Picking one's battles when it comes to crime intervention

[bigfield]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...ies-beach-family/story-fni6uo1m-1226947101288

A CHRISTIES Beach family is living in dread after a father-of-three’s head was repeatedly stomped on and a large rock was thrown through their front window in a series of senseless attacks.

Doctors told Shane Ransome he was lucky to survive the brutal attack when three men set on him outside his Eliza*beth Rd home on May 22.


Mr Ransome, 47, was putting out his rubbish at night when he made a comment to three men who were upturning his neighbours’ bins.

The guy saw three young men upturning bins, told them off, and in response they nearly killed him, attacked his property, and have terrorised him and his family.

He was only trying to do the right thing, and certainly did not deserve to be assaulted, but he also demonstrated a severe failure to think before acting. Things could have much worse: He could have been killed, his family could have been seriously hurt, and his house and property could have suffered much greater damage.

What makes the case more absurd is that Ransome's life, and the wellbeing of his family, is worth far more than a few wheelie bins. He wasn't even coming to an assault victim's defence.

Apart from the sheer pointlessness of the violence, the case illustrates a point: intervening in crime can carry a high risk of harm to oneself. Sometimes all one can reasonably do is call the police from a safe distance.

I think cases like this provide some perspective on the recent "What do you do about [crime]" threads. Keep others out of harm's way whenever you can do so safely, but don't intervene in a crime in progress or imminent crime unless you are prepared for things to turn very ugly for you.

Unless you're Hickdive, who has a bat cape and rocket car, and therefore is fully equipped to deal with all violent criminals.

 

[Underseer]

This sounds too much like the same "blame the victim" song that gets sung at rape victims.

You should have dressed more conservatively.

You shouldn't have had that second drink.

You should only appear in public with a male escort of some kind for protection.

Blah, blah, blah. So this guy told off some punks who were committing vandalism? So what?

 

[fast]

This sounds too much like the same "blame the victim" song that gets sung at rape victims.

You should have dressed more conservatively.

You shouldn't have had that second drink.

You should only appear in public with a male escort of some kind for protection.

Blah, blah, blah. So this guy told off some punks who were committing vandalism? So what?

I blame cops for writing the speeding tickets.

 

[Under the Rose]

It's a tough call sometimes but in a similar vein, when I was a member of our local volunteer fire department, the first thing that was stressed to us as first responders was personal safety. Yes, it was our assignment to go to the rescue of persons and property but we were always to exercise caution and judgement to not put the personnel (and to a lessor degree, the equipment) at risk because that would only escalate the problem.

Keeping one's perspective can be difficult when one is driven by a sense of urgency, or in the case of the example in the OP, a sense of impropriety.

In watching the news of late, there has been far too much senseless violence.

 

[prideandfall]

Blah, blah, blah. So this guy told off some punks who were committing vandalism? So what?

so, if it's understood that if you come across a wild dog that has its hackles up and is growling at you, it's a really bad idea to start shouting at it because it may attack you, why is it not understood that the human equivalent of raised hackles and growling means it's a really bad idea to start shouting at them?

 

[Unbeatable]

This sounds too much like the same "blame the victim" song that gets sung at rape victims.

So you're opposed categorically to the very idea that there exist actions which are ill-advised because of the risks they incur? Do you not think it's possible to draw a distinction between actions like going to clubs/parties for the sake of having fun and actions like confronting someone you suspect to have criminal intentions for the purpose of preventing them from committing a crime? Do you have any thoughts on whether/to what extent a person should intervene to stop/prevent a crime?

There are people in the "what do you to about rape" and "what do you do about murder" threads criticizing one another, either for doing too much or for not doing enough, in terms of protecting other people from crime. Where do you stand? To what extent should a person put their own safety at risk to protect someone else? To what extent should a person put their own interests at risk to protect those of someone else? If there even a right or wrong thing to do in your eyes?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your gun laws at work.


Toughs know they can act with near impunity.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Your gun laws at work.


Toughs know they can act with near impunity.

