Monday, March 24, 2008

"She was doing everything she was supposed to do to stay alive"

The sickening details of the murder of Meredith Emerson have been published by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

One of the telling quotes to that sad tale is found about half-way down the article. It is from a Georgia Bureau of Investigation officer in response to the discovery that Meredith had not only struggled with her murderer, but when he asked for her ATM PIN number, she repeatedly gave him wrong numbers -- the quote is:

"That's one thing that broke my heart in this case," Bridges said. "She was doing everything she was supposed to do to stay alive, and we didn't get there in time."

Allow me to repeat the salient point: "She was doing everything she was supposed to do to stay alive"

That is incorrect.

Meredith Emerson did not do "everything she was supposed to do"

What she did was what forty years of liberal doublethink, forty years of pansy-arsed hippie empathy and guilt; and several decades of deliberate victim mentality systematically foisted onto the population in general and women in particular by the government and ivory-tower feel-good "intellectual" panty-waists have unilaterally decided that women are supposed to do.

In a just and sane world, Meredith Emerson would have been told from early girl-hood that she was expected to defend herself from unlawful force.

In a just and sane world, Meredith Emerson would have been taught not to fear firearms, but to accept them as tools for her defence.

In a just and sane world, Meredith Emerson would have grown up in a culture that supported her right to self-defence and a culture that promoted such.

In a just and sane world, Meredith Emerson would have been able to pick the firearm that best suited her without fear of arrest or sanction; and she would have been able to carry said firearm where and whenever she felt the need without some snot-nosed sanctimonious busybody drenching their knickers over that simple act.

In a just and sane world, Meredith Emerson would have been supported by state and Federal governments that would have allowed, abetted and encouraged her training with firearms.

In a just and sane world, when Gary Michael Hilton stepped out of the undergrowth with a bayonet and a baton, Meredith Emerson would have produced a .38 and centre-punched his rotten heart out through his spineless back.

Gary Michael Hilton is the rapist and murderer of Meredith Emerson.

The State and Federal Governments who consistently pass stupid and illogical firearms laws; the Brady Bunch who continue to parrot the foul and malicious lie that "Only the military and police need guns"; Hollywood's sanctimonious assertation that "Violence is never the answer", "Guns are a red-neck thing", and "Women will only get hurt by guns"; not to mention societies acceptance of the Cult of Victimhood to the point where said Cult is a gods-be-damned State Religion -- each and every one of these is an unindicted co-conspirator to the crimes that took this young ladies life.

And I hope the lot of you roast in hell for it.

LawDog

102 comments:

IceFire said...

LawDog, I agree with you. In my opinion, in a just and sane world, every law-abiding woman would be issued a gun and taught how to use it!

CSStock said...

youch...Too bad your stated truths won't hit the folks they are aimed at, but everyone of your readers can definitely empathize.

Snigglefrits said...

I love your humorous posts, but this I think is one of your best. Never before has so much pure and simple honest truth been written.

I'm really glad my parents raised me to be anything but "liberal".

fuzzys dad said...

This is way we must fight these liberal looney tunes.And hopefully educate people in the process.

elliot said...

I can't tell you how often I've voiced the sentiment that gun control advocates and anti-gun politicians are accessories in almost every incident where an unarmed civilian is raped or robbed...I usually get a very dirty look from whomever I tell that to.

Ross said...

Well said, LD!!!

Strings said...

Mr Dog: this was probably your most important post.

I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to forward it on to the BACA Nation radio show, in the hopes it gets read on the air. This message needs to be broadbanded...

boogieshoes said...

here from dracephalen's LJ...

yes, just yes. will be linking in my LJ, because stories like this need to be told.

-bs

Lonestar Gal said...

LawDog,I wish all those self-important "activists" out there who spout off about the "dangers" of guns could not only read your post, but perhaps encounter even one-fifth of the terror and feeling of helplessness that this poor woman lived with for several days. They just might find themselves wishing they had a gun in their pockets! Great and awesome post sir!

Kelly(Mom of 6) said...

I don't live too very far from there, and when this case broke, I did think of all the things you've written about..this gal was accomplished in karate, as far as I know. I didn't understand why she didn't physically fight back. He, in his court appearances, looks like a pretty frail old guy and he didn't have a mark on him indicating that she fought back in any way. That made me really sad.

My daughter is being taught by different rules.

LadyBugCrossing said...

You are absolutely right.

Don Gwinn said...

..this gal was accomplished in karate, as far as I know. I didn't understand why she didn't physically fight back.

Because the average karate "black belt" in this country has been taught the same spurious lies about fighting and self-defense that Lawdog cited above. Fighting is beneath them; karate is learning to fight so that you will never have to do it. They've never been in anything like a fight and the average karate/tae kwon do/kung fu school never attempts to put them in such a situation because then they'd lose students and money.

No, obviously I'm not talking about all karate schools any more than Lawdog is talking about all women or all authorities, but that's the average, and if you don't believe me, pick three local karate schools out of the phone book and ask them how long it takes to get a black belt and how much full-contact sparring you'll do along the way. Chances are all three will tell you that full-contact is unnecessary; you'll learn the movements of ancient masters, and then when the time comes to apply them at full speed to a resisting, larger, angry opponent, you'll just do it somehow.
It's as much a scam as the "Just give them what they want" crowd.

James said...

Amen, dog.

Don Gwinn said...

If I sound bitter, I apologize. I am.

Lawdog knows that my sister was nearly abducted here in Illinois years ago. She's my polar opposite, so where I'm huge, ugly and pale, she's tiny, pretty and dark. A guy asked her directions in a gas station parking lot in broad daylight in a small city, and she went near him to tell him. He grabbed her, lifted her off her feet, and carried her toward his car.

She DID fight back. It had no effect. Ever try to throw a punch or even a gouge when your feet aren't touching the ground? No power. Luckily for her, after dozens of cars went by with no one stopping, one good Samaritan came out of the gas station and happened to walk to that side. He saw what was happening and ran to her, slugging her assailant in the jaw, and she was dropped long enough to run to her car.

We have never found out who helped her (he ran to his car, she ran to hers) but we're glad he was there. I wasn't glad about what happened to my sister, but I'm glad she at least carries pepper spray and a knife now. The next guy won't get off as lightly as the first dog did.

Hecate said...

Did this happen in one of those National Parks where the panty-wetters say nobody should have a loaded gun because we're all SO MUCH SAFER that way?

Anonymous said...

You have nailed it, sir. Well well said.

And what don gwinn said regarding karate schools is sadly true. Now, there ARE still karate dojos out there that are teaching the right stuff -- but they are becoming the minority. Finding a good one is the key.

Mark R.

Merripan said...

Well put, LD.

Technically speaking, in a just and sane world, we wouldn't *HAVE* situations like this happen... However, since we do, you're right. I never learned to fire a gun until after I went to college. Why? Because my parents were anti-gun. They didn't believe that firearms had any place in a civilian home, and were dangerous around children.

