Deadly Voyeurism - Filming Murders For Clicks - Normalising Crime?

[Bells]

Approximately a week or so ago, a fairly brutal murder was committed in an inner city train station in the wee hours of the morning. News reports indicated that it was captured on CCTV - which it was. The murder followed an altercation between two groups of young men, nothing that would be classified as severe - just two groups bad mouthing each other as they walked along. One of the men pulled out a knife, another stepped forward attempted to calm the situation and the man with the knife stepped forward and stabbed him in the neck, effectively slicing his carotid artery.

He stands there for a few seconds, looking confused, he touches his neck, puts his hands on his hips, we see the blood quickly covering his shirt and torso and he collapses to the ground a few seconds later, as a bystander rushes forward when he realises what has happened and attempts to help him. He was dead shortly after.

How do I know the details of what happened? It wasn't from the CCTV footage. The entire thing was captured on someone's mobile phone.

The person with the phone was facing the victim, and would have seen the blood start to spurt immediately - as was evident from the video. He wasn't standing that far away from him. The bystander who rushed forward when he saw him collapse, was standing in a doorway behind the victim.

At no time does the person filming pause to render first aid, or stop filming to call an ambulance. They just kept filming.

I won't link the video. It is horrifying footage and something that I will never unsee and is absolutely traumatising. I clicked on a link that appeared in my twitter feed and saw the grizzly scene play out - almost like it was a GIF.

News media showed aspects of the confrontation, we see blurred images. Not from the CCTV footage, but from the video that someone captured on their phone. Even that showed too much.

This video is now making the rounds on social media, on reddit - who have been attempting to delete it, but it keeps popping back up - with the running commentary from posters.

This isn't the first time that a murder has been captured on someone's phone. Nor will it be the last.

The young man who committed this crime ended someone's life with a quick flick of his wrist. The movement was barely perceptible. This wasn't a drawn out brawl or fight and someone is stabbed in the fray of it all. This is someone who casually raised his arm and stabbed someone in the neck and then turned and walked away with his mates. There was no pause. A friend of mine today, queried "who does that?". Along the lines of who casually pulls out a knife and just slices someone's artery open and then walks away without pausing. My response was "who films it and keeps filming and then uploads it on social media?". The apathy is horrifying.

The problem with murder videos is that they are horrifying, desensitizing, and most importantly obscene, both in the legal sense and in the common-sense understanding of the word.

Further, a victim of murder is obviously unable to consent to the release of his or her murder video. Does a murder victim, or the victim’s family members, not possess the right to prevent widespread disclosure of such a personal tragedy? The debate over whether the victim’s family has any stake in a privacy claim or tort claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against someone who posts or publishes footage of their loved one’s murder is beyond the scope of this Note. However, the harm that a victim’s family may suffer from murder videos is evident.

Link: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1359&context=flr​

It's as if we have become immune to seeing this level of gore. Not from movies or video games, but from real life situations that are so garishly captured and posted on social media. And we keep seeing this again and again. People are more intent on capturing it on their phones and then uploading it, then they are in trying to stop the crime or even provide essential first aid. And millions watch it. It is voyeurism at its worst, with a level of apathy from viewers who are more intent on assigning blame or mocking the incident, than to consider that they just watched someone die right on their screens and their first response is essentially "lol".

What the hell has happened to us as a society, as human beings? Certainly, who the hell just stabs someone in the neck and then walks away with his friends as though it's nothing at all? What drives someone one do something like this? And who the hell films it and keeps filming, even zooming in closer as the man collapses to the ground?

Are murder videos making us apathetic as a society? And is it normalising violent crime?

** Edited to fix link. Thanks Dave for pointing out it was broken!

 

[DaveC426913]

"who films it and keeps filming and then uploads it on social media?". The apathy is horrifying.

It was without question a horrifying event.

But for the sake of this discussion, I have to ask what we're doing in this thread: are we assigning intent to the author without knowing what they were thinking? It looks callous from our POV in our armchair, but do we know the author was feeling apathy?

What do we think he might have done instead? Stepped forward and interceded? Even rendered first aid? I would say, in the moment, that would seem like a pretty effective way of getting very dead very fast.
What's the next best thing? Film the whole thing, knowing that you may be the one who gets this piece of dirt sent to prison forever?

I see this kind of thing all the time in the media today. We get a boiled down after-the-fact version of the events - one that's been digested, purged of any toxins, enriched with nutrients and spit back out for us in a package, like refined sugar cubes. Easy to swallow.