There were no guns in play for this incident.

Toughs will always be more likely to use force to get what they want. By definition. Why you would want to give them easy access to firearms is beyond me.

 

[bigfield]

Your gun laws at work.

Toughs know they can act with near impunity.

Our "toughs" don't carry guns.

That's how our laws work.

 

[Unbeatable]

Your gun laws at work.


Toughs know they can act with near impunity.

There were no guns in play for this incident.

Toughs will always be more likely to use force to get what they want. By definition. Why you would want to give them easy access to firearms is beyond me.

Obviously, toughs getting access to firearms is just an unintended side-effect of what he actually wants, which is to give law-abiding citizens like Shane Ransome easy access to firearms with which they might be able to deter or shoot toughs.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Your gun laws at work.


Toughs know they can act with near impunity.

There were no guns in play for this incident.

Toughs will always be more likely to use force to get what they want. By definition. Why you would want to give them easy access to firearms is beyond me.

Obviously, toughs getting access to firearms is just an unintended side-effect of what he actually wants, which is to give law-abiding citizens like Shane Ransome easy access to firearms with which they might be able to deter or shoot toughs.

The temptation is to intervene, but the smart thing to do is let it go. Maybe if you're 6' 7" and weigh 320 pounds go for it. But if you don't have a chance of scaring the shit out of someone or besting them in a brawl the smart thing to do is let it go.

I always kept on the good side of the local hoodlums. Some of my neighbors weren't as wise. You gotta live in the real world.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your gun laws at work.


Toughs know they can act with near impunity.

There were no guns in play for this incident.

Toughs will always be more likely to use force to get what they want. By definition. Why you would want to give them easy access to firearms is beyond me.

I know there were no guns--that's the point. In a society without guns the tough guys can act with impunity. What you are missing is that in the US where people may be armed the tough guy will think twice before casually attacking someone that has annoyed them. There are no meaningful consequences from their actions.

That doesn't mean they would use a gun in that situation, that would bring a major police response.

 

[bilby]

Your gun laws at work.


Toughs know they can act with near impunity.

There were no guns in play for this incident.

Toughs will always be more likely to use force to get what they want. By definition. Why you would want to give them easy access to firearms is beyond me.

I know there were no guns--that's the point. In a society without guns the tough guys can act with impunity. What you are missing is that in the US where people may be armed the tough guy will think twice before casually attacking someone that has annoyed them. There are no meaningful consequences from their actions.

That doesn't mean they would use a gun in that situation, that would bring a major police response.

In the US, a more likely result is that somebody would end up dead, rather than just injured.

A person getting his head stomped is a bad outcome. I fail to see how a person getting shot is an improvement.

Guns lead to escalation. If the homeowner had a gun - or could be reasonably expected to have a gun - then the 'toughs' would feel the need to be armed too; and both parties would be aware that being the first to initiate violence was the only viable course of action - having a gun doesn't protect you from being shot, unless you use yours before he uses his.

Lets look at some likely results:

1) Nobody is armed - this is what actually happened. The homeowner gets an undeserved kicking.
2) Everybody is armed - the homeowner tells the 'toughs' off. The 'toughs' draw guns on the homeowner. The homeowner, and possibly one or two of the 'toughs', end up shot dead.
3) Only the 'toughs' are armed - the homeowner tells the 'toughs' off. The 'toughs' draw guns on the homeowner. The homeowner ends up shot dead.
4) Only the homeowner is armed - Perhaps the 'toughs' back off when threatened with a gun. They either return later and vandalise his property; or they return with guns of their own, and shoot him dead. Perhaps they don't back off when threatened. They either take the guy's gun and shoot him with it; or he is forced to shoot one or more of them.

In all three cases 2, 3 and 4, someone likely ends up dead.

The ONLY scenario where the situation is not worse with guns is if the homeowner is the only one who is armed (unlikely in an armed society); AND he successfully uses the threat of his gun to make the 'toughs' back off, and they don't choose to return (unlikely with people who are demonstrably prepared to act with disproportionate violence). All other scenarios end with someone dying.

