TexasCHLforum.com

Here's another example for the "WWYD" question...
It's a current topic of discussion on another forum.

This is a video of a drunk walking the street looking for trouble. He finds it in the form of two ladies that walk past him, out of danger, then decide to come back and verbally engage the drunk. It gets physical, so, be warned there is some violence. At 0:15 it appears the offender is spitting at the women, but, it's hard to tell if that's the case, or whether he hits his target.

WWYD if you were a passerby?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1bc_1331685445" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pbwalker wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:By the way... I am getting the new IPad today. This makes me cool!

It does...I sold my iPad last year and haven't been cool since.

You can still get into heaven, but you won't be allowed to hang out with us cool people. Just say ten "steve jobs" and splash holy water on the hand that accepted the payment for your Ipad.

RoyGBiv wrote:Here's another example for the "WWYD" question...
It's a current topic of discussion on another forum.

This is a video of a drunk walking the street looking for trouble. He finds it in the form of two ladies that walk past him, out of danger, then decide to come back and verbally engage the drunk. It gets physical, so, be warned there is some violence. At 0:15 it appears the offender is spitting at the women, but, it's hard to tell if that's the case, or whether he hits his target.

WWYD if you were a passerby?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1bc_1331685445" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hate to admit this but I would beat hell out of that punk! Then I would try to find his daddy so I could choke him out. YEP... I would have been wrong... that is what lawyers are for.

RoyGBiv wrote:Here's another example for the "WWYD" question...
It's a current topic of discussion on another forum.

This is a video of a drunk walking the street looking for trouble. He finds it in the form of two ladies that walk past him, out of danger, then decide to come back and verbally engage the drunk. It gets physical, so, be warned there is some violence. At 0:15 it appears the offender is spitting at the women, but, it's hard to tell if that's the case, or whether he hits his target.

WWYD if you were a passerby?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1bc_1331685445" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I probably would have missed it as I would have probably walked on by the apparent drunk as the two streetwalkers should have done. AFAIK, the female was his wife or SO and shouldn't have turned to upbraid him while she was out peddling her wares.

I dunno'. WWYD?

IOW, you just never know.

pbwalker wrote:

fishfree wrote:Wildbill rebutted my post with his argument that his responsibility was only to himself if doing otherwise put him in danger.

I'm sorry, but it is no one's responsibility to defend / protect a 3rd party. Not even the police. A CHL does not provide additional levels of responsibility pertaining to the welfare of others. As 03Lightningrocks said, "I think most of us here would intervene if we saw a person being physically attacked. I know I would in some situations and not other situations."

I agree with that. But I do not agree with you saying it is my responsibility.

Big emphasis on the bit in bold text.

Legally, we have no obligation. Morally, well...morals are between a person and their own belief system/deity/conscience.

If you feel like its your duty to intervene in others confrontations, that's fantastic. They even made a job for you...you can sign up down at the local police station.

Oldgringo wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Here's another example for the "WWYD" question...
It's a current topic of discussion on another forum.

This is a video of a drunk walking the street looking for trouble. He finds it in the form of two ladies that walk past him, out of danger, then decide to come back and verbally engage the drunk. It gets physical, so, be warned there is some violence. At 0:15 it appears the offender is spitting at the women, but, it's hard to tell if that's the case, or whether he hits his target.

WWYD if you were a passerby?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1bc_1331685445" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I probably would have missed it as I would have probably walked on by the apparent drunk as the two streetwalkers should have done. AFAIK, the female was his wife or SO and shouldn't have turned to upbraid him while she was out peddling her wares.

I dunno'. WWYD?

IOW, you just never know.

I didn't think about it but maybe your right and she was a prostitute. This makes beating that punk down even sweeter...LOL. His royal pimpness should not be cold cocking females.

"Maybe he should have armed himself before he decorated his saloon with my friend".... One of my favorite movies.

Those women were definitely NOT prostitutes. No way.
Not only was the attire wrong, but, prostitutes are smarter than to bring a yappy mouth to a fist fight.

Funny thing, perception.

RoyGBiv wrote:Those women were definitely NOT prostitutes. No way.
Not only was the attire wrong, but, prostitutes are smarter than to bring a yappy mouth to a fist fight.

Funny thing, perception.

