Posted by Scott on October 30th, 2006 — Posted in News
I’m not usually a big fan of the govenment’s police, but Newport city police now offer free self-defense classes to women. On this issue, I agree completely with the Newport police: We need to educate women (and everybody for that matter) about self-defense. I commend the Newport police for this.
Newport Police Detective Renee South said that the class is “pretty intensive and comprehensive,” South said. “We go over risk awareness, physical empowerment, self-realization and certain moves to get out of being held down. We also talk about rape and it can get pretty graphic and emotional.”
South said education is of utmost importance.
“What do you do if you’re in that situation? Do you know your surroundings? Do you know where you are? That’s important,” South said.
South said her biggest piece of advice to women is to always be aware of their surroundings. This way, they can tell police exactly where they are if an emergency arises.
No Comments »
Posted by Scott on October 27th, 2006 — Posted in News, Politics & Commentary
I just read an article by Audra Burch in Miami Herald, entitled After Little Girl’s Death, Parents Strive To Change State Law.
The article recounts a story about the shooting of an innocent little girl. The shooters shot the girl with a stray bullet in the midst of a gun-fight, and they now are going to use the self-defense law, Stand Your Ground, to try to plead non-guilty to the murder of this little girl.
People have different opinions regarding the Stand Your Ground law. On one hand, people need to be able to defend themselves and stand their ground. On the other hand, we need to defend little girls from violent criminals on wild shootouts. What do you think?
I personally think that ‘collateral damage’ has nothing to with self-defense. If a defendant shoots a criminal attacker, then the defendants are fine with me. However, if a defendant shoots an innocent little girl, we need to put that defendant in jail. I have the right to defend myself in the same way I have a right to drive my car or play baseball. If I’m an irresponsible punk and wildly cause trouble and defend myself, drive my car, or play baseball erratically and thus violently kill a little girl, then that’s voluntary manslaughter at best, and murder at worst. What do you think?
Here’s some excerpts from the article:
The parents go out to get more and more signatures on a petition to support changing the law that could be used to defend the two men accused of killing Sherdavia, just 9, shot to death while playing on her porch one Saturday afternoon.
Florida’s Stand Your Ground law stretches — arguably to the extreme — the definition of self-defense. It allows people to defend themselves without penalty if they feel threatened in just about any public or private space.
[...]
The amendment, which Bendross-Mindingall plans to introduce in Tallahassee, would likely change the definition of threat to an overt and physical act and remove criminal and civil immunity to defendants if an innocent bystander is harmed, particularly a child.
Sherdavia died just a week into summer camp and six weeks before starting fourth grade, somehow caught in the wind and space and anger of two dueling street toughs nicknamed Red Rock and Yellow Man, police say. Shot in the neck while playing on the front stoop of her Liberty Square house, she crawled inside and died in her mother’s arms.
2 Comments »
Posted by Scott on October 25th, 2006 — Posted in Politics & Commentary
I found the below letter to the editor on madision.com. In it, John Morgan suggests using self-defense classes instead of concealed guns and weapons to protect schools. I also want schools to teach self-defense classes, but that does not mean they cannot also use concealed weapons and or guns. Personally, I still stand on the fence between the guns in schools debate. I see the advantages and risks of both positions. I wish we would make all schools private, and abolish the public school system, so that the parents of students (or the students themselves if old enough) can choose which school they want their kids to attend. For example, if parents wanted their kids to go to a school with guns, they can send them to one; if parents wanted their kids to go to a school without guns, they can send them to one.
What do you think?
Here is the letter:
John Morgan: Self-defense lessons, not guns, needed
Dear Editor: The tragic stories we read in the paper about assault in schools, workplaces and the streets, usually by an armed assailant, provides the call by some for concealed weapons and guns in schools.
This nonsense misses the point. The point is, why doesn’t everyone know the basics of self-defense?
In most of these stories, it is obvious that if either the victim or a bystander had known one basic self-defense move, they could have incapacitated the assailant with one well-placed blow. Many people make the mistake of punching or wrestling with the attacker, which leaves them vulnerable.
Even a child can incapacitate an adult, should, God forbid, the need arise.
So why don’t schools teach all children in the first grade two basic self-defense moves? Then, any time in their lives they are confronted by an attacker, they could put him out of commission in an instant.
John Morgan Madison
Originally Published Here
2 Comments »
Posted by Scott on October 21st, 2006 — Posted in Politics & Commentary
Do nations have the right to self-defense? Is there any justification for a double standard? Shall we disarm all nations or none? Is the US the most dangerous of all, being the only country to use a nuclear weapon by dropping 2 Atomic Bombs killing 300,000 men, women, and children? What are your thoughts on the below article by MANUEL F. ALMARIO?
