Why did no one fight back?

imaginethat · August 12th, 2012, 04:08 PM

This is a little different spin on bullying. A poignant, unanswered question, why did no one fight back during the Aurora shootings? Why do Americans, in general, tolerate their being bullied?

Quote:

Why did no one fight back? Questions linger over James Holmes Batman movie theater shooting

Quote:

One of the most shocking realization emerging from the James Holmes Batman movie shooting rampage in Aurora, Colorado is the fact that nobody apparently tried to stop the shooter.

This is absolutely baffling. Out of at least 70 moviegoers (and maybe more, as numbers remain sketchy at the moment), it appears that nobody tried to tackle him to the ground, shoot back with their own gun, or even fight back in any way whatsoever. The accounts of witnesses are those of people fleeing, ducking and screaming... but not fighting for their lives.

This story is in no way intended to blame those present at the theater for what was obviously a horrifying, shocking and probably very confusing event, but at the same time we must ask the question: Why did no one fight back?

..."There were bullet [casings] just falling on my head. They were burning my forehead," Jennifer Seeger told reporters in an LA Times article (http://latimesblogs....ooting-suspe...). "Every few seconds it was just: Boom, boom, boom," she said. "He would reload and shoot and anyone who would try to leave would just get killed."

Another bizarre quote appears in the Daily Mail: (http://www.dailymail...Knight-Rises...)

A baby was shot at point blank range, the family were gathered around screaming.

Huh?

If the baby was shot at point blank range, that means the shooter was right there beside them. Instead of gathering around and screaming, why didn't the family tackle the shooter?

...It is bewildering that during the several minutes it would have taken for Holmes to fire 100+ rounds into the crowd, nobody fought back.

Again, I'm not blaming the people there, I'm just bewildered that nobody fought back. It doesn't make sense. Unless, of course, the very fabric of American culture is now so passive and afraid that people have forgotten how to take action in the face of fear.

A culture of passive victims

It occurs to me that maybe I'm different from most Americans today in the fact that I am willing to fight back. For some reason, that seems to be a rarity these days. Too many people have bought into learned helplessness, where they depend on the government to take care of them, keep them safe and solve all their problems.

Once you outsource your personal security to the government -- usually by having no defense skills and hoping 911 will respond quickly -- you make yourself an easy victim for violent criminals.

...What we do know, so far at least, is that no stories of attempted heroism have emerged. Not a single account that I'm aware of, and I've been scanning the stories. This is very, very strange. Something doesn't add up yet again.

Is American culture now one of total surrender?

What I'm starting to think really happened is that the American culture is becoming one of total surrender to criminals. Why do people line up at the airports and allow the TSA go grope their genitals? Because they're passive and they've surrendered instead of fighting back. Why do stay silent when runaway criminality is happening all around them in the form of armed raids on raw milk farmers

(http://www.naturalne...rmed_raids.html) and government hit squads trying to kill farmers' ranch pigs in Michigan? (http://www.naturalne...arms_raids.html) Because people are scared into silence.

Americans, it turns out, are easy to terrorize. They're easy to freeze into a state of fear-based non-action. That fear can and will be used against them, again and again. Look at the post 9/11 effort to crush freedom and destroy the Bill of Rights. It succeeded because Americans were terrorized and willing to give up all their liberties for the false promise of a little security.

The police cannot protect you

This is concerning for lots of reasons beyond the Batman shooting. It means the population is just cannon fodder for armed gangs of looters when the next collapse comes, and the debt spending of the U.S. government absolutely guarantees a financial collapse is just around the corner. (It's only a matter of time.) It's beginning to look more and more like only those of us who have the natural instinct to fight back -- and who are willing to acquire fundamental skills of personal defense -- will be left standing in the long run. Even those of us who have such skills will need to be both well practiced and, to some extent, lucky. But luck has a way of bending your way when you're prepared, I've noticed.

