I think you balanced it pretty well.
I have nothing substantive to add at the moment, since I'm proctoring an exam, but
If the government is capable of accurately classifying rapists as very likely to reoffend, maybe they ought to still be in jail.
is maybe misleading, since we don't pre-emptively punish. On the other hand, likelihood of repeat offense might be relevant to parole decisions. I know nothing about the law, by the way, so I think I might be opening myself up to ridicule.
you should create a printer format for these.
(while i'm at it, you should link to your respective personal blogs from the "about pages" where appropriate. also include the author name in the RSS feed (a lá CT), so I know who's posting about what in my newsreader. and a pony)
include the author name in the RSS feed
The author shows up in mine (Thunderbird's built-in RSS reader).
Ethically, I think Tia's right -- there's nothing the writer can, or really should, do about getting rid of this guy, although I would say in the writer's place that I would be fairly pre-emptive about warning guests that he might be a danger.
Rapist's roommate, on the other hand, is in a different position. One wonders why he chooses to live with a (many years back)convicted rapist/(current) vicious misogynist. In his position (even were I not personally concerned for my safety), I think I'd have kicked him out and found a new roommate as soon as I knew the facts.
Also, Tia, nice work to actually research some stuff.
re #2, Pataki is introducing legislation to involuntarily commit sexual offenders categorized as high risk. That sort of thing freaks me out, and it's the predictable result of the registry.
And since your main concerns seem to be his creepiness and your property values, not safety, and you didn't mention any women in your building, it would be an unjustifiable fob.
Actually, I am a woman, and there is a couple on the first floor. I almost wish the registry didn't exist, because every time I see the guy I am so totally creeped out, but at least knowing his record has prevented me from taking him up on his offers to do painting and other odd jobs in my apartment. Eeew!
Sorry perplexed; I got the idea that you were a man from an (obviously incorrect) notion about which commenter you were. I'm not sure if that changes things.
offers to do painting and other odd jobs in my apartment.
Oh, ick. Under those circumstances, I would talk to his roommate about whether he could be gotten rid of. What's the building, a co-op or a condo? Is there anything in your lease (is that what you call it for a condo?) governing sub-tenants?
You could probably make a case to the roommate that those invitations sounded like potentially threatening behavior to you, and combine it with the evidence of what Mr. First Floor heard him say.
10: It's a condo. I'm going to have a look at the condo docs, but I doubt that there's anything in them prohibiting roommates.
The owner of the 2nd floor unit where he lives is a rather dimwitted fellow and the person in question seems to have a lot of influence with him. I haven't wanted to let them know that I know, because I feel that, as things are, the guy at least has a facade to keep up.
Also, Tia, nice work to actually research some stuff.
Totally. Well done, Tia! I thought I just signed up for "willing to talk out of my ass on random topics."
(Also, the post RSS feed comes in under author name while the posts+comments feed comes in under "Unfogged". I like it this way so to get what you want would require a second version of the feed sorted by author name, not a change to the current functionality. Not saying it won't ever happen but a heads up that this falls under CHANGEBAD.)
1. Perplexed's response it totally understandable, and roughly what mine would be.
2. I can't think of a problem I should have with people doing what they are legally allowed to do to make their own neighborhood more comfortable. This includes, for example, getting rid of ugly neighbors.
3. But I always get an oogy feeling about it nonetheless. I'm not sure how far you have to move to get from "sex offenders are likely to recommit, so I don't want them in my neighborhood" to
"In 1990, the Rand corporation published a study on the economics of the drug trade in Washington, D.C. which revealed that during the three years between the ages of 18 and 21 fully one-third of African American males had been arrested and charged with a criminal offense. "(Cite.)
so I don't want them in my neighborhood."
4. I'd still probably try to get the bastard out.
Offering to paint and do odd jobs is potentially threatening? That seems a bit of an overreaction.
My guess: Mr. Ex-con was wrongly convicted on the basis of mistaken eyewitness testimony, exacerbated by the fact that he was a bit off his rocker. Getting meds has allowed him to pass for normal in society. The registry listing of him as high risk is nonsense. He and Mr. Second Floor are a gay couple with relationship problems.
I saw from the campaign contribution registry that several people I know are serial contributors to republican candidates. Can I form a posse to run them out of town?
Also, to be fair, the guy might just want the money for odd jobs. He doesn't do much of anything--I'm sure his record prevents him from getting a real job. But still.
I'd be interested to know how "Perplexed" knows that the rapist received only treatment in a secure mental facility, which would be unusual for a convicted serial rapist, and how he knows that the rapist hasn't been in any trouble since the mid 1980s. And is Perplexed male or female?
I'm not completely sure I agree with the "fobbing off" objection, though it strikes a chord. The serial rapist isn't any more Perplexed's responsibility than anyone else's. Selling the floor will be practically impossible if he is required to notify each potential buyer that "in addition to these beautiful hardwood floors, there's also a former serial rapist in the building, who is classified as 'likely to recommit.'" If he can do it legally, he might consider selling the floor to male roommates, and then, after the sale, sending them an anonymous letter warning them of the danger.
But Perplexed's first move should be to speak to someone at the local precinct house and ask about his options.
get chatting with a local face (the people you want to know run door security companies and do a bit of debt collecting on the side), tell him exactly what you tod us and mention that you have a reasonable condition second hand car worth about $5000 going spare to a good owner.
I thought he was offering to paint for free, which in combination with too vile to be uttered misogynistic statements did sound suspicious. I wasn't talking about a legal case, but a case to the roommate.
