Witnessing an assault and doing nothing.

So I was thinking about a subject and was interested in what your opinions on it happen to be. Please note that I do not mean guilty legally, that is not what this is about.

If a person witnesses someone being assaulted, such as sexual assault or attempted murder and they do nothing how guilty are they? Are they as guilty as the person who is assaulting them, as responsible for that persons harm? Are they still guilty but to a lesser extent? Do you count them calling the cops but not stepping in to stop it if they could as an appropriate action?

Say someone was being raped by a man with no visible weapons and they could stop it and save that person but they do not and simply call the cops, by the time the cops arrive it is too late, are they somewhat responsible for that? On that subject, does the attacker having a weapon change your opinion on what should be done?

Finally what would you do in such a situation?

Personally I would try to help the person if I possibly could but I would at least call the cops. I would never do absolutely nothing. If someone does nothing then in my opinion they are just as responsible for that person's harm as they could have helped stop it.

Just calling the cops is a bit of a tricky subject for me though. If there was a chance that you or the person could end up killed by stepping in I would say that it would not be the wrong course of action just to call the cops. However if you could stop it and save that person before they got hurt and it wasn't a group of them and they didn't have a weapon pulled, then I would say the person should do what they could to stop it then and shouldn't just hang back, assuming they were capable.

I'd say guilty to a lesser extent. While by their inaction they have allowed harm to occur that isn't the same as actively harming someone.

Your responsibilities to fellow man should, I think, include a clause for mutual protection but the functionality of such a clause should be exercised by the state. Ultimately (in this specific) the social contract is entered into so that the individual is protected from harm by placing that responsibility onto others, in exchange for inheriting responsibilities from them. By this following it would not be morally objectionable to not directly interfere, but it would be to not notify the state, that it might fulfil it's responsibility. I don't think their should be a difference here between citizenry and denizens.

However, it would be better morally to interfere personally. I would regard such a character as exemplary in that; when noticing that the state was unable to react in time he temporarily assumed the duties laid upon it despite still having his own privileges being upheld. One could argue that by intervening the individual is self-assisting by preventing such a future action occurring to himself but personally I'd rather stick to the concious morality of humans.

As to whether I would do so I honestly cannot say. I would like to think that I would but, having never been (thankfully) in such a situation I cannot say what my reaction would be.

Well we're responsible for everything we do, and seeing as this is moral rather than legal, i'd say that if you spend a lot of time afterwards think 'if only i'd done such and such differently', you're probably at least partly responsible for what happened.
If I had the bad fortune to come across a rape, I would definately put myself in potential danger, because i've been brought up to find such an act to be both morally abhorrent and one of the worst things that could possibly happen to anyone. That and as an authoritarian all crime deeply offends me. Plus I imagine people would be interested in such a story. And what rapist wouldn't run if caught in the act? Especially if it's by someone in a suit and leather gloves.

I'm mostly with you chelsea. If it's a one on one rape in public though the person is quite likely to be armed, I think they often do that at knifepoint. Even so, yelling at them is likely to deter them, and if you're feeling brave you could arm yourself and confront him. In both cases try to remember as many details as possible, they will come in handy if he escapes. I reckon if you make a reasonable attempt to help the person in some way, even if it is just calling the cops, you're fine. The more the better of course. You should definately feel some guilt if you do nothing, but in my opinion you're definately not as bad as the rapist. I read somewhere that Steig Larsson, the author of the bestselling Milennium trilogy, witnessed a gang rape as a young teenager and his inaction that day pained him for the rest of his life. I'm honestly not sure what I would do in that situation though, other than call the cops.

Personal safety comes first. I'm a pretty small guy, so if i witnessed an assault or rape committed by a much larger male or female. I would probably be of no use trying to stop it. Therefor calling the police is probably the best option. I believe that i could not be to blame for letting the assault or rape continue. If however i was in a position to stop the assault without endangering myself particularly and i did not do so I am guilty to a lesser degree. If a person just ignores the assault and doesn't alert the authorities he/she is just as guilty as the offender. Unless it would compromise their personal safety.

If someone witnesses a crime and doesn't call the police then they are guilty as well, if to a lesser extent. Although, a person shouldn't get involved and commit vigilantism unless they'd actually be of use, like a physically fit person or someone who knows some fighting style. When people get involved and they are of no use, then they end up getting hurt as well and nobody wins then. So bottom line, call the police or you are guilty as well.

