But that's exactly my point. In some situations, trying to help when you don't know what you're doing can make a situation worse. There are many examples where

But that's exactly my point. In some situations, trying to help when you don't know what you're doing can make a situation worse. There are many examples where the obvious thing to do is not the right thing to do, from magnesium fires to drinking lots of water during marathons. I don't mean to advocate "I can't help" as an attitude, rather I think it's important to consider whether what you're doing is, in fact, helping. The classic examples of the bystander effect involve unambiguously helpful actions, like calling the police when you hear screaming. This is a little bit different. An ambulance had already been called, the situation was relatively stable, and I've always heard that unless you know what you're doing it's best to wait for the professionals. Regardless, my point isn't that the people there did the wrong thing. I don't have the medical experience to know (nor, I suspect, do you). Even if I did, they were there, I wasn't, they had a short time to make the decision, and perhaps there are other facts not available to us. My issue is that the retelling of the story as "kind-hearted people triumph over the bystander effect" is incomplete without knowing the actual consequences. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps it'll be "mob of impatient amateurs exacerbates trapped man's injuries in rescue attempt". I know it feels good as written, and it is heartwarming that so many people wanted to help, but I think it's irresponsible to encourage behaviour in that kind of situation that might be medically harmful.