Qui Custodes

cyber threats

  There's been a big flurry of news articles recently about threats to women and others on the web.  The most recent of these is the one titled "Sexual Threats Silence Some Female Bloggers"   in today's Washington Post.  Now, it seems to me that anyone who regularly posts on the web has to have a thick skin, but death threats and other threats as described are going too far.  It seems to me that anonymity is what fuels this vitriol .  But the article quotes a woman named Cooper who was threatened and who (quite properly) went to the police.  Just what did the police do?  Nothing. They blew her off.  This is absurd.  The police need to understand the threats and to act on them.  It's not just hot air and should not be treated like that.

One scary thought--if it had been me, would the police have just blown it off or would they have been better motivated to take it seriously?  If so, is that because I'm male? 

I stay by my advice:  report the threats, insist on police investigation, and be careful.  Follow the tips on this blog.  O, yeah, don't let the bullies win--it just makes them feel stronger.

At last! somebody makes sense

It's Sunday but I wanted to get this short post out because I found a news article that actually makes sense and gives good advice.  It's in Slate.  I can't believe it since so many give such bad advice but the advice and discussion in this article is pretty good.  It's called Fight or Flight at Virginia Tech?  What should you do when confronted with a gun-wielding madman?  by Michelle Tsai.  She apparently interviewed Richard Kobetz of Executive Protection Institute and John Whitman of Krav Maga Wordwide and they gave her good stuff to work with.  Kudos to all 3.

There's an article and accompanying video in the Washington Post that got my attention.  It's headline says:  "Defense Training Goes Begging for Airline Crews".  Now I could make several comments about the kind of training the are being given and whether or not it will work, but I won't.  The basic idea is "to give flight crews several basic techniques and to teach them to think about how to defend themselves ... ."  And that's good.  That's very good.  I support that.

But ...  Nobody's coming. They even cut the course back to 1 day from 3 days.  Why?  Because airlines won't give crew time off.  They have to do it on their own time.  What?  What are the airlines thinking?

According to the article, airlines say there is enough security already and, besides, a little training can get you in trouble, give you a false sense of security.  OK.  This is true and other places I preach the necessity of practice, practice, practice. 

But, they are training for a highjacking fer Pete's sake!  What are they supposed to do?  Nothing?  Be soap?  Nuts!  [I would be stronger but I'm hoping a lot of people will eventually read this & I don't want to offend with vulgarity or profanity.]  It's a HIGHJACKING!!!  Your life and the lives of others is at major risk.  You have no choice?  How can they possibly get a FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY???  This is absurd.  This is the experts telling people that if you cannot be the best, if you cannot guarantee success, don't do it.  They are training for a HIGHJACKING, and HIGHJACKERS, not Mother Teresa.  I don't undestand how the airlines can make this [normally very good] argument with a straight face.

Getting the Creeps

Someone was just posting on a listserve I visit all the time about getting the creeps when she's leaving the office.  So she wallks carefully to her car and listens to her instincts.  Good!  But once she gets to the car there's more she should do. Specifically, she should be careful about just getting in the car.  There's an urban legend about someone hiding in the back of someone's car.  But it could happen.  More to the point, I've known a situation where someone set 2 caltrops (look them up) in front of the 2 rear tires.  Start to drive away and ...  bingo ...  2 flat tires.  Now 1 flat tire you can deal with but it's a distraction and being distracted is being vulnerable.  But *2* flat tires ...  Now you're prey.  So, before you get into your car, walk around it & check.

driver safety

This is a little off-topic, but not too much.  Yesterday afternoon I was driving home when I saw 2 cars collide.  It wasn't an accident, not exactly.   Because ill-chance wasn't involved.  Picture this:  I'm in lane 3 of 4, and all 3 lanes are stopped.  Lane 4 is a R turn lane that ends at the traffic light up about 100 yards.  But nobody is in Lane 4.  X decides to make a L turn and cross Lanes 1-4.  He picks his way through lanes 1 & 2 and starts into Lane 3.  I hit the brakes.  X then guns it to hurry across lane 4.  He doesn't make it because Y is in a hurry and is going about 35 mph.  BOOM! 

