ABC Primetime segment "What would you do?"

[answerguy]

Did anyone see the show? They show two couples, one white and one black, having heated arguements in a public park and passers by reactions to them.
link to viedo: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=1736043

My first thought is that you couldn't pay me enough to pose as the abusive boyfriend, because someone might just take the law into their own hands before anything could be explained.

My second thought is if I were confronted with the situations that are portrayed I wouldn't try to interfer unless I was carrying.

[Nitrogen]

I'm really glad there are good samaritans out there like you. I however, am not one of them. In this lawsuit happy world, I will not get involved unless I am in a state with a good samartan exemption. (I do not believe Texas has one. If I am proven wrong, I would certainly lighten up.)

Read this for more reasons on why I would not interfere:
http://www.oregonfirearms.org/commentary/aftermath1.html
Readers digest version:
Girl asks guy for help with an abusive boyfriend. Boyfriend breaks into place, looks like he's going for a gun, and guy shoots and kills him.
Girl, who was pregnant by the BF then decides to SUE THE GUY because she killed her baby daddy. Luckelly for the guy, nobody will take the case.

My hope would be, if I was ever in that situation, and I said something, that the abusive boyfriend would give me an excuse to defend myself...

[warwagon]

Walk on by, observe, and if needed, call the non emergency number of the law enforcement agency responsible for that area.

[NineseveN]

Call the police, hang by at a distance in case someone needs my help, just not too close...out of sight, out of mind and all.

A peson can take a physical beating 9 times out of 10, if it escalates to something more dangerous than a slapaho tribe ritual, then perhaps it's time to intervene.

[O.F.Fascist]

I wouldnt get involved if all they were doing was arguing, I would not involve the police either.

If it got physical then I might involve myself.

[gunsmith]

They're good actors, when the white guy had his hands on his "girlfriend" I probably would have my hand on my ccw ordering him to get on the ground.
what I normaly do if no violence is call non emergency.

I feel it was irresponsible to stage this, the white guy is giving the appearance of choking the girl. that could be a life death situation, I might have unholstered
or worse even pointed it at him.

[DontBurnMyFlag]

I deal with this often. I go to college. If I see a guy yelling at his girlfriend, shes crying and he looks like hes gonna hit her...I intervene. Always with words first. I never had a problem.

The same thing with a parent BEATING their child. Not disciplining them, but beating the ever living hell outta them. I tell them that they shouldnt have had kids if they cant handle them, that their an embarrassment to the community and "why dont you pick on someone your own size"

I know its none of my business, but Im an ass. So screw it

[answerguy]

One of the things that ABC was trying to prove was that people would react differently to these two couples based on their race. I'm not sure what they thought people would be inclined to do: protect the white girl because she was white or go after the black guy because he was black. The only thing that I could see for myself in these two situations is that the white guy was a little scrawnier looking than the black guy. Meaning he would be less of a threat in an unarmed fight situation.

[Zundfolge]

I think it was an unfair comparison.

scrawny white guy and big black guy ... of course more people are willing to confront the scrawny white guy because he's scrawny :rolleyes:

More "journalists" trying to make conflict where there is none.

[slyeugeneguy]

I noticed the same thing too: the black guy looked like a bigger guy, while the white dude was not.

It wasn't exactly a scientific study anyway, but any "racial" element was blown by this difference.

[distra]

NBC did a similar show where a reporter was trying to abduct a 12-13 year old girl in the middle of a metro area. I thought it was NYC, but I'm not sure. I think in this case I would have my hand on the pistol ready to draw and try to get the guy to his knees. I would not like to be the reporter. One clip showed 4 guys ready to open a can whoop a** on him :evil: Being a parent, I would not be able to restrain myself and that poor reporter might have met the end of my arm that has 4 knockles. I could not believe how many people just kept walking and didn't even try to help the girl.

[TallPine]

NBC did a similar show where a reporter was trying to abduct a 12-13 year old girl in the middle of a metro area. I thought it was NYC, but I'm not sure.
They wouldn't dare try that one in MT I think ... or the reporter would end up dead :uhoh:

[wheelgunslinger]

I actually was watching this the other night.

I thought it was an excellent exercise with one of the more important points being that you don't have to start with violence as a means to defuse a violent situation. The woman at the end of the program who refused to leave until the "abused" woman was safe had a plan and knew how to deal with the psychology involved in abusive relationships. She was successful and showed a lot of viewers that you don't have to be 6'1" and 210 or carry a 50 cal desert eagle to break up a fight.
This is an excellent point for a lot of people who carry concealed weapons of any sort. Use your noggin first. Practice with your weapon, but keep your wits sharp too. Your weapon is a last resort so treat it as such.
Having volunteered in battered women's shelters and having lived in a home with abused females as well, I can say that drawing a weapon is seldom the best first course of action. It is however, sometimes a course of action that must be taken.
But, this is why many police officers don't like showing up to a home where a domestic violence episode is happening. There's a lot of emotion running high in any of these cases, and there is a tendency of a victim to protect the aggressor along with a lot of other deviant psychology. And it sucks to have the person you thought your were helping turn on you and aid the aggressor.
If it were me, and it has been, I tend to not get involved. If a female is involved in an altercation with a male who's beating her up, then she needs to find a way to empower herself. A person rushing in to help her isn't always the best course of action for the vic. in the long run.
On the flip side, I wouldn't stand by and let anyone get beaten badly or murdered and do nothing. I won't post details of situations in which I've been involved, but I will say that having lived around abuse gives you a sour taste for it that will color your responses to it if you do not retain your critical mind in times of stress. And then, you are part of the cycle of violence.
If I see some woman being shaken and shouted at in a park, I'll just keep walking since I know that I'm just a big stewing pot of revenge for the violence done to women I know. I'm conciously aware of that. So, unless I'm saving someone's life, I stay away. It may not be the most moral course of action (and I'll agree with anyone who says so), but it's what I have to do to stay out of prison.
A man's gotta know his limitations.

