safety for women

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Mon Nov 20, 2006 11:48 am

Oh I don't blame Snooze at all, Spot. She's great!! It wasn't her input that gave me the irrits!!!

And thanks, Diuretic!

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:28 am

SnoozeControl;463933 wrote: What are you trying to prove in THIS thread, Spot? LC and others gave excellent advice and gave it in the hopes it might help someone. You, on the other hand, aren't helpful at all.I'm discussing the desirability, or otherwise, for a pervasive climate of fear when the figures don't warrant it, Snooze. Is there a cost? The latest victims would seem to be three Atlanta undercover narcotics officers, all out of uniform, who did "everything by the book. They had a search warrant, they announced themselves and knocked first". They managed, despite that, to all be wounded by gunfire from the sole occupant of the home, a 92-year-old woman, as they broke down the front door before successfully subduing her.

"Every window in her home and every door on her home has burglar bars," said Dozier . "I talked to her the other day about a 72-year-old who was raped. I know she was just scared." Dozier said her aunt owned a pistol. "I don't know what kind and it was rusty, but apparently it was working well".

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/ ... amn112206e

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:58 am

Diuretic;466443 wrote: It would be good to discuss fear of crime as against the reality of crime, which subgroups in society suffer from exaggeration of crime and which benefit from it but given this thread was initially about women's safety may I suggest that it be a separate topic? I have some views on it and would love to hears others' views as well but I'm thinking that perhaps it would be good to have a dedicated thread.Perhaps the error is mine in thinking there's a relationship between the continuous media fear-emphasis on womens' apparent vulnerability and their unfortunate fear-reaction to events like that depicted in the story I just posted. I may, of course, be wrong, but if I'm not then this is exactly the right thread in which to bring it up. In what way do you think they're not linked? The niece in the cutting definitely and explicitly linked them.

Post by **spot** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:20 am

Diuretic;466465 wrote: And the shooting in Atlanta is probably going to generate a thread all its own I suspect, it's absolutely ripe for speculation.You think so? There's a single county in Georgia where twelve people have been shot dead by police this year alone, and that's not got into the national press so far as I know. This episode is just local news. I happen to take the Atlanta Journal-Constitution email edition, that's the only reason I spotted it.

When it comes to threads to extend, I post while sticking to the OP as a result of seeing an association. I rarely start new threads unless it's a matter that hasn't (as far as I know, of course) come up before. Doing that provides context. I did scutter back through this thread a while ago to see if I'd gone off topic, just to reassure myself.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:26 am

Diuretic;466465 wrote: I'm not denying any link. What I am suggesting is that a separate thread would be useful. I think I have it right that in starting a thread the OP (does that mean Opening Post/Original Post?) sort of sets out the premises to be discussed and sets the scene as it were.

I'm very interested in the creation of fear of crime, especially when it's totally unwarranted (and it usually is). But that's a distance from women's safety don't you think?

I find the article stunningly relevant to this thread. The point is precisely that the premise of the OP (means both and is taken in context) is as likely to result in death, such as the Atlanta woman, as they are to result in saving a life.

I believe the chances of negative outcome outweigh the advantages of such fear spreading. For that very reason, it is desirable to bring this article to the attention of this thread so that others reading it later on will see the hazards of choosing to harbour such fears.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:21 am

Much to my surprise, the incident turned up in today's Washington Post, so I guessed wrong about its potential news value.At a news conference in front of Johnston's home, the Rev. Markel Hutchins, a civil rights activist and spokesman for the family, said he could understand why the elderly woman would arm herself in the high-crime area where she lived.

"She was afraid," he said.

The shootout took place about 7 p.m. Tuesday after police forced open the woman's door. Johnston, who was in the house alone, was waiting on the other side with her weapon ready, Dreher said.I suggest this calamitous outcome is the extreme edge of what comes from women living in media-generated fear. For the most part it's more a debilitating inability to enjoy life to the fullest possible extent which, while not leaving police officers in hospital, does nothing to improve the world we actually live in.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:00 am

She is 92 at that age your afraid of everything.

