So the photographer just took pics/video and didn't help the Asian guy?  Total bashing deserved. 

Love how you assume things about Hannity.  Great OP-  NOT.

Of course Hannity would have sprung into action.  His training as a member of the Special Forces would have kicked in.  Wait, Hannity was never in the military.  Then maybe his law enforcement training.  No, he doesn't have that either.  Paramedic training?  Nope again.  Experience as a Guardian Angel?  He didn't have that either.

I think it's pretty safe to say that if he was in that situation, Sean Hannity would have just stood there like all the other people.

It's safe to say that people on the internet should stop assuming what one would/wouldn't do.

We don't need these forums then.

No we don't need certain threads and/or assumptions

and ftr- every person who stood there should be bashed to no end for not doing anything.

Hmm, now you just don't know that to be a fact, do you?

I wonder what I think you'd do in a similar situation...

lol, please...  Hannity jumping to the rescue?  He'd be more afraid of scuffing his shoe.

...and I would have helped.  but i'm trained to.

yeah, really.

Some folks  project a lot.

I'm sure you know what you're talking about...

If the photo becomes evidence that you had an opportunity to help, but didn't, there could be blame and at least civil liability.

I think there still is a decent percentage of people who would come to the aid of a person in distress.  Unfortunately for the victim, there were none ready, willing and close enough to help.

With today's growing entitlement mentality, there are fewer people who are willing to help others as it is now considered to be the job of government to help people.

I agree.  It wouldn't have took much.  If just one person had just stood next to the man, hos attacker would have been out numbered 2:1...  Such a senseless death.  But at least they caught the killer.

Actually, what we don't need are postings like yours. Frankly, while I dislike Hannity, the opinion you expressed was totally void of value and based on nothing factual. One could have said something similar about your possible response. It would have been equally worthless.

Yeah, right, sure, because we have your word for it.

The bystander effect is a well established phenomenom that transcends "today" as it even transcends wholly different cultures. Remember that little Chinese kid last year that was run over by multiple cars and then left to die on the streets with dozens of people walking by and not a single person doing a thing?

That's just human nature. When people are alone, they're far more likely to step up and step in than when they're in a group in which the responsibility is diffused.

You never know how you're gonna react if you are in such a situation. Especially when you could put yourself at risk by intervening. Chances are, four out of five people in this thread would have stood idly by in this case.

Everyday heroes like Wesley Autrey are the exception. That's why they're called heroes. Few people are made like that.

Maybe, maybe not.  I could stereotype him to be all talk.  wouldn't surprise me in the least.  But I honestly know very very very little about him and have no clue as to what he'd actually do.

I don't even know what I'd do.  I'd like to think I'd try to help.  I know I wouldn't have been taking photos though.  Not judging the photographer (though it seems questionable) but it's not an instinct I have.

I'm going to disagree with this.  I don't think anyone should be legally obligated to help someone else in danger.  ESPECIALLY if that could place the would be hero's life in danger.

Love how you assume things about the photographer.

He was apparently flashing his strobe at the train to try to get the driver's attention. He didn't even set the camera before he "shot" repeatedly in the direction of the oncoming train, which, from the photographer's vantage, was in position to photograph the train and the victim.

These "deaths by subway" have been steady at about 50 people a year for many years. If it weren't for the picture, this incident wouldn't have gotten even 1% of the attention it has. People are discussing this tragedy all around the world, and the victim, the circumstances, and the implications of this tragedy would have receded into the fog of another invisible statistic.

Or Peter Parker/Spiderman.

Yup.

Hannity was the one sitting there on TV shaking his head judging the photographer, not me.

Yeah, that's it. They all stood around waiting for their food stamps while they watched another person die thinking it's the governments job to help him.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

it's Obama's fault

You ought consider doing this.

Many famous photographers have maintained their objectivity even when they could help. Some famous war photos are the result of a photographer not interfering. The debate of is this ethical, or inhumane, is still going in journalism classes today.

You'd be surprised how many claim they would have helped.

It's not entitlement and expecting the government to fix everything. That's a completely different argument and has zero to do with this discussion.

This is the result of diffusion of responsibility, not entitlement. The idea that people are less likely to respond/help when multiple people are present, aka the Bystander effect. Please know what you're talking about before you talk about it.

Also, just because there are samaritan and good citizen laws that protect people from getting in trouble, that doesn't mean they can't get in trouble in civil court and not be sued.

God Bless 'Murica; the only place where it's against the law not to help a person in trouble, but where you can get sued for doing it.

Lastly, you can think that a good amount of people would help, but based on experiments, and statistics, you would be wrong.

Can you say with 100% certainty that you've acted rationally and properly in every stressful situation you've ever been in?

I'm sure waving hands while at a train stop will look like anyone else waving their hands.

Small Fruit Pits wrote:

You ought consider doing this.

do you have permission to use that image?

Actually, I was using bystander effect to explain why NO ONE helped, not just a photographer.

I wasn't singling you out

Bill Eppridge was the photographer, and as I recall the story, a woman standing behind him saw him raise his camera to his eye, she grabbed his elbow and said "no, don't it, it's not right", then Epridge snapped his elbow from the woman's grip and said: "Hey, lady, this is history!"

How disgusting!
Would his religion have been mentioned if he was another religion?

"New York subway killer of Ki Suk Han is Moshe Lipshiz, a JEW, visited temple daily."

"So did Naeem Davis go on a Jihad when he pushed Ki Suk Han on to the New York subway tracks and killed him? Was it a part of his holy war or something? I wonder if he yelled Allahu Ackbar before pushing Ki Suk Han on to the tracks. Davis showed no emotion at all, and blamed the murder on the victim. Oh, and the Muslim Davis also said he was high on pot. Aren’t Muslims not allowed to be doing pot? Naeem Davis also said he usually visits a mosques daily.
"Now that’s been revealed that Naeem Davis is a devout Muslim, the media will portray him as the victim."

(Say what?)