When I finally learned how to fire a gun, it didn't change my overall feeling that I don't *like* guns. BUT - I do know how to use one, and am not afraid of using one should I have the need to. When my daughter is old enough (she's only 2 month's old now), I will take her out and teach her to use a firearm as well. Her father and I are also going to teach her the fundimentals of physical defence and the utilization of a knife, for just such occasions.

I don't believe that ANYone, male or female, should be afraid of defending themselves. Women especially should be taught how to utilize their strengths in order to protect themselves. Not everyone around is a good samaritan, and will stand up against an attacker.

~M

Jenna said...

Amen.

In my 28 years, I've walked a few dangerous paths - some unavoidable, some simply the result of stupidity (can I play the Young & Stupid and Had to and Learn the Hard Way card?) and have come face to face more then a time or two with some slime who figured I was an easy mark.

To this day, I get a case of the giggles when I look back and remember the several occasions where when I began to fight back - and the attack ended in shock and outrage that I would DARE to hit/bite/elbow/mace/or attampt to clorinate the genepool personally.

Some of the giggles peter out when I also remember a time I was told by a scolding women in the dean's office that "if she had her way I'd at least have to do community service and take anger management for the beating I put on a yong man who's only crime was a misdirected 'crush'"

Does fighting back mean every women would get away? No. Sadly, not the case. Not every women is built on the lines of a Vaugnerian standin, and even at 6'1 I could be shot from behind. But I DO think if more women learned how to protect themselves tooth and nail (and 45' caliber as well) more knuckle dragging slime would hesitate for a moment before risking their precious skin. If the last time your buddy tried to rape a women she dang near bit off Mr. Happy... you might just rethink your future choices.

Sadly? I don't see that happening any time soon.

Asphyxiated Emancipation said...

All I have to add is, Amen.

JeanC said...

Well said.

Jason said...

I just lost a lot of respect for you Dog.

Liberal doesn't always mean anti-firearm. I appreciate your stance that people should be willing and able to defend themselves, but with 8 years of a "conservative" in the white house and 4 of those years with a "conservative" majority senate, you had plenty of time to fix all the laws you wanted to regarding gun control.

I think that a lot of the firearms laws we have work backwards. They punish the law abiding, and reward the criminal, and they shouldn't do that. But they do.

I'm not liberal, and I'm not conservative. I'm a realistic American, capable of forming my own opinion, and acting on it. As such, I can easily vote Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist, Marxist, Neptunian, or whatever flavor of politician claims to have my best interests in mind.

But as someone who has done just that for the last 12 years (voting age), and has consistently chosen "D", then I have one thing to say to this.

Thanks for the yellow star. I hope it feels good to use labels. Good luck on your road. Stay safe.

Jason said...

Theres no way to edit my above post, so please allow me to make addendum here.

I have no disagreement with your arguement/point of self defense.

I disagree with making it a politicaly polarized arguement. I think thats really most of the trouble with it. When you force people to try and take sides based on something like politics or religion or race or gender, then people that didn't previously have a dog in the fight (pardon the pun) suddenly do, and it becomes mob vs mob.

It should'nt be about political lines, and it doesn't have to be. It should be about our rights as AMERICANS, not as democrats or republicans or libertarians. It should be our rights as a free people. It should be our choice because we're American. Not because we vote for a particular party, and thats what that party is "supposed to think."

Deputy Polarbear said...

OUTSTANDING post, LD....

As anyone who has served more than five minutes as a LEO knows, we cannot be everywhere at once; we often only show up in time to pick up the pieces.

I also know that we will be playing ice hockey in hell before CA will ever pass a 'shall issue' law. Can't have the sheep defending themselves from the wolves, can we?

Jason, since you vote for 'whoever has your best interests in mind' AND also believe in the right of self defense; what in GODS name are you doing voting for pretty much anyone with a 'D' after his/her name?

reno said...

Jason how is this a "politicaly polarized arguement"? I thought I missed it in the post so I went back and read it again. I still can't make the connection. I searched for the words Democrat, Republican and Independant with no results. Please cite how this topic points to a specific political party.

Jason said...

I said I had consistently chosen "D". I didn't say I'd voted for anyone with a D after their name. I've left plenty of ballots empty, and I've voted, locally, for "R's".

And there are some things that I believe strongly in, enough to risk a few things that I don't think that the particular candidate will even attempt to change. Its a risk that I'm willing to accept.

Laugh all you want to, but I think Clinton was a good president. He was a horrible husband, and a bit of a dick, but he was a good politician, and worked actively towards international relationships, something that I believe in this day and age, is very VERY important. We're no longer a national economy, and we cannot afford to act as such.

You did point out a mis-speak in my post though. I shouldn't have said "Claim to have my best interest in mind". Frankly, they all claim that. I should have stated "That I believe hold most of my interests in common, and hopefully won't screw around with the interests that they aren't campaiging on." For that, I apologize.

And again, I agree that I think the laws are backwards. But I don't think its party politics, I think its general ignoarance and fear, but all that tagging it with divisive politics does is almost guarantee that there will be a significant portion of the population that will, therefore, NEVER stop foaming at the mouth, one way or the other, long enough to have a half way intellegent conversation/debate about the issue.

Jason said...

"What she did was what forty years of liberal doublethink, forty years of pansy-arsed hippie empathy and guilt; and several decades of deliberate victim mentality systematically foisted onto the population in general and women in particular by the government and ivory-tower feel-good "intellectual" panty-waists have unilaterally decided that women are supposed to do.
"


Maybe theres a difference between liberal and Liberal, but I don't see it. And maybe I'm being overly sensitive, as someone who fights for individual gun rights. It still smacks of branding. If its not, then I apologize, but it sure as hell feels like it is.

Psychlone Ranger said...

The state of Georgia may have made a deal not to eliminate this filth, but I have no such restriction. Let me at him. I'll make him think three days are three years. I'll make a career out of killing him...

Okay, I don't really mean that; it's just my anger talking. Just to see, in print, the delusional, self-serving rationalization this scum uses to feel okay about the slaughter of a human being that he's brutalized for days makes me see red. And yet, he couldn't kill her dog?!

I agree with don gwinn about martial arts, too. I'm not instructing my wife and daughter in anything like karate, I'm teaching them how to cripple a six foot male who is set on doing them bodily harm. Eyegouging, eardrum rupturing, ball crushing, pressure points and all the rest of the 'dirty tricks'. If we lived in a state that allowed it, they'd each carry a gun, too. Unfortunatley, the People's Republik of Kalifornia has deemed firearms to be too dangerous for law-abiding citizens, thus leaving them only in the hands of the animals.

10% said...

Jason, without taking the conversation too far off topic, how many Gun control bills have been introduced by Democrats vs by Republicans?

Orion said...

LawDog, here's a link to an article I stole from AIR comparing what happens under gun-control to what happens without it - It's a similar story and one I think you'll enjoy:
http://blog-in-the-box.blogspot.com/2008/03/simple-comparison.html

Orion

Don Gwinn said...

