Jake DiMare wonders why there seems to be so many ways to rationalize cowardice.
Since I started writing for the Good Man Project I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about what it means to be a good man. Like, what are the qualities of goodness and masculinity which are important? I’ve yet to come out and create any kind of a list but today I am adding the first word: ”Brave”.
Brave…As in, having or showing courage. Brave isn’t easy. Brave guys don’t stand by and watch, while a child is assaulted in the street. Brave also doesn’t mean ‘hero’. Brave is just brave and brave is the opposite of coward.
>There’s been a terrible fuss the last few days in the comment section of Mark Radcliffe’s article ‘Providence Girl Beaten While Neighbor Videotapes‘. I’ve been trying, unsuccessfully I might add, to get a fairly entrenched group of individuals in the comment section to understand my perspective. Essentially, my argument is it doesn’t really matter what it is you are afraid of. If the fear prohibits you from coming to the aid of someone who is being held down and assaulted, you are simply afraid.
“No, no, no…” they tell me. “You don’t understand…I wouldn’t interfere with a child being beaten in the street because I might be accused of rape (fear) or assault (fear). I might be physically harmed (fear) or suffer a financial setback (fear).”
Men (and women): Fear is fear. And a synonym for fear is cowardice. If you are afraid, fine. Own it. Most people are. But don’t try to pretend that if it was your kid, your brother, or your mother there on the ground, getting their ass kicked, you wouldn’t want someone to take action and come to their aid. Being afraid is human. It takes strength of character to overcome fear. It takes bravery to come to someone’s aid.
Good Men (and Women) are brave.
Photo courtesy of eatyourchildren
About Jake DiMare
You’re idea of ‘bravery’ is a child’s idea of bravery; the kind of thing most people get over as they grow up.
Bravery is standing up when it can make a difference, it is not standing up when you’ll only get yourself killed or sent to prison. That is just plain, old-fashioned stupidity.
So I just want to be sure I understand you correctly, because you mixed terms there. On the one hand you reference bravery is standing up when you can make a difference, which I would say we agree on.
On the other hand you it sounds like you would only stand up when there is no personal risk.
In other words, your concept of braver is:
“I’m willing to help someone, as long as there is no risk to me in doing so”
That about right?
Yes actually. I used to work as an EMT and rule #1 was ensure that the area was safe before doing ANYTHING else. You know what happens when people stupidly rush into a situation trying to be some kind of comic book hero? You get two victims instead of one.
8Ball, you’re confusing tactics with courage. Once someone has made the courageous decision to help, I completely agree with taking care not to get hurt if it can be avoided.
in other words “I’m willing to help someone as long as there is no risk to me in doing so.”
I’m really haveing an hard time distinguishing between “tactics” and your definition of cowardice.
After initially observing this situation the bystander makes an initial decision on how to respond, which has some motivating factor.
Some might make the decision to observe passively because they like to watch children kick each other’s ass. (Sadism)
Some might make the decision to observe passively because they fear repercussions (Cowardice)
Others might act in some way to intervene in order to protect the victim. (Courage)
Others might intervene to purely to protect their own property. (Selfish)
Ironically, with the obsessive way some guys on this board have reacted to this story, I will now add a fourth option, which is:
Intervene for the sheer sexual pleasure of wrestling with girls. (Creepy/Perverted)
If you make the decision to intervene in one or more ways your actions from there on can be defined as ‘tactics’.
My favorite tactic would be the garden hose, however there is also calling 911, physically attacking the assailant, shielding the victim in one or more ways, shouting, knocking on the neighbor’s door, spraying the assailant mace, etc, etc, etc,
Now that I think about it, the decision to intervene safely is more of a strategy, regardless of what tactics you employ. Other strategies might include ‘berserk’, ‘gallant’ or ‘careless’.
“Yes actually. I used to work as an EMT and rule #1 was ensure that the area was safe before doing ANYTHING else. You know what happens when people stupidly rush into a situation trying to be some kind of comic book hero? You get two victims instead of one.”
“8Ball, you’re confusing tactics with courage. Once someone has made the courageous decision to help, I completely agree with taking care not to get hurt if it can be avoided.”
“Some might make the decision to observe passively because they fear repercussions (Cowardice)”
So if a paramed decides its unsafe for them to help it’s tactics. If a civilian decides its unsafe for them to help it’s cowardice.
