Do you believe that a bystander is as guilty as the one committing the crime?

[SunnyRS]

There is a saying that a bystander is as guilty as the one committing the crime.
Do you believe that? And why do you believe what you believe.

Yes I do.

No I don't

[normalice]

Of course not. No one has an obligation to put themselves on the line for a stranger unless they agreed to do that as their contribution to society (i. e. police). Expecting someone to stand up to a bully on behalf of someone who is not standing up to a bully is a contradiction. And if there is a clear difference in power then it is no longer putting themselves on the line - that's supposed to be the justification for the massive amount of armor and weapons we give to police - so they don't have to put themselves on the line. People who insist that a bystander intervenes but don't really have an idea on how that might be accomplished without simply creating two victims instead of one are naive. If you die heroically you still die. Your wife, kids, parents, etc don't get you back just because you tried to make things fair for a stranger. The world doesn't work that way.

That said it is reasonable to expect someone to at least report the incident to the police and agree to be a witness if needed. There is a threshold of civic duty below which guilt starts to stick to bystanders, yes, and that threshold varies based on what civic protections are in place. If you are in an area where drug lords basically own the police it just creates another victim if you see the gang killing someone and you report it. But if you are confident your local police answer only to the normal citizens you are obliged to say something as soon as possible.

But, again, police are only the best solution because they have a clear power advantage over most criminals - they are not a good or effective solution but still the best solution. However, if a bystander has a clear power advantage it may be that they are a little guilty for not intervening. For example in an open carry state if someone has a weapon and witnesses a crime but does nothing, they should probably serve some time for the crime, too - or permanently forfeit their right to open carry by admitting they were never fit to be doing so.

We are a species that has been plagued with bullies since the dawn of time with no real solution to them. Civilization makes it so we can more easily draw attention to them and demand accountability but that process is slow and doesn't really help the victim in the moment. The only way it might is some major crackdown so future bullies think twice but that's unlikely as our police has a higher percentage of bullies than the general population..

[SunnyRS]

Well, put.
It definitely depends on circumstances

[RavVid]

No. It is a vigilante view and can be disastrous.

As an example in recent times a girl ran out of a large public park screaming rape. The two young guys she ran to charged into the park and chased down the first elderly gay guy they found. He tried to run away of course which they took to be guilt.

In apprehending the gay rapist they kicked him to death.

The girl hadn't been raped but was just needing some attention of course..

Sometimes bystanders are guilty of entirely new crimes.

[SunnyRS]

That's fair enough

[DizzyDesii]

As guilty? No. But i think a man who stands by and watches another man beat on a woman is weak. (A lot of guys do nothing as their male friend beats on his wife). I think a woman who eggs another woman on to hit a man who rather not physically defend himself because he doesn't want to go to jail, is weak. (A lot of women gang up on men who will only try to restrain the woman and not hit back. I dont think the guy should hit back but some woman should step in and step up for the guy because only a woman should fight another woman. Otherwise call the cops. But people dont wanna be a “snitch” well do something. Don’t just stand there and be a little B—). I think any man or woman who stands by and watch a child being abused is weak. (I know too many people who turn a blind eye when a child is being abused because the abuser is that man or woman’s mother, brother, sister, wife, husband, lover, etc. Its sickening.) So i dont think they are as guilty but i do think they are weak for not stepping up defending someone

[SunnyRS]

In all the situations you listed according to me they are guilty.
People should defend one another if it is possible.

[DizzyDesii]

Its not your responsibility to risk your life for a stranger. Thats what going into the military is for (volunteering to fight for a country full of randoms you dont know). So no i dont think they are guilty for not defending but i do think standing by and watching rather than fighting or calling for enforcement makes them look WEAK

[SunnyRS]

I never said anything about fighting dear, I said about defending.
Defending can be done by calling cops or calling others for help.
The Army can't defend everyone, we as people can do our part as well.

[DizzyDesii]

And i also mentioned calling above in my bold paragraph. I dont think a person is guilty for not snitching but i do think they are weak for not stepping up

[SunnyRS]

Ok dear, whatever sails your boat.
Your opinion, your choice.
I can't say it's right or wrong.

[DizzyDesii]

Im honestly trying to understand what i said differently from anyone else on this post? They pretty much said the same— dont risk your life but call someone. I said call someone or stepup to defend them. The only time i mentioned fighting is for a woman to fight a woman rather than a man hitting a woman back. Other than that, i said if a kid is being abused and so on for someone to step up and defend them. That can be restraint. That can be saying something. That can be calling the cops. I detailed it all up there

[SunnyRS]

And i said it's alright.
👍👍

[DrPepper12]

No. There is no legal obligation to intervene to help. There is a moral obligation though.

[SunnyRS]

Very true

[jahaims]

A citizen isn't obligated to do a cops job for free.

[NathanDavis]

nope