I'd yell at the attacker, but I'm not going to physically attempt to get between a man armed with a knife and the victim. Not a chance. I'll call 911, but won't take on a person with a knife if I'm unarmed. Not a chance. If the attacker were unarmed, I'd step in, though, and right away.

What would you do?

you might get cut... it might even result in death... but the fact that a dozen people sat and watched someone get murdered and no one did anything about it is a disturbing statement about our culture...

sP

It's called the bystander effect and there are a lot of factors that go into whether people will help or not in emergency and non-emergency situations.

i thought we were supposed to be a herd... a community... yes, it says a lot about our culture and it is disturbing.

sP

I urge you not to write it off. Learning about it helps you understand it, and is more likely to inspire you to act if you're in a similar situation than tough talk on a message board.

from people who know nothing of my life... oh, well.

sP

I do urge you to read up on the murder of Kitty Genovese. It's a well-known case that (if iirc) brought about the results that he's referencing.

It is a real effect. People assume the next person has taken action, when in fact no one has. Knowing about that will make you more likely to act in group situations where an emergency is happening.

Just Google up her name. You may find her case and the resulting realizations to be interesting.

The most commonly reported version of the story is almost certainly wrong. Some of the discrepancies are touched in in the Wikipedia article and sources cited therein.

Although it's not the case that 38 people watched the attack on her and did nothing, the bystander effect, as a general principle, is considered to be real. People are less likely to act when they think someone else will do something.

sometimes i wish people would pay attention to what they are actually saying.

I am the one 'talking tough'... when they know nothing about me and yet assume that I am an 'internet tough-guy'...

sP

no one is responsible.

We're an odd herd or community. One where we don't know everyone in it. Many nameless faces. It's easier to put your own life on the line for someone you know.

Your posts are the bravest warrior on my entire monitor.

Without actually being in that situation, though, it's hard to say, really. I know for a fact that I would not, though, unless I was armed somehow. If I had a baseball bat, maybe, but I never seem to have one when I'm riding public transportation, somehow.

As I note below, I've heard many substantially identical claims over the years from people whom I d know, and since their claims are bullshit (and have in a number of cases be shown to be so), then I'm not inclined to believe him, either.

with commentary on who i am. typical.

sP

Since those claims are identical to the bullshit claims of bravery that I've heard from dozens of people over the years whom I do know, I have no reason to believe that your claims of bravery are any different from their bullshit claims of bravery.

If I'm wrong, then I apologize, but until I have some reason to believe you, then I won't believe I'm wrong.

but you chose to, and you will never have any reason to believe or disbelieve unless we are in the middle of a scuffle and you introduce yourself as Orrex... to which i will reply, "hey! i am junkmail from DU... let's get this done!"


sP

If I made bold claims about myself, and if those claims echoed claims that you've heard many times over--claims that turned out to be false--it would not be unreasonable for you to doubt me. In fact, I would argue that it would be unreasonable for you not to doubt me.

The internet is chock full of bold claims, and these have made hesitant to accept bold claims at face value.

and in those cases maybe passing them by would be the thing to do rather than mock the person you know nothing about? i am not asking you to believe anything... but pissing on comments in that manner is really uncool.

sP

You dismissed as "amoral cowards" the people who would not leap into the fray. I have a wife and two children to support; am I an "amoral coward" for declining to intervene unarmed in a stabbing? Will you explain my cowardice to my widow and fatherless children while my coffin's being lowered into the ground? I'd be interested to hear that conversation.

You mock people as cowards when you know nothing about them or their circumstances; isn't that at least as "really uncool" as mocking a claim of bravery when that claim closely echoes false claims of bravery?

and further dismissal from you to look into the phenomenon.

yes indeed

Interfering would therefore mean having to risk their own life.
So I don't think this qualifies as a bystander effect.

prompted this whole line of study

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

people watched out of their windows and no one called for help. Back then everyone wanted to know how that could happen. Studies were done to determine the reason no one acted. I do think that it was because everyone thought that someone else would call for help.