Jason, no offense, but you're way off base here. The word "liberal" has been twisted around a lot, as has the word "conservative," but both you and I know who Lawdog is talking about when he says "liberal," and yes, most of them are Democrats.
Are you seriously suggesting that if we take five random self-described "liberals" and five random self-described "conservatives" for a poll, the liberals and the conservatives will both favor self-defense by whatever means at about the same rate?

I don't buy it.
Have you read Pro-Gun Progressive? Google it if you haven't yet. You might like it better.

Paul said...

Lawdog, you ought to submit this to the Atlanta Journal Constipation (albeit just slightly cleaned up for language). They won't publish it, of course, but at least someone will have to read an analysis of this issue from one who ought to know better than the average person.

Gary said...

Best. Post. Ever.

Gay_Cynic said...

There are gun-grabbing loons on both sides of the aisle, desperate to pass new legislation lest the citizenry realize that self-defense (often using a firearm) is the job and responsibility of same citizenry.

After all, folks who take responsibility for their own safety won't be nearly as enthralled about a nanny state and a full time legislature, and we can't be having with that, can we?

But, back to the hoplophobic TSOB's on both sides of the aisle - the preponderance of hoplophobes are on the DEM side of the fence (just as the preponderance of homophobes are on the GOP side of the fence).

While there exists a sufficiency of two-legged rodentia of unauthorized parentage on both sides of the aisle, given the disproportionate distribution of the various subspecies of the two-legged critter - one can make a fairly educated guess as to which subspecies you'll find in which rat hole.

So...just as the GOP gets to bear (deservedly or not) the cross of that "god hates fags" preacher and his camp followers from Kansas strung about their collective neck - the DEM side gets to bear the anti-gun loons as their burden...since they have more per capita in their ranks.

It may not be fair, but that's how it is - and when were we ever promised fair?

OldManMontgomery said...

Brother LawDog,

Some two weeks ago in Los Angeles, People's Democratic Socialist Republic of California a similar incident occurred. My friend Mylus Mondy was shot in the back at an ATM by a sleaze ball who was protected from his victim by PDSR California.

If I may, I have posted an essay at LiveJournal.com under the name ArchiePreacher. The details are there.

There is a lot of blood on the hands of the various governments.

Anonymous said...

My, Jason. Guilty conscience?

Sleep well, as you vote for the scum who make this sort of thing possible... "For the sake of the children", of course.

We all know you mean well.

Anonymous said...

Gay Cynic: You ARE aware that Fred Phelps is a registered, donating Democrat... right? He's one of Jason's, not one of ours.

Anonymous said...

Amen, LD. After being raped years ago(teen), I now am a trained and damgood shot. The next s.o.b. that tries that will miss his "jewels".Thankfully Texas allows me the privilege of defending myself.

The Freeholder said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Amy said...

"She was doing everything she was supposed to do to stay alive, and we didn't get there in time."

There is no guarantee they'll ever get there in time. But we're supposed to sing Kumbaya or hand over our wallets (or bodies) to the perps who seek to kill, maim, or rob us and just patiently wait for law enforcement to show up.

What's the saying? Oh, yeah: A liberal is a conservative who hasn't been robbed (or raped or shot) yet.

The Freeholder said...

Another amazing post. I'm in heartfelt agreement. The only bad thing is that those who have caused this problem will never believe you when you tell them that it's their fault.

reno said...

"Thankfully Texas allows me the privilege of defending myself."

I think this statement highlights one of LD's points. Self defense should never be looked at as a privilege. It is a right and a duty that you owe to yourself and your loved ones.

Gay_Cynic said...

Who said anything about politics being related to reality?

Thee and me may well know that Fred Phelps is a donating DEM, but unfair as it is, the GOP somehow seems to get that dead stinking pelican hung round its' collective neck in the popular mythology that would hold that "all or the vast majority of the GOP are *out to get us*, and a gay Republican makes about as much sense as a black member of the Klan."

Again, not fair, but that's the difference between the myth and the reality. (le sigh)

And with that, lest this bird walk trespass, let us take this subset of the discussion over to my blog. :)

Anonymous said...

Reno, You are correct. I misspoke. Good on correcting me-it is my right and responsibility. I still am glad I live in Tx- ;)

Anonymous said...

It's rather dangerous to attack a properly armed woman. To accurately shoot a gun and kill someone while under great stress is something that most men have to be trained to do...but many women have the ability on an instinctive level. The old saw about females being deadlier than males is spot on when it comes to firearms. Too bad so many women are more afraid of guns than they are afraid of rapists and murderers.

Diamond Mair said...

LawDog, as always, you hit the nail on the head ................. can't TELL you how many told me, as a young, single mother, that it would be irresponsible for me to have a firearm to protect my child & myself .................. thankfully, I got past the naysayers, and my daughter is more than willing and able to put a hurt on anyone who tries to hurt her or someone she loves ......................
Semper Fi'
DM

Will said...

Personally, I would prefer that every female be mandated to carry a blade any time they are outside of their residence, with a considerable fine to be levied upon the parents, or her if a legal age. A handgun to be added to the requirement by a certain age. Details can be argued. I would want a fine to be extremely punishing. Don't want to carry? Don't leave your house!
Do I sound a little excessive? I have reason to.

Will said...

Jason, you are the problem, or at least part of it. Without support from people like you, there would be a lot less idiots in positions of power. You lack any grasp of history, an understanding of human nature, and certainly a lack of conviction, judging by your stated voting history. Maybe in another twenty years your principals may develop, but I suspect you won't be given that luxury of time.

Hyunchback said...

Lawdog for President!

The other three aren't worth having.

Kelly(Mom of 6) said...

Ok, I got a little lost in the argument here, but I thank Don Gwinn for the additional information on karate schools. I am so sorry to hear that happened to your sister. I am 5 ft. 1 in and 125 when I'm fat. My single advantage is being able to get in close. I have had the advantage of some military training so I know what is being said here is dead on.

What criteria, specific questions would you recommend asking or how would I go about finding a martial arts expert who will teach me what I want to know?

I am comfortable with guns, but there are times that packing a gun just isn't...you know..socially acceptable, really. Anyway, it's just always good to have a plan b. eh?

What about those that cannot carry guns? Like the mentally ill and whatnot. They need to be able to have a way to defend themselves too.

Jason said...

Then I guess I'll have to be willing to continue to be part of the problem.

Any mentally capable person in this country is capable of obtaining a firearm. Any mentally incapable person is too (though likely not legally).

Anyone can carry a firearm almost anywhere they want to, with the exception of a guarded searched area, such as airports, gov't buildings, etc. It just might not be legal (unfortunately).

Would I like to see that changed? Yes. I think we should be able to legally carry in national parks, schools, resturants, etc. But this:

"Meredith Emerson did not do "everything she was supposed to do"

Maybe she didn't by *my* personal standard, but she may have done everything that she was *willing* to do. You can't tell me what she was thinking anymore than I can.

Maybe her purpose on this planet was simply to serve as an example to others that, even with a fair amount of "martial arts" training, and being fit, that you aren't safe at any time, anywhere. There were other precautions that she could have taken outside of arming herself, such as, oh, I dunno, hiking with friends, in more heavily traveled areas? Being unarmed wasn't her only error.

