of it being a child that was in danger should have been enough to intervene. The article about the 36 bus had a similar situation, where a child was being physically abused by an older man and no one stepped up to help. But was it better or worse for the bystanders? On the bus, they had no idea what was going on. The man could have been family, there was something else going on there, it wasn't their place. In the bathroom with Sherrice, Cash, and Strohmeyer, Cash knew exactly what was happening and still did nothing. I am still drawn to the fact that on the bus there were multiple bystanders. Each and every one of them was having a moral dilemma and yet did nothing to act upon it.

In terms of different rules depending on the type of wrong, I'd say it's up to situation. We discussed this a little in class, with scenarios of stealing, cheating, and fighting. I think in a situation in which someone is actively being hurt, physically, emotionally, mentally, anything, one should intervene. Dealing with a scenario in which there is no clear victim, in which no one is being hurt actively but there are legal consequences or otherwise, there's not much you can do except report it to the right authorities, or talk to the perpetrator if comfortable doing so. There exist a lot of "ifs" dealing with situations like these, and I think it's best to use common sense and instinct. If helping someone is not harmful to you in some way, I say help them. This is why Cash's actions were so disgusting to me, he had the power to try and save a little girl's life, and still did absolutely nothing but turn a blind eye.

Post your response here.

I agree with a lot of what you said, especially when you mentioned the situation about the 36 bus. Yes, there were multiple bystanders and nobody did anything (there was no excuse not to though), but they didn’t know what was happening. They were confused and many felt as if they were out of place. Just like you said, I emphasize the point that Cash knew what Strohmeyer was up to. The fact that he knew what was going on makes it totally unacceptable for him not to do anything and walk out.

facingstudent8
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 16

Originally posted by pink12 on September 15, 2021 19:32

What I think should have governed Cash's actions was the fact that someone was clearly getting assaulted. Although it was his friend who committed the crime, it gives Cash no right to stay quiet. In doing so, he is almost in the wrong just as much as Jeremy was because he could have said something or gotten help in the span of 20 minutes to save a seven year olds life. If someone witnesses someone doing something wrong, even if its a friend or family member, to an extent you should talk to them or get other people involved. If someone is physically getting hurt then it needs to be taken more seriously then if someone is stealing something from a store. Neither action is right, but to an extent you may need to become more involved. If a bystander sees someone struggling in some way, it is their job to help the victim. In "The Bystander Effect In The Cellphone Age", there is a fire and a bystander immediately starts taking photos. Another man comes over and gets all the people out of the house since he can tell that things are not obviously ok. Instead of standing their taking videos and photos for social media people need to start looking out for others. Although a crime was not committed, the bystander is very much in the wrong for standing around and doing nothing to help. Furthermore in "Nightmare on the 36 Bus", a disorderly man was actively punching and hurting a young boy, while bystanders were on the bus. Just like Cash, the bystanders sat and watched without getting up nor saying anything to this man. Not only did they watch the boy get punched once, but they all watched again as he got punched in the nose with blood going everywhere. The bus driver didn't even report it and said that she didn't see anything. One of the bystanders said they couldn't sleep that night since they were so worried for the boy and regret not stepping in or taking action. It should become a law that if a bystander sees violence or someone seeking help it is their responsibility to either contact authorities or get involved to stop the event from intensifying.

That article is a really interesting story, especially how nowadays our first reaction is to pull out a smartphone instead of providing assistance which seems to be the focus of this article. This is also strange how we have been told by parents and others for so long that we are too adicted to our phones and now it is manifesting in a way that is really quite harmful to the safety of others like when we don't help anyone.

iris almonds
Posts: 16

Originally posted by dinonuggets on September 15, 2021 22:39

When David saw Jeremy restraining and threatening Sherrice from the adjacent bathroom stall, he knew Jeremy was about to do something truly terrible so he walked out. He himself admitted it - he didn’t want to get in in the middle of some kind of horrible situation. The fact that he knew Jeremy was going to further assault Sherrice should have sparked some kind of action from David. The Samaritan’s Dilemma mentions how groups of people witnessing a “wrong” are less likely to intervene because they assume someone else will. David was the only bystander in the situation so he should have felt personally obligated and responsible to attempt to stop Jeremy. One might think David would have felt guilty after deciding to leave, like Auclair from The Nightmare on the 36 Bus when he witnessed a boy being assaulted and did nothing. However he expressed no guilt which is shocking because he knew he was the only one who could have lessened or stopped the severity of the Sherrice’s assault.

