Video of Shocking scenes as woman gets punched in the face on Dublin Bus

shane9689

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

A syringe in the neck could be the reward for your courage. Is it worth it?

No.

It's not worth it because even if he is caught it will be a slap on the wrist. These scumbags are not punished. We have people walking the streets with over 150 convictions ffs.

If we were in a properly run country like the UK or Germany where perpetrators are punished i'd have no hesitation. But not here.

And I think the reason people don't intervene is partly because they are afraid but also because they know this guy won't be dealt with as he should be.

soo, you just let a woman get beat to a pulp? possibly even suffer permanent damage or death because you dont want to risk getting hurt?

we live in a ****ing society, not a "every man for himself", if you see someone getting attacked you help where possible because they are part of your society too

hardCopy

Why is his face blurred out in the video? How does that help identify him?

hfallada wrote: »

I stick up for myself. But I'm not goi. to risk my life for some random person on the bus. I wouldcall the gardai. response to a 112 call is less than 2 mins in Dublin city. Most guys will only hit a girl, but have no problem hitting a guy until he is seriously injured or stab him.

There is a time and place to be a hero

Garda response in two minutes? I'm fairly sure that's never been the case, even when they were fully staffed.

upandcumming wrote: »

Jesus Christ... you are quite funny.

Hatrickpatrick raises a fair point no? Regular beatings to other men and no article in the paper?

Anyway, has anyone even questioned the context? I don't condone violence in any way, but why was the videographer filming the side of a bus on a Wednesday night? Not the most exciting thing to film but then they happened to catch an assault on a woman.

Pretty much every bus passenger at every bus stop in the country has a camera, any night of the week.

Procasinator

Piliger wrote: »

You don't even grasp the difference between the Garda and the justice system.

I don't see how you arrived at this conclusion. Even difference feels like the wrong way of stating it, seeing the Garda would fall under the justice system umbrella. I don't think he has implied the part is the whole.

fr336

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If we were in a properly run country like the UK or Germany where perpetrators are punished i'd have no hesitation. But not here.

Hahahahahahahahaha! What.

Kermit.de.frog

shane9689 wrote: »

we live in a ****ing society, not a "every man for himself", if you see someone getting attacked you help where possible because they are part of your society too

We don't have a proper society in Ireland. You are confusing Ireland for a modern, properly run, first world country with a proper and well equipped police force and judicial system and first world infrastructure like proper prisons and even courts.

That's why the majority I believe won't intervene and just mind their own business. Which is exactly what I would do. This is the society Irish governments have created. Not me. These scumbags have free reign and have had it for over 30 years.

RoboRat

razorblunt wrote: »

It's all very well saying "where were the other passengers", but there are multiple reports of people intervening in situations like the above only to have both parties turn on the person who tried to intervene.
I'm not saying that would have happened here but still. I'd like to think I would intervene but I hope to never be put in that position.

Happened to me a few years ago, bloke punching his missus, I stepped in thinking I was doing the right thing and next thing she is on my back punching and scratching my face.

Would still do it again every time, but I am a bit more savvy about not turning my back and assuming they wont attack too.

yaya*

uch wrote: »

Looking at the pics, if he was coming from the back of the Bus then the Stairs were behind the woman, so nothing stopping her just running down them which suggests to me that she knew him or was talking to him for some reason. Still no reason to assault her mind.

From my understanding of it, her friend was already being beaten up by this ***hole and presumably, she didn't want to leave him there. Also, she was filming it for evidence.
Either way, she should have the right to stand any where on a bus and not feel the need to run away, in case some w*nker decides to punch her.

And to the people commenting that there are men beaten up every day of the week on buses, I agree that's awful and so out of line. But I must admit, seeing a woman being pummelled by a guy like that, is far more shocking to watch and I'm not surprised there's articles etc about it.

I think I would intervene in anyway I could. If others were around me, I'd encourage them to help me stop it.

But, I've never been in that situation before so can only say I hope it is what I would do. I know if I just stood back and watched, I would be ashamed of myself.

OldNotWIse

shane9689 wrote: »

soo, you just let a woman get beat to a pulp? possibly even suffer permanent damage or death because you dont want to risk getting hurt?

we live in a ****ing society, not a "every man for himself", if you see someone getting attacked you help where possible because they are part of your society too

Er, dont be imposing your own standards on others. There's no obligation to intervene. Why not consider the needs of your own loved ones instead of a stranger, and think about what it would do to them to get a call saying you've had your head kicked in. Also, more frequently than you might think, women in these situations, getting knocked around by their partners suffer from a thing called Stockholm Syndrome, and will actually turn on the pleb who intervenes.

rubadub

vicwatson wrote: »

Any "man" hitting a woman is a filthy scumbag.