15: Well, Schneider, I'm not sure why your guess as to his guilt should carry the slightest weight, or what makes you think he and his roommate are gay, or if they are, why you think they are having relationship problems. Seems to me you're making up the story you would prefer.
Goddamit, I just lost a long and well-thought-out comment; I hit post and it went away.
Offering to paint and do odd jobs is potentially threatening? That seems a bit of an overreaction.
You think? That strikes me as an odd offer, particularly if repeated. If the guy has a business, it's one thing, but "I'll do whatever around your apartment for a couple of bucks" isn't a way to make a living. Combined with the record, I'd call it worrisome.
I haven't wanted to let them know that I know, because I feel that, as things are, the guy at least has a facade to keep up.
This is a judgment call, but I'm not sure that you've got the right way to go here. The intial question is whether you think there's any substantial chance that the guy is still dangerous. If not, then revolting as his history is, you should probably drop it and try to think about something else. If so (which depends on, e.g., your reading of the offers to come into your apartment to do work, etc.) then I think you might be better off with his knowing that you're aware of his criminal history and are alert to the fact that he may be dangerous. (You could, for example, if he makes another offer to do work for you, tell him that you're not comfortable having him in your apartment given his criminal record.) It's not going to make him any friendlier, but you don't want to be friends.
re: 18
Dsquared is probably right about the effectiveness of that move. However, it's not something a lot of people are going to be comfortable doing. Either because they have some moral qualms about it or because they aren't the sort of people to discuss GBH with the local big men.
GBH=Grevious Bodily Harm?
I do like the picture of wandering down to the local gangster's and ordering up a spot of mayhem, but in real life I'd have to be on the moral qualms bench about it.
I'd be interested to know how "Perplexed" knows that the rapist received only treatment in a secure mental facility, which would be unusual for a convicted serial rapist, and how he knows that the rapist hasn't been in any trouble since the mid 1980s. And is Perplexed male or female?
Perplexed is female. I don't know for a fact that he received only treatment--I did a search on the guy in the local newspaper's online archive, and the one story I found (the online archive doesn't go back as far as the date of the actual crimes) which was about how he had walked away from a work-release program, mentioned that he had been, for at least part of his sentence, in a hospital for the criminally insane. He had been convicted of three separate rapes, in the course of one of which he severely beat a 16-year-old girl. How do I know he hasn't been in trouble since getting out? I assume his online record would be updated, and/or that he would be back in the slammer.
I should say that your condo's management company may also be a resource -- if you give them the situation, they may pressure 2d floor to boot the guy. (I don't think they have much power, but it couldn't hurt and might help.)
Yes, I'm making up a story. Given the paucity of facts there are lots of possible stories. Some scary, some not. It's difficult to judge the truthiness (if that's the word I want) of any of the stories.
I don't see a lot of facts indicating present danger.
There's the conviction, but it was nigh on to thirty years ago. That's a long time. People change in thirty years. There's an indication of mental problems thirty years ago, but no current evidewnce of craziness. Is that indicative of change?
There's the registry assessment, but I discount that. I'd bet it was not a considered judgment about this individual, but rather a generalization about types of crimes. I'd bet it also tends to err on the side of overpredicting danger.
There's the second hand report of misogynist statements. Again, I'm not sure just what that means, nor how reliable the source. Statements of opinion and belief don't necessarily lead to action.
It would be nice if we could all be assured that everyone around us was perfectly harmless. But that's not possible. There are lots of dangerous people. We generally have to live with that.
Either we lock up every potentially dangerous person for the rest of their lives, or we take universal precautions and live in the world as it is. This guy has lived there on and off for years, apparently without incident. Now you move in, and you want to drive him from his home and his neighborhood, even though he hasn't done anything wrong for thirty years. That seems both wrong and counter-productive. Driving people out of an apparently safe situation isn't a great idea.
As Lb, I think, said: if there isn't good reason to suspect present dangerousness, live with it.
I think Perplexed's first obligation is to protect herself. She's already signaled (by considering this problem important enough to ask for advice) that *something* is setting off her radar.
I hear Perplexed saying that she wants to not inflame matters further unless she's sure it will actually provide a solution (e.g. don't let Mr. Rapist know you know about his criminal record unless you're sure he's going to be evicted). Correct me if I'm wrong on this, Perplexed. But if that's what you're saying, I agree. No sense setting off an unpredictable chain of events, especially since it sounds like there's already a lot of built-up resentment/misogyny.
I'd follow up with the idea of talking to local law enforcement. It's tricky to balance Mr. R's right to not be harrassed with your right to feel secure in your home. And as any mental-health professional will tell you, there are people with mental illness, there are violent sexual offenders, and then there are people who are both. Discriminating against someone who is weird and even creepy, but no threat, is wrong. But Perplexed is talking about someone who was very clearly determined to be a major threat.
(on preview: Um, given newspaper stories - sounds like this guy is a definite and probably continuing threat. I'd follow up with a victims-rights org too. They're likely to know the law BETTER than the local D.A. with regard to what you can do.)
18, 23, 24- That discussion reminded me of the episode of the Sopranos where Dr. Melfi fantasized about having Tony beat up her rapist. (Note that this discussion occurred while she, a shrink, was in her own shrink's office.)
If you want to get nasty about the whole thing:
Make sure owner of #2 knows the criminal record, and make sure owner of #2 knows you consider this person a hazard in the building that as his tenant is his responsibility, and make sure you tell owner of #2 that you would certainly sue him if anything were to happen regarding this tenant of his.
