Assault @ MindSay 
crime
Program Date: July 10, 2009
Program Time: 2100 hours, Pacific
Topic: RAD: Rape Aggression Defense
Listen Live:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/LawEnforcement/2009/07/11/RAD-Rape-Aggression-Defense
About the Guest
Kimberly Cheryl Elliott spent 17 years and parole and probation officer for Missouri State Division of Probation and Parole. She “is a seasoned marketing professional with 18 years experience in pharmaceutical sales and management. As a victim of crime, she is very passionate about her career as founder and managing partner of Executive Defense Technology, LLC, an anti-victimization education firm. As a speaker, author, consultant and Nationally Certified RAD (Rape/Aggression/Defense) Instructor, she helps clients optimize their personal safety. As a seminar leader, she provides a comprehensive course that begins with awareness, prevention, risk reduction and avoidance, while progressing on to the basics of hands on defense training. Her clients include everyone from elderly church group members and housewives to employees of law firms, TV / Radio Stations and other Fortune 500 Corporations.”
Kimberly Cheryl Elliott is the author of Escape From The Pharma Cartel: My Life as a Member of the Pharmaceutical Drug Cartel; Take This Pill and... Sell It!: A Guide To Getting A Job In The Pharmaceutical Industry; Shattered Reality; and, Are Your Habits Killing You? A Complete Personal Handbook Of Safety Suggestions to Incorporate into Your Everyday Life: Because the Best Defense Is a Good Offensive Plan!
About the Watering Hole
The Watering Hole is police slang for a location cops go off-duty to blow off steam and talk about work and life. Sometimes funny; sometimes serious; but, always interesting.
About the Host
Lieutenant Raymond E. Foster was a sworn member of the Los Angeles Police Department for 24 years. He retired in 2003 at the rank of Lieutenant. He holds a bachelor’s from the Union Institute and University in Criminal Justice Management and a Master’s Degree in Public Financial Management from California State University, Fullerton; and, has completed his doctoral course work. Raymond E. Foster has been a part-time lecturer at California State University, Fullerton and Fresno; and is currently a Criminal Justice Department chair, faculty advisor and lecturer with the Union Institute and University. He has experience teaching upper division courses in Law Enforcement, public policy, Government Technology and leadership. Raymond is an experienced author who has published numerous articles in a wide range of venues including magazines such as Government Technology, Mobile Government, Airborne Law Enforcement Magazine, and Police One. He has appeared on the History Channel and radio programs in the United States and Europe as subject matter expert in technological applications in Law Enforcement.
Listen, call, join us at the Watering Hole:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/LawEnforcement/2009/07/11/RAD-Rape-Aggression-Defense
Program Contact Information
Lieutenant Raymond E. Foster, LAPD (ret.), MPA
editor@police-writers.com
909.599.7530
I keep them locked up. No gun in my car, under my pillow, or in the bedroom drawer.
I believe that in a free society, law abiding people should be able to own firearms. But I believe in some form of sensible gun control for public safety. These are deadly devices, and the possession of them must be restricted to law abiding citizens without mental health issues. I think all handguns must being registered. I also think that only the police and military should be allowed to have assault weapons. I would like anyone to tell me why they need an assault weapon or automatic weapon. They have no sporting use, and are extremely dangerous in the hands of a criminal if they are stolen. Or imagine another Columbine when a teenager takes daddy's AK47 to school.
This business of assault weapons smuggled to Mexico for the drug cartels is very serious. It'll be interesting to see if Obama will do anything about it. He has been incredibly soft on this matter. In fact, he's acting like a republican when it comes to assault weapons.
NEW YORK — Former New York Mets pitcher Ambiorix Burgos has been convicted of throwing his girlfriend against a wall and punching her in a motel.
Prosecutors say a jury on Thursday convicted the 24-year-old Burgos of assaulting the woman in September 2008. He faces up to a year in jail when he is sentenced April 3.
District Attorney Richard Brown's office says Burgos threw his then-girlfriend against a wall and repeatedly punched and slapped her when she tried to leave. Prosecutors say Burgos then stepped on the woman and pummelled her as she lay on the floor.
Burgos' lawyer, Edgar De Leon, didn't immediately return an after-hours message seeking comment.