Sure, it's a video. Raw and uncensored. But was it narrated too? Did the author say callous things like "This is awesome" or "I'm gonna get so many hits with this"?


So I have to ask: are we sure we have - not only all the contextual facts - but also the workings-of-the-mind of the video author? Because that's what we're judging here, isn't it? We're judging the unspoken thought processes of a stranger - through an extremely narrow lens. We're claiming to be mind-readers, are we not?

[https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1359&context=flr]​

PS. Link busted.
Fixed: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1359&context=flr

 

[Bells]

But for the sake of this discussion, I have to ask what we're doing in this thread: are we assigning intent to the author without knowing what they were thinking?

What do you think they were thinking?

Let's consider at the author's actions. They are walking off to the side, filming the altercation as the two groups are walking along - so this person is keeping pace with them and filming on their phone. When the main group of the people involved in the altercation move away, leaving behind the 24 year old who has been stabbed, this person stays behind and jogs closer to get a clearer shot. At no time does the author of the video speak. They do not swear, or exclaim shock or even ask the victim "are you okay?" or anything to that effect. Even when the bystander who was standing in the doorway of one of the shops in the food court runs forward, when this person collapses, this individual does not stop filming, but instead, gets closer to get a better shot.

This video then gets uploaded to social media. I am guessing they may have even been offered money by the various media and news organisations - as they have all used it, while blurring out certain parts. It's still currently available on reddit and has made repeated appearances on facebook, twitter, tiktok, youtube - who are basically deleting it as it appears.

As a human being, what would motivate a person to keep filming someone as they are dying in such a horrific fashion? This person has already caught the crime in action. This person wouldn't have known how this was going to end. But they just saw someone being stabbed in the neck and the horrific and immediate after effect of that. What would motivate them to just keep on filming, get closer for a better shot and not once ask if they are okay, or stop filming altogether and call 000 for an ambulance and police? What makes someone do something like this and then go home and upload it?

It looks callous from our POV in our armchair, but do we know the author was feeling apathy?

I think the apathy is evident in their actions, no?

Let's just imagine they wanted to record this to help the police. They would hand it over to the police and then not upload it, no? Police went by CCTV footage first and asked for help from any witnesses to come forward and that was what was initially shown in the media that morning, until this individual uploaded it.

The apathy is evident to me, in the manner in which this person does not stop filming to call an ambulance when they see the blood spurt from this person's neck, and instead, gets closer to get a better shot and at no time rushes forward to help this person. And it is evident in the manner in which he doesn't offer this dying person any comfort or help.

What do we think he might have done instead? Stepped forward and interceded? Even rendered first aid? I would say, in the moment, that would seem like a pretty effective way of getting very dead very fast.
What's the next best thing? Film the whole thing, knowing that you may be the one who gets this piece of dirt sent to prison forever?

This individual didn't hand it over to the police. They uploaded it instead.

Police were still asking for witnesses to come forward and were relying on CCTV footage, when they uploaded it to social media.

The person who stabbed him had already moved away with his mates as the altercation continued. You could hear them in the distance. No one was near him except the person filming him until the bystander in the shop runs forward to help the victim.

The person filming is completely silent. All one hears is their breathing, that slight acceleration as he jogs a few steps closer to get a better shot. This individual does not pause to call for help, offers no comfort and instead, just keeps filming.

There is something primal about respecting the dignity of death. And yet, it is now widely accepted that we don't.

I see this kind of thing all the time in the media today. We get a boiled down after-the-fact version of the events - one that's been digested, purged of any toxins, enriched with nutrients and spit back out for us in a package, like refined sugar cubes. Easy to swallow.

Which is kind of the problem, no?

That's what I am asking in this thread.

Why are we seeing this kind of thing all the time?

I'll give you an example. In April 2020, a man was pulled over by police on a freeway in Victoria (Australia). Four police officers were there. As they were on the emergency stop lane, a truck speeding veered into that lane and hit them and effectively them over. The person they pulled out his phone and filmed the officers as they were dying:

Crown prosecutor Robyn Harper told the County Court that in the moments after the collision, Pusey walked "slowly and purposefully" around the scene and began filming the dead and dying police officers.

He then zoomed in on Leading Senior Constable Taylor as she lay moaning, before later zooming in on Constable Humphris' injuries.

"I think everyone got cleaned up, there's four people, four people, look at that," Pusey can be heard saying on one of his recordings.