It's not certain you'd win such a suit, but it's not certain you'd lose, either, and owner of #2 is unlikely to want to (knowingly) take that risk. He'll do the dirty work of ejecting for you.
Of course this man may be thoroughly reformed, and a perfectly nice man who means you no harm, in which case the above course of action would be somewhat unjust. I guess it just depends on exactly how skeeved you are by this guy.
There's the conviction, but it was nigh on to thirty years ago.
Three convictions. I'm as ready as anyone to rant about the evils of eyewitness identification, and how wrong witnesses can be -- but someone who's been convicted of rape three times? I feel comfortable believing they're a rapist.
18: This sounds like the first chapter in a novel about the moral destruction of some middle-class person, who, owing to a deplorable obsession with the sins of his neighbor, becomes involved with and indebted to people much badder than himself. Paybacks are requested which at first seem minor, much criminality ensues, culminating in fully-deserved violent beatdown of protagonist.
Maybe I'll just wait them out--they're probably going to die of old age before I do.
Tempt him- find out his email, pretend to be an underage hott gyrl and see if he tries to do illegal things. (Some boy scouts caught a guy recently using this ploy, although not intentionally.) If he doesn't take the bait, he's probably not dangerous. If he does, he's busted and gone. Of course, if he finds out you were setting him up, you might get to see how ugly he can be.
33: Bad, bad, terrible, idea. If this guy is dangerous (which perplexed is in the best condition to judge), becoming entangled with him is the last thing she wants to do.
Three convictions.
Thirty years is a long time ago. And, however hard it is to get someone convicted of rape now, it was harder before. So, if he was getting punished then, I'd think it more likely he'd have gotten punished now if he was doing something.
At some level, either we let these people out or we don't. Half-assing it doesn't seem the appropriate way to handle it.
First-Floor wouldn't tell me what Mr. Rapist said
This makes me wonder whether what he said was about perplexed.
Offering to paint and do odd jobs is potentially threatening? That seems a bit of an overreaction.
No it doesn't. I would not want someone who had been convicted of a violent hate crime against people like me inside my home, with access to things like floor plan, personal habits, and where I keep the keys. Especially if I lived alone.
And why the assumption that the guy was wrongly convicted? There doesn't seem to be any evidence for that, and the report that the guy is a misogynist asshole seems to support the idea that he's a threat. I know wrong convictions happen, but I also know that it's damn hard to get a rape case to trial in the first place.
And regardless, it's hardly an overreaction for a woman (for some reason I assumed Perplexed was a woman) to think that allowing a misogynist asshole into her personal space is threatening.
33 is NOT a good idea.
Nevermind LB beat me to it. There's a lot of other reasons besides those she gave why this is stupid, dumb, stupid, bad, but I'll just leave it at "don't try this."
31 Three convictions.
Oh. That went by in 25 while I was writing 27. Preview failure. Slow writing. Sorry.
If it was three trials, three juries, that lends considerable reliability and I retract that point. If it was one trial, that reduces reliability. I'm not clear on the facts here.
At some level, either we let these people out or we don't. Half-assing it doesn't seem the appropriate way to handle it.
This isn't so much about punishment as it is about self-protection. There's an argument that sex-offender registries are a bad idea (they include too many harmless, non-violent offenders, etc.). Once you know that you're sharing a domicile with a multiply convicted rapist, on the other hand, taking reasonable measures to change the situation appears perfectly reasonable to me.
This isn't so much about punishment as it is about self-protection.
Welcome to segregating communities.
32: Yeah, sounds like it could be a Ruth Rendell.
I'll add a cheery note in light of 28: It might not be worth it even if you can succeed in getting him evicted. It may not be the happiest situation for a misogynist creep with violent tendencies to be really angry at you (and you would have caused him harm, rightly or wrongly) and know where you live, even if he doesn't actually live there. I'm no professional so I don't know whether or not that is actually a risk factor, but it might be something worth thinking about.
Otherwise 22 strikes me as right on; I'd hate to see what the long well-thought out version was like. If you don't think that the guy is really dangerous, then you probably shouldn't try anything, except not being friends. As Tia says, he has to live somewhere (but that's an easy thing for me to say, since the fact that it's a three-bedroom condo indicates that it probably isn't within 200 miles of me). If you think he is a risk, then your first obligation is to protect yourself.
Yeah. Come back and talk about it some more when you feel like distinguishing between segregating a community on the basis of race, and having someone who has been repeatedly convicted of violent rape living in your home.
I would not want someone who had been convicted of a violent hate crime against people like me inside my home, ...
I'm not saying that Perplexed should have accepted the offers. But they could have been made innocently, in good faith, with no bad intent at all. For all I know the guy is living on disability and either (a) could use a few extra bucks; or (b) was trying to do something nice for the new neighbor. One can decline the offer, and yet not feel threatened by the offer itself.
37: Apo, the thought crossed my mind. But I think First Floor would have warned me if he thought the guy was fixating on me in particular. It was he who found the guy on the registry in the first place.
40: two trials, two juries.
#46: What I'm saying is I think it is highly unreasonable to expect a woman living alone not to feel threatened when a convicted violent rapist offers to help her out with something inside her home. You might not feel threatened, but I think it's a pretty major failure of imagination not to realize that we would.
Note that I am not saying the offer *was* a threat. I am also not saying the guy is dangerous (nor, I note, is Perplexed). I am saying that feeling threatened by the situation is totally justified.
