Woman raped and robbed on northwest branch trail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

So I need specialized weapons training to go for a walk with my friend?

Of course not. Whether to be armed is an important personal choice. If a person does not want that responsibility and is unwilling or unable to become competent with any given weapon they should not carry it.

My personal choice would be to live in a society where I never have to worry whether the people around me are carrying guns and are about to start shooting them, but you don't want me to have that choice.

That is a decision made long before even 1789. Besides, people carrying guns and people about to start shooting are two very different things. You’ve been surrounded forever by armed people you didn’t know were armed. How often did they start shooting. The “blood in the streets” prediction has never been true as to legally carried firearms.

Gun control is such worthless political theater. It only targets the law-abiding, and makes the innocent more vulnerable. Now more than ever, the police are not coming to save you.

Making good people helpless won’t make bad people harmless.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not second guessing how these women reacted to be robbed at machete blade and one being dragged away. No one can say how they would react in that situation. I would like to think I would fight my hardest to avoid being dragged off or to stop a man from dragging my friend off. I'm going to have a talk with my hiking buddy and find out if she's willing to risk her life to save mine. I'd like to believe I would risk mine to save her.

When this thread first appeared, those of who said pretty much the same thing-fight back, do not let yourself get taken off that path--had our posts removed. Evidently, you can't even tell women to fight back now. I have no doubt in my mind that that man would never have gotten me off that trail if it were me. Of course, not blaming the victim, at all, but my husband and I have taught our teenage daughter how to defend herself and I know she would. With what the city is coming to, we have no choice.

The guy had a MACHETE, good luck with that.

And, yes, you are victim-blaming.

Bring a gun to your next knife fight. We will not get protection from politicians or the police. It’s DIY.

What happens if this happens in real life where you are attacked and you kill someone? Do you get put on trial? I would worry about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

So I need specialized weapons training to go for a walk with my friend?

Of course not. Whether to be armed is an important personal choice. If a person does not want that responsibility and is unwilling or unable to become competent with any given weapon they should not carry it.

My personal choice would be to live in a society where I never have to worry whether the people around me are carrying guns and are about to start shooting them, but you don't want me to have that choice.

That is a decision made long before even 1789. Besides, people carrying guns and people about to start shooting are two very different things. You’ve been surrounded forever by armed people you didn’t know were armed. How often did they start shooting. The “blood in the streets” prediction has never been true as to legally carried firearms.

Gun control is such worthless political theater. It only targets the law-abiding, and makes the innocent more vulnerable. Now more than ever, the police are not coming to save you.

Making good people helpless won’t make bad people harmless.

I will cynically acknowledge the basic premise of your argument is correct.

But I don’t care. I don’t like people like you, and I want your guns taken away chiefly so that you are unable to resist the authority of our government. That’s really all I care about at the end of the day - pulling the teeth of the rightwingers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not second guessing how these women reacted to be robbed at machete blade and one being dragged away. No one can say how they would react in that situation. I would like to think I would fight my hardest to avoid being dragged off or to stop a man from dragging my friend off. I'm going to have a talk with my hiking buddy and find out if she's willing to risk her life to save mine. I'd like to believe I would risk mine to save her.

When this thread first appeared, those of who said pretty much the same thing-fight back, do not let yourself get taken off that path--had our posts removed. Evidently, you can't even tell women to fight back now. I have no doubt in my mind that that man would never have gotten me off that trail if it were me. Of course, not blaming the victim, at all, but my husband and I have taught our teenage daughter how to defend herself and I know she would. With what the city is coming to, we have no choice.

The guy had a MACHETE, good luck with that.

And, yes, you are victim-blaming.

Bring a gun to your next knife fight. We will not get protection from politicians or the police. It’s DIY.

What happens if this happens in real life where you are attacked and you kill someone? Do you get put on trial? I would worry about this.

Most likely not. I think a prosecutor would fear public backlash for a straightforward case of self defense like this would’ve been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

So I need specialized weapons training to go for a walk with my friend?

Of course not. Whether to be armed is an important personal choice. If a person does not want that responsibility and is unwilling or unable to become competent with any given weapon they should not carry it.

My personal choice would be to live in a society where I never have to worry whether the people around me are carrying guns and are about to start shooting them, but you don't want me to have that choice.

That is a decision made long before even 1789. Besides, people carrying guns and people about to start shooting are two very different things. You’ve been surrounded forever by armed people you didn’t know were armed. How often did they start shooting. The “blood in the streets” prediction has never been true as to legally carried firearms.

Gun control is such worthless political theater. It only targets the law-abiding, and makes the innocent more vulnerable. Now more than ever, the police are not coming to save you.

Making good people helpless won’t make bad people harmless.