There are so many possible scenarios with perpetrators and victims and the line of when one should feel obligation to intervene is fuzzy. I can imagine it’s easier said than done to step in when someone is in danger with an immediate threat. However if there are multiple witnesses I think each one of them should feel more obligated to act. If one person steps up others may feel more empowered to do so and maybe even feel less fearful or endangered. I think if one person had intervened with the little boy’s assault on the bus, other passengers would have taken their lead and helped. If there is only one witness, it may be much scarier but there is more responsibility on that person to be of help. If that one witness's life were to be endangered if they acted, it is more understandable to not get directly involved. But walking away and doing absolutely nothing is never an option.

Post your response here.

I like how you compared Auclair and Cash. Auclair felt guilty after leaving the boy alone and doing nothing which differs from Cash. Cash felt as if it wasn’t his business and felt no guilt at all. It makes me question why certain people are like that. It makes me wonder why certain people only care about themselves and not others (like if it’s not my business, then I don’t care). These kinds of people should act when others need help so that when they themselves need help, others would help them.

user01135
West Roxbury, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 12

The Dilemma of a Bad Samaratin

I think what should have governed Cash's actions was the fact that he knew someone was being harmed. Even though it was his friend, Cash knew what was going on and knew what was happening to Sherrice. Cash could have said something and stopped Jeremy or he could've gotten help and saved Sherrice's life. I think, because he chose to do nothing, Cash is almost as guilty as Jeremy. I think any person who watches someone else do something wrong is obligated to do something about it, even if it means ruining a friendship. I think the severity of the wrong definitely changes wether or not someone would turn a friend or family member in. I think in a minor wrong most people would choose to ignore it and stay out of their way, but in a major wrong I hope that most people would do the right thing and stop them or get help. I believe that you always have an obligation to act. I think people should always be able to tell the difference between right and wrong and act when people are being wrong. But this is not always the case. In "Nightmare on the 36 Bus" a man was punching a little boy in the face repeatedly. There were people on this bus who sat and watched this happen without taking action. This is definitely a time when everyone on the bus should have stood up, stopped the man and called the police. Bystanders often would rather not get involved than help someone. In "The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age" there is a fire and someone stops to take pictures of it. Someone else runs into the house and helps people. The second man acts how all people should. He noticed the problem and went in trying to help people. The first man acts how many witnesses act today. He was only worried about conflict with himself and staying out of the fire instead of trying to help. I hope that future generations will tend to stand up and help people more than we do today.

Bluekoala
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 15

The Dilemma of the Bad Situation

Originally posted by watermelon2 on September 15, 2021 20:29

When David Cash saw what Jeremy Strohmeyer was doing to 7-year-old Sherrice Iverson, he understood that Jeremy was harming her, yet he chose to walk away. Jeremy was assaulting a young girl. That should have governed Cash’s actions. Rather than obsessing over the fact that Jeremy was his friend, seeing Sherrice get assaulted should’ve been the cue for Cash to do something. When a person like Cash witnesses a “wrong,” they have the obligation to take action. Although they didn’t necessarily choose to be in this situation, that isn’t an excuse for them to not do anything. By choosing to remain silent, in no way whatsoever does this mean you’re remaining neutral. Silence and neutrality do not go hand in hand. By remaining silent or not stepping in, you are aiding the perpetrator.


However, there are many aspects to “wrong” actions. If the wrong action isn’t directly affecting someone immediately or if it isn’t as severe, although it isn’t ok to ignore the action, it can definitely be seen on a different level than something like Cash’s scenario. Shoplifting and cheating on a test are examples where, although it’s better to address it at the moment, if you talk to the person later the consequences aren’t as severe. However, if someone is directly harming someone, such as in the scenario with Cash, you must do something. When Cash saw Jeremy assaulting Sherrice and chose to simply leave the bathroom, he is at fault for what happened. His actions of leaving when he knew Sherrice was being threatened are not excusable. These are two very different sides of “wrong” actions, but there are still thousands of other scenarios with different answers. The truth is that it’s complicated. We want to believe that people will always step in and do the right thing, but that isn’t the case. Bystanders see something, and their first reaction can be to jump in and help while others want to run away. Professor Rand found that heroes who risked their lives for others often did it by instinct, reacting quickly and intuitively. Similarly, people can instinctively not do anything, only to regret it later. And when you do that, it doesn’t always necessarily mean you’re a terrible person.


