What Happened to Chivalry?

[Shangas]

like my little brother, who if he is walking down a street late at night and sees an unaccompanied woman, will cross the street and drop back so she doesn't feel potentially uncomfortable with his presence, but who still tries to stay close enough in case she encounters trouble.

I have never heard of ANYONE doing this in my entire life! I must say that I'm very impressed and heartwarmed by this action. But as a matter of curiosity, is your brother a big fellow? I can't imagine a small person being much help to a lady if she's suddenly mugged going down the street at night, unless he's armed in some way.

 

[drafttek]

like my little brother, who if he is walking down a street late at night and sees an unaccompanied woman, will cross the street and drop back so she doesn't feel potentially uncomfortable with his presence, but who still tries to stay close enough in case she encounters trouble.

That is very admirable. I often think the same way. Will I be able to do something if I am witness to someone in trouble. Sort of a shepherd attitude I suppose. I'm not a big guy, but my .38 evens thing up a bit.

 

[Cigarband]

I have noticed lately, that when I open a door for a woman with whom I am unacquainted, the action is received with pleasant surprise.

 

[ThesFlishThngs]

More evidence that chivalry is alive and well in certain people:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Good-Samaritan-rescues-stranded-Winnipegger-80534977.html

 

[Carlisle Blues]

like my little brother, who if he is walking down a street late at night and sees an unaccompanied woman, will cross the street and drop back so she doesn't feel potentially uncomfortable with his presence, but who still tries to stay close enough in case she encounters trouble.

I have never heard of ANYONE doing this in my entire life! I must say that I'm very impressed and heartwarmed by this action. But as a matter of curiosity, is your brother a big fellow? I can't imagine a small person being much help to a lady if she's suddenly mugged going down the street at night, unless he's armed in some way.

That is very admirable. I often think the same way. Will I be able to do something if I am witness to someone in trouble. Sort of a shepherd attitude I suppose. I'm not a big guy, but my .38 evens thing up a bit.

This behavior is described as vigilantism. At best, the vigilante will not scare the heck out of the person they are stalking, at worst the vigilante will get his/herself and others hurt or killed. While the intention is laudable, the actions of the vigilante, more often than not, are criminal. Further, should a person wish to pursue this avocation there are many other more legal and legitimate means by which that can be accomplished.

In essence a vigilante is a self-appointed doer of justice. Never a good idea....shakeshead

 

[Mojito]

He's a tall bloke, Shangas, and fairly solidly built. I imagine just a loud, shouted "what are you doing?" sort of response would be enough to deter most single assailants...but he's sensible enough to know when to use his mobile phone to call for police assistance.

I can't imagine him involved in anything approximating vigilantism, Carlisle Blues (and, as you would probably be aware, there are strict gun laws down here that would prohibit him from carrying a weapon). He certainly does not look for trouble. But, as a woman, I can appreciate a strange man, however perfectly innocent, who does not walk too close to me at night. If - God forbid - I was ever attacked at night, I would also appreciate anyone (male or female) who either did something to drive off my assailant, was able to directly intervene physically, or was able to call for police assistance.

The only time I have ever been attacked was during an early morning run, by a cyclist (a man whom I found out later had been involved in several similar incidents). The only person who did anything was a woman who called it in on her mobile phone and who raced to catch up with me as I was leaving the park to make sure I was okay. I do not, however, blame the men nearby for not intervening - I think they were probably very confused as to what was going on (I know it was a shock to me to have it happen in daylight in a well-populated area). The woman, however, as a female and as another runner had a keener sense of appreciation for what was happening. It all happened so quickly, but I'm confident that one of the men would have intervened had it taken longer.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

I think the following is appropriate and can be differentiated from the good intentioned lurker.

"The Bystander Effect," a phenomenon illustrated by the infamous 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese as 38 callous neighbors ignored her screams for help.The bystander effect is the somewhat controversial name given to a social psychological phenomenon in cases where individuals do not offer help in an emergency situation when other people are present. The probability of help has in the past been thought to be inversely proportional to the number of bystanders; in other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help.