[answerguy]

I thought it was an excellent exercise with one of the more important points being that you don't have to start with violence as a means to defuse a violent situation. The woman at the end of the program who refused to leave until the "abused" woman was safe had a plan and knew how to deal with the psychology involved in abusive relationships. She was successful and showed a lot of viewers that you don't have to be 6'1" and 210 or carry a 50 cal desert eagle to break up a fight.


She was successful because this was make believe. If it had been real she may have ended up as a victim.

[BullfrogKen]

The portrayal of domestic violence tries to find an aggressor and a victim in the couple. Far too commonly the dynamics of the couple proves there are two aggressors, and the victim is anything but a passive individual brought into submission.

I really feel for anyone who has to deal with these kinds of relationships. The "victims" are offered ample opportunity to leave, protection, and resources to begin a new life, yet often will not press charges, refuse to testify against the spouse, and stay in the situation. Anyone who has watched "Cops" long enough has seen the woman who balks, cries and pleads with the cop not to take her man to jail. I'll wager those who have worked the job can tell us about several calls they went on where the spouse began to defend the other when it was clear an arrest was imminent.

The legislation instituting "must arrest" for domestic violence tells us just how difficult it is to resolve these situations, and it reflects the level of frustration authorities have in ending the abuse. That legislation didn't come about because "the awful policeman wouldn't make the arrest . . . "

Unless I saw the kids of acts that would cause serious bodily harm or death, I'd stay out of it. In these 2 scenarios, knowing what I do about the dynamics of domestic violence, I'd certainly mind my own business.

[RS3RS]

I seem to be the minority here, in that if I ever saw a guy mistreating his wife/girlfriend like that, I could never bring myself to ignore it. But I feel very strongly that any guy who abuses a woman is the lowest scum on the planet.

Not quite sure if I would draw a gun on a guy though. I'd only draw if I felt my own, or someone elses, life was in extreme danger at the moment. I'd still step in though.

[wheelgunslinger]

... and as soon as you step in to intervene you give him the opportunity to snag that concealed weapon... and use it on whomever he chooses.



I will agree that these people who perpetrate these crimes are scum. I also agree with BullfrogKen that you must be aware of the cycle of violence and the victim/aggressor roles with domestic abuse situations before you intervene.
You may want to charge in like Sir Gawhain, but may end up looking like Don Quixote after it's all over. After all, you don't know if he's angry because she ate the last peanut butter cookie or if she just told him that she's been cheating on him with his best friend, starring in low budget adult films for extra money, contracted HIV, continued to sleep with him, and just told him about it in a safe place like a park.
You just never know.

[Zundfolge]

The portrayal of domestic violence tries to find an aggressor and a victim in the couple. Far too commonly the dynamics of the couple proves there are two aggressors, and the victim is anything but a passive individual brought into submission.
Thats a good point. We are fed this line that domestic violence is a 100% male problem and that men are always evil and women are always victims.

I've NEVER struck a woman, nor would I except under very extreme circumstances, but I have dated one woman who honest to God deserved to be back handed, and on a couple of occasions pushed me to do it (although I didn't fall for her mind games...I just left).


She was successful because this was make believe. If it had been real she may have ended up as a victim.
I just thought this was worth repeating.

[XLMiguel]

+1 Zundfolge

There's a real good reason cops hate domestic violence calls - It's so hard to tell who's who - victim/aggressor/both.

I'd observe and call the cavalry if it got beyond verbal.

[High Planes Drifter]

I dont get involved in domestic disputes unless a child is being victimized. Man and wife, forget it; Im hands off. As stated earlier in the thread ,Chief Pimp'em Strong of the Slapaho Tribe isnt pulling me into that debacle. Get involved, and all too often you will be the one taking a ride in the back seat of a Crown Vic when the friendly men in blue show up. She'll be back with her "man" and your ass will be in the cooler waiting on bail to be set. I dial 911 and inform them of the mutt-on-mutt violence, sit back and watch the drama.

[Azrael256]

Just a quick point of fact: "Good Samaritan" laws generally refer to rescuing someone from a dangerous situation and unintentionally injuring them in the process. Any EMT will tell you that it is very easy to break a rib or two while doing chest compressions, especially if all your experience comes from training dummies. Good Samaritan laws protect you from liability in the event that you crack somebody's ribs, cut them while removing a seatbelt after a crash, or something along those lines. I would not rely on that kind of law for protection should you choose to physically involve yourself in an altercation.

I would go with Mike in VA's idea. I'm not getting in the middle of a domestic unless I absolutely have to. Watch any five episodes of COPS and I guarantee you'll find at least one domestic that "goes rodeo," as LawDog likes to say.

[Correia]

I always address this during my CCW classes, and use a roleplay to drive the point home. Getting involved in somebody else's domestic situation is just stupid, and sometimes fatal. There is a reason that LE hate domestic stuff.

It is easy for my students to want to play the hero, whip out the dummy gun on the abusive husband, only to have the wife go "rodeo". Now wannabe good samaritan just shot the woman he was trying to help.

[Gordon Fink]

There are a lot of interesting things to observe in these ridiculously ill-advised experiments. For example, in the original domestic-violence episode (white couple) broadcast last year, one of the men who intervened, a martial-arts practitioner of some kind, had one of his hands in a pocket as he first approached the couple, and his body language indicated he was preparing himself for a fight.

~G. Fink