I would simply say any person hitting a person is a scumbag. No need to bring gender into it, by doing so it suggests you might have no problem if it was another way around. Like if you had said "any man hitting a mexican is a filthy scumbag" infers you might think some other countries citizens are fair game.

Or if you really mean a strong person should not hit a weaker one just say that.

upandcumming wrote: »

Hatrickpatrick raises a fair point no? Regular beatings to other men and no article in the paper?

It obviously doesn't sell papers, its not as newsworthy, thought this is common knowledge. Just like people feigning ignorance saying "how come garth brooks is on the front page and not all these killings going on elsewhere?" perhaps some really are that ignorant.

Dan_Solo

Not for laughs or anything, but if that ****head can't floor a cringing girl in 3 or 4 punches I'd fancy my chances against him, big time.

darkpagandeath

Lou.m wrote: »

Prisons are over flowing. I think the fact that we can't afford to punish them is part of the issue.

Tue but if they stopped putting people inside for none payment of fines and things like that, and instead gave them community service or a leg tag. That would free up some space. I have often said 1 really good way to deal with scum is.

1 Leg tag, curfew, dole cut (if on it)
2 cut off all TV, internet, mobile phone coverage to their house.

Punish them and the family in a way that will really make them think about being antisocial. If you start punishing the family for raising Anti social scum you may see a quietening down. As sitting in a gaff with nothing to do would get really old really fast. And before people go on about the family, i hate to generalise but we all know the family of such animals are no better. They learn anti social behaviour off each other first.

RoboRat

women in these situations, getting knocked around by their partners suffer from a thing called Stockholm Syndrome

Its not Stockholm syndrome, its the fear of the repercussions after it happens. If a woman is living with a man and if perhaps they have kids, she can't just flee. Even if she is successful in obtaining a court order, that might not happen for days, weeks or months. Its self preservation and I don't blame them.

bumper234

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Er, dont be imposing your own standards on others. There's no obligation to intervene. Why not consider the needs of your own loved ones instead of a stranger, and think about what it would do to them to get a call saying you've had your head kicked in. Also, more frequently than you might think, women in these situations, getting knocked around by their partners suffer from a thing called Stockholm Syndrome, and will actually turn on the pleb who intervenes.

Now imagine them getting that EXACT call followed by "and no one intervened or tried to help"

Kermit.de.frog

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Tue but if they stopped putting people inside for none payment of fines and things like that, and instead gave them community service or a leg tag. That would free up some space. I have often said 1 really good way to deal with scum is.

1 Leg tag, curfew, dole cut (if on it)
2 cut off all TV, internet, mobile phone coverage to their house.

Punish them and the family in a way that will really make them think about being antisocial. If you start punishing the family for raising Anti social scum you may see a quietening down. As sitting in a gaff with nothing to do would get really old really fast. And before people go on about the family, i hate to generalise but we all know the family of such animals are no better. They learn anti social behaviour off each other first.

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission will be telling you that they have the absolute god given human right to be "anti social" little cretins and that we, the law abiding people, pay for it.

Dole cut is a great idea to focus minds but all these lobbies would be all over any proposal to actually deal with these people like a rash.

I wouldn't be anti the Labour party but on the whole criminal justice issue with them in government nothing remotely close to anything like that will ever happen.

darkpagandeath

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission will be telling you that they have the absolute god given human right to be "anti social" little cretins and that we, the law abiding people, pay for it.

Dole cut is a great idea to focus minds but all these lobbies would be all over any proposal to actually deal with these people like a rash.

True but at this stage it's beyond a joke, Things have spiralled way out of control. Whole estates areas no go, or at your own risk. Drastic measure are needed. I mean news report after news report of some person arrested with 150 odd previous convictions. It's just mental.

Dan_Solo

darkpagandeath wrote: »

True but at this stage it's beyond a joke, Things have spiralled way out of control. Whole estates areas no go, or at your own risk. Drastic measure are needed. I mean news report after news report of some person arrested with 150 odd previous convictions. It's just mental.

