posts 16 - 30 of 45
tiktok1234
Jamaica Plain, MA, US
Posts: 4

Originally posted by siri/alexa on September 22, 2022 17:52

I read the article "Nightmare on the 36 bus" as well, and I thought that it was sad that people witnessed this, 2nd guessed themselves and never stood up for that little boy. Although those people might have thought " Oh, its not my problem", think about what that little boy thought, think about where that places his mind at such a young age like that. I understand if it was a little slap on the shoulder or scolding if he did something wrong, but a full on punch, with blood being evident, is another level of discipline and is abusive. And this is kind of similar(but not as severe) as the Sherice Iverson case, what must have been going through her mind when she saw that Cash wasn't going to help her and she was all on her own. And as a reply to StaphinFarction(another student), I think that for you to just say that its a different situation just because that was Cash's best friend, is questionable. In my case no matter who you are even if you are my family or best friend if you are doing something as horrible as molesting, raping, or touching someone in an inappropriate way I will stand up and say something, and its not even about how comfortable you are or what your morals are, its about basic human decency and common sense. As I was watching The Bad Samaritan video and Cash's interview I just sat there dumbfounded because he never did give one clear reason as to why he didn't intervene. Although he had no legal obligations, he had a choice of whether or not to save a young girls life that night and he opted not to.


Another article I read was “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age". This article I could kind of relate to because often on snap chat I see people who record fights, a house on fire, or anything bad that happened that includes police activity. And I for one have not done so but I feel like if I were in the position I would probably not do anything. I think this case is different from the Sherice Iverson case and the bus incident, because I personally wouldn't run into fire or something of that measure, and I don't really know how to explain why. But I think this type of case is an example of when you don't really have an obligation of intervening.

I agree with siri/alexa because a lot of times I see on social media videos of fights/big events/disasters and never like any action being taken. Sometimes, videos go viral on social media of someone being a good bystander and helping, but since this is so rare it tends to blow up a lot.

tiktok1234
Jamaica Plain, MA, US
Posts: 4

Originally posted by StaphInfarction on September 21, 2022 09:55

After reading "Nightmare on the 36 bus" and "The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Era", it got me thinking a lot. I was reminded of the second part of The US and the Holocaust. For those of you who did not see it, it mentioned that many Americans expressed sympathy for European refugees but did not want to increase immigration quotas. What's especially scary about the readings is that while you could argue that increasing immigration quotas is "sacrificing" something (I would disagree), both of the mentioned stories could have had very quick resolutions. Simply calling 911 would have prevented the tragedies.

While I agree with the sentiment that the solution to Cash's problem was simple, I think the circumstances he was in were different than the one in "Nightmare on the 36 bus". That story involved an older man beating a young boy, presumed to be his son, on a MBTA bus. The perpetrator in Cash's story is his best friend. I'm not arguing that Cash didn't do anything wrong, his "body language" excuse is pretty weak, and sounds like something his lawyer told him to say, but when you put someone in a spur of the moment decision, they're very rarely going to act rationally. We like to think of ourselves as different from everyone else, and that we absolutely would instantly help Sherrice in the same position as Cash, but that's very likely not the case. I'm not sure if I even would.

It's for that kind of reason that I don't think Cash should have been prosecuted in any criminal court. It is impossible for the justice system to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that David was acting out of malice. Even if they could absolutely be sure that he was, not reporting a crime is not a crime, and it shouldn't be. I think the best way to think about it is that while David was a direct witness, who let Sherrice into a casino in the first place? Who was watching the cameras? Who was the one who brought her there? Who was the one that let her out of sight? Would you want to prosecute all of these people? On what grounds?

I agree that the obvious instinct while watching this was to go on and help Sherrice, but in real life if people were actually a bystander in this situation, little would actually go and help with the high stress of the situation, as many are selfish. This is in no way justifying Cash's actions, but I think that it's not right to assume that automatically everyone would rush to help.

deviouseggplant24
US
Posts: 2

The Dilemma of the Bad Samaritan

Although we would all like to say we would've stepped in if we were David Cash, our decision-making skills are much different when in shock, just as David Cash probably was. Countless times have I seen uncomfortable situations in public (often on public transportation), where I look back and wish I had said/done something. It is normally along the lines as "Nightmare on the 36 Bus", where a parent is being too aggressive with their child. Of course, I feel bad and wish for the parent to stop, but in the moment I think of the best-case scenario which makes me feel better about not wanting to take action. "Maybe I'm overreacting", or "It's not my place to step in". Just like on the 36 bus, 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."