"Bang, bang, bang, they got thrown all the way over there," he said.

"Look at that mate, look at that. Oh he's smashed. Look at that. Look at that. Lucky I went and had a piss," he said later.

Pusey then walked around to the rear of the truck before turning the camera onto a damaged police car.

"Look at that man, you f***ing c***s. You c***s. I guess I'll be getting a f***ing Uber home, huh," he said.

"That is f***ing justice, absolutely amazing, that is f***ing amazing."​

His lawyers claimed that he was mumbling to himself. He made 2 videos, lasting 3 minutes each and at one point was confronted by others who had stopped to render first aid. The prosecutor stated:

"To video record of anyone in their dying moments and after death is a serious example of offensive behaviour," she said.

"It is repugnant, it's abhorrent. The adjectives flow.

"It was callous and it deprived the officers of the dignity they deserved in their final moments."​

Is the prosecutor wrong? I don't believe so. Now consider that Pusey posted an image of one of the dying police officers online, which he did do. Not only did he film them dying. He also took photos.

So why do people feel this need to capture it on video or to film it?

I'll give you another example. As my dad lay dying, in the final week of his life, one of my relatives pulled out her phone and started to video call our other family interstate to tell them that he was near death and was actively dying. She then started to film him. Not for them to say goodbye, for example. No. She filmed him and said "look at what he looks like now..". And I'm not going to lie, my initial reaction was shock. I wanted to knock the phone out of her hand. At the time, I thought 'what in the actual fuck do you think you're doing?'. And a few other choice terms that won't be repeated here. Short of turning it into a scene from Jerry Springer, I managed to calmly ask her to stop filming him as I leant forward and placed my by then shaking hand in front of his face and to respect his privacy. I was very upset at the time, in tears and quite distressed. They were all offended that I said to stop filming. None of them speak to me now because of it. I'm now only in regular contact with one of my relatives on my dad's side. The rest are offended that I became upset and have refused to speak to me since his funeral.

And 2 years later, I don't understand what the hell she was thinking in filming him. She did not think there was anything wrong with what she was doing. That to me is part of the problem. My cousin even got up and zoomed in on my father's face, so her sister could get a better look. It was at that point that I came out of my shock and told her to please stop. And each time I see these videos pop up, I ask myself the same question. Who does this and why has it come to this? And it just keeps happening.

Are we, as a society, becoming apathetic when it comes to those who are dying? Why do we feel the need to whip out our phones and film it?

So I have to ask: are we sure we have - not only all the contextual facts - but also the workings-of-the-mind of the video author? Because that's what we're judging here, isn't it? We're judging the unspoken thought processes of a stranger - through an extremely narrow lens. We're claiming to be mind-readers, are we not?

Judge the actions of the author. Ask yourself this. Does it matter that they said nothing, when compared to Mr Pusey who gave a running commentary as he filmed those dying officers? Does it matter that this person ran forward to keep filming up close, instead of running forward to offer first aid, comfort and to call for help? Should it matter? Why do people have this voyeuristic need to film people as they are dying and then upload it? Think of the workings of the mind of the author. Who filmed it and then uploaded it instead of giving it to the police. What do you think was their intent?

And thanks for fixing the link. I guess the font change may have thrown it off.

 

[DaveC426913]

What do you think they were thinking?

I am not a mind reader. I'd want to be sure I knew what someone was thinking before I'd be comfortable judging them for their thoughts.

Let's consider at the author's actions. They are walking off to the side, filming the altercation as the two groups are walking along - so this person is keeping pace with them and filming on their phone. When the main group of the people involved in the altercation move away, leaving behind the 24 year old who has been stabbed, this person stays behind and jogs closer to get a clearer shot. At no time does the author of the video speak. They do not swear, or exclaim shock or even ask the victim "are you okay?" or anything to that effect. Even when the bystander who was standing in the doorway of one of the shops in the food court runs forward, when this person collapses, this individual does not stop filming, but instead, gets closer to get a better shot.

If you say so. You didn't provide the video - and I could not find it even with a search - so I cannot speak to it.

This video then gets uploaded to social media. I am guessing they may have even been offered money by the various media and news organisations

Right. Guessing, and then passing judgement based on your guess.

I'm not trying to throw out your whole argument, just finding it more specious than it seemed at first.