Not quite compulsory abortions, but free abortions would be a good start... there's a theory that it works wonders if you wait 15-20 years.

Kermit.de.frog

But then they'd miss out on the child benefit payments.

Maphisto

vicwatson wrote: »

What a b*astard full of cowardice. Any "man" hitting a woman is a filthy scumbag.

Don't know why the indo blanked out his face, it's a clear assault. Simples.

We need those 2 Brazilian weightlifters (or whatever) form the ah herree leave ih out video to be on the bus to sort your "man" out and teach him some manners.

I agree with the spirit of what you say.

However if the Indo had shown the full face on the video and then you (for the point of discussion) are a potential witness. You become unusable as a witness once you've seen the video.

anncoates

I'm not a hard man but probably would have tried to intervene if the person was getting a hiding but wouldn't for a minute criticize any person that didn't.

One thing about trying to b even verbally intervene is that it often will spur on other people to join you if they're afraid to do it alone.

KahBoom

Uhm, what is wrong with hatrickpatrick's post? If the double standard he is alluding to is real, then what is wrong with pointing that out?

I've seen similar snark on a previous topic touching on gender issues recently, but I'll grant that on that topic I'm told (after the fact) that the poster had a history which justified the snark - there is no such justification here though (HP does not have such a history).

It's also particularly surprising, that many smart-enough posters know hatrickpatrick is talking about gender-bias in media reporting, but are willing to thank this really obvious and disingenuous misrepresentation of what he said:

Dolbert wrote: »

You're right, this violent assault on a woman simply screams misandry.

People should make their point without inflammatory snark (and without backing that either; it's not even clear what peoples point was, as it is unexplained) - because a substance-free attack like that, looks like (even if this is not what it was meant to be) posters piling onto hatrickpatrick, for nothing more than bringing up a (potentially perfectly valid) gender equality issue.

Czarcasm

KahBoom wrote: »

Uhm, what is wrong with hatrickpatrick's post? If the double standard he is alluding to is real, then what is wrong with pointing that out?

Because it has nothing to do with the incident mentioned in the opening post. Patrick could easily start a thread on perceived double standards if he wanted to, but no, instead he chooses to engage in gender whataboutery in enough threads to establish a pattern, completely distracting from the incident that started the thread.

I've seen similar snark on a previous topic touching on gender issues recently, but I'll grant that on that topic I'm told (after the fact) that the poster had a history which justified the snark - there is no such justification here though (HP does not have such a history).

Really? It's precisely because Patrick does have a history of interjecting in a discussion with gender whataboutery posts that prompted this rather exhausted reply in another thread -

Judge gives mother, guilty of manslaughter, suspended sentence.

It's also particularly surprising, that many smart-enough posters know hatrickpatrick is talking about gender-bias in media reporting, but are willing to thank this really obvious and disingenuous misrepresentation of what he said:

I can't speak to anyone else's motivations for thanking the post, but I appreciated the rather succinct assessment of Patrick's post. Gender bias in media reporting has nothing to do with a woman getting seven bells knocked out of her by a guy twice her size, and for no apparent reason. If anything, Patrick was attempting disingenuous gender whataboutery as usual, and got called out on it in an equally disingenuous fashion.

People should make their point without inflammatory snark (and without backing that either; it's not even clear what peoples point was, as it is unexplained) - because a substance-free attack like that, looks like (even if this is not what it was meant to be) posters piling onto hatrickpatrick, for nothing more than bringing up a (potentially perfectly valid) gender equality issue.

It's actually more unclear to most people what Patrick's post had to do with the incident reported in the opening post. In fact, he didn't even comment on the incident in the opening post, the same as he didn't particularly care to comment on the specific incident in the last thread, and numerous threads before that. All Patrick's posts ever consist of in most threads where the victim is a woman is "but what about men?".

Eventually people get tired of that sort of gender whataboutery nonsense, because they would rather discuss that actually happened in this specific incident, rather than have it dragged off on ridiculous tangents that would be more suited to their own thread.

woodoo

Why blank out his face, he did it in public. At least if his face was known and WHEN the justice system fails this woman the public can take revenge on him.

KahBoom

Czarcasm wrote: »

Because it has nothing to do with the incident mentioned in the opening post. Patrick could easily start a thread on perceived double standards if he wanted to, but no, instead he chooses to engage in gender whataboutery in enough threads to establish a pattern, completely distracting from the incident that started the thread.

