Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Maybe there are Monsters under the Bed

Here is an interesting article looking at how fearful women are of crime in Britain (Thanks to reader Trevor for pointing this out). Single women are keeping knifes, bats and clubs under their bed for protection against burglars or rapists. Seems reasonable to me but the article portrays the women as a bunch of nervous ninnies who have been watching too much television and are worrying needlessly. The Brits seem determined to keep women from exercising any self-defense techniques that might require them to be active in their own protection. Here is some sage advice from a forensic psychologist who apparently would rather see women raped or killed than use a weapon against an intruder:

Question marks in any case surround the wisdom of keeping a weapon close at hand.

"I would want people to think very carefully about exactly what they would do with a weapon and what the costs might be," said Dr Gilchrist. "If they are trying to deal with their fears, there may be more appropriate ways such as contacting local police for advice and information, installing panic alarms, having a mobile phone by your bed or having a light that you turn on to signal to a neighbour to call the police for you.

"If you encounter someone in your bedroom, a pretty high level of violence is needed to be effective and I'm not entirely sure people have thought through the consequences," she said.


Although the article points out that crime is dropping in Britian, others such as Bristish constable, Ben Johnson (who is American), point out that violent crime and break-ins where people are home are common:

Although overall per-capita gun crime is lower in Britain than in the United States, British criminals seem far more bold and less fearful of confrontation, injury or punishment, Johnson said. He attributed it to the fact that Americans are permitted to guard their homes with guns - and would-be burglars know it.

"Here, it's quite common that burglars will break in while people are asleep in bed in the middle of the night," he said. "It is a common thing, which I think does reflect on the legal right to protect your home."

Without the deterrent effect of a homeowner's gun, he added, "there's not that threat to burglars, so we have a much higher rate of home break-ins (with the occupants present), whereas in the States, it's close to zero."


Maybe instead of making fun of women for worrying about monsters under the bed, Britain should take the concern of these intuitive women more seriously. Laws that advocate for criminals would leave anyone feeling insecure and frightened.

Update: And they think the women are paranoid and overreactive in the UK--take a look at this article where police point real guns at a family for having a toy gun in their car--thanks to a commenter for pointing out this article.

32 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Helen:

What is this culture of encouraging people to be victims? I don't get it.

On some days, I half seriously suggest this solution: make all firearms illegal for all males, and mandatory for all females for five years. Then see how things are.

It all comes back to the quote that may or may not be real: God didn't make men equal; Colonel Colt did.

So long as men have overall more brute strength than women, a woman without a weapon is at a horrible disadvantage.

Many folks say, why, the police are there to protect us.

Right.

Sorry to be grumpy about this topic.

"Eric Blair"

6:03 PM, December 13, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

Mr. Blair,

I agree--the whole thing in Britain where no one has a right to protect themselves leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I could not stay for long in such a place. I have never understood why many women are against firearms. I guess they represent strength and power--something feminists find unsettling--better to play the victim or use the government as your weapon to get others to do what you want.

6:22 PM, December 13, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric, you can post as "other" and type in your name in the name box - it makes it easier to see who's talking at the top of your comment.

This article is expected. In England, they've been slowly eroding the self defense laws, practically criminalizing self defense, and attempting to remove it as an affirmative defense to assault and murder charges.

6:25 PM, December 13, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the advice! I just have a bad taste in my mouth because my youngest son (kindergarten) was defending himself against a bully, and was criticized by a school official for doing so.

I didn't blow my top, but I did point out that I knew of no evidence that bullies *decreased* their bullying toward victims who passively took the abuse.

Oh well.

EB

7:34 PM, December 13, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess I don't mind when a person makes a moral decision not to fight back against aggression, and is willing to accept the consequences. It doesn't make sense to me, but every person has their own ethical code.

What I mind is when such people insist that *I* share their ethos, by force of law.

8:21 PM, December 13, 2005  
Blogger Assistant Village Idiot said...

My two older sons were raised to be peaceable, but the eventual necessity of defending themselves was never questioned. When bullying happened, we went over the options, and I agreed I would back them up with the school whatever they decided. As they were both bright, they attracted more attention than they might have otherwise.

My two younger sons grew up abused in Romania, and had to defend themselves often at a state orphanage. Their outlook is a little different, though they are also peaceable now. I comment on it on my own blog under "Orphans and Terrorists."

9:32 PM, December 13, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ Eric Blair

"What I mind is when such people insist that *I* share their ethos, by force of law."


Damn right. Speak softly. Big stick.

10:17 PM, December 13, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I would want people to think very carefully about exactly what they would do with a weapon and what the costs might be,"

I have news for Dr. Gilchrist... I know exactly what a weapon will do! And the consequences will be that the attacker will be very sorry indeed. Not to mention being physically as disabled as I can make him or her.