Being a bystander in one situation compared to another can bring very different results. As we talked about in class, allowing your friend to steal earrings from Claires isn't going to matter much. Worst-case scenario they have to give them back and you move on with your day. For David Cash, although we want to talk about how disgusting he is for letting Jeremy Strohmeyer kill Sherrice Iverson, I think we would have acted much more similar to him as we think. To see your best friend unexpectedly do such horrible things, will certainly put you in shock, possibly leaving you speechless, just as David was.

As seen in "The Bystander Effect in The Cellphone Era", bystanders sat back and recorded a 3 story apartment engulfed in flames. They chose not to save anyone in potential danger, knowing that there are people employed to do just that, but if they decided to take action they are also putting themselves in danger. Just being there was enough for David to be somewhat involved in Sherrice's murder. By not saying anything, even though it backfired, he was attempting to remove himself from the situation even more than he already was.

I do not think David should have been charged as a criminal, as we can never truly know the intentions behind his actions. Even if his decisions were as sick and twisted as people say, it's not a crime to not report a crime. I would like to think I would've said something if I were David, but with all the possible things going through my mind, I can't be 100% sure I would have made the right decision.

ToyotaCorolla
Boston, US
Posts: 4

The Dilemma of the Bad Samaritan

The story of David Cash and the "Bad Samaritan" seems to be the an extreme case of a more common phenomenon among humans and how we react to situations we don't want to be in. After reading both the "Nightmare on the 36" by Brian McGrory and "The Bystander Effect In The Cellphone Age", it seems to me that a large majority of people in the world do not take action when it falls to them to do so, especially in times of conflict. In both articles, a large majority of the people who were initially faced with the option to help those in need decided not to do so. Instead, they took a backseat, hoping someone else would do something.

This seems to be the mindset that David Cash had, that it wasn't his responsibility and that someone else would do it. His loyalty to his friend took priority over his responsibility to help the girl that was struggling. He was thinking about how this was someone he cared about, trying to dissasociate from his actions. Legally, David Cash did nothing wrong. However, I believe that he did pretty much everything else wrong in that situation. I'm not saying that it was his responsibility to actively try to stop Jeremy from what he was doing, but tapping him on the head, making eye contact, and waiting for him to finish is not acceptable, pretty much however you look at it. He didn't have to bust down the door and restrain Jeremy, but he should have made more of an attempt. At the very least, it is his moral responsibility to try to alert someone or do literally anything at any point, knowing what he knows.

There are different levels of wrongdoing that people everywhere commit. Some minor acts are often better left alone, such is the nature of our world. As other people in the thread have mentioned, the "rules" regarding reporting wrongdoing definitely vary based on the severity of whatever infraction was commited. However, there is definitely a level where it changes from ignorance being okay to it becoming almost complicit. I think that expecting everyone to always recognize and act on things around them is far too optimistic. However, I do believe that a large amount of people in the world have a pretty good understanding of when it is fine to ignore and when It is not. Ultimately, I think that David Cash is definitely partially responsible for the death of Sherrice Iverson, and he very much broke the "rules".

