posts 31 - 40 of 40
cnovav
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 13

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.

I find it really interesting that you said David was just as wrong as Jeremy because he stayed quiet and didn't get help. And I totally agree that a law should be created to prevent bystanders from essentially being bystanders.

apples21
SOUTH BOSTON, MA, US
Posts: 13

The Dilemma of the Bad Samaritan

What should have governed David Cash's actions was the fact that his actions wether he meant t or not led to the death of a 7 year old girl. Although he did not plan any of this to happen, or even commit the murder himself, his actions should have been enough to charge him with some crime. It makes sense why a new law was passes shortly after Cash was able to get away without serving any time, the government knew that David deserved to be punished for what he did, but there was not a law in place at the time that would have allowed them to punish him at the time. As a citizen, you have an obligation to help in some way against a wrong that involves a direct victim, or a crime that can cause a human serious harm. I do not think you have any obligation to stop a crime such as stealing from a store, because that does not have as direct of a victim, and it puts yourself in a potential dangerous situation if the thief is armed. Although cops would like all citizens to stand up to every crime they see, it is not practical and really puts a lot of innocent people in danger, but when there is a direct visible victim, you have an obligation to not just let that happen. Even if someone is afraid of what may happen to them if they step into a situation like the one of David and Jeremy, the least you can do is call the police so at least professionals will be dealing with it, but this does make the situation go on for longer as it takes time for the police to arrive. In a situation like the one that happened in the article, The Bystander Effect in The Cellphone Age, an article written by Judy Harris that discusses how the Bystander effect has taken form in the modern day. She explains how while a little league baseball game was going on, a fire started, her husband warned the residents of the building, but as he was doing this he noticed many people just standing around taking pictures. I believe this is a situation like David's because even if you can't see them in the house, you know that there is a direct victim. Even if there is no one inside, calling 911 and indirectly stopping the fire would make you an upstander, instead of a bystander that turns into an accomplice. Another example is in Boston Globe article titled The Nightmare on The 36 Bus, which detailed a story from about 20 years ago that involves a young boy being beaten by an older man on the bus, and no one stepped in to help. The passengers claim that they did not know if the boy and the man were related in any way, and if it might have just been a family thing that they should not get involved in. This fact does not matter because this is the most obvious case of being an accidental accomplice to a crime, where there is physically a direct victim right in front of them, and they do nothing to help.

apples21
SOUTH BOSTON, MA, US
Posts: 13

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

I believe that David’s actions should've been governed by the fact that another human being was clearly being hurt. I personally don’t believe that anyone could believe that someone who is being hurt, and in this case, a SEVEN year old girl being sexually assaulted is not “wrong”. At the very least, David should have reported his friend’s actions to the authorities. If he truly had doubt about what happened, the moment Jeremy confessed to the crime should've been when all that doubt was cast away. No matter how close you are to someone, how much you think you know them, or if you “had AP English together”, human beings are capable of anything and this is something I think David should have been well aware of. David claims he did not want to be involved, which means he was thinking of himself rather than a little girl who lost her life at the hands of his best friend.To think that not reporting a crime of this magnitude at that time was not viewed as a crime is completely beyond me.I do believe that we always have an obligation to act when someone is in danger of or actively being hurt. Although there may be situations like the scenarios in class, like your friend stealing from Claire’s, that you don’t act on, I don’t believe stealing cheap earrings directly hurts an individual, whereas David ignoring what Jeremy did, directly hurt someone. In Deborah Stone’s “The Samaritan’s Dilemma”, it's evident that not wanting to be an upstander in fear of becoming involved, is a common thought process. And sadly this thought process leads to more tragedies than celebrations. “You think about the victim like it was your mom” sounds extremely similar to what David spoke about in his radio interview. He spoke about how people can’t expect his life to be put on pause for a little girl that he didn't even know. Almost dehumanizing Sherrice to make himself feel better, just like the guy in the excerpt of “The Samaritan’s Dilemma”. 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 agree with your statement on the fact that there is a line that must be crossed in order for someone to be legally obligated to step in and help someone. It becomes tricky because this line is definitely not clear, but is for sure that the line is crossed when it can be seen that another human being in being seriously hurt.

apples21
SOUTH 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 think your point about religions and how they believe that life on earth is merely just a test of one's character is very interesting because this ideology could be used to make somewhat of a line between when it is necassary to help out in a situation. If a religion would deem your action one of having bad character, than it is probably a situation where you need to step in and help.

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.

When you said Cash's actions should have been governed by his human instincts, it made me wonder if he felt any sort of empathy or compassion for Sherrice. It is still so shocking to me that he did absolutely nothing, even after Jeremy confessed to him. Is there some sort of way to teach basic human compassion, is it learned, or just part of our nature (at least some of us)?

jellybeans101
Boston, MA
Posts: 10

We see the same thing the nightmare on Bus 36. The bus is going to westie and a greek man is beating a little boy. No one says a word."I stood up and everyone looked away," Auclair, a PhD, said. "So I said to myself, `Maybe I'm out of place. Maybe it's just a family thing and I shouldn't intervene.' So I sat back down. This is being a bystander not a accomplice but this is exactly was Cash did. When you are being interviewed you might state that you have more remorse than you actually do fell."A few minutes later, Auclair got off the bus at his usual stop. He said yesterday that he tried to signal the driver, but couldn't get her attention. When he got home, he figured it was too late to call the police. He barely slept." He couldn't sleep because of guilt and that he knew it was wrong, this contrast to Cash going out the an amusement park after. The trick to acting heroically is an opinion piece. I thought the idea of doing good instinctively is very important.