I think the media did her a service at this point, now the poor women will be put in a care facility where she can relax. Not the media's fault here, her family is the one to blame. The media just made it very clear we don't take very good care of our elderly in the US.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:12 am

CARLA;467301 wrote: I think the media did her a service at this point, now the poor women will be put in a care facility where she can relax.

What? A funeral home? She was shot dead.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 11:13 am

My Error I just read the the 92 years old died from gun shot wounds. Still not the media's fault, we don't take care of our elderly.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:05 pm

SnoozeControl;467292 wrote: I suggest this comes from living in a "high-crime area." I don't really see the point you're trying to jab us with.Then you're not following me at all carefully, I'm being very clear about it.

The area I just left in Bristol after several years living there, St Pauls, is notoriously perceived by the media as a high-crime no-go area despite my being perfectly happy to walk its back-streets at one in the morning without the least hesitation, a thing I've often done without harm as have all those women I know who live there who've managed to ignore the hype.

The consequence of believing these warnings that fear is the appropriate response to living in the modern age is quite evident in this story I've brought to the thread: three law officers hospitalised while, we're told, performing their duties in an exemplary fashion. Their injuries are a direct consequence of that one woman's fear. Diuretic's "At a guess I'd say she lived in fear that one day she would become a victim and so armed herself just in case" hits the nail perfectly on the head. Had she not been brought to such a pitch of terror she would, one can reasonably presume, have behaved in a more civil manner.

Making up what-if fiction to embellish and slant the reported facts is predictable but quite inappropriate. Carla's "her family is the one to blame" seems to read into the reports material which is not actually present, though if she'd like to expand on that idea we might be able to discuss it further.

Where's the evidence that "she didn't need FoxNews to tell her she was living in a dangerous neighbourhood"? The neighbourhood now has an instance of local danger but it's been generated by the fear she had accepted. The way to make the world safer is to utterly refuse to accept the premise of the "be cautious, take precautions" brigade which started the thread.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:39 pm

lady cop;462773 wrote: walk TALL and confidently! don't look like victim material.

I can't relate this to living in fear. Making a habit of being careful, as far as I can see, is a great way for everyone to be. Life is risky. A few tips on how to minimise risks can't hurt. (Like have regular medical checkups, ensure your car has brakes, teach your kids to swim, don't put electrical things next to the bath). You incorporate all this, then go forth into your day and boogie.

Happy Thanksgiving, to all to whom it applies.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 1:09 pm

AussiePam;467340 wrote: [QUOTE=lady cop]walk TALL and confidently! don't look like victim material.I can't relate this to living in fear. Making a habit of being careful, as far as I can see, is a great way for everyone to be. Life is risky. A few tips on how to minimise risks can't hurt.[/QUOTE]As far as the published story goes, that's precisely what Kathryn Johnston did. She barred her door and windows, she got a gun, she (again a reasonable assumption) learned how to safely use it, she cautiously disbelieved that three men with guns who broke down her door were what they claimed to be, and now they're in hospital as a consequence of her refusal to "look like victim material".

Had the men not been what they claimed and she'd either let them in or passively watched as her door was demolished, I assume the OP would say she should have been more pro-active, owned a gun for self-defence and used it. Or are we to assume that most instances of doors being demolished by people carrying guns in Atlanta are police officers?

My own opinion is that had she been less afraid, and had she not been armed, and had she not injured the people who broke down her door, the officers would not be where they are now and she'd not have been hurt whether they were what they claimed or not. What interests of theirs, even were the three criminally inclined, would hurting her have furthered? Kathryn Johnston's living in fear is what triggered this event, not the police.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 5:17 pm

SnoozeControl;467511 wrote: Thank you Spot.Walk tall and confidently, Snooze. It's easy, all you have to give up is this idea that the world's a dangerous place that will target you if you ever relax and let your guard down. I suspect a lot of crime is a reaction to the fear itself. Liberation is in your own hands. There is, admittedly, chance to take into account, but that's life, predictability wasn't part of the contract.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:42 pm

I have just got off the phone from talking to my 22 year old daughter who was mugged by two big brave assailants this evening on her way home from work. Barnet in North London. She is a feisty Aussie girl, fit, confident and unafraid. She was hit with a bottle but not seriously injured, thank God. Her phone, wallet and keys were stolen.