BurntGrilledCheese
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 5

David Cash’s actions, while not illegal, are a clear violation of the moral standards we expect to govern our society. For the chance to keep his best friend and not get him in trouble, Cash allowed Sherrice Iverson to be assaulted and murdered without remorse. As the article “The Trick to Acting Heroically” addresses, the cost of going to help someone is often outweighed by what could be gained by doing so, especially as it relates to the relationship between the helper and the beneficiary. If Cash had chosen to stop or report Jeremy Strohmeyer, the cost to him would’ve been potentially loosing his best friend due to argument or prison. For that cost, Sherrice Iverson’s life could’ve been spared. Most people’s morality would tell them that the life of a child is worth more than a friendship that was split apart anyway. I think this cost-benefit comparison should’ve been a key deciding factor for Cash, pushing him to act, especially since the perpetrator was his friend. I think in cases were you have a positive relationship with, or at least know the perpetrator, you have an increased obligation to act, as the threat to you is likely reduced as compared to a stranger, as there is already a familiarity there. Therefore, while I understand that Cash didn’t know Sherrice, or want to get his best friend in trouble, I don’t find either of those facts to come even close to excusing his inaction, especially given the low threat to himself.

Personally, I think it would be unfair to mandate the interference in, or reporting of a crime due to potential threats to those bystanders. However, I do think there is at least a heavy obligation, especially in interpersonal or other life threatening conflicts to at least report the incident or seek more qualified help. In the article “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age”, while one man ran up to a burning house to try and alert those inside, many stood by taking photos. As a fire is a highly life threatening incident, I do believe there is a high obligation to act, at least in terms of calling for help if you cannot clearly see someone else already doing so. This also applies to criminal activity such as the incident in the article “Nightmare on the 36 Bus”. Even if that man was the child’s father, that level of abuse is illegal, and the others on the bus definitely had an obligation to report the incident, if not intervene themselves. As they far outnumbered the single perpetrator, who was unarmed, the personal threat to their well-being was low, and therefore I believe increased their obligation to interfere directly. Overall, I think there is definitely an obligation for bystanders to act when they witness criminal activity or other serious incidents. Personal threat, and awareness of what could be benefitted by interfering should govern obligation to directly interfere, though in almost all cases, there is at least an obligation so seek qualified assistance by calling 911, or by reporting said incident.


BurntGrilledCheese
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 5

Originally posted by StaphInfarction on September 21, 2022 09:55

After reading "Nightmare on the 36 bus" and "The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Era", it got me thinking a lot. I was reminded of the second part of The US and the Holocaust. For those of you who did not see it, it mentioned that many Americans expressed sympathy for European refugees but did not want to increase immigration quotas. What's especially scary about the readings is that while you could argue that increasing immigration quotas is "sacrificing" something (I would disagree), both of the mentioned stories could have had very quick resolutions. Simply calling 911 would have prevented the tragedies.

While I agree with the sentiment that the solution to Cash's problem was simple, I think the circumstances he was in were different than the one in "Nightmare on the 36 bus". That story involved an older man beating a young boy, presumed to be his son, on a MBTA bus. The perpetrator in Cash's story is his best friend. I'm not arguing that Cash didn't do anything wrong, his "body language" excuse is pretty weak, and sounds like something his lawyer told him to say, but when you put someone in a spur of the moment decision, they're very rarely going to act rationally. We like to think of ourselves as different from everyone else, and that we absolutely would instantly help Sherrice in the same position as Cash, but that's very likely not the case. I'm not sure if I even would.

It's for that kind of reason that I don't think Cash should have been prosecuted in any criminal court. It is impossible for the justice system to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that David was acting out of malice. Even if they could absolutely be sure that he was, not reporting a crime is not a crime, and it shouldn't be. I think the best way to think about it is that while David was a direct witness, who let Sherrice into a casino in the first place? Who was watching the cameras? Who was the one who brought her there? Who was the one that let her out of sight? Would you want to prosecute all of these people? On what grounds?

In response to your questions, I don't think I would prosecute anyone else in her murder, as Strohmeyer was the actual perpetrator and there are no legal grounds for doing so. However if anyone else were to bear responsibility, I think it would be Cash, as he actually witnessed, and had a direct opportunity, as you mentioned, to interfere or report the incident. While we may find it immoral or questionable to allow in or a bring a child to casino, none of those people had the same clear chance as Cash to make an informed difference in the course of this incident.