...It should hopefully be obvious at this point that the police cannot protect you. Calling 911 is about as useless as crossing your fingers and hoping you won't die. And that's even if 911 answers, because 911 services are easily taken offline even by wind storms (as we saw recently in Washington D.C.). If you cannot protect yourself and your family, you're not ready for what's coming, I believe. Get prepared. Get some skills.

...Much of this, after all, is simply a mental decision. I have no idea why that mental decision did not take place inside the Batman movie theater, but I know that you and I can make that decision right now -- the decision to SURVIVE -- and we can move forward in life with the strength and power of sticking with that decision.

Learn more: http://www.naturalne...l#ixzz23NYonUAe

highway80west · August 12th, 2012, 04:18 PM

And the police would say, "we can't be everywhere."

Podium Pentothal · August 12th, 2012, 05:01 PM

Unless you’ve been faced with a life and death situation, no one can know for sure how they’ll react. We’d all like to think we’d do the right thing. But the thinking part is where it gets tricky.

When it happens, you react. There is no thinking.

When it’s over, you’re numb. Only when the adrenaline wears off and you start thinking about the situation do you realize the danger. So I have to agree with the story above. It is surprising more people didn’t react by going on the attack. I’ve read a few stories where a few did some brave things. But it seems overall people mostly panicked.

Bookworm · August 12th, 2012, 05:12 PM

It's not just the police that are insufficient, but it's also the court system, isn't it? We have far too many bad guys who are caught by the police, but are then released on technicalities, or they never suffer the punishment that they actually deserve. People should be willing to take matters into their own hands and be willing to punish the bad guys so they don't get away with their crimes. Armed citizens should be roaming the streets looking for criminals and stopping them before they hurt people. After all, we can't have that "culture of passive victims" mentality.

(not sure how tongue-in-cheek that paragraph actually was)

imaginethat · August 12th, 2012, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by US101S

And the police would say, "we can't be everywhere."

That's true. And it's true, that when you need a policeman in seconds, they're only minutes away....

imaginethat · August 12th, 2012, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookworm

It's not just the police that are insufficient, but it's also the court system, isn't it? We have far too many bad guys who are caught by the police, but are then released on technicalities, or they never suffer the punishment that they actually deserve. People should be willing to take matters into their own hands and be willing to punish the bad guys so they don't get away with their crimes. Armed citizens should be roaming the streets looking for criminals and stopping them before they hurt people. After all, we can't have that "culture of passive victims" mentality.

(not sure how tongue-in-cheek that paragraph actually was)

I don't understand your point Bookworm.

Bookworm · August 12th, 2012, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imaginethat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookworm' timestamp='1344820349' post='420501

It's not just the police that are insufficient, but it's also the court system, isn't it? We have far too many bad guys who are caught by the police, but are then released on technicalities, or they never suffer the punishment that they actually deserve. People should be willing to take matters into their own hands and be willing to punish the bad guys so they don't get away with their crimes. Armed citizens should be roaming the streets looking for criminals and stopping them before they hurt people. After all, we can't have that "culture of passive victims" mentality.

(not sure how tongue-in-cheek that paragraph actually was)

I don't understand your point Bookworm.

Wasn't it the point of the article you posted that we live in a culture of passivity? That the reason we don't react to shootings with attacking the shooter is because we have been trained by our passive culture to just let the police handle things?

Well, why don't we train the passivity out of ourselves? Take a stand, not just while a crime is happening, but after the crime has taken place. Why just let the courts handle it, if we don't think the police are handling things properly. Why be passive before crimes happen? Shouldn't we try stopping them before they happen, using strength rather than passivity?

Really now, what is the solution to the problem that the article presents? How do we prevent this "culture of passive victims" without creating a "culture" that could easily go the other direction?

imaginethat · August 12th, 2012, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookworm

Quote:

Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1344820876' post='420504

[quote name='Bookworm' timestamp='1344820349' post='420501']

It's not just the police that are insufficient, but it's also the court system, isn't it? We have far too many bad guys who are caught by the police, but are then released on technicalities, or they never suffer the punishment that they actually deserve. People should be willing to take matters into their own hands and be willing to punish the bad guys so they don't get away with their crimes. Armed citizens should be roaming the streets looking for criminals and stopping them before they hurt people. After all, we can't have that "culture of passive victims" mentality.

