You can put people into certain circumstances and they will respond each according to their own unique development. Many folks when confronted by hostile situations go into shock. They are not conditioned to respond or act, but reflect internally into thought. Depending upon their self esteem and confidence they will not voice their opinions loudly and will submit to the collective.

Others will react with action, and this action will be developed as fight/flight. Once they commit themselves to a course, their subsequent actions will follow this decision. The British sailors captured made that conscious decision to submit and cooperate.

Each of us have been in different circumstances and, as I believe, have died or survived based upon certain judgment calls. In some circumstances the non-conformist rebel is at a distinct advantage over those who seek consensus and submit to the collective.

Sometimes one has to break rules and laws to survive. Leaders are those who generally don't submit to others thinking and think for themselves.

Castigating the students who didn't react or debated action is counter-productive though. The cheap shot at Canadian males because of their compliance to the demands of an armed gunman is equally counter-productive and I'd agree with Mcfly on this one - a pantload. Put males of any nationality in that circumstance and you'll find hundreds of millions who would have complied just as did the Canadians.

Survival instinct generally outweighs concern for others. And even if your concern for others outweighs your own survival instinct, you have to have a plan of action. I look at the French speaking pilot who intentionally landed rough to imbalance the hijacker of his flight so the passengers could jump him as a great example of when folks follow a decisive plan of action. Pilots though, are often non-corformist leader types and that's why they have less constraints about breaking the rules.