ToyotaCorolla
Boston, US
Posts: 4

Originally posted by mashedpotatoes25 on September 22, 2022 21:28

I think that Cash definitely should have intervened. For me, the bottom line is that if you are seeing a little girl getting raped and murdered in front of you, you have to do something about it. Although as far as I know there are no laws that required him to step in, when it comes to something as serious as rape and murder I think that you have a moral obligation to intervene unless you are in a situation where there is a serious threat to your own life. Cash had little to no threat to his own life and if he had intervened Sherrice Iverson would likely still be alive today so in my eyes he is just as bad as Strohmeyer. To watch that happen and do absolutely nothing is just as despicable. And also for him to say that it wasn’t his problem is absolutely atrocious because he was literally standing right there and watching and had every capability to intervene.


One of the articles I read was "Nightmare on the 36 Bus" by Brian McGrory. In this situation everyone on the bus was uncomfortable and knew that something was wrong. The least they could have done was ask the boy if he was related to or knew this man when they noticed that he was scared. Even when the man was beating the boy, they still did nothing. Even if it was a “family thing,” if you are seeing a child getting beaten bloody in public, you can and should intervene. Assuming that the man is a parent is not a safe assumption to make considering how dangerous this world is. I think this is similar to the David Cash situation because they both reflect how people tend to have the mentality that because it’s not directly affecting them then they don’t have to get involved. The other article I read was “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age” by Judy Harris. This article also displays the “someone else’s problem mentality.” With social media being such a huge part of everyday life, we are constantly seeing stuff like this so I think people can easily get desensitized and separate themselves from it. I agree with what tiktok1234 and siri/alexa said about the this article. I don't know if I would run into a burning building and I don't think it is necessarily reasonable to expect that from everybody. I agree that it is beyond insensitive to stand there and record when there are people who could be dying in there and you are making it into entertainment.

I agree that the Sherrice Iverson and Nightmare on the 36 issue are both terrible situations, but I feel like there is definitely a different level between the two. I think that David Cash's situation is completely inexcusable and he certainly should have done more. With the 36 situation, I think that it is harder to approach a stranger in a situation like that. David did literally nothing, and seemed to convince himself that nothing was happening. On the 36, you would be trying to intervene against an already violent and angry man.

BurntGrilledCheese
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 5

Originally posted by moioma on September 22, 2022 19:42

No individual has a legal obligation to help someone in need. David Cash, too, had no legal obligation to aid Sherrice Iverrison. Yet why is it that his actions or lack thereof feel so wrong? From the very beginning we, as a society, consume biblical stories, fairy tales, and the archetypes of good and bad characters, consequently they constitute our moral code. It’s all an unspoken set of moral obligations, and Cash showed no remorse for breaking said moral obligations. As Deborah Stone, author of The Samaritan's Dilemma, notes that we often view ourselves and how we would react to certain stressful situations as “no different from the rest of humanity” and “that helping a stranger is a part of [our] character, not a sacrifice, but of who [we] are,” (Stone 128). This echoes the sentiments of many against David Cash. Helping another person in danger should be second nature. Cash should have stepped up whether it was to directly intervene or to just find help. Yet despite the 20 minute period he had alone after leaving the bathroom and the following days leading after the murder, he did not. Individuals should not be obligated to physically intervene in a dangerous situation but we all have a responsibility to speak up for those who are victimized.

The readings, "Nightmare on the 36 Bus" and "The Samaritan's Dilemma”, further show how nuanced moral “rules” are and the fragility of our humanity. In “Nightmare on the 36 Bus”, Daniel Auclair confessed how he didn't intervene because “maybe [he was] out of place. Maybe it's just a family thing and [he] shouldn't intervene." Clearly the boy needed help but why did possible family matters somehow justify the man's actions? The rules should not change because the fact is that the boy was defenseless and much younger and much weaker. Maybe it is a family matter. Maybe we don’t understand the full story, but the bystander effect can be seen in the responses of all the bus riders. They all expect someone else to step in or shift the responsibility off of themself. Although David Cash was the only witness before Sherrice’s murder, he too in a way, felt the bystander effect. As humans, our natural instinct is to survive and to put our own safety and well-being first. I can see how Cash could have been too shocked to take immediate action and felt that someone else would have stepped up. However I can not comprehend his silence in the following days and especially his lack of remorse and guilt about his role in her murder. Most likely, Cash also pushed the responsibility of Sherrice’s life off of his hands and onto Jeremy and even Sherrice herself.