(not sure how tongue-in-cheek that paragraph actually was)

I don't understand your point Bookworm.

Wasn't it the point of the article you posted that we live in a culture of passivity? That the reason we don't react to shootings with attacking the shooter is because we have been trained by our passive culture to just let the police handle things?

Well, why don't we train the passivity out of ourselves? Take a stand, not just while a crime is happening, but after the crime has taken place. Why just let the courts handle it, if we don't think the police are handling things properly. Why be passive before crimes happen? Shouldn't we try stopping them before they happen, using strength rather than passivity?

Really now, what is the solution to the problem that the article presents? How do we prevent this "culture of passive victims" without creating a "culture" that could easily go the other direction?

[/quote]

Do you know the sheep, sheepherder, and wolves metaphor? A certain percentage of people will be sheep, a large percentage, and that's nothing new. However, the sheepherders/wolves ratio seems to be tipping in favor of the wolves.

I don't favor preemptive acts, by people, law enforcement, or nations. In the past I have intervened on behalf a person being beaten senseless, perhaps to death, by fists. I've never been in a situation involving firearms.

To me, this incident is another manifestation of a growing lack of personal responsibility. I don't know what can be done to reverse this trend, but I know thinly veiled "outrage" by some citizens who call self-armed citizens "gun nuts" to justify gun control laws that only affect law-abiding gun owners isn't an answer.

Do you have a solution to the problem presented by the article?

Bookworm · August 12th, 2012, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imaginethat

Do you have a solution to the problem presented by the article?

No, because I think the "problem" as presented by the author is overblown. The vast majority of people are going to run if they are in danger. Somehow the author thinks that because everyone ran in Aurora, and because most people run when in danger, then we must have some "passivity" problem. That's hogwash. People run.

imaginethat · August 12th, 2012, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bookworm

Quote:

Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1344826340' post='420508

Do you have a solution to the problem presented by the article?

No, because I think the "problem" as presented by the author is overblown. The vast majority of people are going to run if they are in danger. Somehow the author thinks that because everyone ran in Aurora, and because most people run when in danger, then we must have some "passivity" problem. That's hogwash. People run.

I said most people, historically, will run, but I also said the sheepherders/wolves ratio seems to be tipping in the wolves favor. What do think about that?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Fight The Good Fight	intangible child	Political Talk	0	June 21st, 2010 07:48 PM
Californians fight back against attack on traditional marriage	garysher	Gay and Lesbian Rights	135	October 18th, 2008 03:49 AM
Stem cell research supporters fight back	CNN	Current Events	6	June 25th, 2007 04:59 AM

August 12th, 2012, 04:18 PM	#2
highway80west Retired Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 17,105	And the police would say, "we can't be everywhere."

August 12th, 2012, 05:01 PM	#3
Podium Pentothal Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Texas Posts: 1,991	Unless you’ve been faced with a life and death situation, no one can know for sure how they’ll react. We’d all like to think we’d do the right thing. But the thinking part is where it gets tricky. When it happens, you react. There is no thinking. When it’s over, you’re numb. Only when the adrenaline wears off and you start thinking about the situation do you realize the danger. So I have to agree with the story above. It is surprising more people didn’t react by going on the attack. I’ve read a few stories where a few did some brave things. But it seems overall people mostly panicked.

August 12th, 2012, 05:12 PM	#4
Bookworm Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,721	It's not just the police that are insufficient, but it's also the court system, isn't it? We have far too many bad guys who are caught by the police, but are then released on technicalities, or they never suffer the punishment that they actually deserve. People should be willing to take matters into their own hands and be willing to punish the bad guys so they don't get away with their crimes. Armed citizens should be roaming the streets looking for criminals and stopping them before they hurt people. After all, we can't have that "culture of passive victims" mentality. (not sure how tongue-in-cheek that paragraph actually was)

content