Nathan Kotylak: Individual Error or Mob Mistake?
A look at the 2011 Vancouver Riot

On March 13th 1964 Kitty Genovese was murdered outside her apartment as more than ten residents in the apartments above watched her die and did nothing. In the late thirties and early forties Adolf Hitler convinced men and women to effectively exterminate two thirds of the European Jewish population. On June 15th 2011, over 100 people were arrested for disorderly conduct by fighting, looting, and even burning police cars after the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals, most notably Nathan Kotylak, seventeen year old student from Maple Ridge. What do these three situations have in common? They all involve the mob mentality in both an active and passive sense. While Kitty Genovese was being murdered, many residents in the apartments above displayed the bystander effect and followed Cialdini’s principle of social proof. They all followed the lead of similar others and did nothing to address the situation in hopes that someone else would deal with it. Germany ruled by Hitler was the most extreme example of social proof and also showcased the demonstrative tactics used by Hitler to control the minds of citizens. The Vancouver Riot followed a similar path to both scenarios- like those who watch Kitty be stabbed to death over a 30 minute time span, some Vancouverites did nothing. Like the thousands of Hitler followers who killed innocent civilians, some acted in ways that went against their moral and ethical frameworks. But why do people do things even if they know they are bad and they know they will harm others? While there are many examples to draw upon and many people to analyze, I want to focus this blog on Nathan Kotylak. Why would a mature, upper class citizen with everything to gain in life throw it all away for the supposed rush and thrill of rioting? Let’s first examine exactly what Nathan did. A few days after the riot, videos surfaced of Nathan doing the following: 1) slapping a young woman in the breasts as she stood on top of a Vancouver Police Department police car, 2) passing beer bottles to rioters that were being thrown at members of the Vancouver Police Department, 3) placing a pile of burning paper into the back seat of a police car, and 4) igniting explosive fireworks into the crowd of rioters. (www.examiner.com). Reading these actions, one might assume that Nathan was an evil person, that he must have a distaste for authority figures, and that he doesn’t seem to care about potential punishments. Before evaluating his actions, we should look at Nathan himself. Kotylak attended a Maple Ridge high school and had received scholarships from the University of Calgary for his academic and athletic achievements. Kotylak spends 47 hours per week developing his Water Polo skills and has achieved a wide variety of accolades with hopes to compete on Team Canada at the Olympics (www.mapleridgenews.com). So why does a person with such commitment, a future orientation, and potential throw it all away for nothing? In an interview with CTV, Nathan said, “For reasons I can’t really explain, I went from being a spectator to becoming part of the mob mentality that swept through many members of the crowd.” (ctv.ca). An example of this “mob mentality” could be seen when hundreds of Wal Mart patrons stomped over each other on Black Friday in order to obtain sales on products, leading to the death of a Wal Mart employee and the injury of several patrons. Interviewed shoppers stated that the way they acted in the group was different then the way they would have acted if they were alone. That is the fundamental component of the mob mentality- that you act differently merely because you were in a social situation, however in my opinion this is not a valid reason to excuse one from their actions. Cialdini’s principle of social proof has two aspects: 1) we follow the lead of others and 2) we are far more likely to follow a person that is similar to us. Nathan was subjected to both of these circumstances on June 15th. Firstly we should note that there was a vast domino effect that evening, once one person started rioting others quickly began to follow. Nathan followed the lead of many other rioters, but furthermore the profile of these rioters was very similar- Canucks fans, wearing jerseys, who were angered by the loss to Boston. It was the common beliefs and common anger that these rioters shared which ultimately turned a bit of anger into a full on riot. Surely Nathan got caught up following others. But is the principle of social proof great enough to constitute illegal actions? What about the power that Nathan possessed in this given situation? French and Raven state that when dealing with power, one component that is often examined is the degree to which one believes they will be punished by a person in authority. There are two responses to this, 1) Nathan’s status in society 2) group anonymity. Since Nathan comes from a wealthy background and had recently achieved so much in school and in Water Polo, there is a high chance that he possessed this feeling of invincibility. Nathan had a large power base because he had a rich family and may have felt that he could avoid punishment as a result. The second response is that because Nathan was in a group, he surely felt that he would not be caught. Once again, Nathan did not feel the potential of being caught because he was one person among hundreds and probably felt that the authorities would not be able to single him out, he once again did not see the risk of being punished as legitimate. Nathan’s case proves that people may not consider whether or not their actions are wrong or right, but whether or not they will be caught as a result of their actions. Nathan and the other 100+ rioters did some very bad things on June 15th, however there unethical actions can be better understood when evaluating the principle of social proof and the understanding of the relationship between people and authority. Ultimately these people need to be punished to send a message that no person should be able to hide behind the defense of “mob mentality” or “social proof” and that whether you are among a group or alone, you always hold individual responsibility.

http://www.examiner.com/canada-headlines-in-canada/water-polo-canada-darling-not-named-first-wave-of-vancouver-riot-charges http://www.mapleridgenews.com/sports/120728909.html http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110619/polo-vancouver-riot-110619/