I have not reported every crime I saw and I'm guilty of that, but when assault or Sexual harassment is the crime then I have a moral obligation to call the police, unfortunately I have witnissed a crime of assault, and I was seen by the aggressor. I ran to my house and called the police, I had to do the lineup it was a stressful and scary experience but luckily they got him and since then i have never been in that position again, however I would do it again because of my moral obligation.

Neutrality helps the aggressor. To me its kinda like Czechoslovakia being taken over by Germany and the UK, France, and
everyone else does absolutely nothing citing neutrality and "not my problem} policies.

I remember in sociology class watching a documentary where a girl was brutally stabbed to death in front of like 50 or was it a hundred people. Not a single person choose to help or call the police. I was completely sicken and disappointed with humanity at that point.

You are not obligated, morally or legally, to endanger your own life, or even inconvenience yourself, in order to help other people. I think I'd probably get involved in a situation like that for selfish reasons, though. Can't pass up an opportunity to be a hero.

Do we have an obligation by the law to help?

And we all know Kali would only save someone to get laid, the selfish asshole.

Well, in a most cases, you do not have the capacity at the time to intervene, meaning that if someone is robbing someone, or worse and you see this, the odds are the thief is going to be violent, and he might be carrying a knife, or worse. Most honest people do not carry weapons, therefore we can asume that the person witnessing this is unarmed, is it rational to risk ones own safety?

I would say this depends on the chance of succesfully dealing with the situation in any positive way, remember, if it is rape at knife point, we can also asume this person is incapable of clear rational thought, and therefore extremely unpredictable, he could easily slash his victim before he runs, wich actually would be the rational thing to do, seeing as the victim most likely knows or saw the criminal in detail. Thus the odds of any succesfull direct intervention are very slim, you will probably just worsen a bad situation for everyone (The rapist becomes a murderer, the victim is dead, and you are left with the feeling of responsibility).

Of course on the case of indirect intervention it depends on the situation, if you were able to see the criminal in detail or overhear vital dialogue, then of course you should step to the authorities, but don't expect them to be of any help, your evidence of course is still very meager.

So no, in my opinion you are not guilty at all, in any way

am i a bad person for laughing when a guy assaulted someone, ran when he saw he was gonna lose, then got hit by a car?

In my middle school, the teachers always talked about how in a bully situation, if you're not helping the victim, you are as bad as the bully. It should be the same case here, you should atleast call the police, no need to get yourself involved when the police are literally at your finger tips.

I actually witnessed a mugging in Austin, Texas (where else of course) in board daylight. I was with my family, and my step father and I did nothing. For to put ourselves needlessly in harms way is a nobly stupid action that our first instint tells us to stay away from. We have little to gain by such heroics and everything to lose. It may be on selfish grounds that we decided to not get involved, but still. That does not make us bad people, nor does it make us guilty.

You may say that we are guilty of doing nothing in a dire situation, but I would in fact like to see your own individual reactions to a criminal mugging an innocent for selfish or misdirected reasons. Humanity is scripted for self-preservation above all, regardless of individual thought or will. And thus it is only natural that one does not involve himself in brash if not heroic actions. For the Hero is only a dead man walking.

I disagree entirely. Just because it's your base instinct to not help others(That's not the case for everyone) does not mean you should just ignore what's happening. If all of humanity were to just follow our base instincts in our everyday lives where would we be as a society? At least call for help or yell at the guy if you are too afraid of hurting yourself. I'd would say because you had a chance of stopping the guy that you are at least partially guilt.

No, you and your family are cowards and complete assholes. I hope you get mugged and watch as people perfectly capable of saving you walk away out of complete self-interest.

They are not fuckin guility. If I saw someone get beat up I would mind my own business. I am not getting fuckin involved. Maybe the guy getting beat up is Satan.

And maybe he's Jesus. The point is if you are unwilling to help another human being, simply out of fear of being hurt yourself, that's cowardice. I'm not saying you have to rush in and fight off the attacker or anything, but you could at least call for help or yell at the guy(which may in fact stop him). If you unwilling to help out someone else who is in need just because you are afraid, not only would I'd say that you are coward, but that you lack empathy for other people.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good to do nothing. Of course the first person is not as guilty as the third person who is assaulting the second(?) person as the first (I think) person did not plan, instigate or assist in the assault. The first person, however, is guilty (morally, mind. He did nothing to break the law) as he stood by when someone (the second person) needed help. (Or was it the third?)