From reading "On Combat", one thing I really took away from it was that it doesn't simply do to go armed at the hip, so to speak, you have to be armed in the mind. The mind is the weapon, and guns and knives are just tools, just like fingers and fists and rocks and sticks and knees and feet and anything else you can get your hands on at the time.

When you see statistics that state that 85% of WWII riflemen never fired their weapons in combat, it further proves that arming the body is useless if you haven't armed the mind in advance.

Merredith Emmerson was incapacitated from behind, suggesting to me that, she at least didn't feel threatened enough to "keep an eye" on this maniac.

He waited for her. He stalked her. He set a trap for her. She fell into it. This time the wolf won. If she had been armed, what exactly could she have done after being struck in the head with a rock, likely being unconscious? Maybe fought back, maybe not. None of us was there. But I'd wager that one more person there with her would have made more difference than a gun ever would.

Now I believe that LawDog is truly a good man. He's intelligent, and filled with a righteous anger towards anyone that would perpetrate crimes against people weaker than them, or that are unprepared to defend themselves, and rightly so. But I think his anger is misdirected here. Maybe her life wasn't a waste. Maybe we all learned a little from it, that life isn't safe, and that criminals aren't just in dark alleys and crack houses. They're in our parks, our schools, our playgrounds. They're in our neighbors houses, and they're in our churches.

But blame isn't the answer. Learn from the mistake, and move on with life.

I read from the Dog because I genuinely like the guy, but I'm not going to agree with everything he says, and I think he's big enough to handle someone telling him they don't agree with him. I ain't sheep.

Addendum prior to posting - I've been checking statistics btw. The original brady bill (which I agree is useless) passed 63/36 in the Senate, w/ 1 abstaining. The senate at that time was comprised of 56 D and 44 R. 47 D voted YEA, and 8 voted Nay. 16R voted YEA, and 28R voted Nay.

Gun laws aren't the only thing my vote is based on. General domestic policy, stances on human rights, economic policy, global economics, local crime, and ecological management...just to name a few.

Farm.Dad said...

Years ago, not long after we married My sweet bride used a pistol i kept in the car to stop an abduction and possible rape. Today she carries that same .45 resisting any effort to update her ccw with a lighter weapon . My daughter also has her ccw and has mentioned some of the issues of being a young lady packin on her blog . I make it part of her birthday on renewal years to pay for her ccw for her so you could say I feel strongly that its a duty to be self reliant. The pistol coupled with the mindset to use it as needed truly levels the playing field for the rough stock events that life may throw our way.

Fantastic rant Dog keep up the good work .

Glenn Bartley said...

"What she did was what forty years of liberal doublethink, forty years of pansy-arsed hippie empathy and guilt; and several decades of deliberate victim mentality systematically foisted onto the population in general and women in particular by the government and ivory-tower feel-good "intellectual" panty-waists have unilaterally decided that women are supposed to do."

Actually no that is not what she did, although what she did was obviously effected by such. It is pretty amazing that you would try to make your point that she should hav ebeen, and all of us should be, allowed to carry firearms by giving a skewed impression of what she did to survive. The fact is, that her killer has admitted that she repeatedly disarmed him - she took away both a knife and a club of some sort from him. She then attacked him, and used Judo against him. She fought like someone who was trying not just to survive but to win.

Sure she did not have superiority. I guess the 61 year old man had more strength than the young 120 pound woman. According to her killer, he beat her senseless. That is when she finally surrendered. Even after he was in control, she gave him the wrong PIN for her ATM card, trying to buy time, to have police figure out - hey this guyas been using her card at x, y, and wow maybe it will be Z next.

I readily agree though, too bad she did not have a gun. I agree she could have ventilated the bastard, and probably would be alive today. Too bad she did not take his own knife and stab him with it. Too bad she did not beat him to death with the club of which she had disarmed him, but chances are they had fallen to the ground and she had more immediate concerns trying to fight him off. Too bad about a lot of things, especially that she did not have a gun. Yet all of that does not give license to anyone to go out and twist the facts to suit their own agenda, while at the same time insulting her memory and her valiant attempt to survive, by saying what I quoted above from your piece.

I imagine you did so not out of any malice toward her, but out of emotional response, and malice toward those who would disarm us or keep us that way. Still though it seems a shame to me that you resorted to such when this woman and her effort to suirvive could have been lauded as at least an exemplary attempt to survive rather than a mere immediate surrender, and then used respectfully as an example of why people should be armed.

All the best,
Glenn Bartley

pax said...

Glenn Bartley,

Thank you for saying that.

Meredith Emerson did fight back, with every resource she had to hand: her martial arts skills, her stubborn determination to survive. She fought with all her strength, and used her wits and her savvy to deceive her attacker even after her physical strength had failed her.

She almost won.

Almost.

Almost ...

Almost isn't good enough, damnit!

And here we have a bunch of guys arguing over whether this or that martial art would have served her better, whether she "really" intended to fight for everything she was worth, whether the liberal left really teaches young women to give an attacker whatever he wants and not to fight back. All fun argumentation, but not the point.

The point is, Meredith did fight back. She fought back with everything she had. The lesson here is not, "Someone should have told her to fight back." Ohhhh, no. She fought back.

The lesson certainly is not that martial arts are useless. For every Meredith, I can point to dozens of young women in slightly less-desperate circumstances, who did successfully fight back using bare hand techniques, or using just their wits alone, and who survived and prevailed because of it.

Do you guys really want to tell the women in your lives that they are utterly helpless, and there's no sense in fighting back, if they are caught unarmed? I hope not!

I hope you guys WANT your wives, your daughters, your girlfriends and your sisters to resist an attacker with every ounce of strength left to them, to use their grit, their determination, their guile and their utmost intelligence to defeat an attacker and get home safely.

If someone you love is ever caught in a horrific situation as Meredith was, I hope she uses as much determination and intelligence as Meredith did to survive and escape.

And I hope she makes it.

So what is the lesson?

Simply this: On the one hand, women NEED to be told that fighting back can make a difference and that you should never ever just give up. Women should know that they are not, by nature, incapable of defending themselves, no matter what the "women can't..." brigade might tell them. Most of us can benefit from martial arts training, sometimes to an amazing degree. In part this is because the self-confidence the physical training gives also often provides its own protection during the prey selection process. From an early age, girls should be taught that if they are attacked they should use every ounce of strength, guile, savvy, and grit that they can summon to get away. These physical skills are beneficial and should not be neglected!

With all that said ...

Meredith's incredible grit and determination, her will to survive, her bravery and her ultimate, horrible death, really serve to illustrate the most important point of all: When you really need to defend yourself, sometimes, grit, determination, guile, and fighting like a wildcat are not enough. Sometimes, only a gun will do.

Anonymous said...

While I don't disagree with the main point of this post, none of us can really say with 100% certainty that a handgun would have saved her life, unfortunately. Perhaps she would still have been killed. Does anyone have any hard data showing that in similar situations the victim always lives and the perp doesn't??

