Staying Safe on
the streets of Life - PART 2 OF 4
Others won't always rush to your aid if you are
under attack - learn why and what you can do to make others help:
It is frightening to think that you could be in grave
danger, be crying out for help, and have many people witness your attack but do
nothing to help you - yet it could happen. In fact, in heavily populated areas
or in large groups this is very likely to happen. It is a sad irony; in order
to stay safe we are told to stay in populated areas and yet in doing so, in the
event of an attack, we are less likely to be helped by witnesses. The advice to
stay in populated areas is still valid. For the most part assaults, rapes and
murders do not happen with lots of witnesses around. The sort of predator who
commits these crimes is looking for opportunity and anonymity and neither of
these things tend to exist in areas where there are lots of people. Even with
the risk of Bystander Apathy, you are always safer
walking in well-lit, populated areas where lots of people
can see you. If the unthinkable should happen and you should find yourself
under attack there are strategies you can utilize to reduce the likelihood that
witnesses and potential rescuers will succumb to Bystander Apathy.
Banality of evil
On December 7, 2002 a 19-year-old girl named Breann Voth
was murdered while walking to work. Her body was found a few hours later on the
side of a river. She was face down and nude - she had
been assaulted and murdered. As the story started to
unfold it came out that several people had heard her cries for help but had
done nothing; they had not even called 911. Her cries were said to have lasted
over 10 minutes and still, nobody so much as called the police. Why? The answer
is a well-documented psychological phenomenon known as the Diffusion of
Responsibility. Diffusion of Responsibility is a part of a bigger phenomenon
known as Bystander
Apathy. Bystander Apathy and the Diffusion of
Responsibility happen when witnesses to a crime believe that they do not need
to act to help because there are so many others around that somebody else will
come to the rescue. It does not mean that these people are heartless and
uncaring, it does not mean that they do not want to help, it just means that
they think somebody else will do it so they do not feel as strong an urge to
rise to the occasion. In this case the bystanders not only heard the crime as
it happened, 38 of them watched as she was assaulted and beaten to death. The
assault lasted half an hour, plenty of time to either intervene or alert the
police, and yet at least 38 of the neighbors did nothing but watch.
In answer to this unsettling situation and according to
the theory Bystander, Apathy only occurs in groups and the larger the group the
greater the apathy. The mechanism that fuels the apathy is the Diffusion of
Responsibility. It is a phenomenon that people only feel when they are in a
group or when there appears to be somebody of authority (like a police officer,
doctor, nurse, firefighter...) on the scene. They convince themselves that
somebody else, somebody more qualified or who has a better understanding of the
situation, will help so they do not have to. It is a very common reaction to an
uncommon situation and it has nothing to do with how good people are, how much
empathy they feel or how capable they are of helping.
Banality of evil describes how generally, and in
particular, ordinary people who accepted the premises of their actions,
therefore participated with the view that their actions were justified.
Explaining this phenomenon, emphasizing the importance of
"normalizing the unthinkable." ie: "doing terrible things in an
organized and systematic way, rests on 'normalization.' This is the process
whereby ugly, degrading, murderous, and unspeakable acts become routine and are
accepted as 'the way things are done.'
Helping behavior
Social psychological experiments have demonstrated that
individuals' failure to assist others in emergencies is not due to or
indifference, but rather to the presence of other people. This is explained by
both and diffusion of responsibility. In 1968 and a series of experiments that
followed, and demonstrated that an individual's choice to help or intervene in
an emergency situation depends on the number of bystanders. Group size
significantly influenced the likelihood of helping behavior in a staged
emergency: 85% of participants responded with intervention when alone, 62% of
participants took action when with one other person, and only 31% did when
there were four other bystanders. Other studies have replicated the phenomenon
including reports from real emergency situations such as calling an ambulance
for overdose patients and offering after cardiac arrest.
In ambiguous situations, the individual's of the
situation and subsequent action or inaction largely depends on the reactions of
other people. Other bystanders' interpretation of an emergency situation
influences perception of the incident and helping behavior. In one study,
diffusion of responsibility does not occur if another bystander is perceived as
being unable to help. Group psychology can also influence behavior positively;
in the event that one bystander takes responsibility for the situation and
takes specific action, other bystanders are more likely to follow course. This
is a positive example of the usually-pejorative . Thus, the presence of
bystanders affects individual helping behavior by processes of and diffusion of
responsibility.
Researchers have identified five decision stages that a
bystander encounters Noticing – realizing that there is a situation that may be
an emergency Defining an emergency – interpreting cues as signals of an
emergency Taking responsibility – personally assuming responsibility to act.
People who have the necessary skills to help are more likely to do so. Single
bystanders are more likely to help than groups. Planning a course of action –
deciding how to help and what skills might be needed Taking action – initiating
assistance.