#44: LB, your hatred of DFW is forgiven.
40: two trials, two juries.
Thank you for the clarification. That does increase the scariness. Would it be relevant to know how old he was at the time of the rapes? Not that youth would be an excuse, but it might lend support to the possibility that age has brought a certain self-control.
Here's my question (moving the thread a little away from advice and into abstract discussion): how do your thoughts/opinions/advisements change if all the facts are the same, except the guy lives across the street instead of on the second floor?
It seems the risk in the situation is only slightly diminished, if at all; the legal obligation to disclose the fact may be different, I don't know the law that well, but I doubt it as I can't honestly think of why it should be different; yet for some reason it feels like a whole different ballgame, and I'm entirely less comfortable giving advice to try and get him thrown out of the neighborhood than the building.
Someone resolve this moral disconnect for me, please.
44: However you classify it, it's a NIMBY problem. We've made a decision that he's safe out in the community. We just don't want him in our community. I get that. But I don't see how this is different in kind than well-off people objecting to creation of low-income housing in their neighborhood, for example.
You might be saying that given the specific information we have about this individual, we have a much better ability to predict future problems. That might be true. Then let's set a predictive level at which we get to start sorting people and move on.
And, to be clear, I'm more comfortable with that sorting idea than I'm comfortable being.
Someone resolve this moral disconnect for me, please. Someone resolve this moral disconnect for me, please.
I don't know that it clarifies any moral issue, or answers your basic question, but it is a completely different experience to live in the same house and across the street, from the individual woman's point of view. When he's in your building you pass the man on the stairs, he may have access to your mail, he hears sounds coming from your apartment which (in your imagination) may cause him to think about you. His chances of noticing you and fixating on you are higher.
It seems the risk in the situation is only slightly diminished, if at all
My sense (and I don't have much basis for it) is that the risk is vastly different for sharing a building with someone versus having them across the street. I'm in an apartment now, and I'm not stalking any of my neighbors. On the other hand, despite the fact that I'm not stalking any of them, I know offhand when they're on vacation, what time they leave for work, when they get home, what times of day their apartments are empty... I haven't spent that much time living in houses, but I don't believe you have the same level of awareness about neighbors' movements and vulnerabilities as you do in an apartment.
But I don't see how this is different in kind than well-off people objecting to creation of low-income housing in their neighborhood, for example.
I'm not happy with the role of indignant home-owner whose property value is compromised, but I prefer it to the role of fearful potential victim. But there is that aspect to the matter. When I practice my violin and he bangs on his ceiling, it's just not the same kind of interaction it would be with a normal person.
Note that I am not saying the offer *was* a threat. I am also not saying the guy is dangerous (nor, I note, is Perplexed). I am saying that feeling threatened by the situation is totally justified.
I agree. No question. However, feeling threatened, without a reasonable basis for believing there is a present danger, seems a poor reason to drive someone from their home. There's an important step between recognizing feelings and acting on those feelings to the detriment of someone else.
to drive someone from their home.
My sense of the ethics here is shaped by the fact that he's renting a room in someone else's apartment. That doesn't sound to me like the type of long-term living arrangement that it would be wrongful to disrupt.
Christ, what the hell is happening to me? I'm agreeing with B on an unfogged thread.
If you don't think that the guy is really dangerous, then you probably shouldn't try anything, except not being friends.
If it were me, I would also take steps to secure my peace of mind by adding to my self-defense options. It seems pretty reasonable to treat this guy with extreme caution, given his record.
See, I have to admit that in my building v. across the street in single-family housing would feel fairly similar to me. That said, I would recognize that my *feeling* equally uncomfortable doesn't mean that the two situations are the same; I think it's more defensible to feel uncomfortable about someone in your small building than it is to feel uncomfortable about someone in a different house.
Which leads me to say that I think that it's unfair to call this essentially a NIMBY problem--both the original query and Tia's response take great pains to balance their feelings with their sense of this guy's rights in a way that NIMBYism, as it's generally used, doesn't.
50. It's a huge difference, as above commenters have said. I discovered a couple of months ago (thanks, Google!) that the building on the corner that always has a couple of slightly skeevy people hanging out front smoking was a "Post Graduate Assisted Living Center" in the NY Mental Health department. I don't really know what that means, but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't a couple of still rather seriously fucked up people living there. After a couple minutes' thought, I decided that it didn't change much.
Someone in my building, who also has keys to the poorly lit basement with the laundry machines and all kinds of nooks? Yes, that would change my behavior.
52/53 - So you wouldn't be threatened by a repeat sex offender living in the condo next door, who neighbors said weas deeply misogynistic, who somewhat randomly offered to do odd jobs in your apartment? I just don't see this as that much less scary, but I'm not a woman so I could be missing something.
And until someone says otherwise I still maintain that the legal duty to disclose this information to a buyer would be the same in both cases, which could certainly affect resale value, to the extent that is the worry.
adding to my self-defense options.
Hey, where's gswift? Buy a gun! (Kidding. I don't, in fact, think this is a particularly useful self-defense mechanism in this context.)
On the other hand, getting a dog might not be a bad idea.
62- Who says not threatened? Just more threatened by someone in your building.