The Mets released Burgos in December.
On another note, if I may, an interesting thing happened tonight.
While eating our dinner, I heard a strange noise. I asked the girls what the noise was, they both shrugged and looked out the front window. Rebekah anounced that some kids were playing with our bird-bath, in the front yard. It didn't make sence to me. I looked out the front door and saw someone lying in my bushes near the bird bath... Rebekah said that they ran when she looked out. As I opened the door, a Latino man stood up and limped to my front steps and told me six guys jumped him and beat him up. I asked if I should call an ambulance, he said no. I told him he could sit on my steps and that I was going to call the police. He said he didn't want me to call police. I said he could leave if he wanted to, but I was calling anyway. Nearly 20 minutes later the police arived. An officer came up on my lawn and shone his light around, asking me questions. I told him the victim left and I was not an eye witness. He could do nothing. But wait, we found a ball cap in my bushes, and just before the cop arived, a young man dressed in all black came almost into my yard looking in the direction the victim went... when he saw me, he turned and walked quickly away. Unless the victim files a complaint we can't do any thing. (we all know that).
I told him of a vehicle the victim called to as we talked before he left my yard. And as we talked, here came that vehicle... with the victim in it and two other Latinos. (I asume they were looking for the assailants, all six of them.) The police stopped the vehicle and began talking to the victim. The driver thanked me. A lady from across the street called to the police that she knew who the perps were, she would help find them. A third cop car showed up, they began to search the mobile home park across the street. They took one into custody and continued searching. I tried to remind them of the hat in my bushes. I was ignored.
So, after they all go and the area is quiet again, I still have the hat. I might wear it for a week or two and when someone asks for it back, I'll give it as I take his picture.
But now I have a question. If a crime was committed on my property am I not a victim also? And is not the hat in the bushes sufficient evidence of such a crime, coupled with the testimony of my child who saw the end of the scuffle?
So now at almost 10 pm, I am a bit hyper and feeling like I am on high alert status, as if I had fourteen cups of coffee...
I used to like my neighborhood. Then the graphitti showed up at my childs school.
I recognise the hat. It belongs to a young black man who hangs out across from my front door, in the mobile home park entry. He associates with the people who live in the first trailer which has a big sign that we should vote for Obama.
I stood on my front porch and unfurled the American Flag which is flying almost always from my post and anounced that if the police did not arive soon I would probably get my gun and find the perps myself cause I ain't havin it in my front yard.
The cop didn't seem to care a thing about anything I had to say since the victim left, until I began to point out to him the gang tags on the street sign right in front of his car.
For years, communities all around the world have relentlessly focused to resolve the issue of violence against women. Now, women are physically attacking and assaulting their partners.
Some people believe that research into the abuse of male partners by women is in its infancy, and that too many groups of men’s organizations are very hesitant to accept or speak out publicly about the long hidden abuse of males by their female spouses, or partners . . . Others who are aware of the increasing violence against men all around the globe cannot help wondering, are advocates seeking justification for female violence? (Very few advocates and feminist-inclined-experts have grudgingly admitted that abusive women exist.)
Have battered men become society’s invisible victims? Is this reversed abuse? Is society in denial? Do the people in our communities feel uncomfortable or are they embarrassed to admit that females may be as guilty as males of domestic violence? Could the reason for the increase of male victims that goes unnoticed be due to our communities and media having become accustomed to giving men the right to violence, while portraying females as enduring victims, peaceful and passive?
Needless to say, the continued attention given to battered females is absolutely necessary. However, why is so little attention given to men in domestic violence relationships? Why have 40 percent of abused men chosen to remain the invisible victims of domestic violence? (Wendy McElroy, www.ifeminists.com - "Perhaps the law will swing toward justice and equal treatment of battered men . . .)
Once upon a time, a segment on Maury Povich showed a wife who’d thrown a coffee table at her husband. At the time, the police suggested he go outside while they walked to his wife. Hence, the police did not arrest her, not only because she’s female, but because she alleged that he hit her first. The police officers believed her. After the police left, she got three guys to beat him up, in retaliation for his reporting her to the police.
