Hey, there! Log in / Register
Kitty Genovese at the Cambridgeside Galleria
By adamg on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 7:36pm
Wicked Local Cambridge reports police arrested an out-of-state man on charges he beat and kicked his wife in the middle of the mall while bystanders did nothing, save for one woman who finally tried to stop the attack:
Another witness told police Le hit his wife in the head, knocked her to the ground and then dragged her by her arm. When she realized no one in the surrounding area was going to help the woman, the witness confronted Le and asked him to stop, but he allegedly waved her off, saying the victim was his wife.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Looks like the wrong link
Looks like the wrong link
Yep
Sorry about that. Fixed.
here's hoping that...
...much as history has now mostly disproved the idea that 38 people passively watched kitty genovese be murdered, time will also disprove that "hundreds of Memorial Day weekend mall shoppers passively watched" this woman get horribly beaten by her husband.
because that's just terrible.
I can guess at some of the dynamics
Memorial Day crowd at the mall, if there's some altercation, probably few people will see it initially. Everything is busy and in motion, there's lots of noise, few people are looking at the participants, and it will take a big commotion to catch people's attention.
Then, in a crowd, the crowd itself is obstructing the view, until a distanced circle forms.
Once an individual's attention is gotten, it will take them a while to figure out what's going on, and then more to decide whether to take action.
And if lots of other people are standing around not interfering, that can affect the perception of what's going on, as well as the decision on what action to take.
People are more likely to yell (and maybe approach slowly at the same time) than to get right in there and intervene physically.
When it comes down to how much to intervene, not everyone feels capable. People who would have reason to be especially reluctant, off the top of my head: parent holding a baby, pregnant woman, parent with children (who knows whether they should let their attention off their kids when there is a sense of danger, and invite more direct danger on top of that), elderly or frail, people of relatively weak build (especially the mall regulars of teen girls), a dad who's physically capable but thinks of his responsibility to his kids if the attacker whips out a weapon and maims or kills him, people who are here on visa and might not speak English well or know the legal standing of getting involved (or even the cultural acceptability of what they see), illegal immigrants and people with criminal records who want to avoid encounters with police, people afraid of civil suit if they injure someone, etc.
I don't think I'd let it go on once I realized what was happening, but I'm not quick to judge the response of people who were actually there.
Define "not getting involved"
As somebody who has broken up attacks in the past (once as a teen girl!), I still can't say what I would have done here.
Neil runs down all the reasons not to physically intervene ... but it sounds like there were plenty of people who were calling the police and assisting police with witness testimony in the altercation. All this despite her attempts to wave off assistance or minimize the situation.
They both sound like they need counseling - him for thinking it was trivial and okay because it's his wife, her for thinking it was acceptable!
People quietly calling 911 on cell phones
won't look to an observer like they are doing much. Ditto for anyone who wanders away looking for a security guard.
Reasons not to intervene
May include punching, biting, and a fractured orbital bone.
From personal experience, I will say that I don't recommend intervening in a fight between a man and a woman unless you are ready to take them both at the same time. The woman who is getting the shit beat out of her may turn on you instantly if you put your hands on her man. And, like this woman, she may then lie and say that her man never hit her (and you started it).
The Kitty Genovese comparison is inappropriate. The bystanders did the right thing.
I forgot that one
At least a couple times, it's occurred to me in the moment that the woman in an argument on the street might turn on me if I intervened.
Fortunately, in none of the situations did the arguments escalate to violence (at least, not in the direction of man-on-woman).
Safety in Numbers
In my experience itt is much easier to intervene when you don't do it alone. If you can separate the person being beaten from the aggressor,other people around will wake up and help you detain and care for the people involved. This prevents the two-on-one situation, same as it does for high school hall fights. It is possible to recruit someone in a crowd to get the situation under control, too.
That said, it is hard to do this if you are small (I'm short, but massively strong), have kids with you, etc. Given that she was not seriously injured, in the long run, I think it was better that the police ended up with numerous eye-witness reports and people who showed them to the couple when they arrived.
i am not judging the bystanders here.
in fact, just the opposite.
the witnesses to kitty genovese were lambasted as a bunch of depraved, desensitized, indifferent witnesses.
in fact, we now know they were confused, scared, and at least one did call the police.
i am just guessing that in this case (a) there were not hundreds of witnesses and (b) some of them actually tried to do something.
"cultural acceptability"?
Can I get a translation here, please? Are you saying that someone's decision to intervene may or may not be based on their level of understanding of local attitudes towards wife-beating?
Seems a bit tortured to me. Not completely implausible, but it seems to me like you avoided the biggest elephant in the room here: What about people who witnessed this and didn't see it as being problematic? Cultural attitudes vary widely on this, so let's not pretend that there might, just might, have been people who didn't intervene because they found the scene acceptable.