The garden hose sounds great, but why do I suspect that the story would instead be about the creepy neighbour who likes to hose down the neighbour’s kids over the fence. Call 911? Maybe he had before and it had come to nothing. The fact that you haven’t even considered that he made the film in order to try to draw attention to the problem is a major issue with your argument.
That’s the problem with the media though. What will make the most headlines, hits, pageviews. It isn’t even journalism. I think no matter the gender of the video taper, they’d have come up with something negative…
Lonely neighbor woman gets kicks watching girlfight (Ms. sonso never had children…is this the case?)
Also, the civilian could have helped by calling 911 and not getting involved physically. We don’t know that he did in the past or not because why? Piss poor excuses for journalism and instead attention getting headlines. Everyone does it. Every online mag around. I think it’s a sure sign of the complete dumbing down of the country.
So Soulite, you’d be absolutely fine then, if you had a child or friend or relative being beaten senseless, or hit by a car or some such, and the passers by were all, “I might get myself killed or sent to prison..that would be stupid.” and walked on by instead of making a difference in some way?
I’ll share a story. A long while ago, my son (at the time about 4) was in a car accident while driving with a friend’s family. It was a very very bad accident and in fact the car that was hit (which held four people, the mother and father of the friend and my son), was crumpled nearly in half as the truck hitting them ran a red light at high speed and Tboned the car my son was in. The man and woman in the front seats of the car hit were nearly killed and suffered greatly for months after the accident. The other car? Not a scratch. No one hurt.
Many people stopped to help, including a woman who got out of her car, took photos at her own risk (as she had NO idea if the other people would react badly to it and they were NOT happy) followed the EMTs to the hospital and found me and gave me her email address so that we (me and the other parents) would have proof of the accident etc. Another person, a young man, drove to where I was and delivered the horrible news. In addition, as I had my 9 month old son with me as I got the hospital, I left him with an male EMT for a good 20 minutes. Didn’t know him, didn’t get a waiver, just handed him over when he offered to take him.
You might argue that’s because he was an EMT, but I’d have given him to nearly anyone and trusted them too, because I had two kids in the ER with broken bones and glass in their faces, a husband out of town and the other child’s parents in surgery. I had to have the little one someplace while I waited for a neighbor to come get him.
None of them had to do that, offer to help. They showed courage and compassion, even though it placed them at risk (in her case physical, since she might have been confronted, and in his case emotional, since he was carrying this horrible image, news to tell a mother…god knows how I might have reacted, and the EMT might have risked some kind of something…what a false accusation?).
But they went past their own lives and made a very positive change in my life. Both children are fine. Both parents lived.
I don’t like the word bravery per se. I love the word courage, which has a root in the word heart. To show heart, even when the heart is breaking, at risk, terrified…I think that is to be human. I’m so very sad that so much of the commentary in the other thread shows a greater fear of personal risk than of the heart to help others.
I get it, in a way. We do live in a litigious society. In the case above, there were legal issues-the driver was clearly at fault, there were other things in place that I won’t mention here, but NO one at the site who helped was accused of anything. Obviously. Why would we accuse people of risking their own safety and time and jobs and everything when they stopped and helped? They were saviors.
I’d stop and help. My husband would stop and help. I hope people in this country will take a good look at what it means to have heart. Compassion and yes Courage.
We cannot exist without each other.
Your story (the entire, “would you help?” question that’s been going on the last few days here) reminds of something that happened to me during my second year of college. I was catching a ride home with a high school class mate from the same area (he was one year ahead of me) but before leaving town we went by his aunt’s house. She’s got a husband and two young boys. While we are there he husband has a heart attack. His aunt went into a serious panic (which is totally understandeble when her husband is laying there dying). The friend I was with called 911 for help.
Unfortunately he passed away. A few weeks later his aunt contacted me to thank me for what I had done and how calm and brave I was. At this point I really didn’t think I did anything special (and honestly kinda on my way to forgetting the event) but she reminded me. During her panic over her husband’s heart attack I took the two young sons to a side room, gave them the snacks I had packed for my trip home, and played with them, keeping them occupied so they would not have to watch their dad die and their mom panic right in front of them.
The last few days I’ve been asking myself would I stop and help of freeze in panic if I had seen the attack on the girl that started this conversation. Even recalling this other story I can’t say 100% that I would help (because as you can see the situations are not the same).
This comment really doesn’t have any value, just a memory being recalled.