This case is a bit different in that they were actually at the scene of the crime but I suspect the same reasoning applies here. If one person had stepped forward the group may have acted together but first someone would have to decide to be the first. And that is the problem.

The article mentions only 2 witnesses, the youngest being 52 years old.

The arrest affidavit mentions only 5 witnesses in total.

" in a Red Line Metro car, in the middle of a holiday afternoon, in the nation’s capital, in front of almost a dozen witnesses. "

sP

The police affidavit only mentions 5 witnesses.

i would have figured MORE on a subway car in the middle of the day...

sP

with all the people in town for celebrations... eh, the last time i was there on the 4th, DC was brimming with activity. but, i don't recall where the Red Line goes and don't know where exactly the attack took place...

sP

Last edited Fri Jul 10, 2015, 08:24 AM - Edit history (2)

It's hard to say unless you're actually there. You might think you'd try to stop the attacker, but in real time, you might not.

I can't say what you'd do, but I would not take on someone armed with a knife who is clearly prepared to use it, unless I was armed. I also wouldn't expect anyone else to jump in to help. I know what I'd do. I've mentally rehearsed such a situation, but have never encountered it.

I have stepped in where the attacker was not armed with a deadly weapon a number of times. But my decision not to take on an armed person while unarmed is one I've made after a lot of thought. I'm just not competent enough to be effective in such a situation.

two of us jumped in at about the same time... two out of maybe seven. once we were in, the others (most of them) jumped in to help. in a situation where there are several bystanders, usually ONE has to be brave and the others will help... at least some subset.

it scares me that people will sit by and watch someone die when help could have been rendered. it's one thing to see a burning building and know someone is inside and not go rushing (you don't know where the person is or IF they're even alive)... but to see someone having their life extinguished at the hands of another is an altogether different thing.

sP

i would understand if no one else were around... it even makes sense... but for several, that is where my specific problem is.

sP

Based on the article, it doesn't sound like anyone capable of being effective was there. The only people identified were a 52 year old woman and her 70-something father. Situational awareness and knowledge of one's own capabilities are important factors in any such situation. There's no universal answer, really.

my claims of cowardice... i do not know the makeup of the witnesses.

sP

considering the vehemence you have treated folks in this thread who "don't know you" wouldn't you say?

with this discussion? my reaction would be different than sitting and watching. i don't believe others should sit and watch (especially a group). the people who don't know me, and have pissed all over my comments that i would do something, bears on this exactly how?

sP

There are no two situations that are identical. None. There are a lot of assumptions on the attack, and quite a bit of speculation. There are so many questions that would need to be answered to even know if you could have done something. Some of these posts make it sound like a bad guy jumped on a train and started murdering someone while the passengers simply stood in a semi-circle of shock and fear... This is not the case. Of the 5 witnesses that we know of, where were they sitting in relation to the attack? How long did it take before it escalated from the confrontation to the assault? How long did the actual assault last (there is only 2 minutes between those two stops)? What is the actual makeup of the passengers (age, height, weight, ailments)? Did all of the seating offer a view of the attack? Did everyone on the train have an accurate assessment of the situation?

One person who was on the train did not know that there was an attack happening, until another passenger ran past them. His initial assessment of the confrontation was that it was just a fight, so he simply stood up and hit the call button to alert the driver. In that time it took him to stand up and press the button, the attacker was already there with his knife in this guys face. The attack was over for the time being. The bad guy then robs the elderly couple. Then right before the train stopped at the next station, he attacked the victim laying there one more time before quickly exiting the train.

So, given the situation, I would begrudge no one on that train for their actions. Nor would I say that I would have, or would not have done anything.

I would not have hesitated to jump the attacker. I am 5'1" and 64 years old. No way I would have stood there and watched the victim being horrendously taken from this earth in that manner. Yes, I know I too might have gotten stabbed repeatedly. However, if just one person had moved to assist the victim, I do believe others might have followed. They were probably in shock.

