This whole situation is a complete mess that could've so easily been stopped if one person said something. David Cash is a terrible person who I think is just as responsible for the rape and murder of Sherrice Iverson as Strohmeyer. I guess I could understand why Cash would have been afraid at that moment, but it doesn't excuse him for not going to tell security, an adult, or SOMEONE. Even if he was so shaken at that moment that he couldn't say anything, why did he proceed to go out and have fun with Strohmeyer moments after he confessed to killing Sherrice? That's the part that I honestly cannot understand. He saw him assault her with his own eyes, walked away, played games, had the murderer tell him straight up "hey I killed that girl" and then basically said, "oh okay cool...anyways... let's play slots!!"?? I think that Cash's morals should have governed his actions. We now know that he doesn't have any, but if he did saving someone, a child at that, from being murdered vs staying quiet and playing casino games with said murderer is not a hard decision. Although Strohmeyer is Cash's friend, there are times when you as a human being must stop and answer, "at what point do I tell my friend to stop?" Honestly, if Cash was a real friend and wanted to benefit Strohmeyer the most, he should've stopped him the moment he laid his hands on Sherrice, maybe even the moment he stepped foot in that women's bathroom. If you think about it through Cash's lens, him being a good friend would be stopping Strohmeyer from doing anything else to Sherrice, saving him from life in prison and the reputation he has garnered. I believe that the person who witnesses the action has the complete obligation to act depending on how "wrong" an action is. I go by a "rule" that if an action is hurting someone else, you should stop the person from doing it. For example, if someone is using their phone to cheat on a test, they aren't really hurting anyone else so I'll most likely not say anything. If someone is stealing another's whole essay and turning it in as their own, I'll probably say something because it is hurting the other writer. I don't believe there are specific "rules" that everyone goes by to determine their set moral compass, but there are things that most people would consider completely wrong, an action they would stop immediately, or something that isn't that bad, an action that they would look at and think about, but probably never do anything about. In terms of legality, I am so shocked and angered by the fact that Cash got to walk off free with no consequence. He was essentially an accessory to a murder. He kept quiet when he knew Sherrice was murdered, where she was murdered, how she was murdered, and who the murderer was. He stood there and did nothing when it happened. He doesn't even feel guilty. All of that and he gets to live a normal life?? I just can't wrap my head around it.
For the articles, I read Judy Harris, “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age,” WBUR Cognoscenti, June 5, 2015 and Erez Yoeli and David Rand, “The Trick to Acting Heroically,” New York Times, August 28, 2015. These articles helped me think about the logistics and thought that goes into being a bystander and how it can affect someone's life. In the first article, we see an example of two different people and how they react in the same situation. When a house goes on fire, one person chooses to immediately take out their cell phone and record while the other chooses to go inside the house and evacuate the people inside. When the first person saw the fire, I feel like the first thing that came to their mind was themselves and how the fire would affect them. It seems as though the fact that a fire started in a home that may have living people inside completely flew over their head. The upstander however immediately thought about how the situation affected others and what he could do to help. David Cash was unfortunately s bystander in his situation. The second article helped me realize that Cash's decision to not do anything was completely wrong. Him going to tell someone about the attack on Sherrice would have virtually no consequences for him. Yes, he would lose a friend, be he could've also saved a life.