Comments on: Kitty Genovese on Philadelphia’s Broad Street Line

By: Jennifer Hendricks

Jennifer Hendricks — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:00:07 +0000

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.

By: bill

bill — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:36:24 +0000

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

By: Dan Markel

Dan Markel — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:09:33 +0000

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.

By: JH

JH — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:55:33 +0000

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.

By: shg

shg — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:30:55 +0000

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.

By: James Grimmelmann

James Grimmelmann — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:30:06 +0000

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.