The other problem with standing by and not helping is that when everything is over, you have to live with what you have done.

It is odd I find this thread on DU this evening. I rode the DC metro today to One Washington Circle. I thought of the victim, and asked myself this same question. And I answered just as I have in this post.

Sam

in a bar parking lot.

He was stabbed to death.

Very, very tricky stuff.

What was her name? Kitty Genovese, I think, but I'm too lazy to google.

I don't know that much about it. I saw a recent book review. I'll get something about that.

What Really Happened The Night Kitty Genovese Was Murdered?

I'll read that later.

What's interesting is that later research has determined that her murder sparked interest into bystander effect research, but was not quite as horrible as the papers reported at the time. (For example, there were not 38 eyewitnesses to her murder.)

apparently most here have never been around a madman, someone determined to have his way no matter what, no matter how much of a beating he takes in the process, if he gets knocked down he jumps back up, if he gets knocked out it takes a little longer for him to get back up. either way he will continue until he has his fill. an enforcer i knew once told me that he wasn't chosen to be the enforcer because he was so tough, but because in the end he would win. if that meant he had to wait six months before he could pounce on you with a baseball bat from behind a corner, then that's all it means. he will get you. period.

it's not really relevant to the larger thread, but I get that. Different context...but I get that.

I was a middle LB on my HS football team, a pretty good one with a reputation earned early as a hard hitter and cerebral player. (I'm also not small. 6'3 245# then.) Between my sophomore and junior football seasons, I was approached by the school hockey coach and asked if I'd consider trying out for the hockey team; I pointed out that I had never played hockey before and doubted I'd be good at it since I can't skate. He said..."Don't worry. You've got 9 months to learn to skate...as for good. You're already good. You just don't know it." I soon learned what he meant. Big physical defensive defensemen are worth their weight in beef. "If you fight, you get suspended for the year...if they find out I told you to fight, so do I. So...don't fight. Your job is simple...people are going to take runs at our skill players because we're a small, fast high-scoring team upfront or they're going to try to crash the net or rough-up our goalie. It might be the next shift or the next game, but you're going to make them realize those are bad ideas." So...I did. Being that kind of defenseman, teams have two choices on how to attempt to score against you ...they can keep to the outside and eventually settle for the long-distance low-percentage-angle shot as you keep backchecking and taking away their attacking-lane or they can try to come inside, knowing they have to get near enough to you that you're going to try to level them and take the puck. I did a lot of the second. Every once in a while, someone would take a cheap shot on our conference scoring-leading RW and at some point, that player or their team's skilled forward would find themselves in a situation where I had the opportunity to hit them a bit harder than was necessary or to plant an elbow or knee or stick where the ref wouldn't see it. People generally didn't take a run twice.

I was an all-state LB my senior year at football...but it was as a 0G, 3A (this is terrible offensively, statistically); +7, 11GA (this is defensively-exceptional, especially for a 2nd-pair/1PK defenseman), 46PIM, 3 G.Misc. (this is just rather vicious) lifetime HS player on the hockey team in 26 games...but I got recruited for college hockey. Hockey teams need guys that "will get you. Period." for trying to play dirty and are just flat-out unpleasant to play against. Enforcers and lunch-pail defenders. Guys that just won't quit hitting no matter how much they get hit back for it.

not to go off and say terrible things here. IMO many have spent so much time getting tough behind their keyboards that they've lost touch with the real world. I'm not talking exclusively about physical toughness either. In the case of this OP, either you or I may have acted, but the chances of an opening would be tiny, and with the nut factor and the revenge factors added in being cerebral is good reason to not be a hero.

and horrible. I honestly wished one of the passengers had some mace or (and I hate to say this) a CCW pistol to shoot this maniac to stop him. Fucking terrible that an innocent man was murdered in cold blood in front of everyone from some god damned loser.