62: The differences I see are twofold. Assuming that the guy in question is planning to commit further rapes: (1) Someone who already lives in my building has a much easier time breaking into my apartment. He doesn't have to skulk around outside, he just has to be in a hallway where he's not visible to passers by, and he's perfectly entitled to be. He knows when I come home from work -- if he's waiting in the hall and pushes into my apartment when I come home, again, it's not visible from the street. (2) He knows me. To the extent that he's selecting victims from people he sees, he sees me every day; I'm one of the closest people to him physically. For a guy living across the street, I have no more particular connection to him than a hundred people who live nearby -- someone in the building, on the other hand, brushes against me on the stairs every morning. This strikes me as greatly increasing the risk of being selected as a target.
(Perplexed: don't let this conversation freak you out too much -- you're the only one who's there and can judge whether the guy is dangerous or not. Based on his age alone, I'd tend to think that he probably isn't -- the overwhelming majority of violent criminals are pretty young.)
adding to my self-defense options
getting a dog might not be a bad idea
OK, these are sensible things to say, so I'll revise my original comment 33 thus: Concern for your safety is the only good reason to try to get him out, because he does have to live somewhere. But concern doesn't mean a positive belief that he will try to attack you. And it may make sense to take some precautions short of trying to get him kicked out, anyway.
64: True fact. I hear Dobermans make excellent apartment pets -- they're apparently much happier than most breeds to nap on the couch all day waiting for you to come home. And they're sweet dogs.
First, if the man has been convicted even once, he is almost certainly guilty. Three times removes any doubt.
Second, if the man is
i) a "vile misogynist" and
ii) is offering to help Perplexed in her apartment then
iii) his motives for entering her apartment to "help" cannot be good.
Taken together with his past convictions, these facts indicate a clear threat.
Third, that he retains his anger towards women is deeply troublesome, as such anger clearly motivated his crimes in the first place.
My advice is to explain your concerns at the local police station. At the very least it will draw their attention to him, and you may find some good advice as well.
Do not contact this man or his roommate.
If you are going to notify a victim's rights group---or even the local PTA, if one of the women raped was a girl, and you want to really put the pressure on---consider doing so anonymously.
The only silver lining here may be that the man is probably in his 50s, if not approaching 60.
I thought about the dog, but the cats nixed the idea. Also, I would have to train it to tolerate the guy, or risk ending up like those horrible people in san francisco whose dog killed their neighbor. Unless it was one of those perfectly trained dobermans (dobermen?) that only attack on command, but they scare me.
I do practice a martial art, but I'm not that good at it.
I want to thank you all for your comments--I'm leaving for the day, so won't be commenting further. Partly I did this as a reality check, as I've been unsure about whether I hadn't lost all sense of proportion about this matter.
Even a yappy little dog can make a good warning alarm. Though obviously larger breeds also have the advantage of *looking* threatening, whether or not they're actually trained to protect you.
One more thing:
Be sure to explain to the officer the man's current attitude towards women, preferably illustrating with some of his more graphic/disturbing comments, and especially his efforts to gain entrance into your apartment. These are important facts.
I wasn't suggesting a trained attack dog -- I meant a snuggly pet Doberman. A big dog that is attached to you will likely be protective if you're being threatened, regardless of training.
73: LB--I crossposted with your 68. Actually, the snuggly pet doberman idea sounds kind of appealing. I'll have to talk to the cats again.
70. The dogs in SF were trained fight dogs raised by neo-Nazis, IIRC. I don't think you have to worry about that.
A three decker? I could be misreading it, but that's a common term in the Boston area. Tons of them have been converted to condos.
I grew up in one of those and know that the interior doors that separate flats from the stairwells are not very strong. My dad busted the front door open once when my mom locked him out. (The cops then arrested him because he was throttling my mom--ah, pleasant memories.)
Plus, there might not be a super to handle the stuff in the basement. Every tennant owner would be responsible for part of the routine tasks.
I wouldn't feel comfortable either. I'd make sure my doors were strong and secure. I do think it has to be disclosed when selling the condo (if he is still there). But, he has done his sentence and has registered so there is not much more that could be done except keep a weather eye out for him.
dear perplexed,
LB, Andrew, Tia, and ac are offering really good advice. The dog is a great idea too -- barking as an alarm, the distraction the dog could offer and the comfort -- it will probably make you feel better if this is bothering you (as it must be).
I want to second that it's important to avoid his attention or interest -- to be neutral -- you want to be under his radar as much as possible. It's definitely not good that he was interested in access to your apartment via the odd jobs, or banging on the ceiling when you play violin, if he still has angry or deeply misogynist feelings (those comments to the neighbor). And he's sharing a lot of common spaces with you on a daily basis.
Be sure to notify someone who sees or talks to you most days of the week that this is an issue - although you probably have already. I would also mention the disturbing contacts you've had with him to the police - purely for safety reasons. Ideally they will not contact him and you won't contact him or his roommate either - the last thing you want him to do is get angry or fixate on you in any way.
Also, have you taken a self-defense course? I know you do a martial art, but the self-defense courses will specifically teach you ways to fight dirty -- more than the obvious one -- and also how to fight someone off if you are knocked on the floor or have your arms pinned. I took one where you had the chance to beat off two cops who put on body armor and pretend to attack you -- you can hit them with your full force -- and that really helped me. Among other things, it gave me a sense of confidence that really improved my quality of life when I'm in potentially sketchy places alone.
Ack. I'm sorry.
After reading everyone else's advice, I just wanted to say that I agree that going to the roommate yourself is a bad idea; in the main post, I was just trying to cast about for anything that could possibly work and when I was writing I was envisioning you as male, so the consequences of drawing his attention didn't seem as squickily unknowable.