I understand that you have no empathy for those you can paint as 'bad guys', but it is notable that a) In many scenarios, the dead guy is the 'good' guy'; b) knocking over some bins is not, and should not be, a capital offence; and c) 'Toughs' and 'Bad guys' are real people, who have families who love them - everyone occasionally behaves like an asshole, sometimes with excuse, sometimes not, and a society in which a moments unthinking insult to another is fatal is not one that it is pleasant to live in.

 

[Eric H]

joedad;
Maybe if you're 6' 7" and weigh 320 pounds go for it. But if you don't have a chance of scaring the shit out of someone or besting them in a brawl the smart thing to do is let it go.

The most successful interventions I have witnessed with violence, is when there are a couple of seventy year old grannies, they don't go out to win, they go for a peaceful outcome.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the US, a more likely result is that somebody would end up dead, rather than just injured.

No, in the US the more likely result would be nothing would have happened--they wouldn't have attacked in the first place.

A person getting his head stomped is a bad outcome. I fail to see how a person getting shot is an improvement.

I would prefer to see a bad guy shot than a good guy get his head stomped.

Guns lead to escalation. If the homeowner had a gun - or could be reasonably expected to have a gun - then the 'toughs' would feel the need to be armed too; and both parties would be aware that being the first to initiate violence was the only viable course of action - having a gun doesn't protect you from being shot, unless you use yours before he uses his.

In practice the toughs don't attack in situations like this in the US.

I understand that you have no empathy for those you can paint as 'bad guys', but it is notable that a) In many scenarios, the dead guy is the 'good' guy'; b) knocking over some bins is not, and should not be, a capital offence; and c) 'Toughs' and 'Bad guys' are real people, who have families who love them - everyone occasionally behaves like an asshole, sometimes with excuse, sometimes not, and a society in which a moments unthinking insult to another is fatal is not one that it is pleasant to live in.

The offense isn't knocking over bins, the offense is stomping the good guy.

 

[bilby]

No, in the US the more likely result would be nothing would have happened--they wouldn't have attacked in the first place.

A person getting his head stomped is a bad outcome. I fail to see how a person getting shot is an improvement.

I would prefer to see a bad guy shot than a good guy get his head stomped.

Guns lead to escalation. If the homeowner had a gun - or could be reasonably expected to have a gun - then the 'toughs' would feel the need to be armed too; and both parties would be aware that being the first to initiate violence was the only viable course of action - having a gun doesn't protect you from being shot, unless you use yours before he uses his.

In practice the toughs don't attack in situations like this in the US.

I understand that you have no empathy for those you can paint as 'bad guys', but it is notable that a) In many scenarios, the dead guy is the 'good' guy'; b) knocking over some bins is not, and should not be, a capital offence; and c) 'Toughs' and 'Bad guys' are real people, who have families who love them - everyone occasionally behaves like an asshole, sometimes with excuse, sometimes not, and a society in which a moments unthinking insult to another is fatal is not one that it is pleasant to live in.

The offense isn't knocking over bins, the offense is stomping the good guy.

So you favour the death penalty for 'Knocking over bins with intent to cause grevous bodily harm'?

Your casual attitude towards killing, and willingness to dismiss it as trivial on the basis of flimsy rationalisations, disgusts me.

There are no 'bad guys'. People ALL have the potential to be good in one circumstance and bad in another. Calvinism is stupid beyond belief, and basing your personal morality on it leads to insane outcomes like "I would rather see someone shot dead, than someone else kicked in the head", which is what your attitude actually boils down to.

Rather than address my post, you make a few glib rationalisations that allow you to ignore it. Well ignoring it won't make it untrue, no matter how much you want to cling to your crazy 'black and white' worldview. Reality is not like the Lone Ranger. The idea that 'Goodies' and 'Baddies' are distinct classes of human was debunked over a century ago, and today is only believed by infants, Calvinists, and idiots (And in case you were wondering, there is considerable overlap between these three non-exclusive groups).