Ms. Genovese was stabbed to death in 1964 by a serial rapist and murderer. According to newspaper accounts, the killing took place for at least a half an hour. The murderer attacked Ms. Genovese and stabbed her, but then fled the scene after attracting the attention of a neighbor. The killer then returned ten minutes later and finished the assault. Newspaper reports after Genovese's death claimed that 38 witnesses watched the stabbings and failed to intervene or even contact the police. This led to widespread public attention, and many editorials.

The aforementioned is for illustrative purposes as there are differing accounts as to what took place. In addition to one where the police say they were contacted.

However, a bystander witnessing an event is clearly different than a an person who actively seeks to intervene in an event that has yet to occur. Further, a weapon is not necessary as the purpose of the good intentioned protector is to stave off any harm or presumed harm from the imagined victim.

 

[drafttek]

This behavior is described as vigilantism. At best, the vigilante will not scare the heck out of the person they are stalking, at worst the vigilante will get his/herself and others hurt or killed. While the intention is laudable, the actions of the vigilante, more often than not, are criminal. Further, should a person wish to pursue this avocation there are many other more legal and legitimate means by which that can be accomplished.

In essence a vigilante is a self-appointed doer of justice. Never a good idea....

I would hardly call that vigilantism. Concern for the wellbeing and safety of others, and the willingness to intervene on their behalf hardly fits the definition.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Concern for the wellbeing and safety of others, and the willingness to intervene on their behalf hardly fits the definition.

I agree, however, what you just proposed was not the original fact pattern...

 

[drafttek]

My original "fact pattern" hardly alluded to vigilatism.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

My original "fact pattern" hardly alluded to vigilatism.

I often think the same way. Will I be able to do something if I am witness to someone in trouble. I'm not a big guy, but my .38 evens thing up a bit.

Obviously not............ lol lol lol

Prisons and morgues are full of well intentioned "do gooders" who instead of using their heads and contacting those who are trained and have the authority to use lawful force, if necessary, create a more life endangering situation.

 

[thunderw21]

Obviously not............ lol lol lol

Prisons and morgues are full of well intentioned "do gooders" who instead of using their heads and contacting those who are trained and have the authority to use lawful force, if necessary, create a more life endangering situation.

A vigilante is someone who "illegally punishes someone for perceived offenses, or participates in a group which metes out extrajudicial punishment to such a person", most often someone percieved as a criminal.

Protecting a woman while the crime is being committed is not vigilantism. Hunting down and punishing the criminal outside of normal practices of an effective system of laws and courts is vigilantism. Big difference there. One is defense, the other is not.

Like many on this board, I was trained in order to obtain my CCP. Not only that, but I train on a regular basis on my own time. No doubt many concealed carriers are better trained and versed in the laws of defense and deadly force than are some cops.

As I said earlier in the thread, I believe the defense of others (not to mention oneself) is perhaps the most important factor to chivalry. If a dangerous or deadly situation arises I want to be confident that I'm able to act within the law to slow or stop the situation. Sometimes this means backing off and de-escalating, other times it might require the use of a firearm. A chivalrous man should be trained in the area of defense but should be tempered in its use. Animals run and hide when a threat arises; humans have intelligent brains and unique hands with which to fight back.

As for calling someone else better trained, the police are often there just to clean up a situation and are not required by law to even respond to a call. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

 

[drafttek]

Going to someone's aid is hardly considered being a vigilante.
"Yes, ma'am, I know you're being beaten. Can't you see I'm dialing as fast as I can! I'm sure a representative of the local police force will be here to help you in 20 to 30 minutes. I'm forbidden to intervene for fear of being a vigilante."
I'm not talking about riding the subways looking for trouble fer chrissakes.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Protecting a woman while the crime is being committed is not vigilantism.

I agree, however, that was not the original fact pattern...[huh]

Going to someone's aid is hardly considered being a vigilante.
"Yes, ma'am, I know you're being beaten. Can't you see I'm dialing as fast as I can! I'm sure a representative of the local police force will be here to help you in 20 to 30 minutes. I'm forbidden to intervene for fear of being a vigilante."
I'm not talking about riding the subways looking for trouble fer chrissakes.

I'm not a big guy, but my .38 evens thing up a bit.

