« Cyber Stalking: Anything But a Modern Love Story | Main | The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part: Marilyn Monroe’s Legacy: Taxation of Postmortem Publicity Rights »
September 09, 2008
Kitty Genovese on Philadelphia's Broad Street Line
A disturbing story from the Philadelphia Inquirer:
As the SEPTA subway train rocked forward, a thirty-something guy leaned over near the doorway and gently planted a kiss on the little boy at his side.Random acts of violence, however, rare, upset our sense of order and safety. The particular one struck home for me, as I was on that exact train line two hours before the attack. But it gets worse:When the train neared the Fairmount Avenue stop shortly after midnight on Thursday, the man reached out like an adoring parent and directed the 3- or 4-year-old tyke to an open seat.
Then he flew into a monstrous rage.
Without uttering a word, police said, the unidentified man whipped out a double-claw hammer and began bludgeoning a 20-year-old man who was dozing off in his seat.
For five long minutes, SEPTA surveillance cameras captured the deranged attacker - who was still on the loose late last night- digging his hammer into the man's head and neck.
Through it all, disgusted investigators said, at least 10 passengers stood by and did nothing as the random attack moved from the train to the platform, when the hammer-wielding maniac tried to push his victim down onto the train tracks.In response to such horrifying indifference, we might be tempted to blame society - the anonymity of urban life, our polarizing politics, etc. And maybe some would be tempted to pass a new law, punishing the reckless failure to help others. But in my view, such explanations, and solutions, miss the mark. This sounds like a fairly typical application of the Kitty Genovese bystander effect. The problem was that there were too many subway riders - no individual person felt responsible for helping to stop the attack. It's a good reminder that if you ever need help in a group setting, try to get an individual's attention, and say "You! Yes, I mean you! Help me!"When the beating was finished and the suspect fled with the little boy, the victim staggered back onto the train, bloodied, confused and alone, said Detective Kenneth Roach, of Central Detectives.
And even then, no one tried to help him.
"Somebody should have helped this guy," Roach said. "I understand the [other] guy had a hammer, but they outnumbered him at least 10 to one."
Posted by Dave Hoffman at September 9, 2008 08:37 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/4165.
Comments
Dude, the guy had a hammer. He was bludgeoning. I don't care if you say, "Yes, I mean you!" to me; I'm not about to volunteer to rush a guy with a double-claw hammer who's not afraid to use it.
Individual responsibility here isn't the answer. This is a situation where responsibility is more important. Had the other passengers rushed him together, that would have been the safe, responsible thing to do. So while I agree that it's a free-riding problem, it's a collective action problem, not a Kitty Genovese problem.
Posted by: James Grimmelmann at September 9, 2008 09:30 AM
In the Kitty Genovese story, neighbors were alleged to have watched the attack from the comfort of their homes, but not only did they fail to stop the attack, but they failed to contact the police as well.
Most people can understand why the bystanders were reluctant to stand up to a man with a weapon. While they might have outnumbered him 10 to 1, what were the chances that other unknown passengers would join a lone samaritan?
With so little faith that any good deed will go unpunished, and such low expectations in each other, and where the shock of violence has worn thin, no one knows when it's right to take risk, and no one want to make their own children fatherless. We all want to believe we would do the right thing, but most us aren't tested and none of us want to be victim #2.
Posted by: shg at September 9, 2008 09:30 AM
As JG wrote, The “problem” was that he swinging a hammer, not that there were too many people. One person alone might have helped, or not. It’s easy for a police officer to act disgusted, as they are usually armed, but I as recall there was dozen cops terrified of Rodney King, and he was crawling on the ground, without a hammer. And sure, maybe the riders did outnumber the hammer-wielding maniac, but a subway car is not the place to hold a meeting on the logistics of jumping on a stranger. The whole event probably went by fast to witnesses unaccustomed to seeing such things. Life is not the movies.
Posted by: JH at September 9, 2008 09:55 AM
Dave,
terribly sad story. It reminds me of the line I saw in the New Yorker once, maybe from Walker Percy, that in the modern age a man could die after a full life not knowing whether he's a coward.
Posted by: Dan Markel at September 9, 2008 10:09 AM
well, before someone beats me to it, if only everyone in Philly could legally carry a concealed firearm . . .
(a) people would intervene against the Oldboy wanna-be
(2) richochet-caused bloodbath would occur within the confines of an enclosed steel train
(III) anyone without a firearm would hide in their homes
4. all of the above
Posted by: bill at September 9, 2008 12:36 PM
Here in Knoxville a few weeks ago, several people rushed a man who was firing a gun into their congregation. What is the difference? Perhaps that the congregation perceived itself as a community, so some members were more willing to risk themselves for others? Perhaps that it was a larger group, so there were more likely to be a brave few?
The reason to make eye contact with one person and ask for help is not necessarily to ask that person to rescue you alone. You could be appointing that person to take charge of a group effort. The point is to make a connection, and perhaps inspire a sense of community obligation that was already present in the congregation.
Posted by: Jennifer Hendricks at September 9, 2008 02:00 PM