Danny, I think you did the absolute best thing you could’ve done. You spared those kids serious trauma.
I’m certain you would almost always do what is right.
Freezing up because you’re afraid is a totally different reaction from, “You know what? Our system is fucked, so I’m just going to watch this child get beaten.”
Freezing up because you’re afraid is a totally different reaction from, “You know what? Our system is fucked, so I’m just going to watch this child get beaten.”
Joanna I think what’s getting people riled up here is that it sounds like they are being told that regardless of why they froze up from fear they are a terrible person for not doing something.
It’s like people are saying, “I want to act but what if (insert fear)?” is being treated the same as your, “You know what? Our system is fucked, so I’m just going to watch this child get beaten.” Being afraid for a reason is no the same as not giving a damn.
“Joanna I think what’s getting people riled up here is that it sounds like they are being told that regardless of why they froze up from fear they are a terrible person for not doing something.”
Thoughtfully put. Thanks for pointing this out. As I said in the original blog entry:
“If you are afraid, fine. Own it. Most people are. But don’t try to pretend that if it was your kid, your brother, or your mother there on the ground, getting their ass kicked, you wouldn’t want someone to take action and come to their aid. Being afraid is human. It takes strength of character to overcome fear. It takes bravery to come to someone’s aid.”
“If you are afraid, fine. Own it. Most people are. But don’t try to pretend that if it was your kid, your brother, or your mother there on the ground, getting their ass kicked, you wouldn’t want someone to take action and come to their aid. Being afraid is human. It takes strength of character to overcome fear. It takes bravery to come to someone’s aid.”
And even that comes off sounding like you’re saying that such people are limited by their fear but would automatically disregard someone else’s fear if it was their loved one in danger. I’ll use myself as an example.
Let’s say I would be afraid to act in this “girls beating up another girl” event, for whatever reason. Your response there sounds like you are telling me, “Well if that was your loved one being attacked you wouldn’t care about someone saying they were afraid to act for whatever reason. You would just be mad at them for not acting.” I bet you don’t mean it that way but that might be how some are taking it.
Two problems:
1) “Good Men (and Women) are brave.”
You don’t have to be brave, to be good. I do not condemn a man or a woman if his or her courage does not measure up on any given day. Exalt those who step forward, but do not condemn those step back.
2) “I wouldn’t interfere with a child being beaten in the street because I might be accused of rape (fear) or assault (fear).”
There is an unsaid “half of the truth” for many of the (mostly men) who claim they might hesitate to intervene against a female assailant (male or female victim):
WE (yes, I have sometimes felt this) are motivated as much by ANGER, as we are by fear. Every time a female assailant strikes a victim (mele or female), government is her accomplice — wounding the same victim, complicit in the same crime. Government does not prevent, recognize, investigate, punish, or learn from female violence to nearly the same extend as it does with male violence. In other words:
>>> the sate tolerates female violence <<>> allowing female violence to continue can be a form of protest <<<
"Fear" is only part of the equation. Anger, disappointment, and disgust are the other parts of the equation. That means that "courage" is only part of the solution.
It seems to me that’s like saying paying taxes can be a form of tax protest, or enlistment can be a form of war protest.. If you don’t intervene in a case of female violence, aren’t you just as complicit as the government?
Risking my life for strangers is not brave, unless it’s my paid job to do so. It’s stupid.
And it buys into the sick notion that men’s lives are less valuable than women’s and children’s. We’re done with that sucker’s game, thank you. Men have RESIGNED from the self-sacrificing defender role.
Want to help a stranger? Goody for you. Expect a man to intervene every time something violent goes down, regardless of the risk to himself? Hello, entitlement.
We aren’t talking gender here, or at least I’m not. The woman in the case listed in my comment was helping a MAN in the car. She was a woman. There were also female EMTs and other people who stopped, and while I don’t know the gender of everyone who asked, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t all men.
We aren’t talking about men stepping in to help women and children, we are (I am) talking about people helping people. I don’t expect it to be a man. I expect it to be a human being. And I’d do the same.
And good on them, but the trouble is that all this happens against a background of men labouring under the sexist assumption that their place is to put themselves in danger for other people.
“And it buys into the sick notion that men’s lives are less valuable than women’s and children’s. We’re done with that sucker’s game…”
I’ve made no situation specific claims…the assailant(s) or victim(s) could be men, women, or transgender and the definition of courage or coward doesn’t change.