If the data shows your chances of survival are greater if you don't have a gun that could be used by the perp, would you still want all your daughters and wives to carry one?

I myself want to go with whatever has been proven to be the most successful method, not just assumed to be the most successful. If you think a handgun is an automatic guarantee for personal safety that might lead to as much trouble as not carrying one sometimes does.

Anonymous said...

Sometimes I wonder if Karate training is really effective at all, in a life or death struggle. How can you effectively train in a contact defense where the object is to kill or maim your attacker? How do you train to gouge out an eye or crush a larynx? Train by pulling the punch and that is what you may do when it counts. I have no answer here, just a question.

Breda said...

Thank you for standing up and speaking the truth, LawDog.

I wrote about Meredith Emerson on my blog too because her story and others like them haunt and horrify me. I am small, I am disabled - I would fight like hell if attacked, but would I win? Doubtful. These stories could easily be about me.

So stories like these also have inspired me to become passionate about my right to defend myself to the best of my ability - which means I am soon getting my CCW.

I am also trying to convince every woman in my life to come shooting at the range with me.

(I posted a similar comment but Blogger ate it. I apologize for any duplication.)

FatwaGirl said...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/356465_dangerousmain26.html

This is an article about a similar situation in Seattle where a woman was stabbed to death by a man who was either crazy or just evil and the law let him run loose. Lovely system we have.

I would bet, based on her occupation and where she lived, if you had asked Shannon Harps if she wanted to carry a gun, she would have felt insulted at the least.

TheBronze said...

Excellent post LD.

People, if you remember nothing else, remember these two things:

1) The courts have ruled that the police have NO DUTY to protect you, as an individual.

2) When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

Evil will come to visit you someday. Will you be prepared?

Mark said...

ioThis woman did not have the tool she needed. Any number of possible reasons, from the 'self-defense is wrong' attitude to the 'guns are evil' mindset to the ban on guns in national parks. Every one of these reasons can be traced to the (big L) liberals, almost all of which have a (D) after their names. Apologists may delude themselves, but they are aiding and abetting evil. If that feels uncomfortable to some, perhaps they should re-evaluate their positions.
Valiant failure is still failure. I'd bet a large sum of money she wasn't the first victim of this scumbag, and if any of them had effectively resisted, he wouldn't have been here to commit this evil act.
Sorry folks, the way I see it a black belt is useful primarily for holding a holster. If you can't (legally) carry a gun, research and practice with a tool you can legally carry. If you refuse to carry a weapon, you've waived your life. If you refuse others the right, you're part of the problem.

Don Gwinn said...

Aw, Pax, I'm not just talking about women here, you know. Maybe Meredith Emerson's karate instructors were badasses and good teachers. But that would make her, and them, VERY unusual in the United States. Unusual enough to be highly unlikely.

Karate is generally not taught as a martial art in the United States, period. It is generally taught as a combination exercise program, self-esteem builder, day care, and Japanese cultural exchange. That's just the way it is.

I don't think anyone in any comment I've read in this post has blamed Meredith Emerson for what happened to her. We're just struck (mostly because Lawdog was paying attention, so he was struck) by that phrase "she was doing everything she was supposed to do."

She wasn't. And it probably wasn't because she wasn't good enough to do it, or smart enough, but because all of us are told several times a day that violence doesn't solve anything and weapons are for thugs. And I'm only being honest when I say that women get that message a lot more and a lot stronger than men do in our society. Look at your own website and tell me that's not true--how many articles do you have up exhorting women to change their mindset? I was browsing through it a couple of days ago, so I know they're there.
Heck, I've got several pieces on my blog about the Illinois State Police telling women that guns are bad, so if they're "confronted with sexual assault" they should not fight, but should tell the attacker that they're pregnant or that they have AIDS. Or, better yet, stick their fingers down their throats and vomit. Only when all these things fail and a woman is left with no choice should she attempt to fight (because, the ISP says, "fighting is probably futile") and in that case, since guns are bad, she should use a comb or her car keys, NOT a gun, pepper spray, or a knife.

We're not the evil sexist oppressors in this discussion. The people who are telling women that they're wrong to defend themselves against rapists are the problem.

Vitriolic Virchow said...

Anonymous 4:42. There are no guarantees. Yes, you have to work at weapon retention. Yes there is a risk that this man could have taken a firearm away from her and used it against her. After all, Merideth did that against him.

I will guarantee that the first person in that scenario with two slugs in head would have lost the fight permanently.

There is always a risk. Looking at this situation, can you say that a firearm would have made things WORSE for the victim? I can't.

jimbob86 said...

If I read the article right, the POS murderer said she fought back and was holding her own until he told her he only wanted her bank card. She then gave up.

"Then Emerson started fighting again. He finally got her to stop by telling her all he wanted was her credit card "

Though she fought back, which is a good thing, Meredith Emerson made 2 fatal mistakes after being attacked:

1) She allowed herself to be driven off the trail. Anytime a male attacker forces a female target to change her location, it is highly unlikely (something on the order of 90%, IIRC) that she will be seen alive again. I have 4 daughters, and drill "Go nowhere with someone you would not trust with your life." into them.

2)She did not "fight like a cornered cat". Cats do not give up, they either escape or die in the attempt. NEVER give up, no matter what your attacker tells you. He's accosting folks in the woods with a knife and a club- how honest do you think he is, anyway?

I do NOT blame Meredith Emerson for her murder. The murderer is solely to blame for that, and I hope he gets his in prison. She did make those mistakes, though.

I still believe that the best possible outcome for this incident, once the murderer/rapist stepped onto the path with weapons bared, would have been for her to drawn "and centre-punched his rotten heart out through his spineless back." I also believe that anyone that thinks she should not be allowed to do such a thing values the murderer/rapist MORE than the innocent target. He can do as he pleases, yet she cannot? PIFFLE. That is the real world effect of gun control: Criminals can do as they please, and the law abiding are rendered defenseless.

If anything, there should be a frakin' MEDAL for center-punching the likes of Meredith Emerson's killer.

pax said...

Don Gwinn ~

She successfully disarmed her large, male attacker.

That's fighting.

She didn't win, which sucks.

To rant because she DIDN'T FIGHT is completely missing the mark. She fought.

End.

:)

pax said...

PS to Don Gwinn ~ I do not believe I called anyone a sexist, thank you very much.

Anonymous said...

I worked for a time as a consultant for a small, female attorney, who, incidentally, paid her way through law school by training cage fighters. She's probably the best grappler for her size I know of.

She also was smart enough to know that almost ANY untrained male could knock her senseless with one punch.

Guess what? She ALWAYS carries a gun.

Regarding the matter of "liberal" thinking: Perhaps that moniker has been perverted. But it's clear to this reader what the author meant.

Take a look at the Democrat Party's website.

Look at the post under "gun control."

When the party that associates itself as being "liberal" (actually they've changed that to "progressive") has a party platform that supports gun control - or, in other words, disarming law-abiding citizens, I conclude that LawDog was correct in his article.

Obviously that doesn't mean that Republicans can't be anti self-defense as well.