I get so fed up with patronising, know it all people who have nothing better to do than pontificate on absolutely everything.

My daughter never lived in fear before. I expect she will now, at least for a time.

I won't be in this thread again, so don't waste the nasty responses.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 6:52 pm

Pam i am sorry as well. and hope she regains her sense of well-being soon, i'm sure with your help she will. :yh_hugs

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:05 pm

I am sorry to pam. :-4

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:09 pm

Thanks Pinky, LadyCop, Snooze, Guppy!! Romy'll be okay. She's been lucky. I'm suffering a bit of delayed maternal shock. By the time I spoke to her she'd already given the Police a statement, stopped her credit cards and phone, and was ready to cry. I'm so glad her brother is with her. I'm so far away. Romy is one tough girl and street smart. You don't get to be an elite gymnast if you're weak. She'll cope. And hey, it could have been one helluva lot worse. I think the fact it was pretty much in her street is almost what's freaked her out most. Violation of her safe space.

This is the fourth time recently in my close circle. And the other cases all involved young men being set upon - so I'd extend LC's very fine advice to them too. My sister's son got assaulted a street away from his home in an upscale Sydney suburb. He's blonde and blue eyed and the Police considered it a racial hate crime. He was robbed by a group, kicked unconscious and ended up in hospital with severe concussion. My own son Mik - who's with Romy now - got jumped in the carpark of the local indoor soccer club at midday a couple of years ago. He and two other schoolfriends (it was a school team) scored goals against the other considerably older ethnic team. So that whole team isolated the three then schoolboys and beat them up. Put two in hospital. My son just got his front teeth knocked out. He bled so much so quickly they stopped punching him. I'm going out to dinner this evening with a couple whose 22 year old son was beaten senseless out of the blue in Canberra city in the early evening late last year. He was in a coma for a while. Is fully recovered now, pretty much, but it was touch and go for a while. He had to suspend his university studies and they thought he'd never play piano again.

We live in a violent society.

Post by **spot** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 9:24 pm

AussiePam;467570 wrote: I have just got off the phone from talking to my 22 year old daughter who was mugged by two big brave assailants this evening on her way home from work. Barnet in North London. She is a feisty Aussie girl, fit, confident and unafraid. She was hit with a bottle but not seriously injured, thank God. Her phone, wallet and keys were stolen.That's dreadful news, Pam, I'm sorry to hear it. I hope she gets back on her feet soon.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:59 am

Aussie Pammy my friend

Hugs to you and you daughter :yh_hugs

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:16 am

Sympathies to your daughter, Pam

I hope she recovers quickly and realises it wasn't her fault. It would be an awful thing if she ends up living in fear now like you supposed. Hopefully she can get good victim counseling if that is the case.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:51 am

spot;462857 wrote: I was stood, a couple of weeks ago, at the cross-roads by the marketplace in the centre of Beaconsfield, with a suitcase. Not having a detailed map, and being puzzled by contradictory street signs, I asked a passing pedestrian if she could point me toward the railway station. "I could", she said, "but it's a good quarter of an hour's walk... stay here while I get my car and I'll drop you there, it's on my way". And so she did, and it really was some way off. We discussed writers who had lived locally, she pointed out the house of G K Chesterton, and where Enid Blyton had lived before her house was demolished, and finally pulled into the station and delivered me to the ticket office. "Thank you very much", I said. "You're welcome", she said.

I suggest that "do NOT pick up even the most innocuous looking hitch-hiker" spreads fear beyond all reasonable boundaries. Either we live in a society or we live in a jungle. It's our own reactions to our surroundings that determine which it is, not the level of external threat. How do you reduce tension among your neighbours? By being neighbourly.

Gotta disagree here spock, the majority of people we meet are decent but the ones that mean harm are in no shortage and its not worth the risk. I dont like it either but its a world gone bad out there. Would you encourage koan to hitchhike ?