As a human being, what would motivate a person to keep filming someone as they are dying in such a horrific fashion? This person has already caught the crime in action. This person wouldn't have known how this was going to end. But they just saw someone being stabbed in the neck and the horrific and immediate after effect of that. What would motivate them to just keep on filming, get closer for a better shot and not once ask if they are okay, or stop filming altogether and call 000 for an ambulance and police? What makes someone do something like this and then go home and upload it?

This just feels a lot like conformation bias. You're predisposed to confirm the judgement you've passed, so when you go through this scenario, you're just ticking boxes.

I think the apathy is evident in their actions, no?

I see a lot of self-fulfilling supposition in that conclusion.

Let's just imagine they wanted to record this to help the police. They would hand it over to the police and then not upload it, no? Police went by CCTV footage first and asked for help from any witnesses to come forward and that was what was initially shown in the media that morning, until this individual uploaded it.

Sure. In a black and white world, there is only "self-serving" and "selfless", and no grey area.

The apathy is evident to me, in the manner in which this person does not stop filming to call an ambulance when they see the blood spurt from this person's neck, and instead, gets closer to get a better shot and at no time rushes forward to help this person. And it is evident in the manner in which he doesn't offer this dying person any comfort or help.

Hard to speak to, since I haven't seen it.

I can tell you a lot of people would be loath to get physically involved in such a situation. The culprit has demonstrated he'll murder without virtually no provocation.

This individual didn't hand it over to the police. They uploaded it instead.

Police were still asking for witnesses to come forward and were relying on CCTV footage, when they uploaded it to social media.

The person who stabbed him had already moved away with his mates as the altercation continued. You could hear them in the distance. No one was near him except the person filming him until the bystander in the shop runs forward to help the victim.

"...as the altercation continued"

So we can take it as a given that the camera holder knew the culprit was still within range.

It might also explain why the camera holder kept his mouth shut - i.e. not out of any kind of narrative intent, but out of fear.

There is something primal about respecting the dignity of death. And yet, it is now widely accepted that we don't.

Perhaps. This has never happened to me, so I can't judge.

I'd like to think I would kneel in a pool of warm blood to render what first aid I knew to a dying stranger while the culprit is still nearby, but I don't really know.

Why are we seeing this kind of thing all the time?

Right. Yes. I'd say that is the core ask of this thread. Questioning this as a general trend, not the specific incident.

The essay you linked to suggested to me the same thing - it's more about the trend than the specific incident. So I was unwittingly addressing what turned out to only be the example.

i.e. I'm not intending to refute your primary thesis about the trend, I just found the OP example to be a really bad examplar.


I think I will step back and let others take the lead on this.

 

[C C]

. . . What the hell has happened to us as a society, as human beings? [...] And who the hell films it and keeps filming, even zooming in closer as the man collapses to the ground?

Are murder videos making us apathetic as a society? And is it normalising violent crime?

The crowd apathy it occurs in conjunction with is nothing new, and similarly the filming is likely due to the technology simply being available, rather than -- say -- a totally new pathological development in our species triggering the behavior.

Incidents associated with "bystander effect" go back to the 1960s, but occurred long before then. The later concept/theory just wasn't around to cognitively discriminate and spur collecting those earlier crimes under some "indifference of spectators" category.

And the psychological hypothesis itself doesn't necessarily have to hold up well to scrutiny. "Bystander effect" probably hangs around largely due to our needing a convenient label to hang these types of violent affairs on.

If smartphones and video uploading of their footage had been available prior to the 20th-century, doubtless some of the passive bystanders of those days (with twisted quirks?) would have been capturing scenes on camera also. It would be astonishing if any single explanation could neatly and universally explain away all specific occasions of the conduct.

10 Notorious Cases of the Bystander Effect
https://listverse.com/2009/11/02/10-notorious-cases-of-the-bystander-effect/

 

[billvon]

What the hell has happened to us as a society, as human beings?

Our society has evolved to support an attention economy. Anything that draws someone's attention - resulting in clicks that are very effectively monetized - is worth a lot of money.

Expect to see a lot more of this; by far the #1 way to incentivize behavior in a capitalist system is to pay big bucks for it. The cameraman could have dropped his camera five seconds sooner to help - but would not have been able to save him, and then he would have lost out on a video he obviously hoped would be seen by many. People will do this sort of calculation in their heads instantly, and will keep the camera rolling hoping for $$$. Then they will justify it by saying there was nothing they could have done anyway, and why shouldn't they benefit a little from what is otherwise a tragedy?

