It seems incredible, but Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska’s murder on a Charlotte light rail train was not the most disturbing aspect of her murder by a deranged man who just decided to kill her for no discernible reason. Nor is the fact that the killer had been arrested 14 times and turned back into the streets as part of the Mad Left’s urban “de-incarceration” agenda the worst aspect of the story, or even the deliberate burying of the event by the mainstream media, which felt that the public didn’t need to know this occurred because it undermines so many Axis narratives (gun control, how safe Democrat-run big cities are despite all evidence to the contrary, “Black on white crime? What black on white crime?,” the virtues of public transportation). And it isn’t the fact that so many Americans have been brainwashed that many (including commenters on this blog) have defended the media’s censorship of inconvenient reality.
No, I have concluded upon watching the various surveillance camera videos that the worst aspect of the incident is that even after the young woman was stabbed and was bleeding out in her seat, not one of her fellow passengers lifted a finger to try to save her life.
That’s some community you have there, Charlotte. Be proud…
A new video has been released that shows the aftermath of the vicious attack on Iryna Zarutska on Charlotte’s light rail line.
[Side ethics issue: All the news media platforms warn readers and viewers that the footage “may be too disturbing for some viewers.” This is subtle censorship, like all trigger warnings. If one doesn’t watch the disturbing video, one doesn’t know what happened. If one doesn’t see why this was obviously newsworthy, one doesn’t understand how untrustworthy the news media is today. If one doesn’t understand how untrustworthy the news media is today, one is likely to be persuaded by “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” arguments like this one by an Ethics Alarms commenter: “Media bias is really hard to prove. It usually takes a mound of data and statistical acumen. Some of the best studies show that the more partisan one’s beliefs, the more one perceives bias in media, and the more one believes that bias is dangerously powerful.”
You know:
And when you refuse to accept that journalism in the U.S. has become primarily an unethical partisan indoctrination and propaganda sham, you don’t understand the dynamics of current U.S. politics and social policy.]
But I digress.
Why did nobody rush to help Iryna? Why did nobody stop the madman? People are being trained to be afraid of intervening. They are told that the government alone is responsible for the well-being of others, and even discouraged from helping themselves.
It took minutes for Iryna to die. You can understand why people from the other end of the train would be unaware of the severity of the attack, or even that it happened. But there were people around her as well, yet nobody did a thing….In high-trust societies, things like this don’t happen. Sure, the attacks can, because there are always crazy people. But leaving your fellows to die before your eyes? …the activists who have bullied us into accepting “diversity” and “criminal justice reform” … are responsible for creating a society where people are afraid to fight back and help their fellows.
Strom points out that New York City prosecuted Daniel Penny, who intervened to stop a disturbed black man threatening passengers on a subway train and was prosecuted because the man died in Penny’s chokehold: “Criminals with long rap sheets get released back into the public with metronomic regularity, but if a man stands up to a thug to protect his fellow citizens, he can wind up in a long legal battle that could result in long prison sentences.” True enough, but in 1964’s infamous Kitty Genovese case, 38 people in an apartment building heard a 28 year-old woman’s screams as she was being stabbed to death but “didn’t want to be involved” and let her die, even though the minimum they could have done was pick up the telephone. Sixty-one years ago, the apathy and cowardice displayed by those citizens were considered sufficient provocation for a national debate. In 2025, letting a wounded woman bleed out isn’t considered unusual enough to warrant reporting.
The death of Iryna Zarutska was a rather important cultural canary dying in the metaphorical mine that is the United States. The fact the the Axis media doesn’t think this is newsworthy suggests that it wants that canary dead.
Ethics Alarms 
Well, we just got done ruining the life of a man who intervened against a violent criminal on public transit. Why would anyone risk that?
A handful of people did eventually go help her.
The attacks on people “who just sat there” while Iryna received the fatal stabs should be reined in (only to a degree). For the most part, most bystanders are going to sit there in shock for the first seconds when something like that happens (and the stabbing took less than a second of time before the murderer walked away). For the first few seconds after he walked away, there was no apparent problem with the poor girl who merely looked like she’d just been rightly shocked at a random beating. I think most people in an apathetic state are going to think “ok that’s over and the dude walked away, no need to escalate lest I get beat also”.
Now, they only get absolved to a degree, because very rapidly it became apparent that she’d been seriously injured and some of the bystanders walked away and others just sat there. How much of this have they seen in their lives that they are completely numb to this happening? There’s a deep sickness in the community and it’s only going to get worse until we stop being cowards about expressing and celebrating traditional community values and virtues (all of which to some degree or another are crapped on by the progressive world view).