Yes, but women and transpeople aren’t constructed by society as sacraficial goats (in terms of physical bodily harm anyway). While I agree people should try to help each other (in accordance with their ability to do so including respect for personal safety) shaming tactics about supposed cowardice heavily play into anti-male sexist presumptions.
Please define the word “good”? Bwahahahaha
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/good
Greed has been considered a virtue in America for a while now, so it shouldn’t surprise us that cowardice is starting to be considered one.
So true…
SO true!
There’s no such thing as a coward. Self-preservation is human nature’s first rule for survival. We need to stop shaming men (that is not politically correct) …this is the 21st century and men and women don’t live in la la land anymore. There are no fairy tales in this reality. The only knights in shining armor…we got those…call 911 for them. It’s not everyone’s job to rescue people from doom and gloom…or from harm. What if I get killed, get harmed or get sued??? Now, who’s going to come to my assistance? The victim? Get real!
In this day and age, everybody should know how to protect themselves. I don’t owe anyone any favours…the only duty I have is to my immediate family. If you’re a stranger…and maybe nice to me…I’ll think about helping ya; but don’t count on it. I have my own life to live.
Michelle, I’m not sure of your point, but I am sure you are being provocative for the sole purpose of stirring the pot. Consider this a moderation warning.
I don’t understand. I am supporting men here. I don’t think the men on here have a problem with my post? I am trying to put myself into the shoes…and I can see where they are coming from…why is there a problem with me agreeing with their stance???
We are aware of your IP address, though your email address bounces back and know that you are the same person as Michelle G. I’ve sent you an email and if you’d like to provide me with an address that works, I’d be happy to discuss the matter.
My god I’m agreeing with Michelle G.
Bravery is not the absence of fear. Bravery is choosing to do what you believe is right in spite of fear.
With that definition lets return to the scene I have seen bandied about: An unknown assailant is attacking a person who, for whatever reason, is not able to adequately defend themselves and you are a bystander. At this point you have to make several choices with the first choice being between bravery and cowardice; you can choose to walk away (cowardice), call 911 and keep an eye on things until help arrives (bravery), remain a silent and “neutral” observer (cowardice), or you can step in with your body or your words to try to protect the victim (bravery). I would choose to call for help before stepping in with my words, I would try to distract the attacker so as to give the victim time to either escape or for help to arrive. The risk to myself with those actions is minimal, sure the attacker could turn on me instead but that is unlikely and police are already on their way. If I have tried to help, despite the fear I may have had, then I have been brave.
Very well put
” I would try to distract the attacker so as to give the victim time to either escape or for help to arrive. The risk to myself with those actions is minimal, sure the attacker could turn on me instead but that is unlikely and police are already on their way”
Uh no. This is actually the stupidest thing you can do. By all means call 911, but unless you have some actual training in diffusing a hostile situation, or are legally responsible for doing so (security personell, or teachers in the case of a student fight) STAY THE HELL OUT OF IT
despite your claims there is an even chance (since I’m assuming you don’t know of the temprament of the attacker) of them turning on you if you get involved. Now there are two victims instead of just one.
Real life isnt a frigging movie
I have training in both mediation and self defense, my choices in life and my choices in metaphorical situations represent my knowledge of myself and my skills. One of my skills is knowing the difference between fiction and reality, meaning I know that “real life isn’t a frigging movie” and so I do not base my choices or statements off of that illusion.
You know what? Unless somebody has been in an actual emergency situation, they have no right to talk about what they “would” do, because they haven’t a clue what would actually happen. And to be perfectly frank about it? They’re probably wrong. The bystander effect isn’t a myth after all.
Call me a cynic if you want, but I’ve seen the aftermath of the situations most of you only read about in the papers. Most people aren’t John Wayne, and even fewer should try to be.
As little regard as I have for what somebody who lurks websites and spews rhetoric under the handle ’8ball’ thinks…I’ve been in emergencies and fights so I’m going to go ahead and claim my right to talk about it.
Huh. Back when the internet first started taking off, the rule was “never use you name on the internet.” Apparently nowadays it’s “I’m not going to listen to a word you say until I get your social security number.”
Whatever. That’s your choice Sparky. i hope all your heroic posturing works out for you.