 

[Bells]

I am not a mind reader. I'd want to be sure I knew what someone was thinking before I'd be comfortable judging them for their thoughts.

What do you think they were thinking when they kept filming instead of calling for an ambulance?

Let me ask you this. What would you have done?

Would you have kept filming and then uploaded it? Or would you have called for an ambulance and police?

If you say so. You didn't provide the video - and I could not find it even with a search - so I cannot speak to it.

I won't link the video of the man being murdered, sorry.

Right. Guessing, and then passing judgement based on your guess.

I'm not trying to throw out your whole argument, just finding it more specious than it seemed at first.

Well consider this. They filmed a man being murdered and as he started to bleed out and then collapsed as he was actively dying, they didn't stop filming to call for help for the man. They walked closer and kept on filming.

They also did not provide the video to police, but instead, uploaded it to social media hours later.

I'm asking for your opinion about this sort of action. Do you think there is something wrong with it? I ask, because this is becoming more and more common.

This just feels a lot like conformation bias. You're predisposed to confirm the judgement you've passed, so when you go through this scenario, you're just ticking boxes.

I am looking at the actions of the person.

This person literally filmed a man being murdered and not once did that person stop to call the authorities, even as the victim collapsed and bled out. They didn't hand it over to the police, but instead, uploaded it. Those are the boxes that are ticked. Those were that person's actions.

Let me give you an example. You see someone bashing another person. Would you judge that person as being violent? Would you describe that person as being violent? So how would you describe the actions of someone who films a person being murdered, doesn't call an ambulance for the victim as he's bleeding out, doesn't hand it over to police and instead, uploads it online?

I see a lot of self-fulfilling supposition in that conclusion.

I disagree. The person filming showed a complete lack of emotion, concern or care for a man who was just murdered before their very eyes, and instead, kept filming instead of calling for help. Nor did they show any concern for the loved ones of the victim who would have watched it, when they uploaded it online.

Sure. In a black and white world, there is only "self-serving" and "selfless", and no grey area.

Not at all. I'm approaching it from a standpoint of basic human decency.

Hard to speak to, since I haven't seen it.

I can tell you a lot of people would be loath to get physically involved in such a situation. The culprit has demonstrated he'll murder without virtually no provocation.

The person filming did get physically involved when they moved forward after the victim collapsed to get a better shot of the man dying... Instead of calling 000 for help.

And I'm not posting a video of someone being murdered.

"...as the altercation continued"

So we can take it as a given that the camera holder knew the culprit was still within range.

It might also explain why the camera holder kept his mouth shut - i.e. not out of any kind of narrative intent, but out of fear.

So, the person filming kept his mouth shut by posting it online on social media?

The murderer ran away after he sliced the guy's carotid artery open with a knife. The person filming moved closer to the victim to get a better shot on their phone. If they were concerned for their safety, they would not have moved closer as the altercation was taking place and would have instead called the police, no? No, they did not. Instead, they kept filming and when the guy was stabbed, they moved closer to get a better shot of the guy dying.

Perhaps. This has never happened to me, so I can't judge.

I'd like to think I would kneel in a pool of warm blood to render what first aid I knew to a dying stranger while the culprit is still nearby, but I don't really know.

Or you could call paramedics and police instead of getting closer to get a better shot of the man dying on your phone, no?

Right. Yes. I'd say that is the core ask of this thread. Questioning this as a general trend, not the specific incident.

The essay you linked to suggested to me the same thing - it's more about the trend than the specific incident. So I was unwittingly addressing what turned out to only be the example.

i.e. I'm not intending to refute your primary thesis about the trend, I just found the OP example to be a really bad examplar.

And which is why I am asking... Why is this now a trend or becoming a trend?

 

[Seattle]

Isn't it more likely that someone called the police (not that it would help the person that was just murdered) and the person with the phone captured it on video (and later gave it to the police).

You can't really "help" someone who has just had their carotid artery sliced. Is there any indication that someone else wasn't calling the police as the other person filmed the crime to be used as evidence?

I can't know exactly what was in their mind but how can you?

 

[Michael 345]

You can't really "help" someone who has just had their carotid artery sliced

Apply firm pressure

 

[Bells]

The crowd apathy it occurs in conjunction with is nothing new, and similarly the filming is likely due to the technology simply being available, rather than -- say -- a totally new pathological development in our species triggering the behavior.