Obviously not. No one can say you are looking for trouble....lol lol

 

[drafttek]

Absolutely not. Carrying for defense is hardly "looking for trouble". Apparently you're just not getting this concept. Looks like we'll just have to disagree on this. :cheers1:

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Apparently you're just not getting this concept.

I am getting the concept. A person who carries a .38 cal weapon to "even thing up a bit" is just looking for a little peace, love and understanding....

 

[JimWagner]

I don't know about in Virginia, but here in North Carolina intervening with a firearm in a situation that did not involve you is NOT a self defense situation and you are specifically warned against doing so in the required concealed carry classes.

Whether a jury would acquit you or not is an open question, but you will be charged - maybe for assault or worse, murder. And there's no such thing as "citizens arrest" in this state. Point a firearm at someone except in self defense and it's assault.

All that if you are licensed for concealed carry. More charges if you aren't licensed.

 

[thunderw21]

I don't know about in Virginia, but here in North Carolina intervening with a firearm in a situation that did not involve you is NOT a self defense situation and you are specifically warned against doing so in the required concealed carry classes.

Whether a jury would acquit you or not is an open question, but you will be charged - maybe for assault or worse, murder. And there's no such thing as "citizens arrest" in this state. Point a firearm at someone except in self defense and it's assault.

All that if you are licensed for concealed carry. More charges if you aren't licensed.

Yep, it differs by state.

But if a person was in serious trouble hopefully common decency would win out and someone would help (the opposite of what happened in the Kitty Genovese situation). I'd rather go to jail knowing I helped or saved someone rather than go free knowing I could have prevented injury or death. The latter would haunt me for the rest of my life.

That's chivalry to me.

 

[Mojito]

However, a bystander witnessing an event is clearly different than a an person who actively seeks to intervene in an event that has yet to occur. Further, a weapon is not necessary as the purpose of the good intentioned protector is to stave off any harm or presumed harm from the imagined victim.

I agree. However, I trust my brother enough to know that he is not going to jump into a situation "presuming" that there is a perceived threat to a "victim". He's the sort of bloke you'll find in a pub when everyone is getting hot under the collar who will suggest everyone calms down and has a drink on him. However, if a stranger - for example - were to grab a woman (or if a male looked like his was in trouble, for that matter) late at night, he would make his presence known. Would he be inclined or capable of beating the assailant to a bloody pulp? No to the former, and the latter depends on the individual involved. But he would do what he could to within the utmost of his physical capabilities (so would I, for that matter - the only time I've been tested was an aggressive man on a bus verbally assailing the bus driver). But if a situation was "iffy" - i.e. a woman approached, raised voices, signs of distress, he's perfectly capable of a more nuanced response along the lines of "is everything alright here?" It's not a binary proposition - Woman approached on a dark street = physical response to the perceived threat. There are different ways of handling a situation, and I did not indicate that his first response would be violent.

There have been a couple of incidents recently in Sydney when strangers have attempted to grab children and young teens or take inappropriate photographs. In each case, bystanders have assisted the parents or have intervened to assist. While situations can happen in which bystanders ignore an assault in progress or a victim in the street (e.g. the notorious Central Park Jogger incident), I've seen even comparatively minor incidents in which people have leaped into action...from an elderly woman having trouble crossing a sloping road with her trolly (two of us were at her side as soon as the problem started), helping up a cyclist who slipped in the rain, a woman who fell in the street, a motorcyclist involved in a collision. Often the response is so quick that

 

[reetpleat]

Mojito is ome of my favorite loungers, so i trust her brother is cool too. So I will give the benefit of the doubt.

but the whole things kind of sounds odd to me.

One, I do not believe in buying into this idea that men are scary and dangerous, and I have no tolerance for men or women that do. there is an odd strain in our culture that makes men out to be dangerous rapists and women to be helpless victims. I think this does a disservice to women and men alike.

I would be inclined to walk with a smile on my face and a gentle attitude, and let the women who still freak out, deal with their own issues. But to walk around with a fantasy idea of coming to the rescue of a damsel in distress might appear to buy into the same odd pattern.

But, as i said, i am sure it is not quite like it sounds. I am sure your brother is a great guy.