Illinois state police advice on resisting rape
And a hilarious read it is.
"Use of a firearm to protect yourself or property is not recommended."
So what do you do?
"Since many attacks on women are not sexually motivated, and are designed to degrade and humiliate, talking your way out of it may be easier."
"There is documentation of assailants that left a would-be-victim alone after she told him that she was pregnant and it would kill her baby. "
"Telling an attacker that you have VD or AIDS can discourage him."
"It may sound disgusting, but putting your fingers into you (sic) throat and making yourself vomit usually gets results." (I swear I am not making this up).
And if you do go for a weapon, by all means don't make it a 1911! Instead:
rat tail comb
pens and pencils
I can see it: "Stay away, I have this comb and am prepared to use it." "Freeze or I'll let you have it with this pencil."
[Update: I have no idea where the article's claim that half the women using a gun in defense will shoot the wrong person comes from. The surveys indicate that well under half of self-defenders who shoot (a tiny minority of self-defense uses) hit the target, simply because confrontations occur with both people jittery and often at night when aiming is difficult. Additionally, criminal confrontations rarely occur in front of witnesses. Between the two, hitting the wrong person 50% of the time, or even 5% of the time, is statistically impossible. I think I've heard of a defender hitting the wrong target -- zero times in my life].
Obviously to decrease gun violence the Illinois state police need to start carrying nail files instead of handguns. What's with the teasing brush, " Get off me or I'll give you really big hair"?
But it is interesting their reasoning for not using a gun is your gun my be stolen. Way to fight crime, Illinois. And just what does "Half of all women that fire a gun trying to protect themselves shoot someone they do not want to..." mean. Does that mean that those women accidently hit someone they weren't aiming at? Or is it that half the women really didn't want to shoot the person but decided that if someone was getting penetrated it was better the assailant than themselves?
One bit of advice for the Illinois state police, learn to proofread.
Posted by: JKB at April 7, 2007 12:05 AM
Actually, that advice for women has been in circulation since I was a rookie cop some 37 years ago, and in many cases - it has been successful.
Not that I agree with all points - obviously a few (rat comb, teasing brush) are outdated - but the basic principal is to a degree valid. I have known women who have used similar tactics and escaped a rape attack.
The point about women using guns has some validity. Unfortunately, too many women who carry guns will answer, if asked if they would use it, "I'm not sure I can." In those cases the woman is better served NOT having a gun, because almost inevitably she will find herself disarmed. Not all, mind you, but some. There is also the point that if an attack has commenced, retrieving a weapon from a purse is not an easy matter.
Women have to be educated and trained young. They have to learn to function under "condition yellow" so as NOT to get themselves into a position where an attack is likely.
Posted by: Bruce at April 7, 2007 07:30 AM
Bruce: In response to your antidote; "I have known women who have used similar tactics and escaped a rape attack." Sure-- I call those women lucky! Here's an antidote to ponder-- The BTK killer raped and murdered a woman who had vomited on herself and he was "nice" enough to help her clean up, lock away her children, and comforted her before he murdered her. How about some hard data on if these "tips" work and not cop stories.
I'm not suprised about this crap coming from the ISP, the political higher ups in command have always marched to their master's drum beat. Since they are our betters, they think that they can protect us.
I know one woman who would kill to protect herself and family, my wife, last I heard, self defense is a natural right.
Posted by: Devil Dog Dad at April 7, 2007 09:12 AM
DD, you seem to be focused on only the use of a weapon here, and are failing to READ what I said. I did not prescribe an "antidote" - I was relating factual information I have from a 25 year career in the NYPD. These are not "cop stories."
I would reject your comment on the BTK killer as not germane to the subject, which was ... rape. The BTK killer was of course a murderer - not a rapist. No matter what cautions a victim would have taken - short of a preemptive strike - would not have mattered. Totally unlike a rape, which is usually a matter of opportunity.
Rapists don't expect women to fight back. That's a fact. If there is something a woman can do to distract the rapist - anything can help.
I am NOT saying that an armed defense is inappropriate! I am saying, however, that in my experience, too many women state clearly they can't say with certainty they would be able to shoot someone. Under ANY circumstance. If your wife would - good for her. My wife is another who would, and she is trained and well capable of taking out an attacker. IF ... she has an opportunity to mount an effective defense. Too many rapes occur when the victim is unable to defend herself OTHER than to use some of the methods originally proposed.