Good God - that doctor is a complete moron! How long does he think it takes to commit a crime? Unless the police are sitting right outside the window - the victim is toast. And the prize for very WORST suggestion I've ever seen goes to -

"having a light that you turn on to signal a neighbor to call the police for you"

The sheer stupidity of this one is breathtaking. There is so much wrong with it - there's no where to even begin. That anyone listens to such twaddle seriously... it's too much to contemplate!

12:10 AM, December 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just make sure you're actually operating under the true definition of "self-defense" - generally "imminent danger of serious physical injury".

Assaulting someone because you're afraid of the repurcussions of an earlier assault you initiated against them isn't "self-defense" -it's just being a coward who doesn't take responsibility for their actions.

4:30 AM, December 14, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

anonymous 4:30

Given your logic, I sure hope you don't defend any battered women who kill their husbands without "imminent danger" being present.

Teresa,

I agree with you regarding this moron of a doctor. Again, it is the mental health professional making it pathological to have any normal feelings of fear, paranoia etc. There is this code within our profession that violence of any type is always wrong. It is sickening.

7:07 AM, December 14, 2005  
Blogger BobH said...

Comments on defense and retaliation:

Quite often, when there is an attack-and-defend situation conducted in private, there is a real problem in identifying the aggressor and the defender. Also, in these situations, the level of violence often escalates when the defense is more injurious than the preceeding attack or defense. In these cases, it probably isn't reasonable to "blame" one party or the other.

Also, two individuals or groups engaged in "combat" (I use the term loosely) are very often not very particular about the level of "collateral damage" meaning damage inflicted on non-combatants. One estimate has it that in modern warfare conducted in places like Africa, non-combatants comprise 90% of the casualties. In this situation, the society at large (i.e., the non-combatants) probably wouldn't care who was to blame, they just want the combat to stop, even if that involves depriving people of the a "right of self-defense".

8:05 AM, December 14, 2005  
Blogger Gina said...

bobh,

if the attacker comes into your home who has no business being there , you should be able to make the distinction , or if the attacker is attacking a women out in the street and she happens to fight back you mean to tell me that if the woman harms the attacker more than she was hurt then she could be in trouble ... ?

I have a daughter that takes kick boxing to keep in shape , she has also taken self defense classes , I hope she never has to defend herself , but if she ever has to I pity the fool that tries anything with her .

8:34 AM, December 14, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

gina,

I'm with you. I have the self-control not to harm anyone even for verbal taunts. However, if someone physically attacks me, anything is fair game. If one is home in bed sleeping and an intruder breaks in, they have made the decision that they may be hurt or killed. This is self-defense.

This should be true even if it is the police who break into a person's bedroom in the middle of the night--but we often think a sleeping person should know the difference. Look at the Corey Maye story--a young father shot a police officer who barged into his house while he was sleeping--now he faces the death penalty in Mississippi.

8:48 AM, December 14, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

ronin1516,

I imagine that Tookie Williams being a gangbanger and a children's bookwriter has something to do with it. Apparently, that is really in style with these politicians and celebrities. A poor African American male who tried to defend himself with a weapon does not hold the same kind of symbolism for the proponents of "justice." That would be admitting that it is ok to defend one's self, even from the police. As long as you go into stores and point a gun at the clerk and shoot them directly in the head--you're a real saint.

Self-defense is never right in these people's book--unless you are a battered woman who walks up and shoots your husband in a bar--then they will rally behind you. I have dealt with these "advocates" in my work and their logic never ceases to amaze me.

10:11 AM, December 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hate to say this again, but the issue is individualism versus the State.

The State wants citiizens to be passive and allow the State to make all major decisions. The responsibility for everything is on the State.

The individual takes responsibility for her or his own actions, makes decisions on that basis, etc.

So we get a culture that is unhappy when a citizen shoots a burglar, or even attempts to defend her or himself against direct aggression.

With dear departed Tookie, the issue is that the State is responsible for his actions, because of being poor, Black, and raised in a bad neighborhood. The Left never gets it: a murderer makes a decision to kill. Tookie sure made that decision, twice, over a two week period.

He took away the lives of four people, and for a small amount of money.

I'm not shedding any tears for the loss of Tookie Williams.

10:27 AM, December 14, 2005  
Blogger DADvocate said...

I don't know about Britian, but in the U.S. women worry much more about attack than men but men are more likely to be attacked. You can check it out at the Dept. of Justice Statistics.

If someone attacks my family I will do everything in my power to make sure "the defense is more injurious than the preceeding attack." I totally disagree with this statement, "it probably isn't reasonable to "blame" one party or the other." So if someone attacks me or my family and I kick his/her ***, no one's to blame. Ridiculous. I am aware that some with grossly misplaced values and perceptions would blame me though.