For the record, I am not a wife-beater and not a supporter of wife beating, and I'm guessing we're-- we on UH-- in agreement on that issue. HOWEVER, not everyone in the world is on the same page as our enlightened selves are.
Didn't think of that one
Cambridge has a lot of cultural diversity, including a lot of recent immigrants, but I sorta assume that most everyone in Cambridge thinks that wife-beating is unacceptable here.
Domestic violence does happen, in all gender combinations, but I doubt that any bystanders at the mall thought that wife-beating is acceptable.
Regarding "tortured," I don't think so. Everyone knows that wife-beating has different degrees of acceptability in different cultures. Visitors from other places know that they don't know the subtleties of culture here (especially with a diversity of immigrant subcultures). Only people who live here can be expected to understand that it's not OK here, even if the participants belong to an immigrant subculture tracing to a place where it is OK.
The bottom line here...
to me at least, is that if someone helpless is getting beat up by someone else, Im going to step in and try to help that person. Especially in a crowed area where you know you probably aren't going to be hurt that bad. Hey, the husband might be armed and hurt you. Thats the chance you take in this kind of situation.
You never know how it actually went down here, as these things sometimes happen faster than you think, but this isn't a hard decision for me at least. I would have helped out.
It's not been a hard
It's not been a hard decision for me in the past, to the limited extent my help has been needed. I'm pretty sure that, as soon I realized what was going on, I would've helped.
A lot of people were brought up with the value, through religion, stories, and family example of: if you get hurt doing the right thing, you did OK. (Only MBAs don't believe this to at least some degree. :)
I just didn't feel right saying that I would've done something different than what the people who were there did, since I don't really know the situation they saw.
Do you even realize how anti-immigrant you sound?
So you're saying that Cambridge's general attitude is anti-wife-beating, in spite of the fact that there's a lot of diversity/recent immigrants? So... recent immigrants are more likely to be wife-beaters, unless they live in Cambridge?
That's way, way beyond tortured. So, based on your logic, the relatives of mine who happened to emigrate to the U.S. (but not to Cambridge), were therefore statistically more likely to beat their wives (or husbands) than the average person they settled next to? My Mom (an immigrant) would be greatly amused by this. Do you have any other brilliant assumptions about immigrants to throw in here?
Let's go easy on the racism/ethnocentrism here, shall we? I don't know where the U.S. falls on the wife-beating attitude spectrum, but I'm guessing it's neither the worst, nor the best. I also don't know where Cambridge stands on this by U.S. standards, but I would also assume that it's somewhere between the extremes, not some empowered nonviolent fantasyland.
I don't want to speak for
Neil, but I think he meant that in some cultures, domestic issues are personal and not anyone elses business, even if those domestic issues are violent.
And its not that its more likely that they beat their wives, but it is not a crime to beat your wife in many countries, and thats a fact.
But Im going to bet that the Cambridge Mall was filled with white Americans who could have and should have done something.
Actually, Neil did say that...
that wife-beating is OK in some cultures:
Which was preceded by:
So, essentially, Neil is saying that, of the cultures who believe wife-beating is OK, no representatives from those cultures happened to be there-- only "white Americans" who could have/should have done something. Oh, wait, _you_ said that-- sorry, I'm having troubling matching up the bad ideas with the correct misguided person. I wouldn't bet too much on the Galleria being filled with white people though-- it's in a fairly diverse area, and the patrons reflect that. As for your assertion that intervening was somehow more the responsbility of white people... wow, I don't know where to begin...
And thanks for informing me that it's a "fact" that wife-beating is legal in some countries. Oh, it's a "fact" is it? So what? It's still wrong, fuck their laws. I think their cultural standards suck, and it's very possible that they think that the standards of my society-- in which women can vote, drive, make their own decisions, aren't owned by their husbands, etc.-- are a sign of moral depravity. But they're wrong, and I'm right. U-S-A! U-S-A!
Sorry, where was I? Oh yeah-- your assertion that wife-beating is not more common in cultures where it is legal than where it is not is incredibly naive. I think the people that track this kind of thing would tell you that, fairly uniformly, cultures that have and enforce laws against spousal abuse have less spousal abuse. Do laws eliminate the problem? No. Do laws prevent some of it from happening? Well, duh, yes they do-- and one could also argue that they can change the culture. Maybe not completely, but one could argue that anti-lynching laws did cut down on lynching, and that prison sentences for rape did reduce the number of rapes; saying that the laws don't have any effect on behavior is ridiculous.