The cost of helping (e.g., danger to self) must not
outweigh the rewards of helping, but a variety of complex and often factors
influence this judgment. For example: Observing smoke in a room (noticing)
Recognizing that smoke is associated with fire, and therefore that people may
be in danger (defining an emergency)
Realizing that help is needed and that one has the capacity
to assist (taking responsibility) Weighing responses (e.g., calling the
fire department or attempting to put out the fire) and deciding on the most
appropriate action for the situation (planning a course of action)
Implementing the chosen action (taking action)
A DANGEROUS MYTH... “DON'T FIGHT BACK - IT'LL
JUST BE WORSE”
After a particularly violent assault or during times when
a serial rapist is traumatizing a community, self defense instructors will
often approach local rape crisis centers offering free self defense instruction
to anyone interested. It is common for local rape crisis centers and police
departments to issue the following statement: "These young women should
NOT learn to defend themselves because the rapist might turn violent!" Can you believe it? I wonder where these
people get their information. Research about self-defense and assault shows
very clearly and conclusively that determined resistance works most of the time
when the intent of the attacker is personal harm. The frustrated question most
instructors ask themselves is: "What do people think RAPE is if not
violent?" Many instructors point out, "We are the only animal that
raises our young, especially our females, without self preservation skills. We
are the only animal that teaches them that if they are attacked, it's better
NOT to resist?"
I think that's a great example. Imagine you're a Mommy
Wolverine telling your young daughter wolverine not to fight back if attacked -
that she'll be better off if she doesn't make the attacker mad. A comparison
like this can often help someone see the how ludicrous the societal myths are.
Your first choice is to leave the confrontation if you can, by running away,
yelling, or pulling away. If an unarmed attacker is grabbing you, an initial move
can be a heel-palm to the nose, or a full-force jab to the eyes with your
bunched fingers. You can also strike to the head and groin - or grab and twist
the testicles
with all your adrenaline-driven strength. In an attack,
you have to be willing to risk some injury in order to escape. If someone is
pointing a gun or waving a knife at you, it is safer to yell and run away most
of the time, even if you have to jump through a window to do so. If someone is
grabbing you with a gun to your head, remember that the gun is a lot more
dangerous when it is pointed at someone rather than away from someone. If
someone is holding a knife to your throat, you might want to grab the knife,
even if it means cutting your hands. If an
attacker is trying to control you by threatening another person, usually the
safest thing you can do for everyone is to escape yourself instead of allowing
yourself to be made more helpless by letting someone tie you up or take you
away. The fact that one of you has gotten away and can go get help makes it
more dangerous for the attacker to continue. Studies show that resistance works
against sexual assault most of the time. The more powerful the resistance and
the more ways you resist, the less the chance of coming to harm. According to
the FBI in the United States, just one strong move of ANY kind stops most
attacks
Sierra Lamar
A 15 year old California teen goes missing a mile from
her home and her dad is a convicted sex offender whose crimes involved girls
younger than 14, who do you think should be the number one suspect in the
disappearance of his daughter. This was not a one time thing that Steve Lamar
did. He was charged with 12 felony counts of committing sexual acts with three
girls younger than 14. He plead guilty to one charge and was sentenced to just
one year in jail. So, probably got out after two months. Now his daughter is
missing. Sierra Lamar disappeared on the walk to the school bus stop. Her
backpack was found but nothing else.
Staying Safe on the streets of
Life -
PART 3 OF 4
Tactics of a predator
The material included on the Views of the Child
Society web site or this blog is provided solely for informational purposes. No
prediction of results should be inferred from the information contained on this
web site. The information in our website is not guaranteed to be correct,
complete or up-to-date. It should not be relied upon or construed as legal
advice. Readers should not act or elect not to act based upon the information
in our web site without seeking professional legal counsel. Transmission and
receipt of information contained on this web site does not create an
relationship between you and Views of the Child Society. There is no guarantee
that any correspondence between you and Views of the Child Society resulting
from the receipt of information from the web site will be treated as
confidential. Please do not send information to us that you consider
confidential without first obtaining: a written statement from us ; and
permission to provide confidential information to us relating to a particular
matter. This web site is not intended to serve as an advertisement. The Views
of the Child Society does not wish to solicit through this site the business of
anyone in any state or country where such use of the site may not be in
compliance with any applicable legal laws or ethical rules. Nor does Views of
the Child Society endorse or support any political entity in any manner. This
web site may contain links to web sites not maintained by the Views of the
Child Society. Views of the Child Society is not responsible for the contents
of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, nor does inclusion
of a link in our web site to another web site imply recommendation, approval or
endorsement by the Views of the Child Society. The Views of the Child Society
does not endorse any political party or affiliation.