In addition, an individual in the Samaritan's dilemma commented on rescue acts as “very good and very inspiring," but "lack[ed] common sense,” (Stone 132). What is “common sense”? Where is the line between ensuring our personal safety and ensuring the safety of others? I agree in some respects with the individual that intervening in certain situations can be irresponsible. Including that not all situations require action. Not to mention that one of the hardest things about creating legislation that governs moral behavior/common sense is that the “rules” are constantly shifting. The line itself between wrong and right is a blurred spectrum. The rules shift depending on context, personal experiences, and biases --- as a general rule --- if it doesn’t harm anyone, simply continue on.

Your comment about Cash putting all the blame on Strohmeyer gave me an interesting thought. While Cash claims he didn't interfere because Strohmeyer's actions were so out of character, and he didn't want to get him in trouble, he later uses Strohmeyer to absolve himself of guilt. If his intentions were so based on loyalty to his friend, then what made him so eager to later use Jeremy to prevent any blame on himself? While Strohmeyer's arrest obviously signaled that Cash could no longer protect his friend, his absolvement of himself in this way makes me question if his original motivations were less tied to loyalty, and more to a complete lack of desire to get involved at all in order to try and save his own reputation.

ToyotaCorolla
Boston, US
Posts: 4

Originally posted by Curious George on September 22, 2022 21:39

In "The Trick to Acting Heroically", a study showed that helping another person instinctively, even with a cost, created a better (trusting) relationship with that person. However in this case, Cash "unintentionally" helps his friend get away with rape and murder of a child just by doing nothing (the road goes both ways). His excuse was that he had only ever seen Jeremy as a best friend and good person, but by not reacting to Jeremy's actions, Cash clearly values his relationship with a rapist/murderer more than an innocent child. Yes, he did not know the child, but as human beings, we have a moral obligation to help each other and to call out the malice actions of others. By calling others out, it is made more clear what is right and wrong and what actions are(n't) acceptable to our society. In this case, unacceptable behavior includes harming another person and not taking action after someone harms another. Secondly, even if Cash just is not the type of person to react in the moment and did not want to put himself in danger, he sat waiting outside for his friend for 20 minutes, continued on their night (riding roller coasters and gambling), drove three hours back to California with Jeremy, and all the days after, without saying a word. There was no remorse for his actions or lack thereof.

Another excuse was that Jeremy was his friend and he did not want to be the one to report him to the police. He knew that Jeremy would eventually be caught, and he just wanted to spend time he had left with him. This shows AGAIN that Cash values a relationship with horrible human being more than our moral obligations to each other as humans. [I refrain from referring Jeremy as a monster because he is also a human, showing what we are capable of]

Legally, he is not wrong, as he was not persecuted, but we all know how flawed our legal system is. Just because he was not charged, does NOT mean he does not bear responsibility. Good, responsibly taken actions belong to those at their school who called/reported to the police of Jeremy and Cash when they recognized them in the tape. No, they were not in the same exact situation as Cash, but when given the opportunity to bring some sort of justice to Sherice, multiple people did so.


Some believe it should not be illegal to not report a crime, and although I agree it depends on the situation, maybe you're threatened if you report someone, I disagree with the overall statement. As I mentioned earlier, as human beings we must call out unacceptable behavior in society and it cannot go unpunished. We've created entire legal systems for the purpose of doing so, thus we should continue altering/adding laws to better humanity

I appreciate that you pointed out what is probably the part of the David Cash case that makes it so bad: There is so much time for him to do literally anything, and yet he stays silent, giving no indication to anyone that anything happened. As you point out, there is an argument that he didn't immediately react during the first encounter with Jeremy, but the fact that he stayed silent for so long and then doubled down after is what makes this so unacceptable.