I think Weiner's point about possible consequences of having gotten a misogynist creep with violent tendencies eviceted is a good one, too.
However, I'd be interested in hearing more opinions on this from Urple: Make sure owner of #2 knows the criminal record, and make sure owner of #2 knows you consider this person a hazard in the building that as his tenant is his responsibility, and make sure you tell owner of #2 that you would certainly sue him if anything were to happen regarding this tenant of his.
I have a gut feeling a victims' rights group might wind up being more helpful than the police; go ahead and talk to the cops about anything that makes you feel threatened, but ultimately if it's not concrete I doubt they'll do much for you. The victims' rights people might have strategies for dealing with the police. But this is nothing more than my gut feeling. (Hey, I give out free advice; I don't claim expertise.)
re: 77
Self-defence skills are unlikely to help a woman if the guy is really determined to hurt them.
I say this not to be negative as I think the benefits in self-confidence must go a long way to actually making people less likely to be attacked and the skills learned might also be the one thing that lets the woman run away and call help.
However, I suspect that confidence -- useful as it is in itself -- is largely false confidence.
Re. 79: I think this is actually not true. My understanding of self-defense classes is that they really *do* teach women quick and useful ways of fighting back and pretty much ending a guy's aggression--after all, bigger isn't necessarily always the winner in a fight, skill and aggression count for a lot. (And not all guys are bigger than all women.)
That said, I do remember an experience in college that frightened me, involving a drunk guy, me, and a wrestling contest that went a little too far. It definitely made me realize that, by and large, I was *not* going to win a fight with a man under any circumstances.
Dobermanns can be very sweet dogs, but some states have insurance requirements for people who own them. Getting a dog is also a lifestyle commitment, so, if you're not otherwise inclined, it could be a high-cost measure. (I hate to be grim, but if you're worried about the guy downstairs, who is the dog going to alert, exactly?)
If I were in your place, my to-do list would now include:
(a) contacting the police and a victim's rights organization, since a paper trail might come in handy at a future moment;
(b) a reinforced door, if the original is flimsy, and other related remodelling projects;
(c) picking up items like mace (does this work?), one of those tiny airhorns, etc., and getting used to carrying them always;
(d) informing friends of the situation (for all sorts of reasons-- I'd hate to stumble home after a night at the bar; better that your friends know the situation ahead of time).
I tend to be crazy about these things, though. Others should feel free to ridicule my reaction.
80: I don't have much experience with fights myself. But I used to know a couple of people who fell into the not good drunks category in a sort of violent way. (One guy used to make sure to wear rings when he knew he wanted to fight later that night - that was a weird bit of information to get.) What little I can guess is as follows:
1. Size helps a lot.
2. Training helps. A lot. Particularly when looking at otherwised matched foes. How that interacts with #1, I really don't know.
3. Nothing helps as much as experience. There is nothing that is as helpful as having been hit, and even hurt badly, in the past. I think because you know what to worry about and what not to worry about. I'm not sure. But, absent something like military or professional training, I'd take a bar brawler against a man with training of the same size every day of the week. Some guys really don't seem to mind getting hit, and that makes a big difference.
It's not very relevant to the situation we're talking about - where a woman has little choice about avoiding the situation - but it did teach me to avoid all fights if at all possible.
So the Mineshaft (and I deploy that term for the first time, without certain knowledge of its origin) says: "Talk to the cops, the PTA (?!), or buy some fucking nunchucks"?
Color me unsatisfied. But it's late. So I expect little more. Tsk, tsk.
How problematic, and how much of a sacrifice, would it be to rent your room to someone else (a guy!) and living somewhere else? My uninfomed guess is that a male renter would be less likely to be discouraged by Mr Rapist than a male buyer.
re: 80
"That said, I do remember an experience in college ... It definitely made me realize that, by and large, I was *not* going to win a fight with a man under any circumstances."
I think that holds true for the vast majority of women. I suspect people over-estimate the value of technique and skill and under-estimate the value of sheer size and aggression.
Once the person you are up against has a 50 or 60lb weight advantage and a substantial strength-per-weight advantage and a lot more andrenalin/testosterone-driven aggression [and I think the 'value' of that is also much underestimated] and (as will often be the case with a lot of men) a lot more experience of violence it would take a considerable amount of skill and luck to offset those advantages.
Bigger isn't necessarily always better, but pretty much every other advantage in terms of aggression and experience and physical power is, unfortunately, also going to be on the side of the male agressor and in those circumstances, yes, bigger pretty much always IS better.
I wouldn't want to go up against a 280 - 290lb, 6ft 5" wrestler or boxer, say. I'd get eaten alive and that's the same sort of relative weight/strength/aggression/experience differential you're talking about.
I'm sure some self-defence knowledge is better than no self-defense knowledge and I'm also sure it can have a detterent effect -- not every male aggressor is really going to want to make the effort if their victim is fighting back -- but I woud also worry that people simply underestimate the task that they are up against.
Hey, where's gswift? Buy a gun! (Kidding. I don't, in fact, think this is a particularly useful self-defense mechanism in this context.)
YES! An gun nut is a pro gun control person who just found out a violent rapist lives downstairs.
All kidding aside, this really is the type of scenario where it might be something to think about. And no, I don't mean to carry on her person. That's really not a good option for someone who doesn't have a lot of experience and training. But to have in the apartment in case he decided to break in while you're there? Something to consider.