The general apathy is appalling but it’s only the 2nd grossest thing. The murder of the girl is still the grossest thing.
“This Man (Decarlos Brown, Jr.) WAS HURTING“–Van Jones
Zarutska’s no longer hurting, either.
PWS
This man was hurting an innocent girl on the subway.
Look, there is truth in the elegant quote “hurt people hurt people”. Doesn’t absolve the hurt person from the hurt they cause.
This is more of what Van Jones said:
“It’s not about cashless bail or no cashless bail, it’s about the fact that we don’t know how to deal with people who are hurting in the way this man was hurting. Hurt people hurt people. What happened was horrible, but it becomes an opportunity for people to jump on bandwagons, and then for someone like Charlie Kirk– he should be ashamed of himself. “
That is a truly stupid and callous thing to say, even for Jones. Jones and his ilk are directly responsible for this incident because they have urged for reductions in criminal penalties, no-cash appearance bonds, and social justice advocacy in the criminal justice system. Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, et al, are just as culpable.
Yeah, people carry hurt. We all do. Growing up and dealing with whatever “hurt” someone experiences is part of life. Jones condemns Kirk but excuses Brown’s vicious attack on a totally innocent and unsuspecting young woman minding her own business on Charlotte light rail train as some sort of societal defect. Jones has said stupid things before but this is delusion on a whole different level. Jones can go to hell, along with the people who did nothing to help her. That is the societal defect.
I have no idea if Brown was motivated by racial animus. I don’t care. it doesn’t change the fact that a defenseless person was viciouisly, brutally murdered right in the open. It is truly heartbreaking.
jvb
Re: Charlie Kirk: Someone just shot him in the neck a short time ago, at an event in Utah. Uncertain of current status.
Just reported that he was killed.
Yes, I saw that. Truly sad.
jvb
There was a man and a woman who did try to render aid, but this was after the young woman had already slid to the floor. There was another man who remained nearby, but his only interest seemed to be getting it on video.
I don’t know where the man and woman came from (if they had been on the train or got on after it stopped) or how much time went by before they tried to give aid.
The woman sitting across from Zarutska and the man sitting behind that woman were both in a position to see what happened, but both got up and walked off the train, preferring to go in the direction of the killer than try to help the young woman.
I halfway suspect this lack of empathy was a bigger part of trying to keep the video from being released than the murder itself was.
I think this is worse than with Kitty Genovese. People did call the police when they heard Genovese being attacked. In the meantime, she had moved from one area to another and the police didn’t see her. Her attacker left, but he came back to finish her off. (And was better at finding her than the police had been. Of course, he had the advantage of knowing she was there where the police only had reports of something possibly happening.)
Thanks Mardybum for helping to correct the record of what actually happened in the Genovese case (which is different to what the headlines were and how it often appears in textbooks to illustrate bystander apathy). Here’s a little more:
“On that fateful night 60 years ago, Kitty Genovese was, in fact, brutally murdered outside of her New York City apartment. But the headlines didn’t tell the full story. The truth is that Genovese was murdered at 3 o’clock in the morning (while most people were asleep), some onlookers described uncertainty in what they saw (i.e., they did not believe Genovese was in danger), and the final attack that led to her death was in a stairwell, blocked from the view of potential onlookers. Not only this, several people did try to intervene: both by calling the police and by yelling at the attacker. Meanwhile, Genovese’s friend and neighbor ran to her side, holding her in her arms as she died (1). The original story of the murder is told as a parable on the intrinsic apathy and indifference of humanity, but the truth is much more complicated.”
Scott ES, Ross DA, Fenstermacher E. Stand By or Stand Up: Exploring the Biology of the Bystander Effect. Biol Psychiatry. 2021 Jul 15;90(2):e3-e5. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2021.05.007. PMID: 34210387; PMCID: PMC8692770.
It’s not “the record.” It is what some analysts long, long after the fact have concluded, perhaps with an agenda. I wrote about the sudden narrative, portrayed in “Titanic”, that the ship snapped in two above the waterline as it sank. Funny, nobody who actually saw “The Titanic” go down, and there were many witnesses who testified under oath, mentioned that detail. But now we have a movie, a coffee stable book and various articles stating as fact that this is what happened.
In my neighborhood a fox screaming late at night routinely attracts several 911 calls. I find the “screams were so common in that neighborhood that nobody thought anything was amiss” a particularly dubious point.But it doesn’t matter: attacking the comparison doesn’t change the fact that a young woman was murdered in plain sight with people all around and nobody did anything, even asking her if she was all right. This isn’t a pregnant woman not having any gentleman surrendering his seat.