I will cynically acknowledge the basic premise of your argument is correct.

But I don’t care. I don’t like people like you, and I want your guns taken away chiefly so that you are unable to resist the authority of our government. That’s really all I care about at the end of the day - pulling the teeth of the rightwingers.

Not np. Rightwringer here, still have all my teeth. You do not scare me or anyone I know. You're stupidity knows no bounds. Thanks for the laughs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My wife is armed. If you are running the trails and see a 5'2" woman with trail jogging water bottles on her belt, don't worry about her. She can take care of herself.

It’s to the point that I’m having my daughter trained and armed at all times.

Can’t depend on police to protect the public anymore. Time to defend yourself.

How does she feel about you forcing her to carry a gun everywhere?

Not all “arms” are firearms.

And nobody implied anyone was being forced as opposed to facilitated.

Dp. I don't carry any sort of weapon because I've been told over and over that it could be used against me by an attacker. I rarely walk, hike or run alone and always in a populated place. The fact is, this type of attack is rare and women are at more risk with someone known to us. It stinks however you look at it.

It does stink. What else stinks is the patronizing, mansplaining, anti-feminist canard that women shouldn’t arm themselves according to their desire and training because they’re not big strong men who can keep ahold of their weapons. Are all the female military personnel and law enforcement officers unarmed? Of course not!

Weapons aren’t for everyone. They require training. But “don’t carry one because you’re weak and incompetent”? Please!

DP. Guns can also be, and are, used against men, by attackers.

Again, this is a question of training and mindset. But it is far less common for men to be warned that their weapon will be taken away than women.

Yes, that's sexism. Everyone, regardless of gender, should be warned that it's likely their weapon will be taken away and used against them.

Nonsense.

A person who chooses to arm themself and become trained takes the chance that their weapon might be used against them, balanced against the likelihood that their weapon and training will combine to become an equalizer that will turn the tables on an attacker. Training also makes an attack less likely to succeed by instilling a greater sense of situational awareness.

A person who chooses not to arm themself (and people have the right to do that) is making the decision to leave themself to the tender mercies of an attacker.

People forego weapons for all sorts of reasons. They may not believe in self defense. They may not want to put the time, effort and money into training. They may not be able to form the requisite mindset. They may sincerely believe that they are not capable of maintaining control of a weapon and, if necessary using it.

But people should make these choices rationally, for themselves. When the fear of weapons becomes so pathological that it compels a person to try to deprive others of the efficacious means of self defense, that’s a problem.

So I need specialized weapons training to go for a walk with my friend?

Of course not. Whether to be armed is an important personal choice. If a person does not want that responsibility and is unwilling or unable to become competent with any given weapon they should not carry it.

My personal choice would be to live in a society where I never have to worry whether the people around me are carrying guns and are about to start shooting them, but you don't want me to have that choice.

That is a decision made long before even 1789. Besides, people carrying guns and people about to start shooting are two very different things. You’ve been surrounded forever by armed people you didn’t know were armed. How often did they start shooting. The “blood in the streets” prediction has never been true as to legally carried firearms.

Gun control is such worthless political theater. It only targets the law-abiding, and makes the innocent more vulnerable. Now more than ever, the police are not coming to save you.

Making good people helpless won’t make bad people harmless.

I will cynically acknowledge the basic premise of your argument is correct.

But I don’t care. I don’t like people like you, and I want your guns taken away chiefly so that you are unable to resist the authority of our government. That’s really all I care about at the end of the day - pulling the teeth of the rightwingers.

Not np. Rightwringer here, still have all my teeth. You do not scare me or anyone I know. You're stupidity knows no bounds. Thanks for the laughs.

You won’t be laughing when you hand those guns over. We will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes, If I had a friend with me I would not be afraid on a trail.

I hate living in a world with males. Ugh

This is a very strange response and displaced. Males are not your issues. Criminals are your issues.

+1 The overwhelming majority of people, regardless of gender, do not commit violent crimes. To be going around characterizing every male as a violent criminal does is not backed by data.

But the super overwhelming majority of violent criminals are men. So let’s not ignore that either. When nearly all violence in society is coming from one group, we must take that into account and not ignore what is plain to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes, If I had a friend with me I would not be afraid on a trail.

I hate living in a world with males. Ugh

This is a very strange response and displaced. Males are not your issues. Criminals are your issues.

+1 The overwhelming majority of people, regardless of gender, do not commit violent crimes. To be going around characterizing every male as a violent criminal does is not backed by data.

But the super overwhelming majority of violent criminals are men. So let’s not ignore that either. When nearly all violence in society is coming from one group, we must take that into account and not ignore what is plain to see.

Now do the same but for race instead of gender