as I have said before, there is no justification in my mind for anyone refusing to intervene on behalf of someone being raped; especially if the victim is a child.
Amen
http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/...uke-lacrosse-rush-judgment-penn-state-scandal
Another great article
Jane Turner is a former FBI agent and expert on child sex crimes.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...there-no-easy-answers-assistant-mike-mcqueary
Throughout this whole thing whenever I have heard someone talk about how he would have gone into that shower and beat Sandusky up, I've had my doubts. That has to be one of the most traumatic things one can experience, and for someone to judge with any confidence how s/he would react without having actually experienced it is kind of ridiculous. It's like when you think about how you're going to react if the plane your on crashes. That's great that you think you will be calm, cool, and collected and save the lives of 27 women and children, but the truth is, you probably won't.
I'm solely referring to the immediate reaction to witnessing the event in the shower. Not saying anything while the guy is on your campus for 10 years is a whole different story.
Um, no. I was not referring to you. The woman I cited studies these things for a living and she thinks that in most cases the person would not intervene at that immediate moment. I don't know you, so I don't know what experiences you have had that would lend to you either responding or not. I would imagine that the type of people who would respond are those with military training and wouldn't be as traumatized. Read the grand jury testimony. I feel like if it makes you sick to read that, you are probably not the type of person who would respond immediately in that situation. My main point is that whether the person responds immediately or not has less to do with their morality than how prone they are to being traumatized by a very graphic experience.And yet you are presuming to know better than I as to how I would react? Interesting p.o.v....