If you're going to carry something on your person, pepper spray is decent in that you don't have to get very close, and gives you a better chance of getting away. But in the closed confines of a third floor apartment, a firearm is better.
82 is basically correct. As long as the size and weight aren't ludicrously mismatched, the winner of a fight is the one who is most game. Notoriously, pitbulls aren't the strongest dogs, nor gamecocks the biggest birds, but they are the ones to back because they are up for it. There is a partial exception here I think for someone who is really good at judo or similar, because a wrestler who knows what he's doing can often get a painful armlock or stranglehold on someone much bigger who doesn't, as the Ultimate Fighting Championships proved. But you would have to be talking about someone who was at least county champion standard (ie, significantly better than your average club instructor) before I would bet money on this.
I still maintain my view. You are perfectly morally within your rights to get rid of this guy if you mind him being around; he has to live somewhere, but he can live somewhere where people don't mind him. Society doesn't have the right to demand from you that you put up with this stress. So simply get a reasonably tasty local tough-nut to go round to his floor and tell him and his roommate that he isn't allowed to live there any more. This is exactly the normal course of business for such people. Probably better not disclose why you want him out because a lot of adult hardmen have a history of abuse and can react in unpredictable ways to sex offenders.
Re: 80,82,85
The correct version here is that training can help. A great deal depends on the person and the training. Some martial arts classes I've seen are laughable. They might as well be teaching a fucking dance class. That said, classes geared specifically towards women's self defense are often good. Something to keep in mind is that since the odds are the guy attacking is likely to be stronger and bigger, you're going to have to be vicious. Here's a few I've taught my wife, and I'd recommend for any woman to learn.
1. Headbutt:
Seriously. The quick and dirty tutorial. You're going to hit with the top of your forehead, where your hairline starts. The target is where the other persons upper lip meets their nose. Hit as hard as you can, and remember to follow through, like you're aiming several inches behind his face.
2. Uppercutting the throat:
No matter how tough he is, his windpipe isn't. Use a half fist, so that you're striking with the second knuckles. It's can be an especially good option when you're in close and a normal strike isn't feasible, ie you're facing the attacker, and he's grabbed you by the shoulders. You also don't need extreme accuracy. Even if your aim is low, that half fist in an uppercut will still slide right up into his throat. Remember to use your whole body to hit. The power comes from the rotation of your shoulders and hips, not your arms.
3. Gouging an eye:
The common response when grabbed around the front and your hands are still free is to flail at the head, which is not effective. Instead, grab the back of his head with one hand, using a hooking motion with your palm facing you. Use the other hand to get that eye. You want your palm against/along the side of his head, pushing into the eye with the thumb as hard as you can, simultaneously pulling the the head forward to increase the effect.
4. Squeezing the testicles:
Even when you're in no position to hit someone, you often can read the gonads. Instead of trying to hit them, grab and use ever ounce of that fear, anger, and adrenaline to squeeze them into a pulp.
I'm recommending these for women's self defense. Guys, DO NOT tell yourself next time someone gets in your face you're going to hit them in the throat. If that guy collapses and dies in front of you with a crushed trachea, you're likely going to jail
79 et al:
no, self-defense can be really useful. the quality of life improvement of confidence is important - you don't want perplexed to be miserable there and feeling helpless, versus (at least partially) prepared.
no-one claims that if you get in a situation where you have to defend yourself, you aren't going to get hurt. surely i told the story here of my friend who fought back when a man attacked her in tunisia, who punched the man so hard she broke her own wrist? the man seemed to black out briefly - she didn't stop to look - he let go of her and she got away. in fact she didn't even notice her wrist was broken until later - she just ran. and that was good. we're talking about situations where no matter what happens there are serious consequences.
when you defend yourself the way they teach you in a good self-defense course, you don't look anything like 2 men fighting in a bar fight. it's about hurting the man very badly very quickly so you have enough time to get away.
honestly, i don't think most women would ever feel gung ho confident that they can mess with anyone who bothers them blah blah blah. i have no idea where other commenters are getting that. confidence (especially for small women like me) is about knowing that if someone does attack you (yes, it happened to me, and yes, i got out of it successfully), there's something very specific you can do -- and there's a good chance it will work. nothing is better, when the seconds stretch out in a situation like that, than having your mind go not to fear, not to panic, but to an image of the actions you will have to take next.
and now, basta.
gswift, i wasn't going to post the tips, but yeah, a punch to the throat, windpipe, and jugular vein is exactly one of the best. stepping in towards the man and kneeing him in the groin, and then kneeing him again in the head when he doubles over is another really good one. there are others too -- but practicing them in a self-defense course so you can get over the fear of hitting someone with your full strength & ingrain some reflexes is more important than reading about them.
but practicing them in a self-defense course so you can get over the fear of hitting someone with your full strength & ingrain some reflexes is more important than reading about them.
That's exactly right.
Everyone would do well to heed that point. There's really no substitute for practice, and you escpecially want the kind of class she describes where you can practice your techniques with full force.
87: I almost feel like I don't have to say this, but this is terrible advice. Committing a crime is not a good way to reduce the complexity of your problem. Either perplexed or her downstairs neighbor probably left their identifying info with the sex offender registry website (and if they didn't they still probably left their IP)--the websites collect this info precisely to prevent people from using the registries to commit crimes against sex offenders. If Mr. Rapist starts getting harassed by some tough guy, he might just decide to call the ACLU or someone similar, who'd let the police know that a crime was committed. They'd ask the sex offender registry for data on who'd been accessing Mr. Rapist's page.... For that matter, there's currently a thread about it on a non-obscure site on the internet! It's also wrong to commit a crime against a currently law-abiding citizen, but even before you get to wrong, you reach monumentally stupid.