Posted by: Bruce at April 7, 2007 09:48 AM
Bruce, you lost any credibility with me when you confessed to being a paid thug for the NYPD.
Sorry, guy, but there you have it. One of two of the most corrupt police departments in this country. And you fit in for 25 years?
You may be honorable, but in view of your past long associations I don't believe it is the way to bet.
Posted by: straightarrow at April 7, 2007 02:48 PM
A "paid thug"?
I guess if this is the attitude the people who hang out at this blog have I should remove the link and stay away.
Point of fact - you have NO freaking idea what you're talking about. Corrupt? The NYPD is recognized around the world at THE best police department. NYPD cops are about the hardest working and underpaid cops in the country. Where the hell do you get off calling any cop a thug or corrupt without having any idea at all who you're talking about?
You sound like a protegee of Angel Shamaya and his merry band of RKBA nitwits.
Yeah fella - I "fit in" for 25 years, during which I earned 27 medals, was a member and delegate to the Honor Legion, made a few thousand arrests, and never got a single civilian complaint doing so.
What's your claim to fame?
Outta here - link removed. I'll leave you nitwits to have your fun with your heads up your asses.
Posted by: Bruce at April 7, 2007 03:20 PM
And by the way ... you wouldn't find a cop anywhere who was a bigger supporter of the 2nd Amendment and civilian carry of concealed weapons that me.
Tell you what, though ... if there are many like you out there I may have to rethink that some.
Posted by: Bruce at April 7, 2007 03:22 PM
I live in Arizona where all the good guy's and gals carry, and belive me if you have two house's here with sign's that read no gun's here and take your chance's guess who's house will be broken into.
Posted by: Sherman at April 7, 2007 08:17 PM
David, do you know if they are referencing any study about the "Half of all women that fire a gun trying to protect themselves shoot someone they do not want to..." statement?
Seems bogus and/or outdated. I'd love to read further to see where it came from, and if any junk science was used to come to such a conclution.
Posted by: Weerd Beard at April 8, 2007 08:01 AM
straightarrow, it really was not fair to prejudice an individual, due to the policies of the leadership in NYC.
They've got a hell of a lot of responsibility, to call them thugs is pretty low.
Posted by: Bob at April 8, 2007 09:03 AM
"Half of all the women that fire a gun trying to protect themselves shoot someone they do not want to, i.e. friend, neighbors, relatives, etc."
Since most rapes are by people whom they know, and since most victims say, after shooting someone, they didn't mean to hurt them, well I can say there is SOME truth in that statement.
Also since Illinois makes it so hard to own or carry a gun I can see why so few women know how to use one!
So in essence they say to 'tooth-and-nail' it while screaming is their only defense once attacked. Wow, wonder why their own police don't do that?
Posted by: Paul at April 8, 2007 06:01 PM
2 Million times per year firearms are used for protection or to stop violence.
Women are buying lots of firearms and the Il State Police should be training them how to use them at No Charge instead of eating Donuts and thinking up ways to get the Ladies killed.
Posted by: David A. Acklin at April 8, 2007 11:27 PM
You were WAY out of line there. You owe a member of New York's finest a major apology, if it's not already too late.
