Summary Of Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn T Call The Police

Gruels unlikely method of teaching these students helps them neutralize there actions by being able to relate to the students and what they deal with and the students actually writing out what happens in there daily life and reflect on there own actions. By doing that surprisingly to the students it made them gain so much respect towards Mrs. Gruel despite the fact that the School District disagreed with her teaching methods, the students of her class started to change and become better people. In Becoming a Hit man, there really wasn't a change in the actual “Hit Man” there motivation to killing innocent people was money. But, the only thing that neutralized the killers was them becoming mentally depressed and feeling guilty after killing there first victim. Like Pete said in the article “Ill never forget the look of the my first victim, he gave the look like Why Me?” Furthermore this seemed to mess up the actual hit man more than it gave them more motivation to kill another

Also there is no suggestion that they saw knife, blood or any act of violence.One lady

38 people in Queens watched a woman named Kitty Genovese get stabbed and they did not call the police according to “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police” by Martin Gansberg. People follow the majority of people because they don’t want to do anything out of their comfort zone. Fear, ignorance, or following the crowd can keep people from taking action and speaking up to save the person in danger. When someone is in danger of being wrongly hurt, the bystanders are responsible for calling the police to save the person in danger. They shouldn’t put themselves in danger, but they are obligated to report the incident.

They gave reasons showing that the 38 witnesses were not responsible for Genovese’s death and it was okay for them to not call the police for help. They presented some of the reasons like the city life, society norms, law, and the situational pressure. They also explained them in favor of the witnesses. First of all, they talked about the personal relationships that are inferior in the city. People in the city keep distance between themselves because they want to be free (902). This was considered a big reason for the witnesses to not call the police or help her as they didn’t know Genovese or wasn’t close to her. Moreover, Milgram and Hollander presented society rules as an another explanation for the witnesses to not help Genovese. The witnesses were following the society rules by not taking the law into their own hands (904). They

For instance, Hugo Tale-Yax is but one example of a life that could have been saved if one person had called the police.

After reading, "Thirty-Eight- Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police" by Martin Gansberg, I was completely shook and confused as to why about 40 people didn’t report this to the police. It just sounds so inhumane and insane to see someone being stabbed and not helping. How can 38 people watching this bloody scene be okay with it and not call the police department? In the article, it mentioned that the investigator said that even if one person had called the police, she could have been saved. If I were in a similar situation, I would have immediately called the police and ambulance regardless of my condition or what time it is. In the article, one man said that he was simply “too tired” to call. How can someone lack so much care and sympathy

In the short story, “38 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police” one specific quote really stood out to me. When the author states, “’Good people’ failed to call the police” (671), I instantly thought of a few situations that have happened in today’s society. With this in mind I came up with my thesis: the bad reputation and distrust of the police can turn even the greatest person into a bad Samaritan. I think it will be a great essay because it is a very controversial topic. I personally believe that the police are here to protect us, but there are many that think that cops are their enemy and are out to get them. With all of the negative media coverage of the police, an everyday normal citizen could think twice before getting involved and reporting

narrator describes how the police believe that the community involvement cripples the subjects thus hiding their crimes. Throughout the documentary the audience can depict that, the Violence Interrupters understand the strength and time that is struggle involved in transformation. Similarly, Beck’s Journal of Community Practice, states, “By engaging the community, a conflict can be resolved in the best interests of the victim, the offender, and the community, rather than what the law requires.”, many of the subjects feel as if the law restricts them from transforming; the law dehumanizes them as well as labeling them as permanent criminals that will reoffend if they are not imprisoned or isolated (387). Once the community understands the problems as a team then residents will be strong to cure the violence epidemic; isolation is a disease and the only way to cure it is through involvement and interaction.

In the second paragraph Gabby explains why she thinks the narrator went over the top. She believes that killing is not necessary in any situation unless it is for self defense. This explains her reason for thinking the killer was wrong. In the third paragraph Rain states that she believes in revenge. Even though she relates to the narrator, she still feels that killing him was too harsh. Both of us have never been given a reason to get revenge like the narrator has, so we cannot relate with a killer. We both have come to an agreement that killing is wrong unless it becomes life

Humans care about the well-being of the world and the people in it, but that does not mean that they can be bothered to make the world better. In 1964 a young woman’s life was less important than the call of indifference. Her name was Catherine “Kitty” Genovese and she was ultimately murdered because her thirty-eight neighbors could not be bothered to lift a finger to save her life. If this were the case in today’s society, the thirty-eight witnesses would have more than likely put on trial for accessory to murder because current laws make it illegal to be so indifferent to such a gruesome and heinous crime. If everyone was this indifferent to all crime, there would be nonstop theft and murder, the society and economy would quickly fall apart and there would be total chaos.

The objective of this study was to indicate the reasons as to why such demoralizing and inhumane lack of intervention was given to the young women who was stabbed to death in a residential area of New York City. Researchers presumed the reasons as to why bystanders refused to intervene, ranged from imbrute demeanor, unwanted liability and the application of unperceived aid. These considerations lead researchers to develop the hypothesis that the more bystanders that

In our lives we have a choice. We can choose to rise above social norms and be a leader, or we can choose to blend in with the crowd and be a follower. Similarly, we can choose to be a bystander, or we can choose to take action and possibly make a difference in the world that we live in. It can be morally conflicting to choose whether to take action when something is wrong. The dilemma stems from the unknown outcome, which could result in positive or negative results. In an article published by The Seattle Times this past July, this conflict in human beings is exemplified. The article discusses a particularly disturbing attack on a train passenger, ending in his death. The man was stabbed 20 times by an 18-year-old boy, with a “slight” frame,

Thank you for your positive critique of my summary! When I am reading a story, novel, book, or narrative, I prefer to be able to paint a picture of what the author is trying to impose. Likewise, I do agree with your interpretation as the narrative seemed to confuse the audience. Furthermore, I have been studying criminal law for the past eight months; when reading "Who Saw Murder Didn't Call Police," I was astounded at the lack of details in the narrative and the deficiency of facts. For example, the Good Samaritan doctrine was not mentioned in the narrative; the Good Samaritan doctrine provides protection to an individual that does choose to intervene. If the author had added the law to his summary, I presume that he could have grasped the

In a short piece called Blocking the Transmission of Violence, the entirety of the piece talked about how people take risks every day for the sake of survival. Nothing can compare to the dangers faced within a community or a certain individual. In lines 94-95, “For violence, we’re trying to interrupt the next action, the next transmission, the next violent activity.” this quote right here explains perfectly on the importance or impact violence has become, and there is a risk being taken everyday just to insure that you will live another day. Applying this to your own life, you should be grateful for the life that you live, unless you chose to abandon your security for the welfare of others.

Through a closer observation of current research, one discovers the scope of violence, the signs to detect its presence in a person’s life, and what programs are in place to help people to protect them and be in better and