Especially in a situation under panic. Also, it's kind of hard to shot an attacker who is entwined enough to being stabbing a victim without hitting the victim as well.

That said, there are some fighting techniques that if you have experience with them, are fairly effective against a knife attack. Even if you aren't, two or three people should pretty easily be able to disarm one man with a knife. It's just that getting random strangers to help in that situation is difficult.

...would have gladly risked a bullet to stop being pummeled and stabbed 30 or 40 times.

TYY

I mean, I do understand not stepping in, but everyone has cell phones. Call 911, and as you pointed out - alert the train operator.

And would exactly would the train operator do? Besides stop the train between stations?

on trains. I don't use public transportation, and I was simply thinking a sudden stop may have halted the attack.

I missed that 911 was called.

The whole thing is tragic, and I hope that scum is put away for life.

I wasn't judging anyone, nor would I. None of us know what we would do in that circumstance.

Its just that in a subway, pulling the emergency stop cord would stop the train in a totally inaccessible place. And would have given the perpetrator, who was clearly in a deranged state, more time to kill this victim, and possibly others. There was no good solution to what happened.

Last edited Fri Jul 10, 2015, 08:30 AM - Edit history (1)

When the train operator is alerted, he gets on his radio and contacts the train dispatcher. The train dispatcher alerts the WMATA (Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority) transit police. The transit police show up at the next station where they can intercept the train. The train is stopped there and offloaded so that the police can do what they can. If the bad guy has left the premises, his image is on several video cameras, and he is tracked that way. Each car has cameras, the platforms have cameras, and the sidewalks around the Metro stops have cameras. There will be video of him.

Second, the "emergency stop cord." There is no such thing on Metro cars. There is no such thing on intercity passenger trains either, at least nothing that you can pull that will stop the train. Even in the old movies, that was made up.

All pulling on a cord on an old passenger car would do was cause air to flow in an air line that ran from the passenger cars to the locomotive. This air flow caused a signal to sound in the locomotive. The engineer would then actuate the brakes, if that was the indication he got from the signal. Pulling the cord itself would do nothing to actuate the brakes.

Maybe I'm wrong:

Man Misses Metro Stop, Pulls Emergency Switch To Get Off

I cannot imagine this situation, and I certainly am not judging those who were there.

Scary.

who were both also threatened with a knife and robbed. Which one of them was supposed to disarm this killer?

...there wasn't someone with a concealed carry permit and a handgun to confront him with.

TYY

Same in NYC, where subways go everywhere. So, who do you suppose would be on the subway with a concealed carry permit? The reality is that only a tiny percentage of the population anywhere is actually carrying concealed weapons, so the odds of one of those being where you are at any given time are minuscule. And that's anywhere in the country, including the "shall issue" states. Minnesota is one of those states. Given the number of actual CCWs issued, it's a tiny percentage of the population, and most do not carry at all times.

If you're riding mass public transit, it's unlikely that anyone on the car you're on will be armed. Very, very unlikely.

If you were on that metro train in DC, you wouldn't be carrying either. Getting a CCW in DC is all but impossible.

...it's too bad.

I'm from Utah. There are well over half a million CCW permits here. I just assume that everyone is carrying. In rural Utah, you can count on it.

These states recognize the Utah CCW permit and allow concealed carry in their state: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

TYY

have you ever been on a subway they aren't exactly known for the stability. I'd like to see somebody who's used to firing at a standstill targets on the gun range actually hit something on a moving subway.

or maybe that's something the gun ranges in Utah can begin to offer you...live action target shooting on a replica of moving subway car.....just remember I'm retaining the franchise rights for that particular bright idea.

...if I've ever been on a subway? Are you suggesting that I've never been outside of Utah? Jeezus, msanthrope, could you be any more condescending?