It's about the reporting of incidents like this - which arguably fits within the topic, since the thread is based on that news report.

It's not whataboutery either - for it to be whataboutery, he has to be trying to play down the issue posted in the OP, or try to get others to ignore it - pointing out a gender bias in media reporting, does not play down what happened in the original article, and can be discussed alongside it (doesn't exclude any discussion of it).

At worst, it would be off-topic (which arguably it isn't, since the news report itself is relevant), not whataboutery.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Really? It's precisely because Patrick does have a history of interjecting in a discussion with gender whataboutery posts that prompted this rather exhausted reply in another thread -

Judge gives mother, guilty of manslaughter, suspended sentence.

This is based on a misunderstanding of whataboutery as well - also the poster in the other thread I talked about, was said to have had anti-feminist views, which HP does not.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I can't speak to anyone else's motivations for thanking the post, but I appreciated the rather succinct assessment of Patrick's post. Gender bias in media reporting has nothing to do with a woman getting seven bells knocked out of her by a guy twice her size, and for no apparent reason. If anything, Patrick was attempting disingenuous gender whataboutery as usual, and got called out on it in an equally disingenuous fashion.

While the snarky post replying to him was obviously disingenuous, what exactly is disingenuous about hatrickpatrick's post, which merits such tit-for-tat snark? I didn't see anything disingenuous about it - what he pointed out seems, potentially, like a perfectly valid issue.

If people had a problem with him being off-topic (which again, in my view it arguably wasn't), then that should be said really - as it's not obvious at all what problem posters have with him, which leaves no way for him to defend his post.

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's actually more unclear to most people what Patrick's post had to do with the incident reported in the opening post. In fact, he didn't even comment on the incident in the opening post, the same as he didn't particularly care to comment on the specific incident in the last thread, and numerous threads before that. All Patrick's posts ever consist of in most threads where the victim is a woman is "but what about men?".

Eventually people get tired of that sort of gender whataboutery nonsense, because they would rather discuss that actually happened in this specific incident, rather than have it dragged off on ridiculous tangents that would be more suited to their own thread.

You don't speak for most people - it seems blindingly obvious his post is about media reporting (you don't have to make any added assumptions to guess that), which the original post is based upon - arguably making it on-topic.

You can point out a gender-bias in media reporting, without it having to be whataboutery - and it's the inflammatory snark which is more likely to drive the thread off-topic.

Czarcasm

KahBoom wrote: »

You can point out a gender-bias in media reporting, without it having to be whataboutery - and it's the inflammatory snark which is more likely to drive the thread off-topic.

Your own history of playing devils advocate in a discussion can drive a thread off-topic too, so I'll just respectfully disagree with you at this point and get back to discussing what this thread is actually about, rather than what yourself and Patrick would like it to be about.

KahBoom

Czarcasm wrote: »

Your own history of playing devils advocate in a discussion can drive a thread off-topic too, so I'll just respectfully disagree with you at this point and get back to discussing what this thread is actually about, rather than what yourself and Patrick would like it to be about.

I never play devils advocate in a discussion - a person who plays devils advocate, is arguing a position they don't themselves believe - which (unless they stated they were being a devils advocate) is a dishonest/dickish way to argue.
So, implicitly accusing me of being a dishonest poster - with zero backing - is implicitly smearing me, rather than dealing with my argument.

You're also misrepresenting me, in saying that I want to debate what hatrickpatrick brought up - when I'm obviously taking issue, with peoples unwarranted snark against him (where no argument/criticism is even presented, to explain the snark against his post) - that misrepresentation of me, and the snarks misrepresentation of hatrickpatrick's post, are both dishonest.

If people think discussing that unwarranted snark is off-topic, they can't have it both ways - they can either risk driving a thread off-topic by posting unwarranted snark (without even an explanation/criticism) that they will get called out on (and it's perfectly right and not off-topic to call people out on that - they introduced/opened it to discussion/challenge) - or they can omit posting or backing that kind of inflammatory comment, or at least provide some kind of explanation/criticism alongside it.

Czarcasm

It's really rather simple KB -

Patrick tried to introduce an unrelated aside into the discussion, got called on it, you tried to defend it, and in doing so continued to drag the thread further off topic. There's no need to take criticism of your posts personally though, this thread isn't about you, and it isn't about Patrick, and it isn't about "why aren't attacks on men reported in the media?".