IF the United States decides to rain missiles on North Korea because the latter now possesses nuclear weapons, then it should first nuke Pakistan, India, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom, then Israel, its protégé, and finally itself — for all of them possess nuclear weapons.
The right to self-defense is the primordial right of individuals and of nations. This right is sanctioned by natural, international and domestic law. When US President George W. Bush identified Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the “axis of evil” and strongly implied that their governments should be exterminated as sources of evil, it became the duty of these countries to prepare to defend themselves, their right to live and their right to be independent. After the US invasion of Iraq, who now can blame Iran and North Korea for thinking that they could be next? Their leaders would be traitors to their people if they did not prepare to defend their nations.
The United States is the first country to use the atomic bomb, killing more than 300,000 people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It has refused to proclaim that it would not be the first to use nuclear bombs. Under Bush, it has declared and asserted its “right” to undertake “regime change” in another country and to carry out “preventive war,” which is no different from the naked aggression outlawed by international and moral laws.
By exploding a nuclear bomb, North Korea has won the right to survive. The United States has agreed to a United Nations resolution rejecting force as a solution to the crisis. In the past, Russia and China had assured their own survival by developing nuclear bombs and their missile-delivery capacity, thus balancing America’s power. Even the United Kingdom and France, long-time allies of the United States, have decided not to live comfortably under America’s nuclear umbrella. Instead, they developed their own nuclear bombs to assure themselves of their independence and way of life. Cuba warded off another American invasion after the Bay of Pigs by allowing Russia under Khruschev to install missiles in Cuba. The missiles were pulled out only after President John Kennedy promised that the United States would never invade Cuba.
The only solution to the seemingly unstoppable nuclear threat is global nuclear disarmament proposed in the 1950s by world-renowned intellectuals led by Bertrand Russell and Robert Oppenheimer, one of the scientists responsible for developing the atomic bomb. If America is to be respected as a leader, it should junk its imperialist ambition and bullying posture and adopt the happy, humanist principle: live and let live.
5 Comments »
Posted by Scott on October 20th, 2006 — Posted in Politics & Commentary
David Hill grew up in a dangerous area. One night, he ventured deep into enemy-gang turf to buy marijuana. Hill carried an AK-47 for protection.
When a creeping vehicle approached him, he reacted defensively. He turned to see a plain-clothed man getting out of the car holding a gun, and so Hill fired.
“To hesitate, is to die,” Hill’s attorney Sabelli said. “To hesitate as a gang member in the Bayview at night, is to die.”
It turns out the person Hill killed was a cop.
Read the full story here.
Was this self-defense?
2 Comments »
Posted by Scott on October 13th, 2006 — Posted in News
As usual, I’m happy to report the spread of self-defense education. A recent article from WRAL.com reports about a 73 year old woman and other woman learning new self-defense techniques in a self-defense class. Here’s an excerpt:
At the age of 73, Peggy Allen has learned how she can defend herself.
Allen and two other women from Emporia, Va., have been taught all kinds of moves from a course called The Power of One — Self-Defense For Women. It’s a course that teaches women to be more confident, giving them the tools to fight off an attacker.
“The main thing was: if they walk up and say, ‘I want money,’ give them your pocketbook but throw it another way,” said Beryl Harrison. “Don’t just hand it to them, and possibly you may have a chance to get away.”
Their lessons come after the deaths of Nellie Bradley, 71, and Dorothy Hobbs, 74, last August. The sister’s bodies were dumped in Hertford County.
No Comments »
Posted by Scott on October 10th, 2006 — Posted in News, Politics & Commentary
Luckily for those in Western countries such as the US or Britain, they don’t face the threat of violent soldiers as often. (Of course, countries like the US have to deal with skyrocketing crime rates. For example, the almost 250,000 rapes take place every year in the US.)
It’s one thing to have to worry about the lone street-thugs, and that’s bad enough. It’s a another whole thing to have to worry about soldiers. Normal prevention and defense methods don’t work against vicious soldiers who’ve been professionally trained to kill and have billions of dollars and a whole military in backing.
Of course, even those in the West probably want to learn the art of self-defense from governments too, because the police are becoming more repressive, and legislation has allowed the executive branch of government to declare martial law.
Anyway, the below story by Alison Weir recites just one account of this type of vicious assault and murder of innocent defenseless people.
Gunning Down Itemad Ismail Abu Mo’ammar
Just Another Mother Murdered
By ALISON WEIR
Almost no one bothered to report it. A search of the nation’s largest newspapers turned up nothing in USA Today, the Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Chicago Sun-Times, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Houston Chronicle, Tampa Tribune, etc.
There was nothing on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, NPR, Fox News. Nothing.