But the typical "progressive" mindset had contributed to the thought that the evil gun is a bad thing.

My sister was stalked years ago - the sheriff's deputies told her to carry a gun. She already was, but the point was that they couldn't protect her. She had to take responsibility for her own safety.

Great post, LawDog.

Ned.

Everett said...

I have four granddaughters, and as soon as they are old enough, 10 years and up, they will all be instructed in the handling and use of firearms. I will do it myself as I am a qualified gun safety instructor as well as a lifetime of handling guns. I haven't checked to see what the requirements are for concealed carry in my state, but if it is allowed, I'll make sure that each one of them has a legal weapon and knows how to use it and most importantly, WHEN to use it. They have never been coddled and fed the sexist line of bullshit fed to most young girls! It has always been drummed into them that no one is going to be there to look out for them most of the time. In self defense as well as the rest of your life, you have to take responsibility for the things you do, or don't do!

Mary Brigid said...

I'm with Pax. She DID fight. She DID do what she needed to do. She didn't have a gun; but had she bested her attacker, we'd be applauding wildly at her determination, her fierce self defense, her courage.

But because she did not win, we lambast her for being brainwashed and being unwilling to fight.

I'm just wondering if you read the same article in the Journal Constitution I did, because the one I read sure sounded like she fought like a hellcat. Tell me how that fits with being brainwashed into victimhood.

Sheesh.

Springmom

LawDog said...

Are y'all reading what I wrote?

Go back and read it again. Tell me where exactly I blame Meredith for a single damned thing.

That whole gods-be-damend rant was written for and aimed at society in general and government in particular.

I think it's pretty sodding insulting to accuse me -- me -- of blaming the victim.

Jenna said...

LD... don't take 'em too much to heart. There are just folks out there danged and determined to be offended about something before the sun sets.

I read your post to my dad as well as the comments. I think he said it best regarding those whinging about slandering the victim.

"Sounds like quilty consciences to me."

If it wouldn't be improper for a married lady to hug a stranger... you'd run the risk of getting a big one from a stranger should we ever meet. It's gentlmen like you that make me still have faith in the legal system. (Too sappy? Blame in on a long day and some worried memories.)

leeza said...

Absolutely right with your comments! I carry my off duty weapon with me everywhere. And I am a woman who is lucky enough to be legally to do so. The maggot scum would NOT be breathing today.

Will said...

I haven't read the original articles, just the quotes here. But, it seems clear to me, that she made one mistake that doomed her. And she made it because of societies conditioning, most likely. If she had the skill/capability to disarm this varmint, she had the ability to maim or kill him. She chose not to because females are usually conditioned to not hurt someone. Some(most) guys are able to defend themselves by just pounding away at an adversary without having to enter that killing mindset that is needed to deliberately inflict major or fatal damage. Females rarely have that luxury. If they haven't mentally trained themselves to enter that zone at will, they may not be able to make the switch, when needed. And, if they are not willing to acknowledge that there are animals out there that intend them major damage/death if they get a chance, then they may not be able to generate the mental ability needed to prevail.

Mary Brigid said...

"What she did was what forty years of liberal doublethink, forty years of pansy-arsed hippie empathy and guilt; and several decades of deliberate victim mentality systematically foisted onto the population in general and women in particular by the government and ivory-tower feel-good "intellectual" panty-waists have unilaterally decided that women are supposed to do."

What she did was what [various rotten people with no brains] have unilaterally decided that women are supposed to do. That is what you said, and my point is that she did NOT do "what women are supposed to do" in the sense of being a victim or not fighting back.

LD, I love your blog,and I usually love your posts. But this time, IMHO, you just didn't separate the righteous anger at our society from the emotion you clearly feel at Meredith's death.

She did a whole lot more than most women...or men...are trained to do....more than many of us would even be physically capable of doing. She deserves recognition as a woman of courage and fight, and that recognition is lacking in your post.

I'm mad as blazes that this happened, too. But be unequivocally mad at the guy who did it without seeming to say that the victim didn't do enough. She did...she just lost.

Springmom

Don Gwinn said...

I do not believe I called anyone a sexist, thank you very much.

That was certainly my impression. I'm glad I was wrong.
Should I take it that my other points are more or less agreeable to you?

Anonymous said...

Vitriolic Virchow,

In this one situation, obviously not. But, like I said, no one knows "What might have been"

All I'm really trying to say is that handguns aren't always the panacea you want them to be, and if you're going to carry one, gather information about the benefits AND the risks. Its like taking a prescription drug- read up on the side effects before you decide to use it.

Anon442

Will said...

annon 4:42, one of the main reasons to carry a gun is so you are not forced to automatically go hand to hand to defend yourself.
You still come across as someone who is anti-gun, in your choice of wording, and in the context of this particular story.

Kelly(Mom of 6) said...

After reading all these comments, I still agree with LD unequivocally. How did she disarm him and still get killed? She failed to use his weapons against him. Two...she did EXACTLY what society is told to do..

How many times have you heard or been told that if a mugger approaches you..just give him what he wants. How many times have clerks in stores been told if robbers come in, just give them what they want.

That is what she did. Yes, she fought, but in other ways, she did exactly as she was told...and THAT killed her. Her instinct was to fight..if she would have continued with that, she might still be alive. Maybe.

pax said...

No, Don Gwinn, that would be jumping to conclusions. Read Springmom's comments -- she's right on target.

I do agree with you that most brands of martial arts training (not just karate) are generally poor preparation for self-defense.

I do not agree with you that Meredith Emerson failed to FIGHT. She fought, with a good deal more courage than most would muster in similar circumstances.

I do not agree with you that her mindset was lacking. There is no evidence of that. There is considerable evidence to the contrary.

Meredith Emerson was hiking in an area where it was against the law to carry a gun. LawDog was right on the money when he said that the government bureaucrats who forbade her the use of arms were complicit in her death. There is evidence that she did take her personal protection seriously -- seriously enough to have gotten on the mat for physical training (what percentage of young women does that??). She took it seriously enough to take her big dog with her on her hikes. She was as well-protected as the law allowed her to be.

I agree with you that she should have had a gun.

I do NOT agree with you that -- having catastrophically and tragically lost the initial fight -- she was NOT doing everything she should have done to stay alive by keeping her wits about her, lying to her captor, and continuing her efforts to escape.

LawDog, I'm sorry my comments hurt your feelings.

pax,

Kathy

bigdaddyb said...

Here Here LD!!

Well said!

brianb

Connie said...

"Gary Michael Hilton is the rapist and murderer of Meredith Emerson."

I completely agree with that statement. What I don't agree with, however, is blaming the anti-gun community for Meredith's death. When Cho Seung-Hui opened fire on Virginia Tech, the anti-gun community pointed its finger at guns and gun supporters. Rather than placing the blame solely on the shoulders of the lunatic who pulled the trigger, these people accused anything and everything of being responsible for the tragedy. As responsible second amendment supporters, we were disgusted by the arguments and labeled them irrational and illogical. After all, guns don’t kill people – people kill people, and it would be inherently wrong and unfair to deny a law-abiding citizen’s right to bear arms just because some wacko decided to open fire on a classroom.