And speaking of ridiculous, back to Neil:
Ummm, no. Wrong. Very very wrong. Knowing whether wife-beating is acceptable isn't one of those cultural subtleties that one picks up on after living here for a while (How long? 5 years? 20? Neil wasn't specific here). The alleged assailant clearly miscalculated what the local reaction was-- or just lost it and didn't calculate at all-- but I would hope and expect that, after someone establishes a local address and has visited the mall enough times and has _not_ witnessed a wife-beating, they would pick up on the fact that this isn't cool pretty quickly-- like in a couple of weeks. I'm not saying they should all put on a Sox cap and adopt some variant of the local accent the minute they enter the state, but you have to draw the line somehwere, and I don't think they should get a "diversity pass" when it comes to beating wives, in public or anywhere else.
I said "white americans"
in the context of this made up story where "immigrants" are going to watch a wife get beat up because they accept that in their country, and that is was the "white americans" that probably stood by, because whenever I go to that place, it is still filled with mostly "white americans".
And so I doubt that the mall was filled with people from those cultures that accept this beating, and simply watched this happen. Like most places in Boston and Cambridge, the majority is still going to be made up of "white americans" with probably some other Americans who think this is wrong and people from other countries that think it is wrong.
And pointing out the fact that it is legal in other countries to beat your wife has nothing to do with what you or I think about the situation or how you or I would react to it. Ive already said that I would have intervened in the situation if I was there. I even thought about how I would have done it...a nice 15 yard run up to the guy where I tackle him into a stack of sweaters in the front of the store, knocking the wind out of him in the process!
I don't think I ever said it was more common anywhere to actually beat your wife, I just said the laws are different.
I'm done
People's Republican: I think part of the problem might be that I wasn't clear enough when I was talking about visitors vs. immigrants. See my response before this one, below, which I hope is more clear.
Other parts of your argument do not seem coherent to me. It sounds like there is an issue about which you care strongly, that you're in a reactive mode right now, and that it's time to refocus on the real issue. I suspect that Mr. Nice (read that twice) and I will be far from the top of your list of antagonists.
"in a reactive mode"?
Wow. I just can't keep up with you Cambridge people-- every day there's new jargon. Don't worry, I don't consider you or Mr. Nice important enough to be antagonists-- I'm trying to educate you as a public service, and to provide a counterpoint to arguments that I see as asinine. Such as:
-I never brought up the immigrant/tourist angle when I was referring to cultures-- you did. I was merely pointing out that your assumption that immigrant cultures have some degree of uniformity when it comes to attitudes towards domestic abuse is incredibly simplistic, and along the way attempting to point out that American's (and Cambridge folks') attitudes towards this are from uniform. In that, obviously I failed, and I apologize.
-Pete: Regarding the white American man's burden, what of white non-Americans, and nonwhite Americans? What's their level of responsibility in a public domestic dispute? Again, you guys brought up race, not me.
-Back to Neil: How is public wife-beating a "subtlety" of culture? And if that's subtle to you, what isn't? Personally, I've never witnessed public spousal abuse, but if I were in some other country or culture and saw it take place, it wouldn't be a "subtle" thing.
-And finally, Neil again, on domestic abuse: "universal cultural standard, backed up by law"-- Huh? What universe are we talking about here? I seem to recall a sensational murder trial in which there was a clear cultural split on the jury when it came to attitudes about spousal abuse. Sound familiar? There's quite a wide range of cultural attitudes, even in this country-- and, gasp, even within Cambridge-- when it comes to spousal abuse, and when people who don't subscribe to this nebulous-- sorry, "universal"-- standard end up on juries, it influences the law as well.
I don't think we're communicating well
People's Republican,
I don't think I can disambiguate and qualify everything I say enough to avoid you interpreting it as ignorant on your hot-button issue. Even concessions for the sake of dialog backfire. I'm just not good enough with words.
In some instances, it looks like you carelessly mis-parsed, hit an ideological trigger, and then flew off into familiar rhetoric without considering that perhaps the other party *wasn't* an ignorant inferior in need of enlightenment.
Atop that intellectual arrogance, you've been gratuitously rude, and demonstrated more pretense than discipline. I tired of slogging through your prose to divine your point. There was a concise argument that I believe you had inside you -- the kernel of legitimacy behind your snipes -- but you got distracted, and you never really gave it form. You probably would've found that I was in agreement. Next time, consider an expository structure, and forgo the imagined ripostes.
You blew an appealing pseudonym, but if you get a new one, perhaps next week we can be best buds.
But you promised that you were done!
I got away from my computer and went out to interact with human beings because it seemed like y'all given up for the evening, but nooooo.....
Sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities, but at least it gave you an opportunity to fall back on your thesaurus of fancy Ivy League words, so we'll call it even. Feel free to keep ranting though; I'm guessing you have a blog.