A far more dangerous situation occurred when a female shot her husband. In this case the court system indicted her for attempted murder. During the trial, it was discovered that she was abusive from the beginning of their relationship. And although she pushed and hit him constantly, he stayed in the unhealthy relationship. If there’s violence in the home, it's because she initiated it, and the abused mate refused to strike back. Her abusive behavior escalated, but he never thought that she would shoot him.
The same behavior patterns and justifications battering males have used for decades to justify abuse against their partner, are now being echoed by some females when they say: "He just pushes my buttons. He aggravates me."
It’s been noted that abusive females behave violently because they feel anger and hatred toward their mate. And the same as abused females, the abused males are in denial about the abuse, tolerating the ill-treatment by passively claiming that, "She is loving when she wants to be. When she is on Prozac (or some other type of medication) she is not stressed out, mad or tense." Males may also profess that, "I love her. I believe in my marriage vows. I want to work it out and be a family." He will not leave the violent partner. Some abused (women) men are willing to take the chance because she does not always hate him, and there are times she really loves him. (
http://www.angelfire.com/in3/shatteredmen/)
One of the differences is that when a male victim calls 911 to report that his wife beat him, he is given, not only minimal sympathy, but also the least possible support from the police, lawyers, prosecutors, judges and the media because most people do not take physically abused males seriously. Instead, they heckle the battered men when they confide in accepting and tolerating his wife’s abuse. (There are still jokes about abused men. There is a common stereotype image in our culture of the markedly masculine man who can take care of himself under any circumstances, which makes speaking out and getting the help needed even more difficult or emasculating. (http://www.eposib.com)
If poor, minority men are violated, their only option is to seek treatment at a public hospital where doctors must report suspected domestic violence to the police. However, because of the lack of support they receive from the police and the Courts of Law, legal action against the abusive female is rarely taken. The problem of violence against men is dispassionately and purposefully swept under the rug. Our communities, Courts of Law and police departments need to come to terms with the reality of battered men and take a serious look at females' potential to be dangerous.
In years past it was common for females to turn their anger on themselves, and males to turn their anger on others. Now the tables are turning and the females are turning their anger against their male mates. Yet society seldom discusses the issue of violent females, because people really want to believe that all women are gentle and law-and-order conscious to be qualified as abusive, despite the scientific surveys that have statistically shown that females assault their partners as often as males assault their partners. Furthermore, females are not only capable of violence, but are as actively and physically aggressive as men are. (There are approximately 250,000 battered men in this country, and this is interpreted by society and the media as if abusive females are driven to violence by men and by bad lifestyle choices, whereas men are simply naturally violent.)
There is a lack of equality in the justice system. Female abusers serve half the prison time a man does for the same crime, assuming she serves time in jail at all. And if men flee from the abusive relationship with their child, he’s charged with kidnaping. There are no safe havens for men who run away from abuse with their children, because the playing field is stacked against males. The justice system really needs to change the practices and customs of the courts, keep their minds and doors open to equal legal treatment of battered men. In other words, this whole phenomenon must be re-evaluated top to bottom.
During the last decade, legislation has called home violence the Violence Against Women Act. Unless we realize that home violence is not a gender issue, violence and resentments among the sexes will only intensify. Tragically, some men have delayed getting help and they have not survived. ( http://www.bmw99.ru)
Men are also Human. No one should live life in fear of another person, for any reason. Domestic violence is a two-way street; both genders are equally responsible for domestic violence, and this poor behavior should never be tolerated whichever way it goes. But if men are soon to become the next government-protected group of victims, then victim-ology as a growth industry for lawyers, social workers, experts and bureaucrats will flourish. Will battered men become the next oppressed group?
FURTHER REFERENCES
Violence Against Women Act Ignores Epidemic of Violent Women (Trudy W. Schuett, Publisher, Desert Light Journal/Men’s News Daily
"By ignoring the male victim, the Violence Against Women Act does a gross disservice to men. VAWA also violates one of our most cherished constitutional protections - equal treatment under the law. Has VAWA guided society right back into the Victorian era?" (Mother Jones -
www.motherjones.com)
". . . in no way denying the problem of battered women or trying to downplay their grief. Violence in a relationship is reprehensible." (The Men’s Rights Agency = www.ecn.net.au)
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
