Woman robs man on side of road, Two "samaritans" help her because she's a woman

[Winthrop]

Here is how I see it. A drunk person had another person restrained and was yelling angrily. Two people broke up the fight. The person being restrained bolted and the were unable to stop that person. This seems like a perfectly reasonable scenario to me regardless of the genders. If I saw a drunk woman pinning down a man and screaming I would pull her off him. Sam goes if it was a man on a woman. It isn't sexist.

 

[Eri]

So, if you came across two people in a physical struggle, your first thought would be to calmly walk up to them and say "excuse me sir and madam, what appears to be the problem here?", while they're still clawing at one another?

My first thought would be to separate them, not dogpile the guy. They had two people, one for each person to keep them off each other, but that's not what happened.

Exactly this. The second you make decisions based on gender and not fact, bam. Sexism. hire someone based on sex, not ability? the same. pay them different wages for the same job? ditto.

Actually, they only saw a drunk man attack a fleeing woman. The pair intervened to stop what looked like an attack and to restrain the attacker, but when they did, the woman fled the scene.

The OP ignores so much of what happened to paint a very bias picture. The actual story goes into more detail of what happened. It wasn't a case of a man and a woman assuming a man was the aggressor in a fight, but a man and a woman rushing in to save a woman from a loud, drunk man as he chases her down and wrestles her.

As opposed to the picture you keep trying to paint? The two samaritans were in the wrong, factually. There's no way around that. In restraining the person they thought was the problem, they became accessories to robbery, intentional or not. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

This is one of those "shit happens" kinda incidents. I probably would have done the same exact thing had I seen this myself.

 

[Eri]

Here is how I see it. A drunk person had another person restrained and was yelling angrily. Two people broke up the fight. The person being restrained bolted and the were unable to stop that person. This seems like a perfectly reasonable scenario to me regardless of the genders. If I saw a drunk woman pinning down a man and screaming I would pull her off him. Sam goes if it was a man on a woman. It isn't sexist.

Mhm. The OP is bent on ignoring the facts of the situation and painting it as sexist.

Apparently pulling a loud, aggressive drunk man off a woman is sexist lol.

Just as you keep ignoring facts and insist on painting it as nothing important despite obvious sexism. Why else would they jump the guy and leave the girl alone?

Pretty simple really. Because as I've said multiple times now, they immediately restrained the man. No questions, no nothing, just immediately jumped him.

If they thought there was even the slightest possibility she was a problem, they would've done something, or at least tried to keep her at the scene. But they didn't. They had the right person, and they knew it.

 

[Eri]

In restraining the person they thought was the problem, they became accessories to robbery, intentional or not.

*buzzer*

Wrong.

The police didn't arrest or detain the Samaritans as they are not accessories to a crime; "An accessory must generally have knowledge that a crime is being, or will be committed." The police and the rest of us see what you apparently refuse to, two people pulling a drunk man off a woman who then fled. They didn't assist in the committing of a crime, only intervene on an assault. If they had helped her escape, the police would have had reason to suspect them.

There's this super important thing you seem to forget: context.

I don't care if they were charged with a crime or not, that isn't the point I was making. My point is they HELPED her with the crime. You seem to forget this guy is a victim of assault and robbery. Then it was made worse by these two boneheads.

 

[Eri]

Why else would they jump the guy and leave the girl alone?

They pulled a loud, volatile drunk man off a woman who then ran away.

You're trying way too hard to twist the facts. No one's buying it--certainly not the police lol.

Why do you keep blaming the victim? So he was loud and drunk so he had it coming? He deserved to get held down so she could finish robbing him?

 

[Eri]

Why else would they jump the guy and leave the girl alone?

They pulled a loud, volatile drunk man off a woman who then ran away.

You're trying way too hard to twist the facts. No one's buying it--certainly not the police lol.

Why do you keep blaming the victim? So he was loud and drunk so he had it coming? He deserved to get held down so she could finish robbing him?

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that we aren't supposed to stop volatile drunks from beating people. Next time any of us come across someone being mobbed by another, ask them which one started it before pulling the attacker off. It's the right thing to do! :3

I can't believe you're actually saying it's his fault. You keep saying "loud and drunk" as if that justifies them doing what they did, which was helping her finish a robbery. You just flat out blame the victim for daring to defend his OWN personal property from a thief.

There's nothing left to say at this point. It's clearly the man's fault he was robbed and assaulted. Hopefully he gets arrested soon.

 

[Winthrop]

Here is how I see it. A drunk person had another person restrained and was yelling angrily. Two people broke up the fight. The person being restrained bolted and the were unable to stop that person. This seems like a perfectly reasonable scenario to me regardless of the genders. If I saw a drunk woman pinning down a man and screaming I would pull her off him. Sam goes if it was a man on a woman. It isn't sexist.

Mhm. The OP is bent on ignoring the facts of the situation and painting it as sexist.

Apparently pulling a loud, aggressive drunk man off a woman is sexist lol.

I mean I get his point, but this case is completely unrelated to it. Its like saying that torture should be illegal because cool ranch Doritos taste good. It doesn't make any sense and it just comes off as someone incredibly desperate to find some evidence of his point, making the whole issue seem ridiculous. I don't know if you have heard of the show "What would you do" but my family loves it for some reason and it gets into gender, racial, and class bias (it is also very fun to imagine batman attacking the people in the show as a means of resolving things). They had a part where a woman was stealing a bike and a bunch of guys offered to help. The part with the woman is around 6:40 until the end of the video if you are interested. Basically she admits to trying to steal it and passerbys still try to help. That is a serious problem. This case is not that problem.

It bothers me how many people see it as sexist in this case too. I mean its just not. I feel like people are just trying to jump on the bandwagon. There are cases of sexism that effect both genders, but calling random things sexist doesn't help. If a woman gets a red gumball and I get a yellow one, she got the better deal but me screaming about gender rights would just be stupid (I don't know why all my metaphors seem to involve food). There are serious cases of inequality, and if people start calling everything sexist, it diminishes the impact when something actually is.

There is sexism and there are accidents and coincidences. Just because both genders are involved doesn't mean gender issues are.

 

[marche45]

Why else would they jump the guy and leave the girl alone?

They pulled a loud, volatile drunk man off a woman who then ran away.

You're trying way too hard to twist the facts. No one's buying it--certainly not the police lol.

Why do you keep blaming the victim? So he was loud and drunk so he had it coming? He deserved to get held down so she could finish robbing him?

I think boudica is trying to say that they pulled out the person who would most likely seem like the aggressor.

EDIT:However,whatever your intentions may be if you hold someone down while another person makes off with their stuff,then you just helped commit a robbery.

 

[DugMachine]

It's not sexist to assume the man is the aggressor. Statistics say that's just likely to be the case. Sucks this guy lost money but the two guys were just assuming. When someone is getting beat on (or whatever was happening) you just try to stop it as fast as possible, you don't stop to think why.

 

[Eri]

It's not sexist to assume the man is the aggressor. Statistics say that's just likely to be the case. Sucks this guy lost money but the two guys were just assuming. When someone is getting beat on (or whatever was happening) you just try to stop it as fast as possible, you don't stop to think why.

Sorry but that's the definition of sexism. If you came across a white and black guy fighting and dogpiled the black guy because he's statistically more likely to be the aggressor, that wouldn't be racist?

using statistics in this way is inherently discriminatory (which is the point I was trying to make in an ironic manner, seemingly lost on Boudica). The other irony is that if this wasn't a man/woman, but a black man/white man situation Boudica would be all over them as racist if they assumed the black man was the criminal even though statistically it is the more likely to be the black man (in the US at least)