It's about a woman who was the victim of a vicious assault. If Patrick had wanted to talk about men who are victims of vicious assaults and his perception of the lack of coverage in the media, then he should have started a thread on that issue rather than try and wedge it into this one.

suicide_circus

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Not for laughs or anything, but if that ****head can't floor a cringing girl in 3 or 4 punches I'd fancy my chances against him, big time.

Have you considered fighting crime, professionally I mean?

KahBoom

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's really rather simple KB -

Patrick tried to introduce an unrelated aside into the discussion, got called on it, you tried to defend it, and in doing so continued to drag the thread further off topic. There's no need to take criticism of your posts personally though, this thread isn't about you, and it isn't about Patrick, and it isn't about "why aren't attacks on men reported in the media?".

It's about a woman who was the victim of a vicious assault. If Patrick had wanted to talk about men who are victims of vicious assaults and his perception of the lack of coverage in the media, then he should have started a thread on that issue rather than try and wedge it into this one.

You're trying to skip over my previous posts, debunking the points in your post here: That what HP posted was off-topic - arguably it wasn't, and the unwarranted snark in response to it, does a better job of driving the thread off-topic; that I am defending HP's argument - I'm calling people out on their unwarranted snark, and pointed out his argument is arguably on-topic.

Here, you can reply to my previous arguments on that which I detailed in my post here, that you have tried to skip over:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91438954&postcount=75

No worries Czarcasm - I rarely take a debate on Boards personally; you haven't actually provided any criticism of my posts though, just a misrepresentation you know is dishonest, and which you won't back up with anything.

Yes we all know what the thread is about, and arguably - as you know has been argued in my previous post that you skipped over - hatrickpatrick's post can qualify as being on-topic, which means he's (again arguably...) not wedging anything into the thread, and the snark directed at him is misplaced.

Dan_Solo

suicide_circus wrote: »

Have you considered fighting crime, professionally I mean?

No. I prefer my current job.
Why, is Garda work mostly about beating the crap out of people?

Dolbert

Kahboom, if you have a problem with my posts, by all means report them.

Czarcasm

You could argue what you want KB, and arguably you'd still be in the wrong by trying to defend a post which was considered off-topic, not just by me, but by numerous posters.

What do you think of what happened to the woman on the bus? Do you have any comment to make on the actual incident most posters are discussing in this thread?

KahBoom

Dolbert wrote: »

Kahboom, if you have a problem with my posts, by all means report them.

Your post isn't reportable, but it's certainly worthy of criticism - I am taking you up on your snark and misrepresentation of hatrickpatrick's post; if the problem you have with hatrickpatrick's post was legitimate, perhaps report it? (if it's not reportable, then it's a perfectly valid post to have in the thread, right?)

Not doing so, and your misrepresentation combined with snark against him, kind of implies you don't have a legitimate issue: If it is legitimate, what is your actual criticism of his post? (nobody ever actually explained that part, just left it at snark...)

Tigger

bumper234 wrote: »

Honest question to all

Would you have stepped in if you were there and witnessed this? I know that i would have 100% not hesitated and i think that's why i find it hard to fathom how the guy got away with it. Maybe there wasn't anyone else upstairs (can't see) but in a hypothetical situation where you are upstairs on that bus what would you do?

i have before and i would then
but to be fair i'm 18 stone so a bully like that would probably **** hisself

Dolbert

My criticism was pretty clear I would have thought: That it takes quite a leap to watch footage of a woman being hit and to immediately complain about how unfair it is on men.

I'm sure that HP will let me know if he has an issue with my post or requires clarification.

KahBoom

Czarcasm wrote: »

You could argue what you want KB, and arguably you'd still be in the wrong by trying to defend a post which was considered off-topic, not just by me, but by numerous posters.

You're just repeating the same claims I've debunked in previous posts, and are trying to keep on ignoring the arguments my previous posts - no point debating on you with this further so.

You don't speak for any other posters than yourself either - nobody (or only a couple) provided an actual criticism of hatrickpatrick's post, bar yourself - just got behind the criticism/argument-free snark.

Czarcasm wrote: »

What do you think of what happened to the woman on the bus? Do you have any comment to make on the actual incident most posters are discussing in this thread?

Ya what happened to the woman was horrible, and must have been extremely frightening - it (and all issues like it) deserve to be highlighted in the newspapers.