The LA Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Associated Press each had one sentence, at most, telling about her. All three left out the details, the LA Times had her age significantly off, and the Washington Post reported that she had been killed by an Israeli tank shell.
It hadn’t been a tank shell that had killer her, according to witnesses. It had been bullets, multiple ones, fired up close.
Neighbors report that Israeli soldiers had been beating her husband because he wasn’t answering their questions. Foolishly or valiantly, how is one to say, the 35-year-old woman had interfered. She tried to explain that her husband was deaf, screamed at the soldiers that her husband couldn’t hear them and attempted to stop them from hitting him. So they shot her. Several times.
Her name was Itemad Ismail Abu Mo’ammar.
She didn’t die, though. That took longer. It required her life to flow out of her in the form of blood for several hours, as Israeli soldiers refused to allow an ambulance to transport her to help. Her husband and children could do nothing to save her.
Finally, after approximately five hours, an ambulance was allowed to take her to a hospital, where physicians were able to render one service: pronounce her dead, a few days before the commencement of Ramadan, a season of family gatherings much like the Christmas season for Americans. She left 11 children. None of this was in the Washington Post story, which had reported her death in one half of one sentence.
Her husband’s brother, who lived in the same house, was also killed. He was a 28-year-old farmer.
Why did this all happen? The family lived behind a resistance fighter wanted by Israel. They were simply “collateral damage” in a failed Israeli assassination/kidnapping operation.
All together, five Palestinians were killed that day. The other three were young shepherds killed in another area, two 15 years old and one 14, who seem to have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Gaza.
None of this was reported in most of America’s news media, and so the American public never learned about a mother bleeding to death in front of her children, or young shepherds being blown to pieces. Apparently, it just wasn’t newsworthy.
A Case Study of “Good” News Coverage
The Washington Post at least mentioned these deaths, so perhaps those who care about journalistic standards should laud the Post for its coverage.
And yet, the Post in its short report got so much so wrong.
In addition to misreporting Itemad’s cause of death and omitting critical facts, the Post’s story portrayed the entire context incorrectly, telling readers that these five deaths had broken a period of “relative calm.”
The fact is that while it was true that in the previous six months not a single Israeli child had been killed by Palestinians, during this period Israelis had killed 75 Palestinian young people, including an 8-month-old and several three-year-olds.
I phoned the Post and spoke to a foreign editor about the need to run a correction, providing information on Itemad’s murder. The editor said that she would pass this on to their correspondent (who is based in Israel), but explained that it was “impossible for him to go to Gaza.” When I disagreed, she amended the “impossible” to “very difficult.” She neglected to mention that the Post has access to stringers in Gaza available to check out any incident the editors deem important.
Next, I wrote a letter to the paper containing the above information. Happily, the Post letters department apparently checked it out and decided it was a good letter. They sent an email informing me that they were considering my letter for publication and needed to confirm that I was the one who had written it, and that I had not sent the information elsewhere.
I replied in the affirmative, we exchanged a few more messages, and everything appeared on target. Normally, when publications contact you in this way, your letter is published shortly thereafter. I waited in anticipation. And waited.
It is now almost two weeks after their report, and I have just been informed that the paper has decided not to print my letter. The Post has apparently determined that there is no need to run a correction.
I think I understand.
Although the Washington Post’s statement of principles proclaims, “This newspaper is pledged to minimize the number of errors we make and to correct those that occur… Accuracy is our goal; candor is our defense,” the American Society of Newspaper Editors clarifies these ethical requirements: corrections need only be printed when the error of commission or omission is “significant.”
And, after all, these were only Palestinians, and it was just another mother dead.
About The Auther: Alison Weir is Executive Editor of If Americans Knew, which has produced in-depth studies and illustrative videos on American news coverage of Israel-Palestine.
1 Comment »
Posted by Scott on October 6th, 2006 — Posted in News
I am happy to report that University of Buffalo teaches a self-defense class for the young women on campus. The course lays out many risk-reduction strategies and techniques, many of which are common-sense, but often neglected, including locking doors, parking in well-light areas and avoiding walking alone at night.
The course lays out many risk-reduction strategies and techniques, many of which are common-sense, but often neglected, including locking doors, parking in well-light areas and avoiding walking alone at night.
David Chernege, the teacher of the class, uses his expertise as a law-enforcement officer martial arts practitioner to educate the young women in self-defense. He focuses on prevention and escape, noting that size does matter: A small women cannot beat a large attacker.
No Comments »
Posted by Scott on October 5th, 2006 — Posted in Domestic Abuse, News
October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month
If you need help, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE. Please don’t wait.