Signed
An anonymous “coward”
I’m sure I’m paraphrasing someone famous, but bravery is not the absence of fear but being able to do what’s right despite your fear. If you don’t feel fear, then you’re not *brave*, exactly, you’re just fearless, which is not nearly as heroic. By the same token, being shamed into doing something because you don’t want to look or feel like a coward is not the same thing as bravery, either.
The article and comments seem to be setting up a conflict between being smart and being brave. This is where a lot of the gendering of men and masculinity gets on my nerves. There are lots of messages to me as a male that tell me that being brave, being “manly” means not thinking, throwing caution to the wind, just acting on impulse, doing what you know is stupid but doing it anyway. The idea that your brain as an organ that cannot co-exist with your manhood. “C’mon, don’t be a wuss. Ride without a helmet.” I know women sometimes get the message that being female means being an airhead, but men are not immune to similar encouragements to be stupid.
I’m not trying to make excuses for the guy in RI, but it does raise the question about how different this is from the photojournalist getting footage of war or genocide or starvation without lending a hand to stop it. Are some camera operators immune and others not?
You know, bravery and cowardice are not the only two options. The very least he could have done is call the police, even if that would have likely made little difference. Calling the police would not have been cowardly, to my mind. It wouldn’t have been gallantly brave either, but it would not have been cowardly. Just doing the basic, right thing.
I don’t fully buy the whole “he didn’t want to be accused of sexual assault” argument. First of all, did the guy actually explain himself that way? Second of all, recording and distributing a video clip of girls fighting is not a good way to avoid any allegations of being a pederast. The police might even consider that film footage to be exploitation of a minor, so filming instead of intervening is hardly a good way to escape anyone accusing you of being a pervert….
Okay. Now that I read the CNN story a little more closely, I notice some very important details.
First, the fight was in his neighbor’s garden, not out on the street. It was on private property. (Personally, I think this makes the filming even more voyeuristic and even less justified, if that were possible.) Immediately physically intervening would have meant going next door into the neighbor’s garden. This actually makes me wonder why he didn’t at least go next door and knock on the front door. Maybe the parents were home but didn’t know the fight was going on, so why not at least knock on the door if you’re afraid to get in the middle of the fight?
Second of all, from his point of view the fight appeared to be staged in some way. He saw something that unfolded according to some sort of script, which is backed up somewhat by some of the material in the video, the fact that the attackers were charged with conspiracy, and at least one of the girls was also filming the fight on her cell phone. (So, the guy is really not any better than the attackers themselves.) If this is true, then the guy is saying he was NOT afraid for his life, so there’s no excusing him on those grounds anyway. His defense is that he didn’t think it was real. (So, he was taping it because…..?)
Finally, if you think no one would have a reason to fear those girls, I would point to the detail of the victim being treated for multiple BITE marks. The more dangerous the attack was, the more dangerous it would be to intervene directly.
Talk is cheap Jake, and even though I may be instinctively and emotionally moved to help someone in trouble – not considering the risk, our society expecting men to continue in selfless acts of chivalry is thoughtless at best, obnoxious and self serving being more likely.
Are we really only talking about men here? I’m talking about people and I assume Jake is.
Wouldn’t surprise me at all if some of the folks here were only talking about men and how we are expected to be protectors simply because we are men.
Well I’m not
I think it’s safe to say that the story of the guy shooting video of girls bullying another girl was what precipitated Jake’s essay.
There were plenty of sexist assumptions – lots of objectifying male utility as disposable protector- in the commentary following that article.
Of course, Jake’s own words ought to settle the question “who are we talking about here?”
“Since I started writing for the Good Man Project I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about what it means to be a good man. Like, what are the qualities of goodness and masculinity which are important? I’ve yet to come out and create any kind of a list but today I am adding the first word: ”Brave”.”
His article was gender neutral, but he’s discussing a social phenomenon that targets men so, yes, men’s gender rights is relevant to the discussion.
If someone had posted an article about how people should try more when it came to working out, would it be completely irrelevant to bring up the pressure many women come under to look like a size 0 model.
It’s great when people successfully risk their lives for others. It’s also something that can’t be demanded by the rest of society as a right. It doesn’t fall under life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness anymore than free healthcare does. So there you have it. Time to move along.
It seems like calling what happened here “fear” is potentially a mischaracterization on the part of Mr. DiMare. (I say potentially only because I have not spoken to the person involved, I doubt any here have, and I usually believe individuals have a right to speak to their own motivations)
As humans, we all respond to incentives. We can see this when we notice that a Snicker’s bar that sells for $0.50 won’t sell for $2.00. The additional $1.50 is worth more to the average consumer than the joy of eating a chocolate product.