If I were you, I wouldn't test the sharpshooting capabilities of gun owners in Utah. These people have nothing better to do than hone their skills on varmints, predators, trophies and food for their freezer. Shooting predatory foxes and cougars is a daily event in rural Utah. Deer and elk is seasonal.

A straight shot on a subway would not be a problem. It would consist of something less than ten feet and more likely a head shot or belly shot from less than two feet. I wouldn't have hesitated to kill that motherfucker. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

TYY

to shoot out scenes like the type you might find in a Hollywood cop buddy movie.

no let me see if I have this correctly......you think because someone can use a rifle to kill a fox in the middle of Utah they would automatically have the skill to shoot a handgun in the middle of a DC metro car and accurately hit a knife-wielding assailant while hurting no one else?

look before my eyes started going I was aces at call of duty. that didn't make me qualified for SEAL team 6.

...but I've been a gun owner since I was twelve years old. My favorite handguns are a Smith & Wesson .357 'Highway Patrolman' revolver and a .22lr Beretta 21A Bobcat. I'm deadly accurate with both.

I've lived and traveled extensively throughout the United States, Mexico, Central America, South America and Europe. I've ridden the metro in most major cities, both here and abroad; including New York and DC.

Firing a handgun within ten feet of your target is a pretty sure thing. Less than five feet and it's a guaranteed hit; I don't care how shaky the train is.

I'm pretty sure the victim in this case would have welcomed my attempts to shoot the bad guy.

TYY

Are you so sure the firearm you would be carrying as a tourist riding the DC metro wouldn't be firing a round right through your intended target? What makes you sure, if you don't mind my asking?

...I would have been carrying the little Beretta 22lr with CCI 36 grain 1260 fps Mini Mag HPs or 40 grain 1235 fps solids; both of which consistently penetrate to 11" in a ballistic gel block test, at a real world average velocity of 950 fps.

I don't believe bystanders would have been a problem since they were all hiding at the ends of the train and nowhere near the victim.

TYY

and a relic that sure as hell isn't designed to be used on a moving subway in a crowded environment and you think you're just going to pick off some knife wielding attacker who's coming at you?

Sure.....and I suppose I could tell you what my favorite firearm is but a lady never reveals what she likes to hold in her hand most.

versus a knife, particularly when you have two struggling people and you want to be sure to only hit one of them.

I suspect Kevin Joseph Sutherland was wishing someone would 'try' to help him not get beaten and stabbed to death.

I don't agree that the gun advantage would be negated. It's like rock, paper, scissors. Gun trumps knife. I'd be willing to bet that the victim would have gladly risked getting hit by one of my bullets to stop the fatal madness of a 30 to 40 times stabbing knife attack.

TYY

holding on to something. Its possible, but difficult and you run the risk of the car shaking you to the point you fall onto your butt.

That's just standing. Of course, aiming a gun steadily at someone who is in an altercation with someone else such that you hit the right person while being thrown from side to side and perhaps frontwards and backwards in a subway car would be a very difficult maneuver.

Even shooting while sitting would be difficult.

Anyone who has been in a subway car in motion would know this. I think that is why she asked.

I've commuted back and forth to work on the subway every workday since Feb 2004 when I moved back to NYC

Even when the tracks are relatively smooth trains will shimmy a little bit on straight stretches and shimmy a bit more on curves, inclines or descents, or when the train has to decelerate to come into a station. I haven't ridden DC Metro in a while and can't say that I remember the ride specifically though.

...what could go wrong?

Oh wait a minute......

You don't seem to understand how firearms work.

Who said a gun would need to be fired? Almost always a gun is going to make the perp stop and run away if possible. And of course a good guy with a gun can never stop a bad guy. That just can't happen...

so much to be troubled by in this thread, but this is where you draw the line.

But you will never be able to see that...

This might not have been one of those times. An account of the attack said of the suspect that he "may have been high on synthetic drugs." If so, then the reasoning part of his brain was probably not available; i.e., the part that would make him say to himself, "hmmm, that person over there has a gun; I'd better stop." Anyone who stabs someone else 30 to 40 times is surely not in a irrational state.