11:22 AM, December 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tookie's dead. Good. Moving on...

I once had a lengthy conversation with a {classic CA liberal} female UC Berkeley-trained lawyer regarding self-defense. She ended up in a logical corner, finally admitting that if it came down to a life-or-death situation between her and a domestic intruder, she would passively surrender to lethal force rather than exercise it. And she can vote, too. Scary.

12:27 PM, December 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gina,
AFAIK, It's generally not a case of 'if the defender harms the attacker more,' but rather 'did the defender stop once the attack ended.' If you keep beating the corpse until the cops arrive, it doesn't look too good to a jury :)

Also, in many jurisdictions, if you are not in your home, you may have a 'duty to retreat' when doing so does not place you in more danger, particularly when the defender knows 'a disparity of force' exists. Example: I'm at a social event, armed, and an ijit approaches and tries to start trouble, I have to ake special precautions. If I stood my ground while unarmed, and answered him provocation for provocation, 'self-defense' might apply if he became violent. But since I'm armed, the disparity of force exists, and in some places I'm expected to exercise greater restraint, perhaps by not answering his insults at all. This generally only applies if I can "see it coming." As I've told students, 'if you have Smith & Wesson with you, leave your ego at home.'

1:03 PM, December 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Pre-emptive self-defense" isn't self-defense, its assault so I wouldn't support it. Its just someone making an excuse for what they do. I don't initiate violence against people and leave other people and their property the hell alone, so I don't have a problem following the rules.

All these macho "family defense" scenarios are interesting, but you better be under the legal definition of self-defense, or you are going to be in deep trouble.

1:16 PM, December 14, 2005  
Blogger DADvocate said...

Anonymous 1:16 - You seem to have a problem with someone who thinks and plans ahead to defend themselves. What about those that plan ahead to rob and assualt others?

1:35 PM, December 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What bothers me, is that today's schools and colleges ( overrun with uber politically correct/leftist teachers and professors), seem to preach the gospel of victimhood"
Of course, and why? because it supports the same approach for the conduct of a nation. Ask yourself, what is the opposite of a "peace activist?" Is it a war activist, i.e. someone who seeks war as an end unto itself? Of course not. It's someone who realizes was is sometimes necessary. Now, we can debate, for a GIVEN war, whether it's necessary and justified IN THAT INSTANCE, but to be a 'generalist' peace advocate is to say there is NOTHING worth EVER fighting for. It's the ultimate manifestation of moral relativism, as best expressed in Lennon's song "Imagine"
Helen, your comment about battered women who kill their husbands absent *imminent* threat raises interesting parallels with the concept of preemptive war. The difference, of course, is that the way we conduct preemptive war is more akin to the woman handcuffing her husband and handing him over to the authorities.

bobh, very often, combat in places like Africa may involve one side defending those collateral persons.
"AFAIK, It's generally not a case of 'if the defender harms the attacker more,' but rather 'did the defender stop once the attack ended."
Define "ended" What is the minimum force necessary. Seems to me, one must not stop until it is safe to do so, i.e. when one is reasonably assured the attack will not resume as soon as one lets one's guard down, and that means incapacitating the assailant. Police don't holster their guns until the suspect is securely handcuffed, remember.

1:38 PM, December 14, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

anonymous 1:16:

I sure wouldn't want to count on you for much--you sound like the type who would bail out or just stand there if someone were in trouble.

I have a friend like that--and like auld pharte stated above--she is one of those types who states she will not fight for anything. She would rather die or see her whole family killed before her than raise one hand that might leave someone to question whether what she did was right or wrong. She is so afraid of responsiblity that she chooses to live as a coward, in my book.

That is fine--but I make sure I do not have to rely on her for protection in any way such as at work etc. Not wishing to be responsible and giving your own life for a martyrish cause is fine--but no one has the right to cross the line into telling other people that they cannot defend themselves. I understand that self-defense means only using force if one is in imminent danger but the wording of your comment implies that you don't quite believe that people have a right to even basic self-defense.

1:45 PM, December 14, 2005  
Blogger BobH said...

Do people who don't want to defend themselves believe in having police departments and paid bodyguards? Really, what is the difference between defending yourself and hiring somebody else to defend you, assuming that you're rich?

Supposedly the police are "impartial" although it might be hard to convince Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton of that.

2:32 PM, December 14, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

bobh,

The difference is you don't have to do the dirty work yourself. It's like people who hire hitmen to some degree--the solicitors of murder don't think they have done anything wrong and do not feel guilty if someone is killed by a hitman. Of course, I am not saying that citizens who want to use the police or bodyguards for protection are like solicitors but the psychological reasoning is the same. I can make someone else take care of the bad stuff so I do not have to do it. But, of course, the police are under no obligation to protect any particular individual--people do not seem to understand this fact.