And now that some scumbag has killed a girl in a gun-free zone, we're doing the same thing that we accuse others of doing: blaming laws and the supporters of such laws for the death of an innocent citizen. As I stated above, people kill people; not laws, not the people who support such laws, and not society’s hippie-influenced mentality. This crime does not simply boil down to the lack of a firearm or the lack of proper fighting instincts; and to characterize it as such would be doing a tremendous disservice to the young woman who lost her life.

I'm a gun owner. I fully believe that I have the right and responsibility to defend myself if I believe my life is in jeopardy. Like everyone else here, I wish things had turned out very differently for Meredith. But I'm not going to argue about whether or not a gun could have saved her life - nobody can say that with 100% certainty, because none of us were there to witness the events in first person. Though it’s easy for us to point out all the things Meredith did wrong from behind our computer screens, I suspect people would feel differently about her “mistakes” if she was a daughter, girlfriend or sister of theirs.

I live in a place where a CCW is extremely difficult to obtain, and though I’ve submitted my application to the local PD, I’m pretty sure I won’t be granted a permit. Does that bother me? Yes. Does that mean that the city I live in or the Captain of the PD is ultimately responsible if I get attacked one day and cannot shoot my assailant? No. As I said, my personal safety is my own responsibility, and if I cannot legally carry a gun on my person, then I owe it to myself to come up with other means of defense, whether it’s carrying a knife or a Taser, taking Krav Maga classes or walking around with pepper spray in my hand. If I fail to fight off my attacker, my blood will be on his or her hands, and nobody else’s. Period.

I feel LawDog’s frustration, and I understand the sentiments of his readers. Everybody’s tired of these senseless tragedies and I know the comments of all the people above me are based on good intentions. But to place the blame of a specific murder on laws that may or may not have had an impact on the actual crime itself is misguided. If we truly want to be able to convince our opponents that certain laws (and society’s attitude towards guns) need to change, we will fail if we continue to make unreasonable arguments driven by emotion and anger rather than logic.

Anonymous said...

Tell you what, just ran into this blog while doing a search about my own problem. Ran into the "wall" yesterday. I was delayed in a firearms purchase about 6 months ago (I'm clean as a whistle)and then was ALLOWED to purchase, but was just delayed then DENIED by NICS a couple of days ago. I am flabbergasted and also paranoid wondering when then "Gubmint" boys will show up or what???? Got a speeding ticket ten years ago...

streetsweeper95B said...

kelly(momof6) said:

"I don't live too very far from there, and when this case broke, I did think of all the things you've written about..this gal was accomplished in karate, as far as I know. I didn't understand why she didn't physically fight back. He, in his court appearances, looks like a pretty frail old guy and he didn't have a mark on him indicating that she fought back in any way. That made me really sad.

My daughter is being taught by different rules."

Good for you, kelly! Teach her streets figthing techinques since those are what are needed. Your saying this guy had no marks on him, that tells me he was A) Familiar to her & she tried talking him out of the confrontation & B) Her karate instructor failed her & her class mates immensely & should have his tail kicked up 'round dem dere ears....

Ok, point here is; If someones gonna bust a move you each perp has a certain expression on their face....a look of determination, lifeless if you will.

That is one factor everyone should learn to detect & react with equal opposing force. It scares the living b jesus out of 'em...but don't stop anything short of disabling that person or your gonna lose.

Lawdog has an earlier, deadon the money post about self defense...Make that person an object & use them for your personal chew toy...read it! Good advice to follow!

madlizzy said...

Thank you for posting this in the strongest language possible. I am a coordinator for a program that teaches women to shoot, and I wholeheartedly agree with your comments. Women should learn the basics of personal safety, and that includes refusing to be a victim.

Anonymous said...

In a sane world, NOBODY would be armed. And I stress the NOBODY very far, extending beyond police and military forces.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Jason and Connie.

My credentials are: former USMC, VN vet, house full of firearms, son in USA 2ID.

Much of what is written here is out of (understandable) anger and frustration; but the calls for a pistol in every pocket are just as doomed to tears as the other extreme.

America needs to get over its love affair with the idea that violence is somehow redemptive.

No, I don't claim to have the answer either. But incendiary hate-mongering is surely not it.

Harry

Trusty Trocar said...

This Sunday during our cool down and discussion section of my MMA class, one of my teachers (who is an ex-Marine recon scary-guy from Hades) read us the short version of the artice on Meredith Emerson. He also stared me down the entire time he read it to the class, as I was the only woman present that night.

It was used as an example of why we teach the more brutal methods in our class. There is no tournament fighting style. Everything we are taught is how to hurt and potentially kill. You finish your attacker if/when you get him down.

Our classes are structured so that everyone works with everyone else, as even the more experienced can learn from the new people.

For instance, we just got in new face cages and soft sticks to spar with. For the most part, the 30 second matches were silent. My match was against one of our more skilled green belts (we use the 10 kyu level system) even though I'm still a rank n00b.

When you're stickfighting (with face cages and softie stix, but still) and all the guys watching are going, "Oooh.. brutal!!" while you chase a green belt around the mat... you're doing something right.

My teacher asked me why I kept advancing, in spite of being hit a few times. (Others in class would back off and cover when struck.)

Because my opponent is stronger than I am and more skilled. He was not expecting me to rush him and wale the snot out of him. And it worked. Besides, you cannot honestly expect to go into a fight and not be hit.

When he moved his head away from an overhand strike, he struck my blocking arm.. and I got him upside the head on the return swing. Everyone else seemed to stick to simple wrist flicks for the most part. He would back away and I would keep hitting him as hard and as many times as I could.

I was against a man who was stronger, faster, and more skilled in martial arts than I am. If I didn't just go in attempting to utterly annihilate from the start him I was going to lose and lose badly.

Our girls are taught not to pull our punches with the men in class so that we know how to hit and how to hurt when we are presented with a real life situation. (With the admonition that if we break our toys they will stop playing with us.) The men are advised to actually strike us, though not full force. I can tell you, even a half force punch hurts a soft girl like myself.

I also carry a full frame 1911 .45in a strong side Crossbreed holster because I have no illusions on how well I will fight in close quarters combat.



And then at the end of the class I got a SERIOUS case of warm fuzzies when my teacher turned to me and told everyone that he feels sorry for anyone who attacks me. He proclaimed to fully expect a call from an East Texas Pig farm with "the real story" or a call from jail when I've killed someone.

I'm not sure I quite trust his assesment of me quite yet, but it's nice to know that others have confidence in your brutality and willingness to take it as far as becomes necessary.

If you attack me, it is my duty to take you out, any way I can.

Howdy said...

"this young lady's life" perhaps?
Sorry to critique. Grammar is a peeve of mine.
Excellent article though!

Kelly(Mom of 6) said...

streetsweeper..I did read that article..probably before the ink was dry..LOL.

TrustyTrocar..a big hell yeah! I've actually been in that situation..and yeah, that assessment is pretty good. I have people ...still... who will say...gee, I'm scared of you...Good thing to be, buddy is what I always say.

streetsweeper95B said...