Guy should be arrested, though some of the 'hard-man' posts in the thread are pretty ridiculous; not smart for anyone to get involved or intervene in a physical confrontation, unless they are physically capable/trained, or e.g. it's a loved one or such.
If you get in over your head, easy to end up with lasting/permanent injuries - a (potentially drunk) person forcefully tackling you, coupled with banging your head off anything hard/pointed in the process, is enough to do some lasting damage.

Birroc

Sort out your city Dublin.

Dan_Solo

Czarcasm wrote: »

You could argue what you want KB, and arguably you'd still be in the wrong by trying to defend a post which was considered off-topic, not just by me, but by numerous posters.

How many logical fallacies can you fit in one sentence?
It's wrong because it's wrong and everybody says it's wrong?
Powerful argument!

KahBoom

Dolbert wrote: »

My criticism was pretty clear I would have thought: That it takes quite a leap to watch footage of a woman being hit and to immediately complain about how unfair it is on men.

I'm sure that HP will let me know if he has an issue with my post or requires clarification.

Except that's not what he did, is it? A news article was posted in the OP, containing footage of an assault on public transport (by the sounds of it a common, and still terrible issue), and HP commented about the gender-bias in news reporting on that topic.

No big leap there. Arguably perfectly on-topic too. A valid issue to raise too - and he didn't diminish/play-down the story in the OP (it can be discussed alongside it, just fine).

major bill

Have not read the whole thread but was this prick found yet?

Czarcasm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

How many logical fallacies can you fit in one sentence?
It's wrong because it's wrong and everybody says it's wrong?
Powerful argument!

Dan do you honestly think I give a shìt about "logial fallacies" when I see a woman getting the head beaten off her by a man twice her size?

dublinman1990

What a miserable little **** to do that to a woman.

No question he will get away scott free for doing it. The justice system in this country is a sham no more and no less.

DarkJager

Why did nobody except one guy intervene in this?? If I saw a guy doing that, they'd be sweeping him off the bus.

conorh91

DarkJager wrote: »

Why did nobody except one guy intervene in this?? If I saw a guy doing that, they'd be sweeping him off the bus.

http://media.giphy.com/media/uG3lKkAuh53wc/giphy.gif

Little CuChulainn

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Tue but if they stopped putting people inside for none payment of fines and things like that, and instead gave them community service or a leg tag. That would free up some space. I have often said 1 really good way to deal with scum is.

1 Leg tag, curfew, dole cut (if on it)
2 cut off all TV, internet, mobile phone coverage to their house.

Punish them and the family in a way that will really make them think about being antisocial. If you start punishing the family for raising Anti social scum you may see a quietening down. As sitting in a gaff with nothing to do would get really old really fast. And before people go on about the family, i hate to generalise but we all know the family of such animals are no better. They learn anti social behaviour off each other first.

The idea that prisons are full of people who don't pay fines is pure fantasy. The vast majority of people in prison are there as a result of committal or remand.

Dan_Solo

Czarcasm wrote: »

Dan do you honestly think I give a shìt about "logial fallacies" when I see a woman getting the head beaten off her by a man twice her size?

Czar, if you don't give a **** about how illogical your posts are and freely admit it, maybe this 'ol discussion forum lark isn't for you?

dd972

Hope they get this b*****d, there were a few people I'd have liked to have punched in the face when I used Dublin Bus.

--LOS--

If you think people don't intervene because of how they feel about the justice system in Ireland, you are giving them too much credit. People are selfish and have no compassion, that's it. That video makes me sick to my stomach to watch and you know what I would intervene in whatever way I could. You judge each situation individually, its hard to know what the background is there, how can people so easily say they would do nothing without knowing much about it? Can you really feel ok with yourself to sit in silence, are you really not willing to take any risk at all for a stranger? I really don't buy this crap that most people aren't able to intervene, they just won't coz they're too selfish let's be honest.

UCDVet

DarkJager wrote: »

Why did nobody except one guy intervene in this?? If I saw a guy doing that, they'd be sweeping him off the bus.

18 Passengers is not many at all. The majority are always downstairs and a lot of people (like myself) try really hard not to pay attention to anyone. When I ride the bus I'm watching TV or a movie on my cell phone or tablet, with my headphones on max volume.

We know at least one other person saw and did something to intervene since he received minor injuries. It's entirely possible he was the only other person to see anything.

Grid.

Trash.....mangle him in a bin lorry with the rest of the garbage.