catlover69
Posts: 2

What Jeremy Strohmeyer did to Sherrice Iverson was absolutely atrocious, and disgusting. But what David Cash did was almost as bad...he witnessed a crime, understood it, processed it, and had SOO MUCH time to do something about it or get someone... but he didn't. I honestly cannot fathom what would lead someone to let that happen. If he did not 'want to get involved' he could have gotten someone's help within those 22 minutes that he wasted doing NOTHING to help the 7-year-old girl getting violated in that restroom. He should have thought not about Jeremy his friend but about Sherrice, the 7-year-old girl who had so much life to live and who did nothing to deserve this. The little girl who'd never see her father, brother, or family again because of his "best friend". Not only did he do nothing but he had NO REMORSE for the actions he didn't take and simply did not care. Some may argue that Jeremy is morally corrupt but I'd have to put David in that same boat too. Brian McGrory, “Nightmare on the 36 Bus” Boston Globe, has got me thinking about what Sherrice was feeling. Like the young boy, she was in a situation where there was at least one witness to the pain they were experiencing but no one came to help. They were probably feeling so overcome with emotion, fear, and confusion as to why the people around them did not care about them... that the little boy may have come to the same fate as Sherrice because no one helped even though they could. It physically hurts me that some people are able to watch children facing this overwhelming amount of pain, and not make the slightest effort to help. Unlike David, the Auclair felt remorse for not helping that boy on that bus when he had the chance, he has more of a moral compass than David probably ever will have. Although legally I don't think its a law that people have to report a crime, morally I think they should. Especially if it involves the life of another person. In my opinion, I think there are rules depending on the "wrong" because if someone commits a petty crime it's easier to turn a blind eye since no one was harmed and it's a small thing. But if it's something that endangers others it definitely should be reported. People should act especially if it's something that could be life-threatening but at the same time as humans, we question whether or not to put ourselves before others, and that makes it harder for us to not just be bystanders. This idea is explained further in Deborah Stone's "Samaritan’s Dilemma: Should the Government Help Your Neighbor". She mentions how some people who chose not to be bystanders in dangerous situations imagine that it was themselves or someone they loved, they'd want someone to upstand for them.

lycheejelly
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 1

Although many of us would immediately say that they would have intervened if we were in David Cash's shoes, but the fact is that most of us have already been in similar situations where we should've stepped up, and didn't. This doesn't automatically mean we are evil people, just human. I read the "Nightmare on the 36 bus" article and if I could picture myself as a bystander in that situation, I don't think I would've been able to do or say anything even if I really wanted to. As a teen girl, it's already dangerous for me to be traveling alone but I can always call someone on the phone to keep me company and share my location thanks to technology, but to be an 8 year old boy who most likely didn't have a phone, I'm surprised at least the driver didn't report the incident or stop the bus to address the situation. So many questions came to mind: why was he alone in the first place? As the driver, isn't their job to report things that happen on their own bus? What provoked the older man to be so violent towards that boy? I think the bystanders in that situation were most likely just scared or become numb to things like this especially in Boston. I believe that David's situation held more pressure because a child's life was at stake, yet he did nothing. Some part of me wants to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he was just scared to say something to his friend and also be harmed in the process, but this was someone he knew. Morally, I think he should've done something to prevent Jeremy from killing 7 year old Sherrice, but he was legally not obliged to because if he was then the absent security guards, Sherrice's brother and father, and thousands of bystanders including ourselves deserve to be punished for situations like the "Nightmare on the 36 bus". Regardless, it doesn't mean David should be excused, he saw his own friend, not a stranger, rape and murder a child and had DAYS to do something or at least talk about it with Jeremy. As humans, we are all justified by our words and actions. David was not pressured or forced to keep silent by anyone or himself, he simply chose not to.