Thank you for your post.

Check out THIS STORY from someone who's been there/done that.

The closest legal requirement for a bystander/witness is to call police IF they can do so without endangering themselves.

In no particular order:
1. Being 5'5" and a 125 pounds doesn't make Spires less dangerous if he is armed, he is young, probably fast and likely stronger then many of us tapping away on our keyboards and phones.

2. If a person chooses to intervene he risks being killed himself

3. You choose to intervene and successfully stop the attack, but in the process Spires is killed. Are you willing to risk the criminal and civil trials against you that MAY occur? Good criminal trial lawyers don't come cheap.


It's easy to be a keyboard commando and say, with certainty, that you would intervene. Reality is a lot more complicated.

I tend to agree, it would have been very dangerous to try to intervene physically . . .

but what if a bystander were carrying some kind of mace or pepper spray – what are the odds that that could have been used safely and effectively?

only use the spray in a prescribed manner. The above-cited form is part of D.C.'s gun registration procedures. SEE: Pepper Spray Store on line.

in a situation like this? Of course, an elderly person with no weapon would only have given this HyperPunk® another victim; he clearly enjoyed his work and the power it gave him, so why not get a little more?

Washinton, D.C. has a history of systematically, even luridly, disarming the law-abiding. In a sense this "social policy" provides the citizenry only one viable option. And we have seen it.

Until recently I was a daily user of DC's metro and never had any problems, although cell-phone theft is an issue on some trains. If you wanted to attack someone with a knife on one of these trains though you could feel pretty certain that nobody was carrying concealed, even if the train originated in Virginia, since DC's gun laws are so draconian (and obviously aren't keeping anyone in DC safe, other than the criminals).

And that was even through South Central L.A. at night.

I doubt I would have attempted to intervene. Dial 911 on my cell phone perhaps, but do they even work that far inside the tunnels?

Something tells me nobody stepped up to the plate.

on a subway train. Maybe they could have started throwing their cell phones like rocks and one would have made contact.

Suspect was armed. Bystanders were not.

"I was on the train car when he was attacked. My wife and I were sitting in the front of the car (the attack happened in the middle), and we noticed only when someone ran past us into the next car. My wife noticed the knife, and went into the next car to tell the driver (it was the second car from the front), so she went and banged on the driver's window. I only saw it being a fight, so I hit the call button to tell the driver. This almost cost me my life, as in the time it took for me to stand up and hit the button, the assailant had walked up to me. It was only once he got close that I saw the knife. He told me to shut up, which I did, raising my hands. Amazingly, he did not kill me. He walked a bit away from me, and I ran past him to the other side of the car. He then, almost as an afterthought, robbed the older couple. He then assaulted Kevin again, and when the train pulled up to the station, got off. My wife was the one on 911, getting people to go downstairs to meet the police. Metro workers got on the train and told everyone to get off and not to touch Kevin, but my wife relayed instructions from 911 that someone needed to sit with him and try to keep him awake. I sat with Kevin, held his hand, stroked his head and kept telling him to breathe, and that he was going to see the fireworks next year. I sat with him until he died. By the time the paramedics showed up, he had stopped breathing."

https://np.reddit.com/r/washingtondc/comments/3cfp1p/horrific_details_in_the_murder_of_au_grad_kevin/csv6qx5

nt

TYY

Playing knife vs hands with a monster would just produce two bodies instead of one.

With a baseball bat, crowbar or gun, sure.

The thresholds for moral responsibility for an intervention pretty much identified under the Kew Gardens Principles, which came out of studies of the Kitty Genovese murder.

1) Is there a need? The greater the need, the greater the duty to act.