The testimony about the sinking of the Titanic is not as one sided as you’re portraying though. There were many who said it went down as intact, and definitely the majority of the testimony. But it was far from universal.
The ship had gone dark before it broke up, so the actual sinking was when it was quite dark. Those who said it did break up didn’t say it went down like it did in the James Cameron movie, but was more along the lines being nearly completely submerged then the stern coming back higher in the water before slowly sinking. So only those closest would have seen the breakup and were in the definite minority of the survivors.
There were plenty of “I told you so” phrases uttered in 1985 when the discovery proved that the Titanic had broken up before sinking.
The NYT seems to have incorrectly said 38 people heard the Genovese attack. The current best guess is about 12, with several having called the police, one having shouted at the attacked which temporarily scared him off, and one person going to Genovese’s side to render aid. Much of the attack occurred outside of view, and was mistaken for a domestic quarrel. Is there blame to dispense? Yes, but the issue is more complex than originally reported. Regarding the recent case, everyone’s pal Grok weighs in as follows:
Reasonable Actions for an Unarmed Bystander
Given the constraints, here are the most reasonable actions an unarmed bystander could take, balancing personal safety with the desire to help:
If possible, alert the train operator (e.g., via an emergency button or intercom, if available) to stop the train or summon security. In this incident, the operator stopped the train, aiding Brown’s arrest.
Assess the Situation Quickly:
In a sudden attack, the first priority is to gauge the threat. If the attacker (e.g., Brown) remains in the train car with a knife, approaching the victim risks escalating the situation or drawing the attacker’s attention. The point about the attacker “looking for victim #2” is valid—knives are close-range weapons, and an unstable assailant could strike again.
If the attacker flees or is subdued (as Brown was upon exiting), the risk decreases, but this wasn’t immediately clear in the moment.
Prioritize Personal Safety:
In a confined space with an armed, unpredictable attacker, moving toward the victim (e.g., to apply pressure to wounds) could make you a target. This is especially true if you’re unarmed and untrained in de-escalation or combat. Experts in self-defense often advise against engaging an armed attacker without equivalent force or training, as it can worsen the situation.
Call for Help Immediately:
The safest and most effective action is to distance yourself from the attacker (if possible, moving to another part of the train car or an adjacent car) and call 911.
Yeah, I’m aware of the attempted revisionism on Kitty. There has been no real “new evidence” about the event, just attempts to debunk the story. Unfortunately, there have been plenty of similar incidents, and EA has written about several of them.
The Genovese case continues to fascinate, particularly as it reflects on us and our future. Here are some excerpts from my reading:
Wikipedia:
Researchers have since uncovered major inaccuracies in the Times article, and police interviews revealed that some witnesses had attempted to contact authorities. In 1964, reporters at a competing news organization discovered that the Timesarticle was inconsistent with the facts, but they were unwilling at the time to challenge Times editor Abe Rosenthal. In 2007, an article in the American Psychologist found “no evidence for the presence of 38 witnesses, or that witnesses observed the murder, or that witnesses remained inactive”.[8] In 2016, the Timescalled its own reporting “flawed”, stating that the original story “grossly exaggerated the number of witnesses and what they had perceived”.[9]
AI:
New evidence, including a 2025 CrimeReads article and the 2020 death of witness Sophia Farrar, has revealed the original media narrative of the Kitty Genovese murder was largely exaggerated, with several neighbors actually attempting to help and at least one, Farrar, holding Genovese as she died. The widely cited “38 witnesses” is unsubstantiated.
Jacqualine Faber:
…in 2015, Bill Genovese, Kitty’s brother, released a documentary called The Witness… Through his in-depth research, Bill Genovese learned that the initial stories of inaction were greatly exaggerated. Several neighbors did try to help, and at least one, Sophie Farrar, held Kitty in her dying moments, blood smeared on the stairwell beside her. He learned that many neighbors didn’t understand what they were “witnessing,” catching only fragments of the crime, an errant scream, a shuffle in the hallway. At the time, 911 did not exist and the local precinct was slow to respond to phone calls that came in during the attack. If The Witness shed new light on the crime, it was, in part, by unveiling the media’s role in whipping up a clickbait furor that treated the 38 witnesses and not the dead girl as the object of interest…
Decades of psychological research have borne out certain ineluctable truths: that we do tend to outsource responsibility when there are other witnesses present. We believe that others are more qualified to handle an emergency, better prepared to respond than we are. We calibrate the seriousness of our own reactions by the seriousness of the reactions around us.
