Would you intervene?

Honestly I think the first one is understandable it's noise pollution and most especially during the night. Though I think people should have called the police when they herd the woman was getting beaten up by the male. Or probably they know it's a setup. Anyways for me it'll depend on the situation, so I voted maybe, I'll just listen in if it's just an argument of a couple, but when I hear things start crashing and screaming then I'll call 911.

The cat though wanted to intervene, but couldn't get in the house. lol

i see honest 3 people from this poll. seriously. most people are NIMBY and thinking that you might intervene doesn't qualitfy you to vote "Yes"

I would never intervene, except if it becomes too loud and too drawn-out.

For a fight it always needs 2, and I don't want to intervene in anyones private affairs. Mostly the men is "the aggressor" in the end, but actually the women does most of the psychical aggression. No man comes home and beats his wife up just for the lulz.

I'd probably listen first. if the quarrel escalates to the point that somebody screams for help, I'd consider my options. Otherwise I'd let them settle it between themselves.

If I had company (preferably a dude), I'd go there and intervene - I don't want to head in there half-assed without a plan to effectively subdue the abuser with maximum restraint. If I had company it can greatly help to deter the abuser to cease and desist. I'd start with knocking on the door and asking what the matter is. Usually the case is that the abuser gets deterred if neighbors started knocking. But if the screams for help continue/intensify, or the abuse didn't stop, we'd break in and subdue the abuser.

Of course I can go in there alone but the risk is too high to ignore.

Otherwise I'd rather call the police.

Intervening could take the form of just calling the police, which is what I did every single time my upstairs neighbours started screaming and throwing shit at each other. Of course if you have fear of getting hurt yourself, it is understandable that you don't intervene directly, but I always, always do something about it.

Same with helping people out in the street. I suppose it's a bit different for me, since I've been trained on what to do as a first responder. I took an extended Red Cross First-aid/CPR training course, and one of the things they taught us was first, call in the professionals, then do what you can to help while considering your own safety (can't help anyone else if you get into trouble as well). Every little bit counts, even if it is just calling 911 or keeping rubber-neckers away so a person who fainted can have some breathing space. Another thing they taught us was to be specific about asking for help from people. We don't say "someone call 911," because that is vague and people can ignore that; instead, we say "you there in the red jacket on the cellphone, call 911." This places responsibility on the person to actually do something instead of just standing around being confused.

I just lost what little respect for you I had.

If no one ever intervene then we'd have a lot more broken family's. I really don't comprehend how you can hear someone beating their wife and think: "Meh, not my problem." All it takes is a simple phone call to the police, or a knock on there door. It's a hell of a lot better then just doing nothing.

Also, plenty of men do go home and beat their wives for the "lulz."

A fight does take two, abuse on the other hand only takes one.

Amazing the things a phone can do, huh?

I heard you can talk to people far away with it.

You're believing a pretty big myth. And it is a myth with evidence backing it being a myth.

Also, didn't you leave?

If I heard that next door to me first I'd call the police then I'd walk over right after I put the phone down. There's no way I could just listen to that go on and do nothing...

You probably only heard of such situations on FOX-news, where a drunkard ex-prison-inmate beats the shit out of his gf killing her in the end, and now you think that every quarrel is like that.

If you listened closely to the experiment, you can clearly hear that this conflict went both ways. Abuse would sound more like: The man coming home, his gf saying almost nothing, then you would hear how he is beating her up, and then she would cry.
Also, no one wants to be together with a potential "abuser" in the first place, and the woman can go away/to the police whenever she wants. Those abuses are very rare, and in the usual case it's the culmination point of an argument that has been going for days/weeks/months.

Let's take following scenario, a misunderstanding: He has a lot of stuff to do lately in the job and is annoyed. She thinks he does not love her and/or has a new lover. So she cheats on him in return, and instead of apologizing she teases him even more. He comes home, screams, and throws stuff around in the house for a minute or two. And then you intervene because you think he is going to kill her an whatnot? And then the police comes and all of you have to listen to their private problems and conflicts. How silly is that?

And every man who has a job, a house and a gf probably knows how to control himself, and would very rarely hit someone, especially a woman. When woman are in a desperate situation they tend to attack viciously verbally, and men tend to respond physically. This is the way our brains function, you can't hold the man more responsible only because he is a man.

To sum it up; it's very rarely abuse, and always takes two. Don't poke around in other people's private lives, RESPECT them, and let them solve their conflicts even if it becomes noisy for a minute or two. This is the basis of a free society. Immediate intervention in other people's private affairs is the basis of a denunciation and surveillance society.

Getting in between fights can make or break a situation. If let's say they were really slugging it out, then it's a good idea to interfere before one of them gets a knife through their heart. However getting drawn in by mere shouts and scorn, might just aggravate the situation. I've heard of sad situations where nosy people broke a family by interfering in a fight that the couple could've talked out after some screamfest.

Remember that fighting is also a part of a relationship. There is no such thing as a perfect relationship where it's all smiles. Sometimes bickering can be a good catalyst to further a couple's understanding about each other.