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 10:17 am

Nomad;467876 wrote: Gotta disagree here spock, the majority of people we meet are decent but the ones that mean harm are in no shortage and its not worth the risk. I dont like it either but its a world gone bad out there. Would you encourage koan to hitchhike ?Why koan? I hitchhike. I taught all my children how to hitchhike, they're fairly good at it though the eldest now thinks it's a bit below her position in society. My influence with koan is, as might be expected, sufficiently minimal that I'd hesitate to offer her my opinion unasked. Any encouragement I'd offer her would be in entirely more productive areas.

You say that it's not worth the risk. My view is that the benefits far outweigh the risk involved. Of course the risk is real but it's quantifiable, it's low, it's only avoidable to an extent and not absolutely, and trying to avoid it at all costs cuts out far too much of what makes life worth living.

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 10:23 am

Pinky;467879 wrote: Anyway, I think it's safe to say that LC started this thread so that ladies who aren't all that aware would have a bit more of a clue about how to avoid possible attacks.You're kidding, right? Safe? As in unquestionably correct? Nobody could wonder whether other motives might have come into play? My mind must be even more twisted than I'd thought it was, if that's the case.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 10:50 am

Nomad;467876 wrote: Gotta disagree here spock, the majority of people we meet are decent but the ones that mean harm are in no shortage and its not worth the risk. I dont like it either but its a world gone bad out there. Would you encourage koan to hitchhike ?

I'm touched by your concern for my well being.

I wouldn't have to be encouraged. If I had to walk a fair distance with a suitcase and someone offered me a ride I would get in.

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:00 am

Pinky;467893 wrote: I don't understand how you could possibly come up with anything sinister from someone wanting people to be aware of their own safety.Sinister never crossed the threshold of my mind, Pinky. Honest. I'm perplexed that anyone could offer the word at all.

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:49 pm

Pinky;467905 wrote: So what ulterior motives did you think there could be?The OP carries more a sense of knowing what's best for society than of public service, which to my mind certainly reflects a regretable attitude of police enforcement in my own country. I've watched serving officers lie under oath in court to secure convictions for what they presumably saw as the good of society. I suspect that new recruits are weeded out here, and don't usually stay long in a force, if they're not prepared to adopt the culture of understanding what a court needs to be told for it to convict, and to provide the necessary words regardless of the truth rather than have a prosecution fail.

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:54 pm

Pinky;468268 wrote: In this instance however, the OP is using her knowledge to pass on to others for their safety. I can't see that this could be a bad thing in any way.It would be fine if it were good advice. It wasn't. Living in continual fear isn't going to do much for one's chance of avoiding threats, but it does a lot to prevent one from enjoying life to its fullest extent.

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:07 pm

SnoozeControl;468285 wrote: I thought you'd shut the **** up after AussiePam wrote about her daughter's mugging and how this thread does contain valuable information. But I see you're too pig headed to acknowledge you're wrong.Pam's post entirely vindicated all that I've been saying, Snooze. Her daughter's young, fit, careful, doing everything that LC suggested a sensible woman should do. She was near her own home, on her own turf, taking all the precautions recommended, and she got mugged. I expressed my sympathy with her mother. What difference did all the precautions make? Or those in her other instances, come to that.

I've nowhere said that there's no danger in the world. I've said that people should still do what they want to do, knowing the extent of the risks. I've not said they should behave foolishly. I've tried merely to counter the climate of fear that the OP tried to engender, and that the media are pushing so hard purely for their own advantage and not in the least in the interests of their audience.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:19 pm

Spot - your trying to use me and my family to push your own little barrow makes me want to puke. Just back off from this one, OK.

Post by **spot** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:29 pm

AussiePam;468292 wrote: Spot - your trying to use me and my family to push your own little barrow makes me want to puke. Just back off from this one, OK.I'm sorry you should think so. I wouldn't have dreamed of raising what you said about your daughter in here. Snooze specifically addressed me and brought that specific matter up, and I replied in what I take (having re-read the post) to be a reasoned way and without misrepresenting any facts. If you think I was inept in replying to her, or wrong in my facts, or that I shouldn't have responded at all, then I regret having upset you. Regardless of any future posts on FG I'll not mention your family again.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:25 pm

Good. Don't.