OverthinkingEnigma
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 15

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

I believe that David’s actions should've been governed by the fact that another human being was clearly being hurt. I personally don’t believe that anyone could believe that someone who is being hurt, and in this case, a SEVEN year old girl being sexually assaulted is not “wrong”. At the very least, David should have reported his friend’s actions to the authorities. If he truly had doubt about what happened, the moment Jeremy confessed to the crime should've been when all that doubt was cast away. No matter how close you are to someone, how much you think you know them, or if you “had AP English together”, human beings are capable of anything and this is something I think David should have been well aware of. David claims he did not want to be involved, which means he was thinking of himself rather than a little girl who lost her life at the hands of his best friend.To think that not reporting a crime of this magnitude at that time was not viewed as a crime is completely beyond me.I do believe that we always have an obligation to act when someone is in danger of or actively being hurt. Although there may be situations like the scenarios in class, like your friend stealing from Claire’s, that you don’t act on, I don’t believe stealing cheap earrings directly hurts an individual, whereas David ignoring what Jeremy did, directly hurt someone. In Deborah Stone’s “The Samaritan’s Dilemma”, it's evident that not wanting to be an upstander in fear of becoming involved, is a common thought process. And sadly this thought process leads to more tragedies than celebrations. “You think about the victim like it was your mom” sounds extremely similar to what David spoke about in his radio interview. He spoke about how people can’t expect his life to be put on pause for a little girl that he didn't even know. Almost dehumanizing Sherrice to make himself feel better, just like the guy in the excerpt of “The Samaritan’s Dilemma”. 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 extremely agreed with what you said about general human behavior, "human beings are capable of anything and this is something I think David should have been well aware of." Moreover, I liked how you pointed out David's horribly inconsiderate behavior after Jeremy's trial, specifically how he had dehumanized Sherrice in order to relieve himself of any guilt.

OverthinkingEnigma
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 15

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.

I agree that there should be a law that requires bystanders to contact authorities or take action when someone's safety and well-being is being assaulted. Moreover, Chase is also equally guilty as Jeremy since he had a big interval of time to save Sherrice from her fate.

Karma
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 9

The Dilemma of the Bad Samaritan

Cash should have reacted off of instinct plain and simple. I don't know if he has a sense of morals or not but most other people would. It is upsetting that he literally seen a young girl being assaulted by his friend and did nothing to try and stop it, let alone tell Jeremy to stop. In the New York Times' article "The Trick to Acting Heroically", the main point behind acting out and being an upstander is reacting without thinking whereas David Cash contemplated whether or not he should stop Jeremy from doing what he did. I will say that standing up or speaking out against something definitely depends on the intensity of the wrongdoing and who or what is harmed in the action. In certain situations there are definitely boundaries between stepping up and minding your business although it is hard to admit. Everyone does, in truth, want to be a good person who stands against any wrongdoing but once you are actually in a situation it becomes harder if you are given time to think about the outcome. The sad thing is that there really isn't anything stopping people from just being bystanders. Most people won't go out their way to help someone in need if they don't get anything out of it. In the Sherrice and Jeremy case, I thought about something David could be charged with after seeing the uproar from his campus. I came to the conclusion that legally, there was nothing that he could potentially be charged with because he was technically just a witness which is sad but is the reality. Overall, nobody is ever obligated to act although it is the right thing to do. We seen this in play in the story of the boy on the 36 bus being abused. Nobody on the bus stepped up for that child. Although morally it is always best to stand up for what is right and to act on injustices, that isn't what happens in real life.

Karma
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 9

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

I believe that David’s actions should've been governed by the fact that another human being was clearly being hurt. I personally don’t believe that anyone could believe that someone who is being hurt, and in this case, a SEVEN year old girl being sexually assaulted is not “wrong”. At the very least, David should have reported his friend’s actions to the authorities. If he truly had doubt about what happened, the moment Jeremy confessed to the crime should've been when all that doubt was cast away. No matter how close you are to someone, how much you think you know them, or if you “had AP English together”, human beings are capable of anything and this is something I think David should have been well aware of. David claims he did not want to be involved, which means he was thinking of himself rather than a little girl who lost her life at the hands of his best friend.To think that not reporting a crime of this magnitude at that time was not viewed as a crime is completely beyond me.I do believe that we always have an obligation to act when someone is in danger of or actively being hurt. Although there may be situations like the scenarios in class, like your friend stealing from Claire’s, that you don’t act on, I don’t believe stealing cheap earrings directly hurts an individual, whereas David ignoring what Jeremy did, directly hurt someone. In Deborah Stone’s “The Samaritan’s Dilemma”, it's evident that not wanting to be an upstander in fear of becoming involved, is a common thought process. And sadly this thought process leads to more tragedies than celebrations. “You think about the victim like it was your mom” sounds extremely similar to what David spoke about in his radio interview. He spoke about how people can’t expect his life to be put on pause for a little girl that he didn't even know. Almost dehumanizing Sherrice to make himself feel better, just like the guy in the excerpt of “The Samaritan’s Dilemma”. 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 Sherri

I 100% agree. The fact that David thought of keeping himself safe instead of the safety of a little girl is baffling. It says a lot about his character to be honest and I also agree with the fact that there are pretty much levels to when someone is obligated to act. I didn't even realize that he dehumanized Sherrice as well and I don't think David feels guilty at all seeing as though, to me, he kinda wants people to just forget he was apart of the situation at all. I don't think his fear of being involved is enough to justify his actions because if he did get involved, it would have been for the right reason.

posts 31 - 40 of 40