Or, it would kinda sound like it does here. If you even heard the second part of the video you'd realize that the woman is screaming at the man for about, the first 10 seconds, the rest of the video she's screaming hysterically, probably out of pain and fear. The sounds of abuse comes in as many forms as there are people either abusing or being abused.



Excuse me what? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, it's not simply a matter of getting up and leave, if it were, there would be a lot less of these cases.



I can only say the same as before, if that were only the case. I don't know what kind of fantasy utopia you've convinced yourself that you're living in, but you need to wake up. Agreed, it's a vast minority of men that abuse their women, but they're still enough to be a problem.



Agreed, you shouldn't intervene if this happens just once or twice, since it can be simply a heated argument or a one time thing, you can't make a decision on wherever you're going to report something like this on just one occasion, if you're not 100% of what's going on in there. BUT, if it happens regularly, that's when you intervene, and the best way of doing so is to call the police, report a domestic disturbance(Note that this is a different report from domestic violence), and have them check it out.

Sure it goes both way, but you expect a woman to do more damadge than a man can? Also, It didnt sound to be both way to my ears.



This very rarely, if ever, happens in real life. Also, Its called disturbing the peace, so even if he was not going to kill her he is still commiting a crime.



This final statment just proves you do not know what your tlking about. Many men do NOT know how to control themselves, that is why abuse of both women and children is so high in America. Saying you can't blame a man because it is in his nature is completely moronic.

Until you have been involved in a situation like this, I highly suggest that you dont act like you know everything about these cases.

@Chlor:
In the country where I live, cases of domestic violence are very rare, and women are the initiators of almost all of the quarrels. Maybe you live in India, then I can understand your point of view. The laws are regulated well enough so that no women is forced to live with an abusive husband because of economic reasons. The reason why women get abused and still stay, is because they don't take it as a big deal and/or hope it will stop eventually. All those women could easily let go, if they just really wanted it.

@IngloriousDisaster:
I am not an expert on how things are in the USA, but I know how things are in my country. It appears to me you try to make the men look responsible for everything. I did not say that the male nature is to abuse, but to react to stress situations in a physical manner. I think you are just a man-hating feminist.

[font=Verdana][color=green]Overall, yes, quarrels go both ways, but if it becomes more than that that's when it becomes a problem. If it's just mere arguing between parties, I'll be willing to let it continue; as has already been said above letting them argue can make them understand the relationship more. But, physically fighting has no benefits whatsoever. That's where I draw the line.

@Chlor; whilst I agree with your sentiments of not intervening straight after only one or two situations when this has happened, does that sentiment hold true for physical abuse? If you ask me, that is a highly dangerous way of thinking; "If no-one stopped me this time, I can do it all the time".

@Tachyon; you may call it the foundations of a surveillance society, but I feel that's merely reducio ad absurdium and I don't care for it. If that truly were the case, then it wouldn't exactly inspire friendliness and caring for neighbours, which isn't the best scenario. Also, I too wouldn't mind learning of where you live. Those "facts" that you're talking about truly seem admirable. Lastly, keep the personal attacks on other members down. It's unprofessional and unsightly at that. Thank you.

I live in Sweden, a country among those with the smallest number of domestic violence- cases in the world, thank you very much, but I also believe that as long as any domestic violence exists, it's a problem.

And I might be willing to acknowledge that women engage faster into quarrels than men might do, BUT, men will more quickly, and much more often, resort to violence. A quarrel is just a quarrel, and an argument nothing more than that, but as soon as we have violence in the picture, it becomes a problem.

And no, women might not be able to leave an abusive man, not because of the economical situation or anything like that, but because it is extremely difficult to get out of that kind of situation. The abusing gives the man power of the woman, first of, physical power, he hits harder, so she can't really fight back.
Secondly: Mental superiority, abuse is seldom only physical, and there is a huge mental strain of abused women, they might be to scared to leave the house.
Thirdly: Bonds, the woman might have children with the man, that would make an escape much, much more difficult, if not impossible, and it also makes a legal binding in the process of trying to get the custody of the children.
And lastly: People are not rational, you can love someone even if they abuse you, and even if you are scared of the person, and suffer deeply from the abuse you might not be bale to bring yourself to leave the person. The women might convince themselves that they themselves are the problem (Back at mental superiority) or that the abuse will eventually stop.

Don't try to make things seem so much simpler than it is, when someone with even the slightest bit of common sense can see that it is not.

@SamRavster

Well, as I implied, it's a delicate matter. If I was 100% sure that someone was beating their wives, 100% as in witnessing it first hand through a window or whatever, I wouldn't hesitate to call the police on that fucker that very second. But the problem is when all you hear is noise like in the video, can you be 100% that a crime is being committed? It's hard to tell. So, as I said, if it continued I'd call the cops and report a domestic disturbance, note that disturbance is very different from violence, you'd be able to call domestic disturbance on his drumming, since it's "disturbing" to the neighbors. At least this way the cops will come check it out.

[font=Verdana][color=green]Now now, let's not forget the husbands. In fact, and I'm not lowering the wives' situation at all by saying this, and I'm not being biased at all, but I actually feel more sorry for battered husbands than battered wives (battered wife syndrome is a legal term, so forgive me for applying it to husbands as well).