One of the starkest differences between today and 1964 is the frequency with which we find ourselves in the role of the witness. Social media alone turns us all into potential bystanders, potential interventionists. Navigating this boundary between the two feels more complicated and fraught than ever. I don’t purport to have any answers…
Wikipedia….
Thanks kawaii65c843be72 for the additional information about the Genovese case. I didn’t realize that much of this came to light via the research conducted by her brother. After losing one of my own brothers under mysterious circumstances, I know firsthand the depth of motivation relatives can feel to find out the truth.
I am sorry to hear about your brother. My condolences.
Thank you. It has been a long time now, long enough for the grief to dissipate, leaving the positive memories intact.
Re the circumstances (he died in India of a skull fracture, local police retrieved the body but never reported the death to the US consulate even though it was clear he was a US citizen), investigations by a friend of my brother’s (which included talking to the local police while recording the conversation on a secret microphone!) convinced him (and me) that his death was the result of an accidental fall, not a murder.
That was good to know. And time marches on….
Thanks for sharing concrete steps people can take, as the lack of a script for intervention is one of the problems that can deter people from intervening. Another point to keep in mind (because of the diffusion of responsibility) is that the MORE people are present, the less likely anyone is to intervene promptly (unless one of the people close by has been trained in emergency response). So if you are in a situation like this DO SOMETHING right away — and appeal to others to act as well. This both provides a model of action and jolts others (who may be in shock) to act as well.
IF YOU ARE THE VICTIM a key piece of advice is to FOCUS on someone who is close by and appeal directly to them (rather than just yelling “help”). This directly makes that person responsible, cancelling out the diffusion of responsibility, and hence increases the chances they will help (when only a single person is present in an emergency situation, they are much more likely to help because they immediately realize that no-one else is going to take action instead).
Who here remembers Wesley Autrey, aka the Subway Samaritan, aka the Subway Superman? Fifty year-old Navy veteran and construction worker, a quick thinker back in 2007.
Autrey saved a man in Manhattan who had a seizure and fell on the subway tracks just moments before a train was pulling in. Autrey jumped down onto the tracks and managed to secure himself and the man experiencing a seizure (Cameron Hollopeter) in an alcove where they were out of harm’s way as the train pulled in.
Autrey credited his prompt response to…perhaps Navy training(?). Also, he worked construction in confined spaces and was able to quickly spot a place that was safe from the arriving train.
Wikipedia and the _New York Times_ have details. It was a big news item when it happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Autrey
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/nyregion/03life.html
We all like to think that we are going to rise to the occasion during a crisis. Most professional trainers (drill instructors, martial arts teachers, etc) say to their students “You will not rise to the occasion…instead you will descend to the level of your training.”
Newsweek journalist Amanda Ripley wrote an unputdownable book about surviving during a crisis. It’s called _The unthinkable_, published in 2009. Great book, if a little grim.
One person Ripley talked to was quoted on something instructors tell their students. With sufficient training you are more likely to avoid “freezing” or freeze only momentarily. After that you think to yourself “There is Option One, and Option Two. Decide. Act.”
charles w abbott
rochester NY
I just went and watched the 30 second video available on X several times. I did this in part so I could rehearse how to respond, as having a script for emergency situations is a resource for quick action. (This is something I covered when teaching about the bystander effect–it’s hard to generate new thoughts in a high-stress situation, but not so hard to recall an already-rehearsed script.)
My impressions from the video
Iryna herself doesn’t seem to have immediately grasped that she was seriously injured — she looks shocked, puts her hands to her mouth, and looks around in confusion before looking down at her shirt (and maybe seeing blood? — it’s a black shirt, and perhaps for that reason no blood is visible to the camera). About 25 seconds after the attack, she crumples to the floor, and blood is visible on her seat.
According to Where Is the Buzz, which apparently was able to view more extensive footage, the attack occurred at 9:50 and at 9:52 a witness is seen running to her aid. Given that it wasn’t immediately clear (even to the victim) what had happened and that she needed help, a minute or so for someone to grasp the situation and come running does not seem to fit the “not one of her fellow passengers lifted a finger to try to save her life” narrative.
This DOESN’T mean it was not a horrific event. I’m just pointing out that, as in the Kitty Genovese case, some details of the initial headlines and story lines are not correct.
North Carolinians have options
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/nc-gun-laws/