...Said the pot to the kettle. The fact that you feel like you have to rail on the guy who's just reporting a crime and attribute it to cultural insensitivity speaks volumes. The fact that you get pissed at the white guy reporting the crime, and his getting upset, and yet you ignore the second native who feels the same exact way, and indicates that it's not a matter of cultural difference between the outsider and the locals also speaks volumes. Hell, even just the fact that you feel the need to defend the local culture against these invaders with different morals implies that you think that the locals need defending which implies that you feel they are unable to do it themselves which implies that you are yourself viewing the culture as inferior and needing defense. I see this as no more or less than a cultural version of white knight syndrome which is a veiled form of misogyny where the white knight doesn't even realize the ironic fact that his endeavor to protect women and put them on a pedestal is actually based on an assumption of inequality and inferiority that they need to be protected. I'm sorry if you dislike my ability to read between the lines and see the mechanics behind what would drive such a selective perception of the facts of the situation. Yes, that's my point. You're ignoring it because if you didn't you'd have to reconcile the fact that the thing you're getting upset about (a rich white dude imposing his morality on another culture) is a load of shit, since the locals have the same viewpoint and agree with him. So if a guy on the street sees a crime and reports it, you're of the opinion that they're meddling in other people's business? If you were mugged and knocked unconscious you would get pissed when a witness calls the cops? Do you not see how insane that is? Sure, you could argue that cultural outsiders may have a tendency to get involved in issues that the locals consider normal, but as i keep referencing and as you keep choosing to ignore this isn't an issue of cultural difference, evidenced by the fact that a second local was just as upset. If the second local had been the one who called the cops, would you have an argument? No, no you wouldn't and you'd just shut your mouth. Does that mean he shouldn't have tried? No. Does that mean that we should be defeatist and just try and ignore lawbreaking and hope it goes away? No. He wanted to see what happened, he was also a witness and the one the guy yelled at. It would have made no sense if he hadn't gone. Are you honestly going to tell me that you've never been upset with someone and said "I would have killed that asshole" or "I wanted to fucking punch him in the face"? Talk is cheap, if you don't understand that then you're really far gone. Anyway if you want to get technical what he actually said was that he wanted to kick him down the stairs, not kill him. In fact, killing him by falling off the cliff at the bottom was one of the reasons he explained that he thought that kicking him down the stairs was a bad idea. Now you're building a straw man saying that he wanted to kill him, when in fact he was saying exactly the opposite. Dude, the guy makes shittons of videos, and I don't think any of the rest of them have anything to do with calling the cops on locals. He's just trigger happy with his camera. He wasn't setting out to claim the moral high ground on a dude beating his dog, he was just doing what he normally does, making a video, and this was what he happened to be doing. Your words, my responses. Tl; dr: Go suck a dog cock.