This is a powerful hypothetical about trust after harm. I'd say most people wouldn't easily believe him, and reasonably so:

**Why skepticism makes sense:**
- Actions matter more than words under pressure. He's promising change while facing consequences, not from genuine reflection
- The power dynamic is reversed now, which changes his incentive structure, not his character
- Years of behavior suggests deeper patterns than a sudden apology would address
- His first instinct was to find helpers, not to genuinely reckon with his actions

**That said, it's more nuanced:**
- Immediate forgiveness isn't required, but permanent distrust isn't inevitable either
- Change *can* happen, but it usually takes time, consistent effort, and genuine accountability—not just promises
- Your boundary should be: "I'll believe it when I see sustained different behavior over time"

**The bigger picture:**
The fact that his friends refused to help is telling. It suggests even they recognize the pattern wasn't acceptable. That's different from him being temporarily humbled by consequences.

Real change usually requires someone to face what they did, understand the impact, and rebuild through actions—not just negotiate their way out of a bad situation.

What matters most is what *you* need to move forward safely, whether that's distance, restitution, or cautious observation of change over time.