Twilightsparkle22
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 4

The Dilemma of the Bad Samaritan

After reading "Nightmare on the 36 Bus", I felt even more angry towards Cash for just simply being a bystander. In the article, Daniel Auclair, a witness, said that he had to stop himself from protecting the little boy that was being beaten by the older drunk man. Though he didn't intervene, he still at least thought about helping, but Cash watched Jeremy as he did terrible things to Sherrice before eventually killing her. Auclair couldn't sleep because he was racked with guilt, and Cash didn't even regret that he didn't say or do anything. I do think that there are different rules depending on what the wrongdoing is, but that's when someone isn't getting hurt. The fact is that Auclair felt bad about letting a little boy get beat up and Cash never questioned his choices that led to a little girl being killed. As someone who has never been in a dangerous situation like this before, I guess it's hard for me to empathize with how these two guys must have felt in the moment. As much as I am someone whose first instinct is to help people, I don't know if I would actually be able to help a victim of one of these situations or if I would just be paralyzed by fear. I think my main issue with Cash is that he felt no obligation to help Sherrice, and he just viewed it as "not his problem", saying the same about starving children or people dying from disease. It's because of people that think the same way Cash does that these issues are still such a big challenge in the world today, as so many people just don't see it as their problem and don't try to help.

I also read "The Trick to Acting Heroically", which basically talks about how people decide to help others, either they do it instinctively or they consider the risks first. I do think that considering how helping someone may affect you is important for your own safety, and instinctively jumping in to help someone may make the situation more dangerous for yourself and the person you are trying to help. I think that if someone has some sort of power in a situation where an innocent person is in danger, that person is obligated to help the person in need. Sure, Cash may not have had power in the bathroom, but Jeremy was his friend and someone that he was close to. That kind of connection could have made him someone that could have reasoned with Jeremy without even having to be physical, but we'll never know.

Curious George
Boston, MA
Posts: 4

Originally posted by StaphInfarction on September 22, 2022 18:20

Originally posted by siri/alexa on September 22, 2022 17:52

I read the article "Nightmare on the 36 bus" as well, and I thought that it was sad that people witnessed this, 2nd guessed themselves and never stood up for that little boy. Although those people might have thought " Oh, its not my problem", think about what that little boy thought, think about where that places his mind at such a young age like that. I understand if it was a little slap on the shoulder or scolding if he did something wrong, but a full on punch, with blood being evident, is another level of discipline and is abusive. And this is kind of similar(but not as severe) as the Sherice Iverson case, what must have been going through her mind when she saw that Cash wasn't going to help her and she was all on her own. And as a reply to StaphinFarction(another student), I think that for you to just say that its a different situation just because that was Cash's best friend, is questionable. In my case no matter who you are even if you are my family or best friend if you are doing something as horrible as molesting, raping, or touching someone in an inappropriate way I will stand up and say something, and its not even about how comfortable you are or what your morals are, its about basic human decency and common sense. As I was watching The Bad Samaritan video and Cash's interview I just sat there dumbfounded because he never did give one clear reason as to why he didn't intervene. Although he had no legal obligations, he had a choice of whether or not to save a young girls life that night and he opted not to.


Another article I read was “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age". This article I could kind of relate to because often on snap chat I see people who record fights, a house on fire, or anything bad that happened that includes police activity. And I for one have not done so but I feel like if I were in the position I would probably not do anything. I think this case is different from the Sherice Iverson case and the bus incident, because I personally wouldn't run into fire or something of that measure, and I don't really know how to explain why. But I think this type of case is an example of when you don't really have an obligation of intervening

I think you misunderstand my argument. My point was that it is very easy to say that we would do what's right, but history has shown us time and time again just because we think we would, doesn't mean we would. Look at any of the articles and it's easy to see, even in the case of David. There's no doubt in my mind all of them thought they would stand up, yet in every case none of them did. Humans like to perceive themselves as special, which is where this mindset comes from. The important step to take in approaching these scenarios is to realize we have a lot more in common with the people on the 36 bus than we might like to think.

I still do not understand your point. Just because the majority of people don't do something (stand up), does not mean it is right. The difference between other people in history who were just bystanders and Cash are that they actually expressed some sort of remorse or regret. However, Cash clearly did not. He had much time to think it through, and still did not believe he had done anything wrong.

