Tuesday, July 14, 2015

The Sheep Continue to Look Up

Kitty Genovese

First, read this. All of it. It references the brutal murder of Kevin Joseph Sutherland on the D.C. Metro on the Fourth of July, what we once called Independence Day. Here's the "nut graf" from the first article, where Ms. Marianne Seregi, the editor of the Washington Post magazines, tells her own story about being mugged on the Metro and her conclusions on that mugging:
Yes, it’s hypocritical. I wish people would have helped me, and I’m not sure I could have mustered the courage to do the same. 
I don’t want to be someone so passive and self-preserving that I allow a stranger to be killed right in front of me. I don’t want to protect myself at all costs. But fear is a powerful emotion. And just because we think we are brave doesn’t mean that we are.
Think about that…"I don't want to protect myself at all costs."

What do you suppose that means? Here's what I think…on the very worst day of your life, through some nasty quirk in Fate the only person you may be able to turn to is Ms. Marianne Seregi, who will be dribbling urine down her leg while worrying whether it might be too politically incorrect to defend herself — much less help you out!

You've heard this before from me, but let me emphasize:


This from Lisa De Pasquale at Breitbart, titled "The Good, the Bad and the Beta Male:"
In less than 15 years, we’ve gone from “let’s roll” to “let’s not get involved.”
What we must do is reject the disease of political correctness and — male, female, or any one of the Ten Billion Names for Gender…this isn't a gender issue — step up and be responsible for our own safety, the safety of our families and those in our care. 


Overload in Colorado said...

Lisa is misremembering 9/11. The mindset at the time was to act meekly and do what the hijackers wanted and you would most likely get out of it. The first three planes did this. It was only the fourth plane, THAT HAD INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR FATE, that caused the change in attitude. I'm sure if all the passengers on that subway knew they too were going to die, that there would be a reaction. As it was, they knew that if they acted invisible they could ride it out and get off at their stop.

Personally, I'd either help or get off the train at the next stop. With female attackers I know there'd be an increased risk of me getting arrested/blamed/jailed/charged if I came to the rescue (as a male). There's no way I'd stay on the train and do nothing.
A CCW doesn't make me a cop, it just allows me to protect myself. I'm not sure I could shoot someone if my life wasn't in danger. I've thought about this a lot, over many years. I hope that I could shoot someone to protect another's life.
I just don't know.

Anonymous said...

It's becoming abundantly clear, and the Post editor gives it articulation, that the essence of liberalism is physical cowardice. All liberal positions flow from that. These people will not fight because they cannot fight. They hate fighting. Moreover, they do not want US to fight either, because it makes them feel bad about themselves and they loathe that more than anything.

Paul said...

Well notice these things happen up North, or the far West. They don't happen in the Mid-West.


Simple, everybody's got a gun. Good, bad, and between. And to brazenly murder or mug in public is to risk getting shot. And in the Mid-West, you are far more likely to be hailed a hero for stepping up than in the Metro-sexual North or Far West.

And that simply is it. Liberals are wimps. They only get strong when they can order the cops or Army to do their bidding. But personally, they are cowards.

the pawnbroker said...

You might have misconstrued her meaning. For context, include the prior sentence in the quote:

"I don’t want to be someone so passive and self-preserving that I allow a stranger to be killed right in front of me. I don’t want to protect myself at all costs."

She might have meant that she doesn't want the guilt of not helping others, and hopes she could overcome her fear for her own safety to intervene.

I hope so, because your take that she would actually prefer having her life taken to taking another's in self defense is sickening and incomprehensible.

Ironically, if I'm right in her meaning I'm not at all sure that I could/would play sheepdog if I could retreat the fuck out of there and save myself.

Anonymous said...

They were just giving him "space to destroy." Isn't that what we're supposed to do?

In all seriousness, I'm with Overload. Knowing what I know now, I'd like to say I would've helped. Not knowing what I know now, I can't honestly say what I would've done. I tend to not get involved in other people's fights. This wasn't mutual, though.

After a lot of introspection, I'm still grappling with this. What's interesting is that I'm not afraid of physical harm in a situation like this. Rather, I don't want my family to see me Darren Wilson'd. Were someone like me to have entered this fight and prevailed, the newspapers wouldn't have hesitated to spin this as "Racist Honkie Attacks Innocent Teen." Not a soul on that train would've stood by me and my family in the aftermath. I'm not a cop (and even that didn't help Officer Wilson).

My default setting is "exit stage right" unless kids or those in my care are involved. I'm still thinking about this one, though.

Alien said...

The problem with both self defense and coming to the aid of others under attack is that it requires immediate and overwhelming violence to be successful. Cooper was entirely correct.

An attacker has already demonstrated violence, or portended using it; giving quarter is not to one's benefit in defense, nor is ceasing the response before the threat is not simply contained but completely eliminated. This largely precludes using negotiation as a successful defense tactic.