 

[fromderinside]

Unless we're talking some place where there are no cell towers the OP scenario is totally bogus. If someone sees others tipping bins (fond boyhood memories reference) one will whip out one's phone, snap off some pics and message them to 911. Anything else is evidence the witness knows the ones having sport and is pissed at them and has more than a few drinks.

 

[rousseau]

Yea if you see someone who looks like they have the IQ of a gorilla just stay the fuck away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, in the US the more likely result would be nothing would have happened--they wouldn't have attacked in the first place.

A person getting his head stomped is a bad outcome. I fail to see how a person getting shot is an improvement.

I would prefer to see a bad guy shot than a good guy get his head stomped.

Guns lead to escalation. If the homeowner had a gun - or could be reasonably expected to have a gun - then the 'toughs' would feel the need to be armed too; and both parties would be aware that being the first to initiate violence was the only viable course of action - having a gun doesn't protect you from being shot, unless you use yours before he uses his.

In practice the toughs don't attack in situations like this in the US.

I understand that you have no empathy for those you can paint as 'bad guys', but it is notable that a) In many scenarios, the dead guy is the 'good' guy'; b) knocking over some bins is not, and should not be, a capital offence; and c) 'Toughs' and 'Bad guys' are real people, who have families who love them - everyone occasionally behaves like an asshole, sometimes with excuse, sometimes not, and a society in which a moments unthinking insult to another is fatal is not one that it is pleasant to live in.

The offense isn't knocking over bins, the offense is stomping the good guy.

So you favour the death penalty for 'Knocking over bins with intent to cause grevous bodily harm'?

You're focusing on the wrong thing. The knocking over bins was the trigger, not the wrongdoing.

There are no 'bad guys'. People ALL have the potential to be good in one circumstance and bad in another. Calvinism is stupid beyond belief, and basing your personal morality on it leads to insane outcomes like "I would rather see someone shot dead, than someone else kicked in the head", which is what your attitude actually boils down to.

Stomping someone's head because they told you to behave is not reasonable behavior. I have no problem with calling such a person a bad guy. I don't *WANT* to see them hurt but neither am I going to get too upset about it--they were trying to inflict serious injury.

Rather than address my post, you make a few glib rationalisations that allow you to ignore it. Well ignoring it won't make it untrue, no matter how much you want to cling to your crazy 'black and white' worldview. Reality is not like the Lone Ranger. The idea that 'Goodies' and 'Baddies' are distinct classes of human was debunked over a century ago, and today is only believed by infants, Calvinists, and idiots (And in case you were wondering, there is considerable overlap between these three non-exclusive groups).

There is such a thing as bad behavior.

- - - Updated - - -

Unless we're talking some place where there are no cell towers the OP scenario is totally bogus. If someone sees others tipping bins (fond boyhood memories reference) one will whip out one's phone, snap off some pics and message them to 911. Anything else is evidence the witness knows the ones having sport and is pissed at them and has more than a few drinks.

A cell phone pic won't identify them. I would be surprised if the cops even bothered to respond.

 

[arkirk]

Blah, blah, blah. So this guy told off some punks who were committing vandalism? So what?

so, if it's understood that if you come across a wild dog that has its hackles up and is growling at you, it's a really bad idea to start shouting at it because it may attack you, why is it not understood that the human equivalent of raised hackles and growling means it's a really bad idea to start shouting at them?

The head stomping vandal freaks are punks who will not be shamed if they feel they have the upper hand. Vandalizing trash cans may or not mean you will get your head stomped if you intervene. You can't just ignore this type of activity. If our communities were truly closely knit, there would be less of this stuff. The best you can do is make friends with your neighbors and perhaps (guns or no guns) you will stand a better chance of convincing them you and your neighbors have the upper hand. This story points toward a darker picture of the vandals than simple vandalism. It would depend on the median income of the neighborhood if the police would rush in. Another solution get rich enough to hire a security force...ah, but those folks already get the quick police response time.