Twilightsparkle22
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 4

Originally posted by lycheejelly on September 23, 2022 00:08

Although many of us would immediately say that they would have intervened if we were in David Cash's shoes, but the fact is that most of us have already been in similar situations where we should've stepped up, and didn't. This doesn't automatically mean we are evil people, just human. I read the "Nightmare on the 36 bus" article and if I could picture myself as a bystander in that situation, I don't think I would've been able to do or say anything even if I really wanted to. As a teen girl, it's already dangerous for me to be traveling alone but I can always call someone on the phone to keep me company and share my location thanks to technology, but to be an 8 year old boy who most likely didn't have a phone, I'm surprised at least the driver didn't report the incident or stop the bus to address the situation. So many questions came to mind: why was he alone in the first place? As the driver, isn't their job to report things that happen on their own bus? What provoked the older man to be so violent towards that boy? I think the bystanders in that situation were most likely just scared or become numb to things like this especially in Boston. I believe that David's situation held more pressure because a child's life was at stake, yet he did nothing. Some part of me wants to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he was just scared to say something to his friend and also be harmed in the process, but this was someone he knew. Morally, I think he should've done something to prevent Jeremy from killing 7 year old Sherrice, but he was legally not obliged to because if he was then the absent security guards, Sherrice's brother and father, and thousands of bystanders including ourselves deserve to be punished for situations like the "Nightmare on the 36 bus". Regardless, it doesn't mean David should be excused, he saw his own friend, not a stranger, rape and murder a child and had DAYS to do something or at least talk about it with Jeremy. As humans, we are all justified by our words and actions. David was not pressured or forced to keep silent by anyone or himself, he simply chose not to.

I agree with what you said about not stepping up when we probably should have. Most of us know that morally, the right thing to do in a situation is to help the victim, but whether it's fear, embarrassment, or pressure that gets in the way, we don't actually do it. Being a bystander may be seen as "weak" or "cowardly", but it's really just a very human reaction to an unexpected event. People are curious, but once they see what's actually happening it can be difficult to process and quickly react to. David's case is different from others, as I have difficulty giving him the benefit of the doubt. I do believe that he wasn't expecting anything like what Jeremy did to Sherrice to happen, but his reaction is so nonchalant. I think it's disgusting how little David cares for the life that was lost just because he doesn't see it as his problem.

Twilightsparkle22
Boston, MA, US
Posts: 4

Originally posted by siri/alexa on September 22, 2022 17:52

I read the article "Nightmare on the 36 bus" as well, and I thought that it was sad that people witnessed this, 2nd guessed themselves and never stood up for that little boy. Although those people might have thought " Oh, its not my problem", think about what that little boy thought, think about where that places his mind at such a young age like that. I understand if it was a little slap on the shoulder or scolding if he did something wrong, but a full on punch, with blood being evident, is another level of discipline and is abusive. And this is kind of similar(but not as severe) as the Sherice Iverson case, what must have been going through her mind when she saw that Cash wasn't going to help her and she was all on her own. And as a reply to StaphinFarction(another student), I think that for you to just say that its a different situation just because that was Cash's best friend, is questionable. In my case no matter who you are even if you are my family or best friend if you are doing something as horrible as molesting, raping, or touching someone in an inappropriate way I will stand up and say something, and its not even about how comfortable you are or what your morals are, its about basic human decency and common sense. As I was watching The Bad Samaritan video and Cash's interview I just sat there dumbfounded because he never did give one clear reason as to why he didn't intervene. Although he had no legal obligations, he had a choice of whether or not to save a young girls life that night and he opted not to.


Another article I read was “The Bystander Effect in the Cellphone Age". This article I could kind of relate to because often on snap chat I see people who record fights, a house on fire, or anything bad that happened that includes police activity. And I for one have not done so but I feel like if I were in the position I would probably not do anything. I think this case is different from the Sherice Iverson case and the bus incident, because I personally wouldn't run into fire or something of that measure, and I don't really know how to explain why. But I think this type of case is an example of when you don't really have an obligation of intervening.

I agree with the point you made about not giving anyone a pass for harassment or violating someone like that. As humans, we would never wish for any of those things to happen to anyone, and just because you've known someone your whole life doesn't mean you can find an excuse for someone to do something like Jeremy did to Sherrice. I don't know how both David and Jeremy just moved on from what happened at the casino and went back to their normal lives. The way I see it, they are both responsible for the death of Sherrice, despite the fact that Jeremy was the only one that committed a crime.

posts 16 - 30 of 45