This same basic principal easily applies to incentives that are harder to quantify. As an example, the success of Habitat for Humanity is largely based on the sense of obvious accomplishment: those involved literally helped to create a new building, and they saw this good come about directly through their own hands. Thus, while a day spent collating papers in order to organize a house-building event might be just as necessary as picking up a hammer and building the house, most people derive more pleasure from using the hammer than they do from collating the papers. The distance from effort to reward is short, and the reward is far more obvious.
Unfortunately, the same principles all apply to disincentives.
The best example of this is the disparity between opt-in and opt-out approaches to organ donation. When people need to specifically opt-out of organ donation (usually through filling out an additional form at the DMV), very few do: most people are happy to be organ donors. Yet when the method is changed to opt-in (again through an additional form at the DMV), suddenly large groups of people seem to no longer want to donate their vital organs upon death. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in numerous studies on numerous subjects
In reality, the only change between opt-in and opt-out is the amount of effort involved. You never get to see the rewards of donating your own organs (because you are dead), so the distance from action to reward is unbelievably far. As a result, even very tiny barriers (a form with 3 questions that is available for free) can become enormous because you’re not getting anything in return.
Now, is this really about “fear”? Do people in opt-in jurisdictions suddenly fear organ donation in a way that people in opt-out locations do not? And if so, why does a switch to opt-in suddenly net everyone so much “bravery”?
Or is this maybe more similar to the Snicker’s bar that sells for $0.50 being compared to the one that sells for $2.00? When the reward is small (there’s other chocolate out there), the small change in price ($1.50 isn’t much in the grand scheme) becomes a major barrier.
There’s no reason to believe that there isn’t a similar incentive-disincentive scheme at work here.
Intervening in the fight would probably make the bystander feel good. It would possibly make the bystander feel better about the community, and maybe even about human nature.
Yet the costs could be astronomical. At the high end, if intervention got physical, it could include wage garnishment stemming from a lawsuit, and the penalties resulting from a felony battery conviction (including social stigma and the inability to find a job that most felons experience).
Is this the same as fear? Only if your decision to skip the $2.00 Snicker’s bar is also fear.
Actually, I don’t eat Snicker’s bars because of fear…fear of diabetes, obesity and heart disease.
“I don’t eat Snicker’s bars because of fear”
wuss
Sorry, but this is bollocks. People have the right to make an asessment as to whether it’s prudent to intervene in a situation without being shamed as cowards.
I say people because the OP made it clear that he was being gender neutral, but, to be perfectly honest, we may as well just come out in the open and say it: this is about men. Women are rarely chastised for not having leaped to someone else’s defence. The assumption is that they aren’t able to, or even if they are, that it’s not their duty to. The opposite assumptions are made about men, not only are we all able to, we all should, regardless of the circumstances.
This dynamic exists, right here in the real world, and can’t be ignored when it comes to discussing courage and cowardice.
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t help each other, I’m not saying that men should all become cowardly, I’m saying that Jake DiMare has 0 right to judge someone who decides not to intervene in a fight.
I wonder if the word ‘coward’ would be used in any feminist-friendly publication, if the bystander is a woman and the wild group are 4 boys 12 years old beating up another boy of same age.
So why is this word used in a man-friendly publication for a male bystander facing 4 wild girls 12 years old beating up another girl of same age?
I smell here truly a double standard.
The decision to intervene or not is solely with the bystander. If the bystander decides to intervene, he/she should be aware, that such voluntary action is not without risk.
The decision of bystanders to intervene, how to intervene or not to intervene at all is often influenced by the customs and laws of that country – while I would intervene anytime facing such a situation as a foreign man from Europe in the Asian country where I am living now for over 3 decades, I would hesitate to do so as a foreign tourist in the USA.
In Asia in general, laws are not against men and parental rights are strong. I would just enter this private property, pushing these 4 girls away and take this injured girl to my own home. After that I will call her parents and together we will inform the parents of the other 4 girls. We have no problems here with so-called anti-spanking laws or ‘save the child’ do-gooders protecting girls against punishment.
What we will for sure never do is to call the police – it’s just unnecessary.
For this incident, 4 girls only 12 years old beating up violently another girl of the same age, we think, we need strict parents to discipline their children and not the police.