"If you attack me, it is my duty to take you out, any way I can.
"...trusty trocar.

AS it should be! Hit hard, hit often & never ever back off the opponent. If they draw, you draw & don't miss. Learn C.O.M (center of mass) shooting, practice it every chance you have then? Keep 'em cornfused & in fear of their own life....street smarts from a oldtime street punk ;)

perlhaqr said...

In a just and sane world, Meredith Emerson would have been able to pick the firearm that best suited her without fear of arrest or sanction; and she would have been able to carry said firearm where and whenever she felt the need without some snot-nosed sanctimonious busybody drenching their knickers over that simple act.

You have a marvelous way with words, sir.

I'm afraid I can;t comment coherently on anything of more substance than that at the moment, because I'm just too bloody pissed to think straight.

Badthing1 said...

Hello,

As a non-violent activist, I totally agree with Anonymous who said
"In a sane world, NOBODY would be armed. And I stress the NOBODY very far, extending beyond police and military forces."

SIGH...since presently this is not the case, I am highly upset that Meredith Emerson (who fought so valiantly, may I add) did not have a less lethal weapon upon her person
such as this one, called the JPX Jet Protector®. http://www.life-act.com/jpx.php

I'm not saying that if she had one without a doubt she would still be with us today, but I do feel that at least she would have had a better chance at being alive than she had without it.

This is indeed a heartwrenching story.

Geoff said...

In my own estimation from the details I've gathered from the articles the deciding factor was that the critter was willing to inflict harm. I've read that she disarmed him twice and was holding him off. I've read about the wounds she sustained during that fight. I have not seen anything that showed the critter was even remotely as battered. Consequently, though I think she fought hard as the dickens and was thinking ahead to give herself more time, I can't believe she ever reached the mental point of committing herself to inflicting grievous bodily damage upon the critter if she got the chance.
That is the point that has me distressed. That we as a society have invested so heavily into "violence never solved anything" and "hurting people is never right" that we might unconsciously erase those options out of our mental toolbag, even when they might be called for. Whether or not she had a gun on her at the time, if she routinely carried one and practiced with it, she would be aware of her potential to take a life and thus retaining that level of action in her list of response.

dr mac said...

Amen. My you are good when you get a hoot on.

frederick_the_reckless said...

I felt the need to comment, but the wording of my comment grew into a supplementary article of its own. I posted it in my blog to save space.
http://masterfrederick.livejournal.com/24914.html

bizzy said...

there's no guarantee she wouldn't have been shot with her own gun, either.

Diamond Mair said...

Bizzy, I've heard that load of bilge for the past 30+ years - y'know what? As a woman who lived alone for the better part of 20 years, MY attitude is - I can only be killed once - but if I have a firearm, the odds are one helluva lot more in my favor - which is why, when my husband was sent to Europe for 2 years, I purchased 'Ms. Mossberg' for the defense of our daughter, our home, our pets & myself - yes, we had our orientation with it, and became, if not adept, at least sufficiently sure about our abilities and willingness to use it ................
Semper Fi'
DM

Diamond Mair said...

Here ya go, LawDog .............................

http://www.ky3.com/news/local/17448339.html?video=YHI&t=a

Semper Fi'
DM

Bill said...

I have followed this story and it as sad as it is, there are some lessons here. First the lie that give them what they want and they will leave you alone has been exposed for what it is. Second no woman is going to win a fist fight with a man, period, end of story. This creep was 61 and the young woman in her prime with martial arts training, still, she never stood a chance. Third, don't listen to those who have no idea what they are talking about and just want to sing kum by ya with the world. The world is a dangerous place, prepare yourself accordingly. That means women buy firearms, learn how to handle and use them and train regularly.

Anonymous said...

Bill, she was winning; she was a green belt in judo, she disarmed her attacker successfully.

The problem was what she did next:

She trusted him. "I just want your bank card."

She let her guard down for the second time that day (she'd been letting their dogs play together), and twice was once too many.

And, on the topic of the original post: I agree that a gun would've been much better, both as deterrent and as "shoot the bastard" material; it's harder to second-guess yourself once you've pulled the trigger.

After he overpowered her, he kept her prisoner and RAPED her. Then he took her out into the woods, chained her to a tree, and said "You're going home"... then walked up behind her (supposedly to remove the chains) and clubebd her to death with a tire iron.

Guns, on the other hand, don't mean much if you don't get to use them. This man has a string of murders going back TEN YEARS! He was smart enough to last that long, and canny enough to get his victims off their guard... in one case, a married couple, the Dunlaps.

Remember: A gun is only as useful as the person controlling it.

Anonymous said...

What this story speaks to me is that LD is right. As matter of corse the citizens of this great country have been tought that we are to submit.
But further to the real point is we have been tought that once you disarm your attacker you MUST stop your defensive attack.
This is IMHO why this poor young lady was killed.
Had she not stoped her attack after disarming this thug she may well still be with us.

Just my thoughts on this post

Anonymous said...

All of this talk about a perfect world is rediculous. As long as human beings live on this planet you can throw perfect straight out the window. Idealism is is for idealistic places. I've personally have never heard of one of those. What happened to this woman is a horrible tragedy and I agree 100% with you Lawdog. I never want to have to use a gun to harm another person and I might possibly have trouble dealing with the aftermath of such an event. That being said if I have my pants on you can bet I'm armed. Like Lombardi said, "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts every day would be christmas". I don't intend to be a victim if I can avoid it.

Anonymous said...

"While I don't disagree with the main point of this post, none of us can really say with 100% certainty that a handgun would have saved her life, unfortunately. Perhaps she would still have been killed. Does anyone have any hard data showing that in similar situations the victim always lives and the perp doesn't??"

You're right having a fun would not guarantee the outcome of this attack. If she had been carrying a gun that she was proficient with then her chance of survivability would have gone up signifigantly. As an added benefit this scum bag's life expectency would have been severly diminished. That's a win/win in my opinion.

Goofy old curmudgeon said...

I've read the story and all the posts. one thing for sure--"violence is not the answer" is pure BULLSHIT! There is a time when violence is the ONLY answer. Granted, common sense as to when or where or why is neccessary. But when a lawbreaker chooses to put my life in jeopardy, he/she has also put their life in Jeopardy also. I will win or die trying. I'm 70 years old and am a DAV (Viet Nam) , walk with a cane (excellent fighting stick) and pack a .45 cal Glock. Yes, I have had to use them in the defense of my self and family. he had a pistol also and shot first. I returned fire and kept firing until he couldn't. I was found to have use self defense of me and family. Justified homicide.
Please don't try to tell me that the anti-gun people or the cities, county, state or federal laws aren't the ones to blame they are. also to blame are those who don't take a stand for our Constitution and jump with both feet on them and the politicians that put these stupid laws into place. you are either part of the problem or part of the answer. think of it as "guilty by omission not commission" . Remember this people, I (and you) am/are the weapon. the rest are just tools to be used.
God Bless to all and theirs.

Goofy old curmudgeon.