Viewing Thread:
"Have-a-go Hero"

So it's been the news recently that Britain is becoming a nation of 'passive bystanders' with only a few people willing to intervene when someone else is committing a crime.

Survey on how many people in each country definitely wouldn't intervene if a crime was being committed:
"France: 19%
UK: 30%
Germany: 7%
Italy: 13%
Netherlands: 19%
Spain: 17%"

News article

So what do you think, would you intervene? Is it public responsibility to enforce law to some extent or is it purely down to the Police and courts?

The only time I've ever got involved with 'anti-social behaviour' was when I was on the bus and a boy was hitting another smaller boy. Nobody else seemed to care much so I just said stop it, which he did but resulted in me being stared at by him for the rest of the journey. Obviously in the grand scale of things it was a very small act compared to the bloke on the news who attempted to tackle the would-be suicide bomber on the train.

I hope I would intervene on a larger scale, but if I was on my own and there was a large group committing crime, I would probably hesitate and have a good think about it first. I guess a large part of not intervening is because of the fear. Fear that they might retaliate against you, and who knows what they're carrying. You can't help but think of the poor bloke who asked someone to stop throwing chips on a bus and ended up being stabbed to death for it.

Perhaps people would be more willing to intervene if they were secure in the knowledge that other members of the public around them would back them up and not standby as a crime is being committed. Though the recent survey doesn't help boost that confidence...

So what would you do?

So it's been the news recently that Britain is becoming a nation of 'passive bystanders' with only a few people willing to intervene when someone else is committing a crime.

Survey on how many people in each country definitely wouldn't intervene if a crime was being committed:
"France: 19%
UK: 30%
Germany: 7%
Italy: 13%
Netherlands: 19%
Spain: 17%"

News article

So what do you think, would you intervene? Is it public responsibility to enforce law to some extent or is it purely down to the Police and courts?

The only time I've ever got involved with 'anti-social behaviour' was when I was on the bus and a boy was hitting another smaller boy. Nobody else seemed to care much so I just said stop it, which he did but resulted in me being stared at by him for the rest of the journey. Obviously in the grand scale of things it was a very small act compared to the bloke on the news who attempted to tackle the would-be suicide bomber on the train.

I hope I would intervene on a larger scale, but if I was on my own and there was a large group committing crime, I would probably hesitate and have a good think about it first. I guess a large part of not intervening is because of the fear. Fear that they might retaliate against you, and who knows what they're carrying. You can't help but think of the poor bloke who asked someone to stop throwing chips on a bus and ended up being stabbed to death for it.

Perhaps people would be more willing to intervene if they were secure in the knowledge that other members of the public around them would back them up and not standby as a crime is being committed. Though the recent survey doesn't help boost that confidence...

So what would you do?

I think you're right as to why people don't intervene - and that is fear that they will get attacked / injured / whatever for doing something.

I've never been in a situation where I've had to decided whether to do something or not, but I'm not sure what I'd decide, if and when the time came.

I like to think I'd do something but, it all depends on circumstances I guess.

the police seems to side with the crooks if you decided to help someone or join in the fray against an aggressor frankly thats a bit tragic. If there wasn't that risk, i would assume anyone would become vigilante, form mobs and attack people or rescue people. Hell we might even see masked superheroes around.

spoonbeast wrote:
> the police seems to side with the crooks if you decided to help
> someone or join in the fray against an aggressor frankly thats a
> bit tragic.

I think that was the case until last year when a new law was introduced allowing people to defend themselves and others if they're at risk.

Alot of the stabbings the media seems to obsessed with have been naive youngsters trying to intervene in other peoples disputes. The way I see it if you try to play the big man and break up a fight that has nothing to do with you, then you're setting yourself up for a hostile response.

It's completely different if you see say a mob attacking an older person, as one person I know did. He pulled over and ended up being assaulted himself, which resulted in a broken jaw, but I had maximum respect for him as that was the right thing to do (his selfless act had probably saved the other gentleman).

Maybe we should do as the Americans do and start having metal detectors and security with guns at our school entrances?

Depends what sort of thing it was. If it was someone obviously having something nicked, I'd attempt to chase the culprit down and rugby tackle them, as no one has the right to take someone else's property like that (I can run surprisingly fast, you know.)

Where do you draw the line? I would at bringing my size 12 steel-toed boots into contention, considering they can potentially be considered a weapon.

Unfortunately I'm stupid/crazy enough to intervene and have done in the past. I got away with it that time.

i suppose there are times when being a hero isn't wise. Like in a hostage situation when the CT unit busts open and generally, they need to move fast. Play hero and attempt to join in the fighting, carry weapons like rambo and chances are you'll leave the site dead.

So whatever you do don't be a hero when guns are blazing or you might be mistaken for a terrorist or target.

This guy once tried to mug me in my own area, we beat him till his nose broke. Good times.