Incidents associated with "bystander effect" go back to the 1960s, but occurred long before then. The later concept/theory just wasn't around to cognitively discriminate and spur collecting those earlier crimes under some "indifference of spectators" category.

And the psychological hypothesis itself doesn't necessarily have to hold up well to scrutiny. "Bystander effect" probably hangs around largely due to our needing a convenient label to hang these types of violent affairs on.

If smartphones and video uploading of their footage had been available prior to the 20th-century, doubtless some of the passive bystanders of those days (with twisted quirks?) would have been capturing scenes on camera also. It would be astonishing if any single explanation could neatly and universally explain away all specific occasions of the conduct.

10 Notorious Cases of the Bystander Effect
https://listverse.com/2009/11/02/10-notorious-cases-of-the-bystander-effect/

Interesting response. Thank you for that!

Do you think the bystander effect is caused by a lack of empathy for the victim? Do people just switch off?

If we read your link, and the case of the South African photojournalist Kevin Carter, who ended up committing suicide a year after he won a Pulitzer for his photograph of the starving toddler who was crawling on the ground while a vulture watched her, do you think his lack of response to her plight showed a lack of empathy for her?

He left the clinic and went back to the runway, taking pictures of children and adults on his way. He came across a child lying on his face in the hot sun, and took a picture.[14]

Carter saw Silva on the runway and told him, "You won't believe what I've just shot! … I was shooting this kid on her knees, and then changed my angle, and suddenly there was this vulture right behind her! … And I just kept shooting – shot lots of film!"[14] Silva asked him where he shot the picture and was looking around to take a photo as well. Carter pointed to a place 50 m (160 ft) away. Then Carter told him that he had chased the vulture away. He told Silva he was shocked by the situation he had just photographed, saying, "I see all this, and all I can think of is Megan", his young daughter. A few minutes later they left Ayod for Kongor.​

Was Mr Carter bearing witness to this child's suffering? Do you think he should have felt any obligation to help the child reach the aid tent instead of trying to get the perfect shot with the vulture, before chasing it away? The child crawled all the way to the tent apparently. In thinking of his own daughter, would he have wanted someone to help her if she was in that situation?

He heard a soft, high-pitched whimpering and saw a tiny girl trying to make her way to the feeding center. As he crouched to photograph her, a vulture landed in view. Careful not to disturb the bird, he positioned himself for the best possible image. He would later say he waited about 20 minutes, hoping the vulture would spread its wings. It did not, and after he took his photographs, he chased the bird away and watched as the little girl resumed her struggle. Afterward he sat under a tree, lit a cigarette, talked to God and cried. "He was depressed afterward," Silva recalls. "He kept saying he wanted to hug his daughter."​

Susan Sontag wrote a book length essay on what we now refer to as the bystander effect when it comes to journalists, and on the subject of ethics:

"There is shame as well as shock in looking at the close-up of a real horror. Perhaps the only people with the right to look at images of suffering of this extreme order are those who could do something to alleviate it … or those who could learn from it. The rest of us are voyeurs, whether or not we mean to be."​

It's important to note that Ms Sontag was describing the horrors witnessed during wars, famines and other disasters, by journalists who go there to essentially bear witness. Mr Carter was so troubled by what he witnessed, along with other issues in his life, that he killed himself. He was bearing witness to an unimaginable horror. But he also stood there for several minutes, clicking his camera, trying to get the best shot and then boasted to his colleague about what he had just photographed, the colleague also wanted to take photos, and then he said all he could think of was his daughter as he was doing it. And he provided no help to this child. Do you think he felt a lack of empathy for the child directly in front of him and who was the subject of his photo?

How about in the murder of Khaseen Morris, where over a dozen teenagers filmed him being attacked and then stabbed to death, with no one coming to his aide or calling for help.

What I am trying to understand is what drives people to not intervene or help. It's interesting that the bystander effect is also known as bystander apathy, no?

Also, in the murder that I discussed in the OP, there is no evidence of any other bystander as the altercation began. The person filming also did not pause or stop filming, even as one person ran out of the store when he realised that the victim had been stabbed and had collapsed, and started to provide first aid. Instead, the person got closer to get a better shot of the man as he lay there dying. So I'm not sure the bystander effect would apply here, as the bystander effect essentially deals with people who do not intervene or seek help when in a group of bystanders who also do nothing to stop the situation or seek or provide help.

Isn't it more likely that someone called the police (not that it would help the person that was just murdered) and the person with the phone captured it on video (and later gave it to the police).