Posted by: me at April 9, 2007 07:49 AM
As an Illinois native who now lives in the South, I can tell you just what concealed carry means. As a wife and mother, it is important for me to be able to defend myself and family. I lived in Memphis, TN for 12 years before moving out of that cesspool. Everyday in that city somebody uses a gun to protect and/or defend themselves from the thugs who are the main problem with gun crimes. Talk my way out of a rape? Whoever thinks that still applies needs to get their head out of the sand. Go to a jail/prison and ask each imprisoned rapist this question: "Could your victim have said anything to talk you out of your crime?" Rape is a crime of control, and if the perpetrator is talked out of the crime, he has lost control. As a past volunteer at a rape crisis line, 95% of the women (and men) who were raped knew their attacker. And besides, having a gun drawn on them would make them seriously think - hopefully - about changing their minds. When I lived in Illinois, I moved from a small community to the Chicago suburbs. 21 years old, living alone, and some man kicked in my apartment door at 3am.Fortunately, my dad left me a .357 and made sure I knew how to use it. Dude got the door kicked in but didn't cross the threshold of the door - so under Illinois law I couldn't shoot him. The guy had gotten out of jail less than 48 hours prior and didn't know his girlfriend, the previous tenant, had moved. He took off. Had this been in the city limits of Chicago, I'd have been arrested for having a handgun. Yes, I had an FOID card. Illinois consists of more than Daley and the city of Chicago. Chicago has their gun bans and restrictions, which is sad considering how rampant the gangs run there. My family has a right to protect themselves, so Illinois should allow for concealed carry. Speaking of Chicago, Ald. Tillman of Chicago's 3rd Ward, who supports a gun ban, has a "special" permit allowing her to carry. Why? Are our politicians lives more important than those who keep putting their sorry asses in office? I miss Illinois, but in Mississippi I can keep my gun with me, and the reciprocity among my neighboring states allows me no worries. But when I travel to IL, I have to stop in Missouri to take off, unload, and store my gun before I get into Illinois. Sad. The bottom line is this: these bans do no good as the lawbreakers they are targeting do not really make a habit of following the laws. They prey on Joe Citizen, then hire some slick lawyer to get off. The Pelosis, Clintons, Kennedys and Kerrys don't live where the average citizen does, and they can afford private security. The Second Amendment was drawn up for a reason, so quit messing with it.
Thank you, and I look forward to checking in here frequently.
Posted by: Tina at April 12, 2007 09:45 AM
"I would reject your comment on the BTK killer as not germane to the subject, which was ... rape. The BTK killer was of course a murderer "
So you expect the woman to know the difference between a rapist and murderer, as if she were psychic, as she is being attacked?
The point here is, nobody - no individual, no police force, no government - has the right to ever tell someone that they cannot defend themselves using the best means possible.
To categorize all women as having an inferior ability to defend themselves is downright disgusting. There are many women I know who would do anything to defend themsevles and the ones they love, just as I would.
Posted by: ROB at April 13, 2007 06:49 AM
Yeah Brucie - Louima, Diallo, Ferguson, Heyward, Bell. Nice place that NYC.
Posted by: JG at April 13, 2007 02:19 PM
I am a rape survivor, and the crap recommended on the ISP's website wouldn't have helped me at all. I no longer live in Chicago, but in a state where I can carry a firearm for defense.
I train and shoot alongside sworn LEO's and active duty military. I have a Front Sight membership and train there at least three times a year. I sleep in Condition Yellow. And I absolutely could shoot somebody if I had to because I know what happens if you can't.
So don't generalize women as being incompetent to defend themselves. That attitude in itself is part of the problem.
Posted by: hecate at April 14, 2007 01:58 PM
I think that many get caught in the trap that one type of self defense is good for all. The know-it-alls in Illinois are a great example. They are basically endorsing any means of self defense except the use of guns. There are unlimited ways women can successfully defend themselves if they will JUST TAKE THE TIME to prepare for the attack that they believe will never happen to them. You say that maybe guns are not the answer for women who say "I'm not sure I can." (use the weapon). I say that's crap. Lets say we have 10 armed women, all are unsure that they can use the weapon when the time comes. Now, the time comes and 8 cannot ultimately defend themselves. They end up dead, beaten, or raped, which was the probable outcome if they were unarmed and undefended anyway. You say they would have been better off NOT having a gun because they have become disarmed -- well, that puts them back to square one, where they would be if they did not bring a gun. What a pile-o-dung! One woman fires her weapon in defense and the other manages to scare the attacker away without firing. Change the numbers around. Let's say 2 out of 100. Or 2 out of 1000. Do you see my point. Is it not the greater good to have fewer victims in the long run? You are wrong, while not the best situation, the women are better off "armed and unsure" if they have no other trained means of defense.
Posted by: Barney at April 14, 2007 08:01 PM
Most rapes don't occur in public. How is a victim going to shoot a bystander?
As to this:
"Tell you what, though ... if there are many like you out there I may have to rethink that some."
I think that sums it up nicely, don't you? "I support your civil rights as long as you agree with me. Now agree I'm not a thug."
Posted by: Mike Williamson at May 9, 2007 09:16 AM