A man left to bleed out on NY sidewalk

[Parson]

Homeless Good Samaritan honored at NY wake - Yahoo! News

Once in a while a story comes along that absolutely makes you wretch. This is one. A man came to aid of a woman and was subsequently stabbed. He was left on the sidewalk while people walked by (as seen on a surveillance camera) for more than an hour. One person turned him over and saw the blood and walked away.

I can't help myself. I think of Matthew 25:41-46 which as I remember the text ends something like this: "And then those on his left said to him, "When did we see you naked, or sick, or hungry, or in prison. And he replied. "When you did not help the least of these my brothers you did not help me." And then they were sent to eternal punishment.

[Devil's Advocate]

Yeah, I read that story yesterday.

Quite depressing.

[Ursa major]

Very depressing.


Normally, when one hears things of this nature, it is because those passing by do not want to risk injury by intervening. Sad, possibly, but understandable.

This does not seem to be the case here. Someone turned him over but did nothing more. One phone call (and 95%+ of those passing by will have had a mobile phone) might have saved this man's life. Why did no-one make that call in time? I hope those who could have made it can live with themselves; they hardly deserve to do so.


(I'm assuming the surveillance camera was not being actively monitored. If it was, its operator should have some explaining to do.)

[BookStop]

Aren't there good Samaritan laws in NY? they need to track down the people who passed this man and publicy embarass them!

[Connavar]

When i read this i was sickened. A tragic end for a brave,good person.

Im not surprised when its in a huge place like NYC. It would never happen here. Homeless people are rare and someone being in bad shape on the floor out on the streets would be a shock,make people react.

[The Judge]

I can't say I'm surprised. I also can't say that I would have done any different. It isn't that these people have thought (at least I sincerely hope not) "Oh, that man's dying on the sidewalk. We'd better ignore him." Just off the top of my head I can think of these "excuses":

* simply didn't see him. Strange as it may seem, when people are focussed on one thing -- getting to work, getting home, doing the shopping -- they don't notice things. The more they are concentrating, the less they notice. I recall reading of a famous violinist who was playing in a subway station as an experiment. Not only was he not recognised, when people were stopped outside they had no memory of anyone being there or of hearing any music.
* thought he was drunk -- in which case, what could they have done?
* thought he was part of a scam -- unfortunately, they happen
* in too much of a rush -- if you're late, the last thing you're going to do is deliberately make yourself later
* worried about being sued if something goes wrong -- this might seem bonkers, but I've heard of cases where would be rescuers are sued by the person rescued
* not wanting to get involved
* not wanting to get the likely vomit on one's clothes
* "someone else will see him"
* "I pay my taxes, he's not my responsibility"

I'm not saying these are good reasons, but they are understandable.

The person I'm having trouble understanding is the person who turned him, if indeed the blood was obvious -- why touch him, realise he is injured and then do nothing? That one baffles me.

[ktabic]

There is also the uniformity of the crowd. In unusual situations, nobody wants to act differently to everyone else, so if nobody else from the crowd (not literal crowd, just other passers by) is helping, the individuals of the crowd don't help. Is results in larger groups of people being more likely to do nothing to help someone than a smaller group, since the more people there are not helping, the more reinforced the norm becomes and the harder it becomes for any individual to break with the norm exhibited by the crowd. If you get what I mean.

[Omphalos]

Originally Posted by BookStop

Aren't there good Samaritan laws in NY? they need to track down the people who passed this man and publicy embarass them!

There are very few good sam laws anywhere in the states. NY might say that the guy who touched him undertook to help him, and could find him criminally liable for abandoning him after that. I don't know enough about good sam laws or NY laws to say for sure, but the fact is that in most jurisdictions if you undertake to help someone, and that person dies, you are a target defendant in a lawsuit by the heirs. You essentially have to prove that you did nothing to make that person worse off by intervening.

[Parson]

Your honor,

There might indeed be reasons for not helping. As weak as we both agree they might be. But what really yanks my chain is that no one made a call for emergency services.

As for Good Sam laws it seems to me that when these are needed we have lost some of our basic humanity. We live in community or we die (on the whole in the long term). I would hope that I would have at least pulled my cell out of my pocket and called 911, basic humanity, to say nothing about Christianity, call for that much.

[The Judge]

I don't know how these things work in the States, Parson, but do your emergency services come out to collect drunks and/or the homeless? Because unless a pedestrian actually went close to the person, how would he/she know he wasn't just a drunk or sleeping rough? "Hello, I want to report someone lying on the pavement," certainly isn't going to get the ambulances out over here, I'm afraid. In a village or small market town the police might come out, but even that's in some doubt nowadays, frankly. In a biggish city they'll definitely have more important things to do.