What is Domestic Violence?*
(from the National Domestic Violence Hotline)
Domestic violence can be defined as a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner. Abuse is physical, sexual, emotional, economic or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that frighten, intimidate, terrorize, manipulate, hurt, humiliate, blame, injure or wound someone. Domestic violence can happen to anyone of any race, age, sexual orientation, religion or gender. It can happen to couples who are married, living together or who are dating. Domestic violence affects people of all socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels.
You may be in an emotionally abusive relationship if your partner:*
* Calls you names, insults you or continually criticizes you.
* Does not trust you and acts jealous or possessive.
* Tries to isolate you from family or friends.
* Monitors where you go, who you call and who you spend time with.
* Does not want you to work.
* Controls finances or refuses to share money.
* Punishes you by withholding affection.
* Expects you to ask permission.
* Threatens to hurt you, the children, your family or your pets.
* Humiliates you in any way.
You may be in a physically abusive relationship if your partner has ever:*
* Damaged property when angry (thrown objects, punched walls, kicked doors, etc.).
* Pushed, slapped, bitten, kicked or choked you.
* Abandoned you in a dangerous or unfamiliar place.
* Scared you by driving recklessly.
* Used a weapon to threaten or hurt you.
* Forced you to leave your home.
* Trapped you in your home or kept you from leaving.
* Prevented you from calling police or seeking medical attention.
* Hurt your children.
* Used physical force in sexual situations.
You may be in a sexually abusive relationship if your partner:*
* Views women as objects and believes in rigid gender roles.
* Accuses you of cheating or is often jealous of your outside relationships.
* Wants you to dress in a sexual way.
* Insults you in sexual ways or calls you sexual names.
* Has ever forced or manipulated you into to having sex or performing sexual acts.
* Held you down during sex.
* Demanded sex when you were sick, tired or after beating you.
* Hurt you with weapons or objects during sex.
* Involved other people in sexual activities with you.
* Ignored your feelings regarding sex.
If you answered ‘yes’ to these questions you may be in an abusive relationship. Please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE or your local domestic violence center to talk with someone about it.
Risk Factors for Domestic Violence
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)
Individual Factors:
o Low self-esteem
o Low academic achievement
o Involvement in aggressive or delinquent behavior as a youth
o Alcohol use
o Drug use
o Witnessing or experiencing violence as a child
o Lack of social networks and social isolation
o Unemployment
Relationship Factors:
o Marital conflict
o Marital instability
o Male dominance in the family
o Poor family functioning
o Emotional dependence and insecurity
o Belief in strict gender roles
o Desire for power and control in relationships
o Exhibiting anger and hostility toward a partner
Abuse In America*
* 4 million American women experience a serious assault by a partner during an average 12-month period. 1
* On the average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day.2
* 92% of women say that reducing domestic violence and sexual assault should be at the top of any formal efforts taken on behalf of women today.3
* 1 out of 3 women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime.4
* 1 in 5 female high school students reports being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner. Abused girls are significantly more likely to get involved in other risky behaviors. They are 4 to 6 times more likely to get pregnant and 8 to 9 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide.5
* 1 in 3 teens reports knowing a friend or peer who has been hit, punched, slapped, choked or physically hurt by his/her partner.6
* Women of all races are equally vulnerable to violence by an intimate partner.7
* 37% of all women who sought care in hospital emergency rooms for violence..related injuries were injured by a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend.8
* Some estimates say almost 1 million incidents of violence occur against a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend per year.9
* For 30% of women who experience abuse, the first incident occurs during pregnancy.10
* As many as 324,000 women each year experience intimate partner violence during their pregnancy. 11
* Violence against women costs companies $72.8 million annually due to lost productivity.12
* 74% of employed battered women were harrassed by their partner while they were at work.13
* Ninety-four percent of the offenders in murder-suicides were male.14
* Seventy-four percent of all murder-suicides involved an intimate partner (spouse, common-law spouse, ex-spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend). Of these, 96 percent were females killed by their intimate partners.14
* Most murder-suicides with three or more victims involved a “family annihilator” — a subcategory of intimate partner murder-suicide.Family annihilators are murderers who kill not only their wives/girlfriends and children, but often other family members as well,before killing themselves.14
* Seventy-five percent of murder-suicides occurred in the home.
1 Comment »
Posted by Scott on October 1st, 2006 — Posted in News
In a far corner of the bustling Midwest Wireless Civic Center floor Saturday, Sam Murray showed a group of about 20 women how to gouge eyes, punch ribs and break free of a bear hug.
The tae kwon do instructor got a few attendees of Women’s Show 2006 to giggle when he demonstrated effective groin attacks. But his self-defense message was deadly serious.
Murray startled some of his audience when he told them one out of six women in the United States is the victim of rape or attempted rape, according to national surveys.
“A lot of people become victims because they just don’t know what to do,” he said.
Read entire Free Press article.
No Comments »
