22 seconds is not enough time to expect someone do save him. I think if I though I could save someone I would, but 22 seconds would not be enough time to figure out what to do.
I agree that there probably wasn't anything to be done in those few seconds. I don't blame the photographer or bystanders for not assisting the man. But I do have to say that for someone who is running, as the photographer says he was, that is one well centered and in focus shot. Could've just been lucky, could've been the great camera, or a combination, but the photo just doesn't look like it was taken the way he says.
I agree with everyone else. I don't blame the photographer for taking the picture, and I don't blame everyone else for being too frozen to figure out what to do in 22 seconds. But I do think it's really tasteless of the NY Post to publish the picture. I hate the idea of that man's loved ones knowing that picture is out there for everyone to gawk at. So insensitive.
IDK, it seems to me like 22 seconds is a pretty significant chunk of time, especially when there's a life at stake. I'm typing right now with an online stopwatch in another window and I still have 12 seconds left to holler at others to help save him and get it done. The threat of being dragged down by him isn't so bad if there are others to help. Seriously, try doing this, I'm at three lines of text and just *NOW* hit 22 seconds, and I'm not a very fast typer at all. I think if someone, anyone, had said something, that man might be alive.
Online Stopwatch - easy to use
"No more hurting people. Peace."
-- Martin Richard, age 8, Boston, MA
Rest in peace, Martin.
I still won't point fingers because I wasn't there but the group scenario is really starting to weigh on me. When a group gets together it can organize quickly and yes no fear of being pulled in.
Ugh...this is such an awful awful situation.
There is absolutely no way any of you would know what you would do in this situation. 22 seconds is barely enough time to notice what is happening.
But I think self preservation kicks in, even with groups and as a group, they were not threatened, the only one in danger was the man on the tracks.
With the right person present, they could have gotten something accomplished. They obviously did not have the right person present.
I think in terms of a group, many people look to the others in the group to start the action. You take your cues from others and expect someone else to take the lead. By the time people realize no one else is going to, it is too late. I actually think he would have had a better chance if there was only one or two other people on the platform. If there is no one else available, the one who is, is more likely to act IMO.
I think Kim is right. If there had been a natural leader in the room who stepped forward immediatly, then I think everyone else would have too, but instead, no one stepped forward.
Mom to Arianna (5), Conner (3) and Trent (my baby)
If I were in this situation - watching this man try to pull himself to safety - and I was the ONLY person nearby I admit that I'd feel a lot more responsibility to help him than if I were in a group of people. Does that make sense? I guess I'd quickly feel like the onus was on me and me alone to do whatever I could to help get him off the tracks knowing full well his life depended on my actions.