2) How close is the potential actor to the creation or influence of the situation? The closer one is to the source of the problem, the more they are actually expected to do something about it. (Unlike Keyboard Commandos, who spout off about doing something, but rarely go past the click a bunch of buttons phase)

3) Capability of the potential actor. People can only be expected to act to the limits of their own physical, mental, and emotional capabilities. If someone can't swim, s/he can't be expected to dive into the deep end of a pool to save a drowning man - however, s/he can be expected to grab the long pole or go get help.

4) The trickiest one - is the potential actor the "last resort"? Are there other people who are capable and likely to help? Ethically, if there is uncertainty that someone else would be willing and capable of helping, the potential actor should consider that s/he might be the "last resort"

5) Is there too much to loose for the person who acts? Is s/he risking more acting in a situation than the corrective action might warrant? If what I have to lose is greater if I act than if I don't act, then I can't be expected to directly act.

Now, if the person expected to act was part of the problem to begin with, all of this goes out the window. They are to be expected to "make things right"

I suspect that many of the bystanders assumed that picking up the phone and tweeting the incident or calling for help might be enough if they are facing an armed man who was more aggressive and more quick than they might be - and who might turn on them also if they attracted his attention.
This is a common problem in groups - no matter what anyone says they might do in a situation like that, if there is no one capable to take a leadership position, the attacker(s) become the leader in a situation like this.

All it would have taken to change the dynamic was one person who was confident enough in their capability to handle the situation and act, instead of tweeting about what they would do and standing by in horror. Anyone who deals with assholes in stressful situations and doesn't take any shit all the time - anyone - a fat, middle aged coach/shift manager, a chain-smoking "office administrator", a vegan bike messenger...Unfortunately, that person wasn't there.

Haele

My friend's daughter was with him at A.U. I've met him.

Just heart breaking.

This is a thread where I *thank you* for bringing his story here - but I have to trash it. It's too heart breaking.

They didn't and the kid almost pushed me out on the train tracks. And the old fucker I helped just ran to join the safe group!
I have mixed feeling about it, and if he had a weapon, no way.

Hollywood, Florida for a total of about 8 years.. 6 full time, the other 2 just when I felt like it. I'm also 6'3", right now 213 lbs, and was trained in martial arts/self defense since I was big enough to walk and understand.

I've been in, and broken up, more fights than I could count. I've had pool sticks and bar stools broken over my head and back, been shot, been cut and one time jumped by 6 or 7 little wannabe gangstas... 3 of them went to the hospital with me. They won on the numbers game, but I took a few out with me, I didn't go down alone. I'm certainly no Steven Segal, Chuck Norris, Jet Li, or Wesley Snipes (yes, he does all his own martial arts scenes too, and is a very accomplished Martial Artist), but I can hold my own against 2 or 3 easily.. or should say *could have held my own, before I became disabled*, but disabled or not, yes I would have still tried to help the man being attacked, especially against a little runt like that!

Peace,

Ghost

I once had a piece of candy hit me in the eye, when two other guys were fighting in the bar. That shit hurts... Good news is that after they bumped into me during the fray, I did not spill any of my beer.

until it was time not to be nice.?

about it. I have told several people "I *usually* get paid to hurt people, but I'm fixing to fuck you up just for the fun and the work-out of it". People would call me an asshole and I'd just look at them and say "that's MISTER asshole to you, fuckface". I went through a period where I was drinking and doing cocaine heavily and had a VERY cocky assed attitude.

Quitting drinking 20 years ago, along with quitting cocaine almost 24 years ago... plus age and wisdom, have mellowed me out a LOT.

When I first started bouncing, I found that you could talk to, and reason with, about 99 out of 100 people and never have to fight, but there was always that ONE PERSON who wanted to fight no matter what. Violence was the ONLY language they understood, and I spoke their language very fluently. I always used the core of martial arts as SELF DEFENSE, but somewhere along the way I lost my way and became about being a bully and being self *offensive* to get my way.

I'm glad I found my proper path again, and became the person I am today..

Peace,

Ghost