Introduction

 Where to begin? Welcome to the mysterious world into a word called violence. Two boys are walking down the street. One decides to throw snowball at a passing car. His friend? He is given limited choices. Let's look at the options.

  (Last time I reviewed case law, it has been well established that failure to act is the act not to act. That means, in the "eyes" of the law, the word "inaction" is defined as action of a specific kind. One example was given: a man is sitting at home one night before his television and notices a strange, flickering light coming from the window. He looks out and sees his neighbor's house on fire then turns around, sits down and continues watching his favorite program. This man acted not to act. That was his action, not to get involved. Sound confusing? )

  Getting back to the two boys, let's give them names, Tom and Jake. Tom is the one throwing the snowball at the passing car. Jake can (a) watch in silence thereby endorsing the act, or (b) try to prevent the act. Motivation to intervene either way? What if it startled the driver and caused an accident? As for prevention, he could either give a verbal statement, such as a shout, hoping Tom would take heed, or act in a physical way such as grabbing hold of Tom's arm.

  Question: Did Jake do the right thing? Getting involved and grabbing hold of Tom's arm? What should we call this? Good deed? Is grabbing one's arm a violent act? If Jake did intervene and stopped Tom the driver never would of known either the threat or Jake's response. Would this jeopardize a friendship? Tom arguing with his friend for ruining harmless fun? The two ending up in a fight?

  Where is this leading? Moral of the story? What is that famous saying, "The only thing needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." I dare say it different: The only thing needed for good to prevail is for bad men to do nothing.

  But tell me, how many want to be a Jake and get involved? Jake could say, oh, I was standing too far away to stop him. Excuse? Its not my responsibility, that's why I pay taxes so the police can patrol the streets. Has it become socially acceptable to explain away a need to act? But I do act, I pay taxes. Is that your response? The very people we hire to clean up a mess need a mess to get hired in the first place. Make the mess bigger and we can get a relative a job? See where this is leading?

  Society is in a state of withdrawal, afraid to get involved. Any examples?

  Case of a Good Samaritan having regrets: (True story, abridged.) A man had just parked his car and was getting out when he noticed a young child running between parked cars to chase a ball. The man heard the noise of a car coming down the street at a fast speed. Seeing what was about to happen, without hesitation, the man rushed towards the child, took a grip of the child's shirt and dragged the child out of harms way. The child, not knowing what danger came and went, startled by some stranger, crying having a skinned knee in the process, became hysterical with fright. A neighbor, hearing the commotion, came over to assist. When drawing near, seeing the child, called out by name to inquire into the matter. Seeing the neighbor, the child got up, ran towards towards a familiar face screaming that a "bad man" tried to "abduct" her. In the state of panic, the child was believed, police called, man arrested and papers busy printing a head line story. Samaritan, before a trial, the man was cleared of any wrong doing but left with the legacy of emotional hysteria, police brutality thinking he was a threat to children, going through an arrest and tabloid flair in the papers. At first the lady driving the car that almost hit the child, seeing how the man was already viewed as a villain, quickly took opportunity to shift blame from herself and contributed to the scenario. How was the man cleared? Her son, who was in the car, at the time being yelled at by his mother, not paying attention to where she was going, afterwards hearing of the events in school, told a teacher a different story.

  Conclusion: What was the man to do? What would you have done? He could of turned a blind eye and let a child get hit by a car, maybe killed or permanently crippled. Would that be acceptable? Was it worth all he went through to save a life? Knowing his act was not understood let alone appreciated? Why? What would you have done? Yes, you! What if it was your child? But again, why did the little girl lie and make up a story about the stranger? Do we teach children at an early age to shift blame? So not to get into trouble for running into the street between parked cars? Yearning for sympathy and being center of attention? A chance to get interviewed on television? Fame?

  A theory: As for the story above, is society pre-programmed to respond and automatically associate a stranger with a child in a negative light? Has it become necessary to devoid the senses of compassion for fellow man and let the child to its own fate while maintaining a clear conscience? Is that the smart thing to do in this day? Do we take the chance?

  Alternative: Society loves violence and yearns to seek its benefit. No, you say? Join a volunteer group, work at a hospital and wait for the meat wagon to appear. Do a "good" deed, get a commendation, a few words of praise in the paper and "respect" from the community. Look how simple, see how smart. There is no profit or benefit preventing a tragedy. No papers to sell. No awards to hand out. It seems at least three groups straddle the violence arena. One group, say the police, deal with the "perpetrator" while the other group embraces the "victim". As for the arena, a sink hole in the middle of town, as it awaits it next guest. Third group? Merchants selling their wares. Look at the money to be made. All you need is the contestants and the show begins. But maybe there is a fourth group, the recruiters, who by day masquerade as the shining volunteer and by night, the social arsonist. Who are they?

  (Did you ever hear of the phrase "nozzle nuts"? Slang for a volunteer fireman. About twenty years ago, in Hazleton, a group of volunteers were arrested for starting the very fires they sought glory for putting out. Again, recently, in Luzerne County, another group of three were arrested for arson. Strange breed, these nozzle nuts.)

  I intend to examine violence from a different perspective. I will attempt to show, that such people, a sizeable group who commit murder or murder-suicide are victims as well. Most are men who commit such acts. As for plain suicide, statistics seems to indicate a equal mixture of men and women.

  Case in point: Back in 1998 I read an article about a young boy who committed suicide. After reading the account, drove down and talked to his mother. What happened? Two boys were parked near a sports field at night in a small town. Two police officers approached and ended up taking the boys in for questioning. Two officers in a small town facing another boring shift with nothing going on? The boys were interrogated for hours. Accusations were made that the boys were gay. Threats were made that the whole town would find out. After the cops had their fun, the parents were called and took the boys home. The one boy, so devastated by what happened, committed suicide. The mother was hoping to file a civil suit. Why would someone kill themselves? That is for a separate topic. What happened to the officers? What did the local government do?

  Conclusion for now: If you've read this far, then maybe there is a chance you want to know more. The picture below is a suicide from the World Trade Center bombing. It appears to be a woman. Why did she jump? Control. Do you think she wanted to jump?

Next

This will be posted soon.

Updated: 11-25-2001