You can't really "help" someone who has just had their carotid artery sliced. Is there any indication that someone else wasn't calling the police as the other person filmed the crime to be used as evidence?

I can't know exactly what was in their mind but how can you?

He was the witness to the crime (aside from others involved in the altercation). He did not hand the video over to police after the stabbing. He uploaded it to social media instead.

I am asking what leads people to do this.

Let me ask you this. If you see someone being stabbed, do you call the police, or keep filming and get closer to get a better and closer angle as they bleed out in front of you?

And for a stabbing, firm pressure and call for help. Every second counts. This person watched the victim stand there for several seconds as the blood poured down his front before he collapsed. He didn't stop and call for help. He moved closer for a better shot.

Our society has evolved to support an attention economy. Anything that draws someone's attention - resulting in clicks that are very effectively monetized - is worth a lot of money.

Expect to see a lot more of this; by far the #1 way to incentivize behavior in a capitalist system is to pay big bucks for it. The cameraman could have dropped his camera five seconds sooner to help - but would not have been able to save him, and then he would have lost out on a video he obviously hoped would be seen by many. People will do this sort of calculation in their heads instantly, and will keep the camera rolling hoping for $$$. Then they will justify it by saying there was nothing they could have done anyway, and why shouldn't they benefit a little from what is otherwise a tragedy?

Bingo!

And unfortunately yes.

 

[C C]

Interesting response. Thank you for that!

Do you think the bystander effect is caused by a lack of empathy for the victim? Do people just switch off?

It's a possibility surely applicable to the occasional observer in these situations, as well as maybe the reality of unanticipated violence taking a while to kick-in (shock interval causing stasis).

But again, I don't feel there's a universal explanation that subsumes each separate event and all the crowd individuals; and the theory upholders themselves seem to dabble in variables and contingent factors (including cultural differences).

In the '60s and '70s, crime-ridden New York City was popularly associated with indifferent spectators who either stared or quickly hurried on. TV shows, movies, and comic books of the era would dispense some phrase in an episode, film, or issue akin to "We shouldn't get involved, Martha. It's dangerous."

Perhaps it still echoes in contemporary NYC...

New York Today: The City’s Bystander Effect
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/nyregion/new-york-today-bystander-effect.html

EXCERPT: The first time I dialed 911 in New York was on a subway platform at 42nd Street — last week. A woman was bleeding on her head and neck; she had fallen on the stairs between the platform and turnstiles.

Some passengers hurried past her. Others stopped to look and moved on. Several took out their phones — not to call for help, but instead to record the scene.

Maybe you’ve witnessed a similar episode in the city:curious onlookers who hesitate to act, or opt not to do anything at all. It’s often what psychologists call “the bystander effect.” ​

[...] If we read your link, and the case of the South African photojournalist Kevin Carter, who ended up committing suicide a year after he won a Pulitzer for his photograph of the starving toddler who was crawling on the ground while a vulture watched her, do you think his lack of response to her plight showed a lack of empathy for her?

"The UN hoped to publish the famine… Without publicity to show the need, it was difficult for aid organisations to sustain funding". About the political differences and fighting "João and Kevin knew none of this – they just wanted to get in and shoot pictures".​

Only my opinion, but I doubt that Carter and Silva were truly or totally in the dark with respect to why the OLS extended an invite. Carter surely subconsciously apprehended that he was indulging in motivated [photo] journalism that went beyond just advancing his own personal career -- that he had a particular goal of theirs to satisfy. The latter stemming from the nature of this altruistic enterprise itself -- a systematic material and logistic assistance to the needy ironically finding it necessary to photo-exploit the desperate in order to help them.

[...] It's important to note that Ms Sontag was describing the horrors witnessed during wars, famines and other disasters, by journalists who go there to essentially bear witness. Mr Carter was so troubled by what he witnessed, along with other issues in his life, that he killed himself. He was bearing witness to an unimaginable horror. But he also stood there for several minutes, clicking his camera, trying to get the best shot and then boasted to his colleague about what he had just photographed, the colleague also wanted to take photos, and then he said all he could think of was his daughter as he was doing it. And he provided no help to this child. Do you think he felt a lack of empathy for the child directly in front of him and who was the subject of his photo?