And re: intellectual arrogance, I was merely pointing out that your and others' stereotyping of ethnic groups was moronic; I can't help it if, by defending myself, I had no options but to expose some colossally dumb statements. If you don't want to be challenged, be smarter or keep it to yourself.
Duty calls!
Original alt text: "What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
seriously you need to relax.......
I never mentioned the "white mans burden" so now you are making things up. I just pointed out that this mall is mostly white people from when Ive been there, and they are probably American if I had to bet on it. If you saw what I looked like, you would think I was an American white guy with an Irish background even though my mother is from Argentina. So call me a son of an immigrant or a latino or whatever....who cares.
All I said is that the people in that mall at that time were probably people who think that domestic abuse is wrong. There is only a small part of this world who could have seen that and said "hey, its his wife and hes allowed to do that". Chances are those people weren't at the mall that day.
Just remember that you brought up "The white mans burden", I was simply pointing out that there are white people in the mall, and those white people didn't do anything, but they probably were against domestic violence and in the end, we still don't know what happened.
(munches popcorn)
Gads, reading PR's screeds is like observing bacterium - all stereotyped response to nonspecific stimulus.
I'm surprised he/she isn't lecturing you about cultural sensitivity meaning such violence is okay since the woman was distraught and minimizing the attack and that must just be "their culture".
Of course, if PR had been there, everybody around would have received a sanctimonious lecture. Stepping in would be an act of violence!
Ahhh ... a Poang chair sure is nice ...
Ummm, no Swirly
If you had bothered to read what I'd written rather than just skimming it and falling into _your_ usual stereotyped boilerplate, you would have picked up on the fact that I am _against_ spousal abuse, and look down upon cultures that find it to be acceptable. But it's so, so much easier to think that I'm for it, isn't it? Whatever works for you. Go easy on the butter, by the way.
And re: my giving sanctimonious lectures at the Galleria-- please. I don't go to the Galleria. Too many tourists.
Sorry if it sounds that way
What I was trying to say is that people everywhere know that these things vary by culture, and people everywhere also know that the US is a diverse immigrant country of both old and new immigrants, *so*... people from outside the US who are visiting here (e.g., tourists, who want to check out a US mall, and do some shopping for gifts) might not be confident and accurate which cultural standards apply here when they see an altercation like that (correct answer: a universal cultural standard, backed up by law), and therefore not know what they should do.
I'd say it is unreasonable to expect foreign tourists to know subtleties of US culture. And I doubt the tourist guidebooks explain what they should do if witnessing domestic violence in a US shopping mall. (If the guidebooks say anything about crime, I suspect it's more like, "Watch your wallet, avoid fights and arguments with locals, do not attempt to bribe officials.")
I mentioned the foreign visitor uncertainty thing towards the end of a long list of a reasons different people might be hesitant to intervene. I didn't expect it to be a controversial or offensive point.
I hope I've been more clear this time.
And I referred to Cambridge because that's where this took place, and also because I'm more familiar with the people here than in Kalamazoo.
Foreign visitor uncertainty
I think you've made yourself clear, neilv, FWIW.
I don't think uncertainty is likely to come from a "wife-beating is just fine in the old country" perspective so much as a "don't get involved in other people's problems" perspective.
In much of the world, it's very unsafe to get involved in other people's problems, and people just kind of route around them. For example, it's much safer to interact with police in the US than in much of Latin America. I've seen dead bodies lying by the road in Brazil because people didn't want to get involved. For talking to the cops, you might get pulled in or shaken down for a bribe, so you just keep walking.
Also in Brazil there's a saying "Entre marido e mulher ninguém mete colher." (Between a man and his wife, nobody sticks a spoon... yeah, it makes less sense in English). What it means is you just don't want to get between a man and his wife.
I like the idea of a special section about crime in guidebooks. It would probably say "Everybody in America has a gun and may shoot you with it for no good reason."
That's actually a REALLY good point
I've not read a guidebook on the U.S. (from a non-U.S. perspective), but I often found it ironic living in Germany and encountering Americans who'd be freaked out that their guidebook told them there were pickpockets in German cities. It's like, you're from a country with a much higher rate of violent crime, and you're freaking out about pickpockets in Germany?
But it just goes to show you what a little perspective is like. I realize that the U.S. is statistically very violent, but I also feel like I know how the police and the judicial system work here, and I'm familiar with American social dynamics and whatnot, so I don't feel like I'm walking around in some crime-ridden place where I need to watch my back. In other countries with lower crime rates though, I might not know what to do if someone blocked my path and demanded a bribe or something. I also could see myself come across a fighting pair of people in a country where I was less familiar and not know whether it was a scam to divert my attention, or some sort of organized crime thing where I'd be targeted if I got involved, or whether I'd actually be arrested for calling the police about someone's personal business.
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com