Could you please give me your honest opinion, about this question?

Question

At this mental facility, a consumer (patient) attacked a man, hurting him really really bad, he had 15 fractures to the head and face, all together. The man that got attacked, was in nursing, there was a man and a woman, in a different department, that yelled for people, when this consumer, attacked the man. The two workers said they didn't try to stop it, while this man was getting a beating because, they didn't want to get hurt themselves, they were afraid of losing their jobs and they were not in the same department as the man, getting beat up. This work place is bad about firing people, if you interfere with matters, that don't pertain to you, especially when it comes to the consumers, it seems like the system is on their side, no matter what. The two worker's that witnessed the attack, was a man and a woman and now half of the building won't talk to them and they blamed the man more than the woman, because he is a man and should have stepped in, what do you think?

Sorry this is so long, but I had to explain thoroughly, for you to understand what happened and give an honest opinion.

Answer 1

Honestly, the right thing to say was the should've jumped in and helped. But until you're actually in the situation you can't really judge. But I'm going to try. I can see if they feared for their lives. Yes, it's good they called for help. But fearing for their jobs seems a little selfish to me. But then again, who am I to talk? Maybe if I was in their situation my actions might suprise me. How severe was this man's mental illness? Was he coherent enough to be held accountable? If not, I can see how they couldn't hurt him. In a perfect world they should have helped and honestly I don't think fear of losing a job is a good enough excuse when someone is getting very hurt. However fearing for your life might impede your interference and that's just a natural instinct so I guess they can't be given too much blame if fearing for their own lives was the reason they didn't help. They did call for help. However if they were only looking out for their jobs maybe they do deserve blame. I'm sorry I just don't think there's a total right answer here.

Answer 2

I think that the two should not have been blamed....they were afraid....I think that it would have been a nice thing if they had stepped in, but I certainly would have been too shocked and scared....I would have called for help....

I would not say it was right to do either....Helping or not....but they did help in a way....they called for help....

People cannot even say what THEY would have done if they had been in that situation....They did not know the patient or anything of their mental illness....They did not know what to expect....

I would not blame them, but talk to others and make them see that it was a very dangerous situation and a shock....They did call for help....and they should not be shunned....

I do not think gender or legality have anything to do with it....The facility has a reason for the restrictions....They patients have different needs and the other departments do not know what to expect from them....They could have all been killed....I feel for the man that was attacked, but the attacker probably needed to be sedated....They needed people that are trained to handle that kind of patient....maybe those witnesses were not trained to handle attacks....I feel for the witnesses as well....I am sure it was a quick episode....They barely had time to realize what was going on and react....

Answer 3

well, i don't think that the man worker should've taken most of the blame; yea, he might've had a better chance to stop it than the woman, but the woman could've just as easily stepped in. Honestly, I think the workers should've stepped in. I mean, how much harm can one man do to 3 people? If they shared the pain, the main who got 15 fractures would've suffered less, and what if he gets amnesia or brain problem that basically ends his current life? Even if the workers DID get fired, they could at elast start over. Their excuses were horrible though....by interfering with matters probably doesn't include saving somone's head. They probably just added that to cover up the real fact, which was just that they didn't want to get hurt themselves.

Answer 4

I think that the mental facility has hired persons who were not properly trained mentally and physically to handle their job requirements and responsibilities. The gender of the workers is irrelevant, legally speaking. If the persons who are running the facility discourage interfering with matters such as this, then the facility needs to be reported to any state and federal agency which oversees their conduct in such a case. It is so typical for people to shift the blame on the nearest scapegoat when something goes wrong. I am honestly surprised that there isn't at least one person blaming the victim.

Answer 5

Wow what kind of facility is this? Not only that does the building consist of a bunch of 15 year olds who cant think for themselves. Even though I would prefer people to step in, in that man and woman's situation I understand and its "justifiable". I guess its a 50 50. I feel that the man and woman could have been more assertive in the situation.

Answer 6

honestly, if the either of the witness' had interfered, they would have been three victims instead of one. not everybody is strong enough to take on people who are strong as well as angry. though they should have called security immediatly.
and secondly, if they were afraid of losing their jobs, it is no doubt shameless, but believe me, im sure there would only be five out of say a hundred people who would risk their jobs, oh they will say they would have interfered, but they're lying.
the people at the office should stop being such hypocrites,.. and take action against the attacker, rather than the unfortunate two. take more safety measure to insure this wont happen again.

Answer 7

I think both the man and woman witness are to blame. If a person is getting attacked, someone should immediately try to stop it or call the police. If they got fired for that, then that's a crappy place to work.

Answer 8

I think there are two sides to every story, and unless you were sitting there watching it and went through the entire process, learning that the entire facility now hates those two, (the man more because he is a man and should have done something), then you still only have one side of it.

Answer 9

i think the man most definately should have stepped in, regardless of what his employers would do. i would rather help someone, then continue to work some where, where they want their employess to act like mindless sheep and stand there not doing anything. i think it's just wrong to stand there and watch someone getting beat, then not do anything but yell for help. i mean, the least he (or she for that matter) could have dont was grabbed the nearest phone and called security when things started to get heated.

Answer 10

I feel sadder to know that in our society, we must come on HERE and ask an obvious question such as this.
Or.... maybe everyone needs to start back over from birth, and re-learn the difference between -
what is :RIGHT & what is : WRONG.

I'm sure society agreed after watching that clip on CNN of the elderly man getting carjacked, that it was perfectly OK to just stand there and walk away while someone was closing the door on him & his head over & over.... just to steal his car, etc.
But, IF it were their relative or Father..... it would be a different story ......right ???
THEY seem to forget that the man getting assaulted, was a decorated war hero who served his country in the past...... and HE was SOMEONE ELSE'S FATHER.
OH HOW WELL TO BE REMEMBERED BY YOUR COUNTRYMEN, THEN TO BE LEFT GETTING YOUR BUTT WHOOPED IN PLAIN VIEW AND NOT LIFT A FINGER TO HELP.

THE SHEER AUDACITY of the petty worthless walking thugs.
THEY WERE JUST AS MUCH A THUG, AS THE ASSAILANT FOR DOING NOTHING.