No one helped man getting killed in train

[Thumpalumpacus]

While I like to think I'd have the nerve and wits to act, I sure don't think there's much sense in second-guessing those passengers on the spot.

[Little lunch]

I would have been huddled in the corner using the old lady as a shield.
But then when he wanted me to hand over money, I would have fought him to the death.
:-)

[abaris]

Never been in the situation. And, as has been said, I sure hope I would do something about it, but I don't know. But throwing blame around would be playing the armchair general.

[Chad32]

Not everyone is going to be the hero that jumps a guy with a knife to save a stranger. You come up behind the guy, and all it takes is one quick jab in the wrong place and you're done.

The article writer wants to bring up a plane hijacking. The difference is that this guy wasn't yet threatening every single person there. Demanding money, sure, but not saying he intended to kill all of them. If he did, maybe they would have done something. Who knows?

I'm sure they all thought it was a horrible thing to see someone brutally murdered in front of them, but I don't blame them for just trying to not be the next target.

[Cato]

I've been wrestling with this story and have concluded that the passengers that didn't intervene are cowards by definition. The criticism of the author linked in the OP is fair not because he called the other passengers cowards, but because he demanded that they should have intervened. 

Had someone intervened others would undoubtedly have called them courageous for the attempt, regardless of the outcome. Some level of risk must be overcome before someone can be considered courageous. Using the Wiki definition: "Courage is the choice and willingness to confront agony, pain, danger, uncertainty or intimidation. Physical courage is courage in the face of physical pain, hardship, death or threat of death, while moral courage is the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal or discouragement."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage

Also from Wiki: Cowardice is a trait wherein fear and excess self-concern override doing or saying what is right, good and of help to others or oneself in a time of need—it is the opposite of courage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowardice

I think we are compelled to consider the passengers cowards. Now, this does not mean that the passengers deserve condemnation such as that displayed by the author of the article linked in the OP. That evaluation would require information that is likely not available to anyone that wasn't there; essentially, we have no justifiable means of assessing the actual risk involved. If there had been people trained in hand to hand combat in the car (off duty police, mixed martial arts fighter, certain members of the military, etc.) then perhaps we would be justified in admonishing the inaction. 

I can't imagine a person that wouldn't have desired a different outcome, particularly the witnesses. As has been discussed there's probably very few people as a percentage of the population, either through similar experience, or training can definitively say they would have intervened. Understanding and sympathizing with the predicament and supposed reasons for inaction doesn't relieve the passengers of their cowardice, it just explains the basis of the cowardice. 

I think the distinction is important. The passengers were cowards by definition, but this shouldn't necessarily invoke derision.

[Catholic_Lady]

I've been wrestling with this story and have concluded that the passengers that didn't intervene are cowards by definition. The criticism of the author linked in the OP is fair not because he called the other passengers cowards, but because he demanded that they should have intervened. 

Had someone intervened others would undoubtedly have called them courageous for the attempt, regardless of the outcome. Some level of risk must be overcome before someone can be considered courageous. Using the Wiki definition: "Courage is the choice and willingness to confront agony, pain, danger, uncertainty or intimidation. Physical courage is courage in the face of physical pain, hardship, death or threat of death, while moral courage is the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal or discouragement."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage

Also from Wiki: Cowardice is a trait wherein fear and excess self-concern override doing or saying what is right, good and of help to others or oneself in a time of need—it is the opposite of courage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowardice

I think we are compelled to consider the passengers cowards. Now, this does not mean that the passengers deserve condemnation such as that displayed by the author of the article linked in the OP. That evaluation would require information that is likely not available to anyone that wasn't there; essentially, we have no justifiable means of assessing the actual risk involved. If there had been people trained in hand to hand combat in the car (off duty police, mixed martial arts fighter, certain members of the military, etc.) then perhaps we would be justified in admonishing the inaction. 

I can't imagine a person that wouldn't have desired a different outcome, particularly the witnesses. As has been discussed there's probably very few people as a percentage of the population, either through similar experience, or training can definitively say they would have intervened. Understanding and sympathizing with the predicament and supposed reasons for inaction doesn't relieve the passengers of their cowardice, it just explains the basis of the cowardice. 

I think the distinction is important. The passengers were cowards by definition, but this shouldn't necessarily invoke derision.

Thank you for the thorough response!