With events like this one, it seems like people split two ways: some people only consider whose fault it is and how they should be punished, and others think about how to understand it and relate it to larger trends. When the two groups hear each other, wires get crossed and the 'enforcers' think the 'sociologists' are misattributing blame, while the 'sociologists' think the 'enforcers' are misunderstanding causality.
Responsibility =/= causality. Only individuals can be responsible for events, and in the case of the NY shooter, only one individual is clearly responsible, but the more we examine the event, the more causal factors we'll find at play: psychological, societal, social, and perhaps economic or legislative. Examining causality does not absolve responsibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertgrandma
When you are out and about, you'd best be watching your back. Not being vigilant is an invitation to be a victim.
|
In my experience, the opposite is true: a defensive bearing identifies you as prey, and an aggressive bearing invites challenge. Fear invites danger. I'm not saying crime victims are in any way responsible for being attacked--the aggressor and only the aggressor bears responsibility. If the goal is to avoid crime and survive it if it happens, though, "fear thy neighbor" is bad strategy.
I've spent plenty of time in shady neighborhoods (I'm presently in one of the nation's most murder-prone metro areas) and grew up around some violent individuals, and would probably have no better chance in a brawl than you would, but I feel perfectly safe on the streets. I've walked away from two situations that could have been muggings and turned out as just odd conversations, because I was personable but not submissive, and firm but not aggressive. A more resolute criminal would have had me covered with a weapon or lying on the pavement before I could have hoped to pull a gun.