Like conventional reporters tasting a story, when a [photo] journalist sees a chance to capture scenes that they were sent to garner for _X_ purpose, professional reflexes probably kick-in first and the emotions are set aside until the task is done. However, if the circumstance develops unexpectedly into an extraordinarily nightmarish circumstance, a journalist (in general) can lose their composure, as with Herbert Morrison and the Hindenburg.

Over the years, we've all seen news-people and their accompanying camera folk reporting on an array of human tragedies in a physically detached way, albeit also mitigated with facial and vocal expressions of sympathy (hopefully many of those were legit rather than just conforming to "compassionate protocol").

Perhaps it's a consequence of training to be objective, in conjunction with a fear of burning-out if one gets deeply involved in every single horror of field-work. As well as guilt potentially building up via selectively playing a "savior role" for a few, but not all.

Like, say, bringing along food for occasional starving victim(s) one is filming, but not having the means to supply every one of them with such. (I.e., like the time I remember a reporter commenting during film footage "This woman we encountered along the road begged us for food, but we didn't have any". Perhaps the journalist team often didn't have any, for personal reasons of the group.)

That impartial approach of journalism didn't always have offbeat Gonzo as a contrast for further illuminating its stern characteristics:

"Gonzo journalism involves an approach to accuracy that concerns the reporting of personal experiences and emotions, in contrast to traditional journalism, which favors a detached style and relies on facts or quotations that can be verified by third parties. Gonzo journalism disregards the strictly-edited product once favored by newspaper media and strives for a more personal approach; the personality of a piece is as important as the event or actual subject of the piece. Use of sarcasm, humor, exaggeration, and profanity is common."​

 

[C C]

[...] How about in the murder of Khaseen Morris, where over a dozen teenagers filmed him being attacked and then stabbed to death, with no one coming to his aide or calling for help.

What I am trying to understand is what drives people to not intervene or help. It's interesting that the bystander effect is also known as bystander apathy, no?

Kids and teens, of course, pioneered the art of standing around while another student is bullied or beaten. Similar in prisons, though the consequences of either ratting on who did _X_ or intervening in a fight are more stark and reliable. We might have to even set these aside as institutional phenomena, different from "ordinary" cases of bystander effect. Although some neighborhoods might be regarded as "institutional", too, if there is a lot of organized intimidation and crime going on.

Also, in the murder that I discussed in the OP, there is no evidence of any other bystander as the altercation began. The person filming also did not pause or stop filming, even as one person ran out of the store when he realised that the victim had been stabbed and had collapsed, and started to provide first aid. Instead, the person got closer to get a better shot of the man as he lay there dying. So I'm not sure the bystander effect would apply here, as the bystander effect essentially deals with people who do not intervene or seek help when in a group of bystanders who also do nothing to stop the situation or seek or provide help.

Yah, the "bystander effect" arguably does apply more fully to that other OP reference, the Khaseen Morris murder.

News reports of the "Fortitude Valley station stabbing" seem short on details in terms of just how many different groups of onlookers there were, but here it is collectively mentioned that:

"Police said there were several witnesses to the brawl and there is no indication gang violence was involved." --Man charged with murder over train station stabbing remanded in custody

Also (including the one you mentioned): "Witnesses provided first aid to the young man until police and paramedics arrived." --Man charged with murder of Lauie Tagaloa

And if limited to Tagaloa's three friends, they were actively involved rather than passive:

"One of the victim’s friends is seen advancing towards the other group, appearing to taunt them while in a low fighting stance, as if he is about to throw a punch." --Man charged with murder

But ironically they seemed to have missed the later stabbing or its severity, at first:

"Police say the victim then drops to the ground in a pool of his own blood. His friends continue to advance on the other group, seemingly unaware that their friend has been mortally wounded." --Man charged with murder over train station stabbing remanded in custody ​

At any rate, even if there was a third party of dispassionate onlookers (i.e., more than just video-recording guy), the overall classification of "bystander effect" falters due to at least one of the "witness" groups (friends presumedly) attending to the victim after the fatal strike.

 

[DaveC426913]

Our society has evolved to support an attention economy. Anything that draws someone's attention - resulting in clicks that are very effectively monetized - is worth a lot of money.

Same thing, but I phrased it a different way, ten years ago:

Publicity* is the new currency.

*Likes and click-throughs

Not so new though...


As to the callous nature of the onlookers - well - how many of these occurred outside of America?

Americans are getting pretty effectively desensitized to gun violence. It's - quite literally - a daily routine.

 

[Seattle]

The ones with knives probably occurred outside the U.S.