For decades, the "bystander effect" has painted a chilling picture: when emergencies unfold, the presence of others correlates with inaction. Psychologists have taught this principle in classrooms, cited it in publications, and invoked it in public discourse. But a new study analyzing the murder of George Floyd dismantles that narrative in the most painful, visible way.
In their new paper, Levine, Walton, Philpot, and Keil (2025) present a frame-by-frame breakdown of the events that took place on May 25, 2020, in Minneapolis. Their findings challenge long-standing assumptions about group inaction and reframes the role of bystanders in the face of police violence. The findings are clear: bystanders did not fail to act. The authorities refused to respond.
As a psychologist specializing in trauma, I believe this study marks a turning point. It shows that during some of the most urgent moments, it's not apathy that kills. It's power.
The findings are clear: bystanders did not fail to act. The authorities refused to respond.
Using 12 synced video sources (bodycams, smartphones, CCTV), the researchers created a microbehavioral transcript of the interactions between bystanders and police during Floyd's final 11 minutes. This triangulated dataset included 205 direct verbal interventions and several forms of nonverbal protest. These interventions were not random. They were strategic, evolving attempts to disrupt the escalating violence.
The bystanders used five primary forms of verbal intervention:
Most interventions were directed at officers, with assessments (number one on the list above) leading the way. Bystanders were far from passive observers; they attempted to assert epistemic authority by presenting what they observed to challenge what was happening.
What this research reveals is far more tragic and infuriating: bystanders can scream, plead, reason, and demand, and still be rendered invisible by the power structure imposed upon them.
The "bystander effect," as popularized by Latané and Darley (1970), suggests that individuals are less likely to help when others are present. But newer research has begun to challenge this in contexts involving violence. Philpot et al. (2020) found that intervention is actually the norm in public conflict. This paper adds another layer: even in the presence of an armed and authoritative figure, bystanders do try.
Why does this matter? Because the traditional framing of bystander inaction blames the public. It assumes cowardice and confusion. But what this research reveals is far more tragic and infuriating: bystanders can scream, plead, reason, and demand, and still be rendered invisible by the power structure imposed upon them.
In George Floyd's case, the power differential was undeniably evidenced by a man in uniform, sanctioned by the state, with a knee on another man's neck. And behind him were other officers who either enabled or ignored the escalating harm.
As mental health professionals, we must recognize that powerlessness in the face of moral clarity can be psychologically wounding.
The study identifies that the most frequent verbal strategies were assessments, or statements that made visible the distress and deterioration of Floyd's condition. These assessments served as entry points for further action: interrogatives and imperatives followed, building urgency. But here is where the trauma response collides with social power: the officers did not reciprocate the dialog.
Officer Lane showed five moments of alignment with the crowd's concerns. He echoed bystander observations, suggesting movement or checking a pulse. Yet none of these suggestions were taken up by the other officers. In trauma terms, we see a system where the activation of concern is consistently met with denial.
This creates a specific kind of collective trauma. Witnesses are left not only with the horror of what they saw, but the futility of their resistance. As mental health professionals, we must recognize that powerlessness in the face of moral clarity can be psychologically wounding.
It’s tempting to believe that bystanders don't act because they lack empathy. But the transcript reveals that the crowd cared persistently. They repeated their assessments as Floyd's condition worsened. They tried multiple strategies, escalating only after being ignored. They coordinated movements through shared attention and emotion. This kind of collective caring disrupts the assumption that all people freeze.
We often train people with models like the "4Ds": Direct, Distract, Delegate, Delay. But these tools falter when the person causing harm is the one wearing the badge.
This study forces us to rethink the following:
We need bystander training programs that incorporate power-sensitive strategies, informed by real-world cases like this. And we need trauma-informed frameworks for supporting those who witness state violence.
From a clinical perspective, this study has urgent implications. Many clients, particularly in marginalized communities, carry the weight of both direct and vicarious trauma. When someone watches another die and believes they could have or should have done more, the emotional aftermath is heavy. This paper offers a reframe: They did act. And they were ignored.
This article exposes a fault line in our understanding of intervention, authority, and moral action. It shows that the bystander effect, as traditionally conceived, is inadequate for describing what happens when ordinary people face institutional violence. In the murder of George Floyd, silence wasn’t the problem. The problem was that the crowd knew - and the officers didn’t care. That realization should haunt us. And more importantly, it should change how we teach, train, and talk about responsibility in the face of harm.
References
Levine, M., Walton, C., Philpot, R., & Keil, T. (2025). Bystanders and the murder of George Floyd: Analyzing bystander intervention in the course of a police killing. American Psychologist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001531
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Prentice-Hall.
Philpot, R., Liebst, L. S., Levine, M., Bernasco, W., & Lindegaard, M. R. (2020). Would I be helped? Cross-national CCTV footage shows that intervention is the norm in public conflicts. American Psychologist, 75(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000469