Why, you may ask? Well, for starters, a much higher percentage of battered husbands fail to report their domestic abuse to the police than wives do. I can't remember the figures exactly, but the difference in percentage was really quite startling. Also, for a man to face violence at the hands of his wife is very humiliating; much more so than the wives violence at the hands of their husbands. This is why the percentage difference is so large.

Also, men aren't offered the same protection under the law as wives are. As I had said above, battered wife syndrome is a legal term that offers protection to wives who attacked their husbands when the husbands were vulnerable. This is under the law of Provocation, now the new law of Loss of Control, which traditionally held the view of killing in cold blood is murder, so wives originally had no protection. However, thanks to the "slow-burn effect" - the idea that provocation can amount up over time to only snap after one little action - they were offered protection. However, husbands do not have the same legal protection. This is most probably due to the fact that, as has already been said, men turn to violence a lot quicker than females, but it is still an irregularity in the law that MUST be addressed.

Of course, this debate can easily spread to rape. But, unless you want me to do otherwise, I'll have a discussion about that at a later date.

But yes, I do see where you're coming from regarding actually seeing the violence, rather than hearing the noise. I apologise for judging you so as such, and retract my statement.

@Chlor:
Mental violence is also violence, this is what you fail to understand. Such violence is committed in the very early stages of any quarrel, and it only intensifies.

I fail to understand your argumentation why a woman (in a developed country) can't leave a man. There are laws everywhere that would both ensure the woman both alimony and child custody. A violent man can be forbidden to go anywhere near the abused woman, so both her and the children are guaranteed safety. And he can of course be sued and would have to pay compensation for immaterial damage. Bottom line is: IN A DEVELOPED COUNTRY THE WOMAN CAN GET AWAY FROM AN ABUSIVE HUSBAND JUST IF SHE WANTS TO!

If you love someone even if he abuses you, then it's your fault that you are fucking stupid. Or would you have pity with a Gambler because he lost all his belongings in the Casino? Grown up people have the responsibility and freedom over themselves, and they must live with the risks. Thats part of life. Or do you want to monitor everyone whether or not he does something that you think is right or wrong? Maybe they are even woman that want to be abused? The only responsibility the state and society have, is to ensure that a woman that does not want to be abused, does not get abused.

So of course if my neighbor would come to me telling me that she was abused, I would intervene, but stepping into their house trying to solve their problems is just idiotic.

No matter how true this is, arguing with your beloved is not a crime, no matter how intense it becomes. Beating them is.



Agreed, they can. I openly admit that they can, if they just choose to do so. I offered a number of factors that will make the woman not do it though, even if she wants to. Since people aren't rational, especially not when under heavy emotions such as fear of their partner, or just in love with their partner. We might even bring the Stockholm Syndrome into the picture, ever heard about that?



Agreed, but again: people aren't rational. Why do you think abused women live under that abuse? Sometimes for years before they do something about it. Do you think they wanted to be abused? Of course they didn't. Then why didn't they just run away to the police? I don't fucking know, because people are crazy and when in love even more so. This also applies to being scared, the woman might be scared to run away even if she'll be able to get protection because she's basically not thinking straight. There are also the factor that Sam brought into the picture: The shame. It's humiliating to get beaten by their partner, and even more so if you're a man getting beaten by a woman.

And where the fuck did I say I want to monitor anyone? What does that even have to do with the argument we're having? This is about what you do when you suspect that someone might be abused, not about how you find them.

For the bolded part:
You can't rape someone who's willing, you can't abuse someone that wants it, then it just becomes some kind of masochistic fetish.



Agreed, but if you day after day heard screaming and sounds of someone being beaten, what would you do?

@Sam

Indeed, we shouldn't forget the husbands that get beaten too. I don't know where you live, or how things work over there, but here men carry exactly the same rights and support that women do, and the same protection by law. yet, here too, the number of cases where men get beaten by their wives is largely unknown since so many men feel ashamed and humiliated for letting a women beat them.

@Chlor:
"Arguing with a loved one" has the intention on discussing and improving things. Mental violence has the intention of hurting someone. There is a big difference.

Also, it is not the Stockholm Syndrome, but the identification with the aggressor. This mechanism is far older than the Stockholm Syndrome, and dates back to Anna Freud. The Stockholm Syndrome also applies only in hostage-scenarios. Don't believe everything Hollywood movies say :)

Yes, people are not rational, so what? Do you want to make decision for them? People fall in love and do crazy things non stop, should we now pity them? Yes, its shameful being beaten up by a woman, if you are a man, but it's not shameful the other way around. And I am aware of the problem that there are women beating up their men, yet always the man is the scapegoat for any rumpus.

Monitoring has very much to do with our argument, because you seem to want to make decisions for people which they don't make for themselves. And this starts with intervening in their quarrels.

If I heard noise day after day I tell the neighbors to keep the noise down, and eventually call the police because of the NOISE. I would never make decisions for anyone based on assumptions.