And as it says, some of them tried to intervene vocally, and some searched for weaponry.

And at least one of them, being young and female, doubtless didn’t feel capable of attacking a reasonably buff murderous psycho unarmed and without organized backup.

I do not share the evidently common blog-reaction that these unarmed strangers who we know little about had a duty to physically attack someone who was obviously crazy (what with the talk about “demons” and the murdering) – and therefore potentially even more dangerous than just a random criminal, and who looks, from the pictures I’ve seen, as if he was at least reasonably fit.

If the bystanders had been armed, their inaction might be culpable or “unjustifiable”. But they weren’t.

And many of them, unlike people I know, probably didn’t even have a plausible improvised weapon in their vehicles, let alone a real one, since they live in California.

(Also, two more things:

A) Unlike the myth of the Genovese killing, these people did call the police, who responded swiftly and immediately, and did intervene personally and directly – just not by attempting to overpower the madman.

B) The Genovese story most of us know is a myth; witnesses did call the police, who were slow to respond.

They also did not see her get killed, and did see her up and moving after the initial attack (which therefore looked like a mugging, not a murder attempt.

The myth of nobody caring and “watching her die” was a great newspaper story. It just wasn’t actually true.)

It’s not just California. It’s most of the world.