2:44 PM, December 14, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

ronin1516,

That is too funny. I always watch out for those people who go on about not being violent---they are usually harboring intense amounts of rage which either comes out in passive-aggressive ways or just plainly aggressive ways like your friend. Have fun abusing him--sounds like he deserves it.

3:49 PM, December 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(1:16)

dadvocate-

I don't have a problem with people that make plans or preparations to defend themselves, as long as they aren't committing a crime or tort. I have a problem with people that commit crimes and torts that clearly aren't in true legal self-defense, but try to use self-defense as an excuse. Often its a controversy that the person trying to claim "self-defense" started in the first place. Sort of a situation like: "I'll bully, harass, and/or abuse you to see if I can get away with it. If I can, great. But if you get angry and don't put up with it I can run to everyone and say that I'm 'scared' of you."

It's kind of strange to claim that you're "afraid" of the dog that you've been viciously, repeatedly, and continually poking with a sharp stick. Basically, it says that you're a cowardly fraud trying to get away with abusing and committing crimes and torts against someone.

dweeb-

The "handcuffing" example is bogus unless the husband was actually involved in a crime. That's why force is limited to self-defense, so people can't assault people for things that aren't crimes. Your scenario could just as easily be a stalker or her family "arresting" an innocent ex that rejected her for dating someone new. Then it's false imprisonment, assault, fraud, false claims, etc, etc, etc.....

helen-

I think you're misunderstanding my position. I am a strong supporter of self-defense, both as a principle and a legal doctrine. I was merely stating that it shouldn't be used as an excuse to initiate force when it doesn't really apply. Otherwise you would have nanny-state wackos advocating "preventive" force against people they don't like or even worse, have opinions they don't like.

Would you want some nut assaulting one of your sons (don't know what kind of kids you have) because he had consensual sex with the nut's daughter and the nut thought your son "took it too far" and claimed he was "defending his family"?

6:50 PM, December 14, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

anonymous 6:50-

Thanks for clarifying your position--I was speaking of an imminent threat being present such as someone breaking in while one is asleep. I certainly would not advocate force in the example that you used.

8:34 PM, December 14, 2005  
Blogger Helen said...

ronin1516,

These idiot students deserve what they get--who wouldn't take advantage of such ignorance. The problem becomes that they leave the rest of the town vulnerable to these gangs because they not only don't stand up to anyone but actively encourage more violence. My guess is that at some point, the gang will injure one of these prima donnas to the point where it becomes imperative to deal with them. Sorry you have to live in such a town.

8:50 AM, December 15, 2005  
Blogger pst314 said...

Dr Helen and Ronin1516:

"rather be a victim than commit a violent act against another person"

I'm curious if these people would report a crime to the police. If so, that's just palming off all responsibility to someone else who IS willing to use violence to stop crime. Sort of like the steak-eater to despises butchers.

2:24 PM, December 17, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many years ago at a party I got into a discussion with someone who was such a "good person" that he wouldn't commit the evil of resorting to violence to keep his wife from being raped. She didn't get it either when I told her that this constituted grounds for divorce.

I would like to point out to the first anonymous that it wasn't only Colonel Colt who made people equal. It was SeƱor Rossi, or more specifically one of his Smith & Wesson revolver clones, which made the woman I married equal to the man who kicked in the door of her apartment. A couple of .32 rounds in his general direction and he decided that whatever he had in mind wasn't worth it.

11:53 PM, December 17, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

dr. helen, i happened across your blog while browsing the net, i'm a retired armed professional, (not a police officer) and i agree completly with your remarks on women and self defense. one of the first things i did after getting married nearly 40 years ago was to buy a pistol for my wife and teach her how to use it, later as our daughter grew up she got her gun and began her training. now my grand daughter is 10 years old and she will be getting her first .22 training pistol, (a SIG "mosquito") and will follow in her mother and grandmother's footsteps. i may not be able to be there to protect my ladies at all times but that does not mean they should be helpless victims in my absence, or unable to lend a hand when i am there, and if i go down the perp's next problem should, and will be an angry widow with a gun.

8:58 PM, February 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Enjoyed a lot! How to oil change mercedes ml 320 hair loss organin Google allegra update Porsche radio cosmetic surgery tv commercials Information venlafaxine Voice over ip business high speed internet access 70s tv comedy shows Mature slumber party water filter rating call center outsourcing How to set popup blocker on yahoo dsl Scrabble graj Skin care with vitamin c Graphics card for a computer

8:11 PM, April 23, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home