To be clear, in scenarios such as those with Cash, remaining a bystander is not acceptable. He saw that Sherrice was in danger yet chose not to tell Jeremy to stop, protect her, or even tell security. Instead, he protected Cash by allowing him to continue assaulting Sherrice. In a situation where you can see that someone is directly being hurt and you have the ability to do something about it, if you choose to ignore it, that should be illegal. However, when Daniel Auclair witnessed a boy getting beaten up on the 36 bus, just like Cash, he and everyone else on the bus didn’t do anything. But unlike Cash, he was confused about the scenario and regretted not saying anything immediately afterward. Cash knew without a doubt that Sherrice was being assaulted and even after knowing she died, he felt little sympathy or concern. That is not acceptable. Deciding when someone has an obligation to act when they are a bystander isn’t easy. There are so many factors that play a role in the scenario, and a few rules can’t decide it.


After all, just because you don’t choose to be in a certain situation doesn’t mean you can choose to excuse yourself. This is a life lesson. Life is about being put in situations that you aren’t comfortable in or expect, and deciding to face them rather than back away.

I like how you compared the thoughts of Daniel Auclair and Cash. Knowledge is a powerful tool, and in these situations, they were the biggest key to saving a life. Although both people should’ve taken action, your comparison really shows how Cash was much more at fault for not stopping the situation at the time because of all the information he had.

Bluekoala
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 15

Originally posted by user01135 on September 15, 2021 23:21

I think what should have governed Cash's actions was the fact that he knew someone was being harmed. Even though it was his friend, Cash knew what was going on and knew what was happening to Sherrice. Cash could have said something and stopped Jeremy or he could've gotten help and saved Sherrice's life. I think, because he chose to do nothing, Cash is almost as guilty as Jeremy. I think any person who watches someone else do something wrong is obligated to do something about it, even if it means ruining a friendship. I think the severity of the wrong definitely changes wether or not someone would turn a friend or family member in. I think in a minor wrong most people would choose to ignore it and stay out of their way, but in a major wrong I hope that most people would do the right thing and stop them or get help. I believe that you always have an obligation to act. I think people should always be able to tell the difference between right and wrong and act when people are being wrong. But this is not always the case. In "Nightmare on the 36 Bus" a man was punching a little boy in the face repeatedly. There were people on this bus who sat and watched this happen without taking action. This is definitely a time when everyone on the bus should have stood up, stopped the man and called the police. Bystanders often would rather not get involved than help someone. In "The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age" there is a fire and someone stops to take pictures of it. Someone else runs into the house and helps people. The second man acts how all people should. He noticed the problem and went in trying to help people. The first man acts how many witnesses act today. He was only worried about conflict with himself and staying out of the fire instead of trying to help. I hope that future generations will tend to stand up and help people more than we do today.

I agree that Cash is almost as much to blame for the murder of Sherrice as Jeremy is. Although there are situations where taking action is not necessarily crucial, such as shoplifting, someone being physically harmed and potentially having life-threatening injuries is a situation that should surely encourage someone to take action.

Bluekoala
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 15

The Dilemma of the Bad Samaritan

The propensity to save a life when you see someone being physically attacked should’ve governed Cash’s actions. Seeing a child being assaulted right before your eyes should immediately make you feel obliged to take action because it truly is a life or death decision. Occasionally there are situations where taking action will not necessarily make a big difference. For example, when someone is shoplifting at Claire’s, no life is being harmed and material things can always be replaced. However, a person’s life can not be replaced. When you see someone being physically harmed you should instantly feel compelled to do something because you can save the victim’s life. That natural instinct to save a life should have made Cash take action. Even though typically, “instinctive helping beats stopping to think,” as stated in “The Trick to Acting Heroically,” Cash still could’ve taken action after thinking through the details of the situation. He knew exactly what he could do to stop the horrible crime. However, Cash selfishly focused on how taking action would negatively impact him and didn’t want “to lose sleep over somebody else’s problem,” as he stated in his 60 Minutes interview, rather than how it would help the victim. Not only did Cash see someone getting physically assaulted, he also knew exactly what Jeremy was going to do when he gave him a “look.” Cash’s inaction is completely inexcusable because he didn’t even have to question the situation whereas David Adualir from “Nightmare on the 36 Bus” could defend himself by saying that he didn’t have all the facts of the situation. David Adulair thought that “Maybe it's just a family thing and I shouldn't intervene.” There shouldn’t be a law needed to make someone feel obligated to save life because it should occur through natural instinct, but for those who don’t think that way, a law should be enacted that punishes people if they choose not to take action when they clearly have an opportunity to do so.
iris almonds
Posts: 16