Joe and Jane do not routinely carry restraints so physical incapacitation must be substituted; rapidly applying sufficient violence, by whatever means, to achieve incapacitation could produce death or permanent injury.

Welcome to George Zimmerman's world.

I'm afraid Anon 11:31PM has it correct; my attorney has a much better chance of successfully defending me from the government and media if I'm the initial victim than if I inject myself into an altercation to defend others. I don't particularly like it, but that's the society we've created, so we must prefer it that way.

Anonymous said...

Been there ,Done that and I was lucky. Yes lucky! It never went to court. The big 'IF' looking at you is will I or won't I. No one knows and you won't know until the time actually comes.

The thing you better be afraid of before and after is liability Insurance. Anyone that carries needs Liability Insurance.Anyone that carries and does not have Liability Insurance is one of two things 'uninformed' or 'stupid' and only one 'boom' and court case away from being homeless & penniless .

Worry about 'will you' or 'won't you' after you get ' Liability Insurance '

And no I do not sell insurance.

Anonymous said...

I almost became physically ill and considered calling 911 while reading this article, but then I realized their were no Confederate flags around. I was utterly disgusted by this New Yorker pretending to be a woman.

RMCM(SS) said...

I wish I could say I was surprised at such crap, but I am not. I am well aware of the fact that most people think of themselves first and never get to a second thought. When I hear of situations like the Colorado theater, Virginia Tech and Connecticut school shootings I am amazed that NO ONE made a move to take out the shooter. They simply waited their turn to die. The lone shooter can't keep track of everyone. One or two people with a little common sense could have surely gotten to him.

Would I do that? Damn right! I'll admit to being old enough to have a what have I got to lose attitude, but in situations like the above, what does ANYONE have to lose by trying to stop it?

I REALLY dislike having to accept that most of my fellow human beings are useless in any type of emergancy.

the pawnbroker said...

Alien @ 2:30, agreement with everything you said except this:

"Welcome to George Zimmerman's world."

No. No comparison at all. Z was NOT coming to anyone's defense or responding to any actual immediate threat. He was (probably correctly) profiling a potential threat of unknown type or severity. He did what he had to do once he was on the ground having his head bashed in, no question. But he allowed himself to get into that position by exiting his vehicle and following a POTENTIAL threat.

Bad, stupid, inadvisable, inexcusable move on his part. And I'm sure he'd agree now and advise others not to make the same mistakes he did; he has virtually paid for his bad judgment with his life almost as much as the wannabe thug literally paid with his for attempted murder.

Anonymous said...

I agree wholeheartedly with your overall point, but think we are reading the author incorrectly. When she suggests she "does not want to protect myself at all costs", what she is (I think) referring to is the idea that she wants to be the kind of person who will step up and help her fellow citizen, even if that means she might get hurt. In other words, despite wanting to stay safe the cost of doing nothing would be greater than the risk of getting hurt.

The chaser to that is that she admits she'd probably just do what another woman said she did: try to become invisible for fear she would get hurt. In other words, the author thinks that despite her desire to help, she would not.

Pathfinder said...

Overload wrote: " I'm sure if all the passengers on that subway knew they too were going to die, that there would be a reaction."

Sadly, events over the past decade do not bear that out. At Virginia Tech, for example, students stood, or huddled meekly as the shooter took his time and RELOADED. Only one aged teacher, a Holocaust survivor IIRC, bothered to act, and he too died.

The instructions from .gov are always to cower, huddle and hide, and maybe, just maybe, the shooter will overlook you. As MB has said repeatedly, the shooter is there to shoot people, not give them a pass. The .gov does not care if you live or die, they can always find more taxpayers seemingly, they want a meek and cowardly populace. Hence the instructions to cower and hide, not resist.

TommyG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TommyG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TommyG said...

I agree with The Pawnbroker that she sounds like she hopes she would have the strength to help someone in this situation. If I were able to talk to her my advice would be to take a self defence class even if it only involved situational awareness and avoidance and try to prepaid for an event before it occurred. Have you done a Best Defence show with the same scenario? Maybe both from the POV of the victim and a bystander?

Laughingdog said...

Having grown up outside of DC, and knowing the laws in the region, and on the Metro, I can say I am confident that I wouldn't do a damn thing to protect some stranger on a the subway. Those people all vote repeatedly in favor of being unarmed, and keeping me that way as well when I visit. On top of that, if you do step in to help, and don't get yourself stabbed and killed as well in the process, you'll be crucified by the media, AS WELL AS MOST OF THE PEOPLE ON THAT TRAIN, for assaulting that poor misunderstood honor student/choir boy, or however the media will paint him.

Why on earth should I risk not only my own life, but the future welfare of my own family over some stranger.

Granted, there's a reason I neither work nor live in that area anymore.