I go to London only two or three times a year and I rarely stray off the touristy routes, but I have seen bodies rolled in doorways and I have no idea if the people are alive or dead or asleep or dying or drunk or drugged up or potentially violent. It always shocks me, and distresses me, but do I do anything? No. Because the odds are very much that the person is alive and nothing I can do at that instant can help him in any meaningful way -- and no amount of phoning 999 will result in anything except wasted time.

I don't know what the answer is. Perhaps we simply aren't fitted to living in big anonymous cities.

[Duchessprozac]

I saw this story a few days ago it made me tear up a little. It amazes me how callous and selfish people are in this day and age. so few people care about homeless people.(heck, I don't think many people really care about strangers in general, tbh.)

The fact that someone came to him, saw he'd been hurt and then left is disgraceful, I hope that man is haunted by his actions for the rest of his life as he is as culpable for this man's murder as the person who stabbed in the first place.

Of course, he probably won't as it was just a dirty homeless man, and as we all know, homeless people aren't really human beings, are they? *pukes*

[BookStop]

It's true, DP. People have more compassion for dirty old dogs than dirty old human beings. Where are our priorities?

[Parson]

Originally Posted by The Judge

I don't know how these things work in the States, Parson, but do your emergency services come out to collect drunks and/or the homeless? Because unless a pedestrian actually went close to the person, how would he/she know he wasn't just a drunk or sleeping rough? "Hello, I want to report someone lying on the pavement," certainly isn't going to get the ambulances out over here, I'm afraid. In a village or small market town the police might come out, but even that's in some doubt nowadays, frankly. In a biggish city they'll definitely have more important things to do.

I go to London only two or three times a year and I rarely stray off the touristy routes, but I have seen bodies rolled in doorways and I have no idea if the people are alive or dead or asleep or dying or drunk or drugged up or potentially violent. It always shocks me, and distresses me, but do I do anything? No. Because the odds are very much that the person is alive and nothing I can do at that instant can help him in any meaningful way -- and no amount of phoning 999 will result in anything except wasted time.

I don't know what the answer is. Perhaps we simply aren't fitted to living in big anonymous cities.

Points well taken. I was operating under the assumption that the man was lying there in a puddle of blood. That assumption might be false. If there were no obvious signs of his wound that would explain a part of the nonchalance by the passers by. It does nothing to alleviate the obligation of the one who turned him over, saw the blood, and left.

In rural Iowa where I live the "rescue unit" -- a volunteer force which is surprisingly well trained -- would come for any call for help. But I lived in Detroit for a number of years and there the rules were most definitely different. But I can remember no instances where the emergency services did not come to aid of a victim in distress. Which might mean that they responded to at least most of the lesser calls for aid.

As to whether we are meant to live in big cities, I'm not sure. But I would guess that to be indifferent. However we are not meant to live "anonymous" lives. As a species we are designed for relationships. A person without significant others in their lives is in dire danger of a multiplicity of ills, psychological, physical, and mental. Any cursory observation of the applicable data will show that.

(Genesis 2:18 ..."It is not good for man to live alone"....)

Bookstop:

It's true, DP. People have more compassion for dirty old dogs than dirty old human beings. Where are our priorities?

Sigh! I only wish that this weren't so. It seems to me that our priorities are so confined to our personal concerns that we never look past our navels.

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Parson

I was operating under the assumption that the man was lying there in a puddle of blood.

If your assumption is right -- and I've no idea either -- then your concerns are valid, and I share them whole-heartedly.

It does nothing to alleviate the obligation of the one who turned him over, saw the blood, and left.

Agreed. As I said before, it simply doesn't make sense to me, quite apart from the morality/ethics of it.

However we are not meant to live "anonymous" lives. As a species we are designed for relationships. A person without significant others in their lives is in dire danger of a multiplicity of ills, psychological, physical, and mental.

Ignoring the Parsonical "designed" (and the earlier "meant" in place of my "fitted") I agree, but that isn't what I intended by "anonymous". I was referring to the larger situation -- put too many people together in too small a space and they react very differently to situations, not least because it becomes impossible for everyone to know his/her neighbour (in a non-literal sense). A person can have many loving relationships and be wholly well-adjusted, and still not care about a drunk on the streets simply because he doesn't know that man. The smaller the community, the less likely it is that people are allowed to fall through the net of compassion, because the more likely it is they are known and belong.

We care about those who are closest to us. It's human nature. Children are dying all over the world in horrendous conditions. If we wept for every death as we weep for our own family we'd be basket cases inside a day. To protect ourselves and our sanity we have to distance ourselves. The greater the distance physically and emotionally, the less we care.

[BookStop]

Originally Posted by The Judge

If we wept for every death as we weep for our own family we'd be basket cases inside a day.

Oh, so that's what is wrong with me.