The Dilemma of the Bad Samaritan

Strohmeyer followed Sherrice Iverson into the women’s restroom and one minute later, Cash went into the women’s restroom knowing that something was wrong. Cash witnessed Strohmeyer restraining Sherrice and forcing her into one of the stalls. Knowing something was terribly wrong, Cash even went into the adjacent stall, watching Strohmeyer assault Sherrice. Cash’s actions should have been governed by that, his friend assaulting a three-year-old. A three-year-old is being assaulted and he had the guts to stand there, do nothing, and then leave. This was very similar to the situation that happened on the 36 bus when there were multiple witnesses that watched the older man hit the eight-year-old kid. Everybody sat there and did nothing, even the driver did nothing. In both these situations, kids were getting assaulted, but what makes the difference here is the number of people involved. On the bus, there were multiple people, and the article, The Bystander Effect In The Cellphone Age, mentions the fact that when there were many people around, people would rely on others to take action. In Cash’s case, he was there himself and definitely should have done something, or at least feel guilty.


Cash witnessed an assault and there were a number of things he could have done. He could have called the police, defended Sherrice, talk to Strohmyer, or go get help from others in the casino. At this point, doing anything is better than doing nothing. Adults are the biggest advocates for children. Adults have the power to advocate for themselves whereas three-year-old Sherrice was probably scared and frightened. Cash should have defended her and it is totally unacceptable for him to have done nothing.


Depending on the situation and the nature of the wrong, one should react differently. For example, if it was a child getting physically assaulted, someone should have stepped in. This differs from if someone was cheating or stealing because they are not harming anyone. In that type of situation, there is nothing much that could be done except report it to the manager. It is easier to tell the manager about a robbery or tell a teacher that someone cheated on a test. But it is much harder to involve yourself if there are physical actions involved because one might fear that they themselves will get hurt. Despite this, you still have an obligation to act in some way or another. It doesn’t mean that you have to put yourself between the two people in the fight. It can be as simple as calling 911 or getting help from others, the more witnesses the better (there will be more perspectives). Action must be taken for any time of wrong, whether it be physical or non-physical, you should never be just a bystander.


seraphine
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 2

Dilemma of the Bad Samaritan Post

Cash's actions should have been governed by the fact that there was someone being very obviously hurt by someone else. It shouldn't have mattered if the perpetrator was his best friend- Cash should have acted as soon as he saw something odd happen. It could have been when he entered the women's restroom, it could have been when Strohmeyer forced Sherrice into a stall, or any other time. He had an obligation, upon witnessing this terrible wrong, to report it or get help, or help Sherrice him [Cash] self.

Technically speaking, there is no set rule for what you should and shouldn't report. One may, for example, report a case of their friend cheating in class, but many would not. Or, one may see their friend steal something from a store, and choose to not say anything. Things like this that aren't directly hurting anyone- except maybe yourself sometimes with tests- are understandable if one doesn't report it. However, when it is something that has a clear victim and is very obviously hurting someone the response should ALWAYS be to prevent the victim from getting hurt more. Cash's first thought shouldn't be that his friend was "acting out of the ordinary"- it should have been that his friend is already acting in a very bad way, out of the ordinary or not.

As I said above, there are no clear rules as to when you should act. However, when it is a case such that it is emotionally or physically hurting a victim, and you can very clearly see this, then there is no reason why you shouldn't help the victim. This is the case for Cash's actions, and this also applies to us. As mentioned in the Boston Globe article titled "Nightmare on the 36 bus", there was a clear victim who was being attacked but nobody did anything to help, because they felt that it would have been strange to. Another example is in the article "The Bystander Effect in The Cell Phone Age". When the building caught on fire, and lives were in danger, many people chose to just document it on social media and not do anything. By not doing anything and being a bystander, you may think that you aren't involved in any problem, but being a bystander when someone is being so obviously hurt IS being involved in the problem.

posts 16 - 30 of 40