Safety issue:  if you cannot see what you are doing, maybe you shouldn't do it?  And if you cannot see if someone is coming, maybe you shouldn't be going (relatively) fast?  Or at least maybe you should both be prepared for the unexpected?  You decide.  But fer Pete's Sake--what a mess!  Now, how does this observation apply to the other things we do in life?  Remember--your personal safety is your own responsibility!

creepy visitors

Someone just posted a question about what to do if you have a "creepy" visitor.  Well, if you've prepared properly you already have a built-in alarm button concealed under your desk.  And, if you have the mindset for it, you've already thought about weapons for self-defense.  But what if you haven't?  Hmmm.  Talk fast and bluff are probably your best choices.  Act confident.  Maybe even tell them you have another visitor coming.  Get them out the door and close the door.  Of course, if this happens after everyone has left for the day your problems increase.  Better by far to be prepared.  Start by reviewing what I've posted already.   And think about the unthinkable.

bullying

I just posted about a kid in Wisconsin who killed his school principal.  His problem was that he was complaining about being bullied and nobody was listening to him.  I keep hearing about school killings and there always seems to be a link to bullying.  I wonder if this is selective on my part or if there is some real connection.  If there is a real connection, can we do something about this? 

Now this post doesn't really deal with self-protection except in the most general way.  But dealing with bullies is a real problem and I'll talk about how to do it periodically. 

Seems to me that the "system" should be able to prevent it but it isn't working.  I don't know why.  So I'm wondering if there isn't a better way.  If I recall correctly, Columbine was thought to be brought on--at least in part--by bullying.  Seems to me that I started to hear about anti-bully campaigns right after that.

Anybody know?  Any ideas for systemic fixes? 

Breaking up a fight (again)

I just read a CNN article about a teenager who killed the principal.  www.cnn.2007/law/04/21/principal.shooting.ap/index.html. 

What drew my attention was that the principal tackled the kid and put him in a bear hug.  This just made things worse.  Now, you might recall that I posted something about breaking up a fight last year.  And I suggested that grabbing someone from behind was a really bad idea.  Well, it *still* is a really bad idea.  If you absolutely must do it, be sure to immobilize the arms so this won't happen to you. 

Silliness reigns

Someone just sent me the following link about a theater production at Yale.  http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/04/23/weapons.  Read this article.  It's interestingly silly.

Apparently a Yale student theatre company was putting on a play that was set in medieval times and involved medieval weapons--swords and knives etc.  But it was to start right after last week's Virginia Tech shootings.  So some benighted administrator decided that it no weapons would be allowed--too traumatic.  At YALE?  Aren't these students some of the best and brightest?  Aren't they adults (over 18)?   Men and women their age are in Iraq facing real violence--not plays at college.  What's going on here?  I have absolutely no idea but it seems silly in the extreme.

It's just this sort of cosseting of our people that I was talking about yesterday.  Your health and safety is, ultimately, your responsibility.  Teaching people that the authorities will protect you from everything, even the sight of weapons in a play, is --to me--way over the top.

Protection is YOUR problem

I stopped posting about a year ago because it seemed that I had said most of what I wanted to say.  But I was wrong.  Boy was I wrong!  So I'm back.  And I have a lot to say.  But let's try something new here:  I'm going to talk a bit about why I'm writing this blog at all, let alone why I'm starting it over again.  Let me be simple:  I start from a simple assumption:  It is YOUR responsibility to protect YOURSELF.  Not the responsibility of society, not the responsibility of the police, it is YOUR responsibility. 

Any reasonable security expert will tell you something most people don't want to hear:  In order to protect you completely you would need at least  1 person 24/7/365 near you.  So that's absurd.  You can never be perfectly protected.  It's a sad but true fact.  So you must do what you can.  And since almost none of us can afford 24/7/365 protecction, you have to do it yourself. 

If you have family or loved ones, it is even harder.  So--enough of this "stuff" about gun control, letting the police do it, whatever.  Most of these arguments boil down to something simple:  either you are responsible for your own safety or you are asking others to do it for you.  Now how you protect yourself is another matter.  Once you make the decision to be responsible for yourself, then and only then should you consider whether or not you wish to use a weapon to do it. 

So if you are not interested in being responsible for your own safety, this blog is not for you.