Yep....it sure can affect how we react.

03Lightningrocks wrote:By the way... I am getting the new IPad today. This makes me cool!

Cool? Perhaps the opposite.

http://news.consumerreports.org/electro ... games.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... heats.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://gizmodo.com/5894424/is-your-new-ipad-overheating" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

apostate wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:By the way... I am getting the new IPad today. This makes me cool!

Cool? Perhaps the opposite.

http://news.consumerreports.org/electro ... games.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... heats.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://gizmodo.com/5894424/is-your-new-ipad-overheating" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I heard about that. I have had mine on for several hours now and it isn't any warmer than my laptop gets. Maybe I got lucky.

RoyGBiv wrote:Those women were definitely NOT prostitutes. No way.
Not only was the attire wrong, but, prostitutes are smarter than to bring a yappy mouth to a fist fight.

Funny thing, perception.

How do you know so much about English chippies and street life? Not that I care, I'm just askin'...

Oldgringo wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Those women were definitely NOT prostitutes. No way.
Not only was the attire wrong, but, prostitutes are smarter than to bring a yappy mouth to a fist fight.

Funny thing, perception.

How do you know so much about English chippies and street life? Not that I care, I'm just askin'...

I've been around Piccadilly a few times.

WildBill wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

philip964 wrote:Child whose mother was in the hospital said the man was wearing a black hoodie.

What the heck is the dealio with black hoodies? You'd think by now that pretty much everybody is suspiscious of people skulking around in black hoodies. You'd think people would react to a black hoodie just like bluejays when a crow shows up.

Gray hoodies also look suspicious to me.

Apparently that's racist now.

fishfree wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I think most of us here would intervene if we saw a person being physically attacked. I know I would in some situations and not other situations. ...

Precisely. The original post made a broad sweeping blanket statement that we should not get involved. I pointed out an instance where that would, and I think should, be difficult (to not come to the aid of a child being murdered). I was raised that we have responsibilities beyond looking out for number 1.

Wildbill rebutted my post with his argument that his responsibility was only to himself if doing otherwise put him in danger.

I believe there is a logical argument to be made for looking out for one another and I am not advocating playing policeman or intervening for the sake of intervening. The example I gave was very specific. Beyond logic, stepping in at our own peril, financial or physical, is an intrinsic part of our humanity, or certainly should be.

An honest debate however ends with disrespect and name calling. I am no-ones 'Sonny', I have been in harms way before, although not in the way that Mr. Clayton was. And if I am on a high horse I invite others to join me. The air is better up here than in the mire of 'every man (and child) for himself' with only jungle law.

I think you might be short-selling what Bill meant. I think that we have primary, secondary, and tertiary responsibilities. I think that our responsibilities extend outward like circles from a rock dropped in a pond. With each outer circle, the responsibility is diminished, otherwise we would all be responsible for one another all the time.....and that's just plain false teaching. I am certain that Bill would agree that his responsibility to protect others is probably as strong for his immediate family as it is for himself. It is probably more imperative to protect his wife or child than it is to protect his 2nd cousin; and it is probably more imperative to protect his 2nd cousin than it is to protect a total stranger..........and so on and so one, radiating outward. Neighbors fit in there according to our individual relationships with our neighbors. Not everyone whom I consider family is related to me by blood or marriage.

Once you get beyond your primary and possibly secondary responsibilities, one begins to enter the region of self-sacrifice for unknown objectives, and it is not for you or me to judge whether another responder did or didn't do the right thing for a total stranger. I'm not saying one shouldn't do it—that's a decision that only the individual can make—but there are far more complex calculations involved even if they are instinctive and instant than there are for the protection of self and immediate family. Further, it is probably unreasonable to expect one stranger to sacrifice his own life for another total stranger.......unless that is the first stranger's job for which he is trained......such as with a cop or fireman. That is why the old guy who intervened on behalf of the baby is a hero. He placed himself in harm's way for a stranger. But we must resist the temptation to A) expect everyone to be a hero; and B) to think less of someone who decides that he will not be a hero today. We don't dishonor the service of our veterans simply because they were not awarded some kind of medal for bravery. That person whom you indict for lack of heroism my in fact be a hero every day in other ways of which you or I may not be aware.