About the silent approval of violence VS. the discouragement of violence through community pressure.
A friend of mine got attacked the other day.
The attacker - a friend of my friend's family, previously trusted and thought of as mostly harmless, but a big guy nonetheless - was, in the words of my friend, "drunk and high on who knows what". He had just come by for a drunken midnight visit, but suddenly got up in a rage about nothing in particular, and slammed his fist into another house guest present in the situation. This person's contact lenses got shattered from the impact, and he's currently awaiting for the doctor's opinion on the future of his eyesight. He wasn't blinded, in any case. After the punch, the attacker left the house. No one's heard from him after the incident. The two who collided fist to head neither knew eachother previously nor spoke to eachother that night. There was no provocation.
What disturbs me greatly about this, apart from the obvious, is the resulting conversation that took place between my attacked friend and a bunch of his other friends. The common opinion seemed to be that the police should handle whatever possibly needs to be handled, and that everyone else should just leave it at that. Thing is, the attacker is simply physically too big to be handled by most people; hence my suspicion that the preferring of inaction just might derive from people being scared of being manhandled by the attacker rather than anything else.
The attacker has no known history of violence. He also has a wife and child of his own.
What I suggested was to bring the discussion to the attacker's home. Appear, ring the doorbell, and demand to settle things immediately, disconcerning the possible prescence of his family members.
The immediate reaction to my suggestion was, to my surprise, a unanimous moan'n'groan. I was told that such aggravation was unwise and uncalled for, and I was then told to keep my mouth shut about such ideas (though not in so many words). While explaining that such open debate, disclosure and negotiation would rip the fear factor out of what had happened and bring a more public type of pressure and encouragement into avoiding further violent behavior, my words and I were both immediately brushed off as a nuisance. In the eyes judging me, I had somehow regressed into a sort of whining idealist child whose words were, by default, somewhat lesser in both appeal and sense.
This made a question rise up in me: Can such apparently wrong behavior be publicly discouraged while simultaneously silently approving of it by the default of inaction? Am I really just sticking my nose into other people's business simply by being willing to go up to the attacker's door with my friend and to encourage him to explain what has happened and cease further violent activities - even with the cost of "a violent attacker" getting to know my until-then-oh-so-secret identity.
Thing is, it also happens to be my neighbourhood. And yes, I well understand that he went in as a guest, and did not, for example, force his way in in any way. But can such behavior really be silently accepted? When the police handle the case, he'll get a fine. Fine. But doesn't that mean that basically he's buying the right to use anyone as a punching bag whenever he chooses?
I don't know, you tell me. Comment on this. I haven't heard one word to support my theory of applying community pressure through open debate.
- - - -
tl;dr : When there's sudden uncalled for violence by a known perpetrator in a neighbourhood where children and elderly people live, is it not an empathetic and sensible solution to call forth some community spirit and arrange for the matter to be dealt with as quickly and openly as possible (ie. by contacting the perpetrator as a community and telling him that such behavior will not be tolerated)?
And I'm not talking about making threats, here. I'm talking about letting the assailant know that information travels fast, and that deeds have consequences.
- - - -
The attacker - a friend of my friend's family, previously trusted and thought of as mostly harmless, but a big guy nonetheless - was, in the words of my friend, "drunk and high on who knows what". He had just come by for a drunken midnight visit, but suddenly got up in a rage about nothing in particular, and slammed his fist into another house guest present in the situation. This person's contact lenses got shattered from the impact, and he's currently awaiting for the doctor's opinion on the future of his eyesight. He wasn't blinded, in any case. After the punch, the attacker left the house. No one's heard from him after the incident. The two who collided fist to head neither knew eachother previously nor spoke to eachother that night. There was no provocation.
What disturbs me greatly about this, apart from the obvious, is the resulting conversation that took place between my attacked friend and a bunch of his other friends. The common opinion seemed to be that the police should handle whatever possibly needs to be handled, and that everyone else should just leave it at that. Thing is, the attacker is simply physically too big to be handled by most people; hence my suspicion that the preferring of inaction just might derive from people being scared of being manhandled by the attacker rather than anything else.
The attacker has no known history of violence. He also has a wife and child of his own.
What I suggested was to bring the discussion to the attacker's home. Appear, ring the doorbell, and demand to settle things immediately, disconcerning the possible prescence of his family members.
The immediate reaction to my suggestion was, to my surprise, a unanimous moan'n'groan. I was told that such aggravation was unwise and uncalled for, and I was then told to keep my mouth shut about such ideas (though not in so many words). While explaining that such open debate, disclosure and negotiation would rip the fear factor out of what had happened and bring a more public type of pressure and encouragement into avoiding further violent behavior, my words and I were both immediately brushed off as a nuisance. In the eyes judging me, I had somehow regressed into a sort of whining idealist child whose words were, by default, somewhat lesser in both appeal and sense.
This made a question rise up in me: Can such apparently wrong behavior be publicly discouraged while simultaneously silently approving of it by the default of inaction? Am I really just sticking my nose into other people's business simply by being willing to go up to the attacker's door with my friend and to encourage him to explain what has happened and cease further violent activities - even with the cost of "a violent attacker" getting to know my until-then-oh-so-secret identity.
Thing is, it also happens to be my neighbourhood. And yes, I well understand that he went in as a guest, and did not, for example, force his way in in any way. But can such behavior really be silently accepted? When the police handle the case, he'll get a fine. Fine. But doesn't that mean that basically he's buying the right to use anyone as a punching bag whenever he chooses?
I don't know, you tell me. Comment on this. I haven't heard one word to support my theory of applying community pressure through open debate.
- - - -
tl;dr : When there's sudden uncalled for violence by a known perpetrator in a neighbourhood where children and elderly people live, is it not an empathetic and sensible solution to call forth some community spirit and arrange for the matter to be dealt with as quickly and openly as possible (ie. by contacting the perpetrator as a community and telling him that such behavior will not be tolerated)?
And I'm not talking about making threats, here. I'm talking about letting the assailant know that information travels fast, and that deeds have consequences.
- - - -