I think gswift's idea about the male renter was good. The problem with not disclosing it, even if it's not explicitly required by the rules of your state, and it may well be, is that you still might be opening yourself up to post-sale litigation. (Lawyers should comment on this). Also, are there rules governing real estate transactions that would prohibit cherry picking a male occupant if a female occupant bid higher?
I hate to say this but the 'punch him in the throat' thing is totally unrealistic unless the person is already open for it and vulnerable. Now, clearly, in a case of sexual assault they may well be open and vulnerable to this, so it's still a useful tip, but...
The throat is only a couple of inches wide and we are pretty good, instinctively, at protecting ourselves there.
If you think you have a chance of landing a punch on a tiny target like that which is partially protected by the jaw, i) when the adrenaline and fear are pumping and ii) when someone 60lb heavier than you is laying into you and iii) in motion ... then you must have mad skillz.
Furthermore, delivering an uppercut with real force isn't easy and doing it with a half-fist and not breaking your hand on the attacker's jaw is even harder. These are non-trivial skills people.
Some self-defence classes may allow you to practice strikes with near full-force but the problem is that the person you are practicing on isn't trying to pound you into the ground at the same time.
Try practicing throwing punches at a bag or a passive target and then try doing the same in a boxing ring or other full-contact sparring situation against someone really trying to hit you... they are radically different circumstances.
I don't want to sound like I am totally down on learning self-defence -- as I said, I'm sure some knowledge is better than no knowledge and anything that might enable you to get that 5 sec advantage in order to run away can't be a bad thing.
But whenever this type of discussion comes up people say, 'Oh, I'd just punch him in the throat' or 'I'd knee him in the groin' ... those are actually REALLY hard things to do effectively when someone is really trying to hurt you and real attackers are generally not going to stand legs apart waiting for your knee to hit them.
It's the running away part that's going to work. Not the self-defence part.
and, lastly: whatever you do, don't scream. it freaks your attacker out, and they will do anything to make the noise stop - including being more violent than they may have intended to be.
it's much better to shout. ideally, shout commands at them. "No!" is fine if you are too much in shock to do anything else. Or "Let go! Back off," - specific commands. Attackers are often panicky too in the moment of action, so you can make them hesitate. Also, it lets passersby know much more clearly what is happening, that it's serious not a joke, defines the nature of the attack for them, and makes them more likely to help you because you are telling them what needs to happen next - especially if you're not clearly visible (which was true in my case - and I think it's pretty common - they try to drag you off to a place you can't be seen).
There are a wide range of sorts of attacks and a wide range of attackers, including some who are cowardly, physically weak, and without fighting skills. A woman also often has the advantage of surprise, since they aren't expected to fight.
A lot of predators are looking for cost-free victories. Even screaming or scratching their faces can drive them away.
The extreme case (unarmed, and cornered by a 300-lob martial-arts expert who wants to beat you to death) is impossible for almost everyone, M or F.
Given our society's tendencies toward violent lawlessness and our considerable supply of misogynist predators, there's a lot to be said for women learning self-defence. A lot of it has to do with getting used to the idea of using violence at all, and developing confidence. With guns, the mechanics of handling aren't difficult but not self-evident either, but there's also a lot of psychological preparation necessary to get used to the idea of actually killing someone.
#93
I think you're looking at this from the wrong perpective. These are tips for women's self defense, not a regular fight. When a woman is attacked by a man, he's not assuming a fighting stance and throwing a left hook, he's physically grabbing her. That's why these techiques, as I mention, are in the specific context of being grabbed. The very act of grabbing someone leaves you open to certain techniques.
You're describing a bar fight, or two guys taking swings at each other. That's just not how women typically are attacked.
Fair enough, there are clearly contexts in which some of these techniques are useful and some in which they are not.
As I said myself, they may give someone a few seconds edge to get away when grabbed or whatever.
I'd just caution against thinking they are easy to pull off.
I'm not sure what the practical implications of those caveats are mind you, since I'm still with you that some self-defence training is better than no self-defence training.
I have to admit I may also be attacking something of a 'straw man' i.e. the person who thinks their 8-hour self-defence course makes them teh badass.
Those people exist but they tend to be guys, I suspect, rather than women.
Mr McGrattan is right on all the points. These "man-stopping" techniques, don't. I have been headbutted, eye-gouged and bag-snatched all in the course of a single rugby game and it did not stop me. I have also been kicked in the testes on numerous occasions and not once did I react by doubling up in the comedy now-you-can-knee-my-head fashion beloved of self defence instructors. I haven't been punched full force in the trachea, but this is an extremely difficult thing to do. You *do* need extreme accuracy to strike the trachea and it is *not* easy to throw a good uppercut. Also it's crap against someone who happens to have his chin down. I have been hit across the neck by a clothesline tackle which is nearly the same thing and it hurt quite a bit but I am still here. It is *possible* to do a lot of damage with any of these things, but it is not the usual course of events or it would be more or less impossible to buy insurance for a sports club.
(in other words)
Learning martial arts is a big sloppy waste of time. Sorry but it is. There are vastly more fun ways to keep fit (mindlessly pummeling a punchbag is my favourite but I would no more get into a boxing ring than slam my fingers in a door for fun). The only way to get good at fighting is to be more or less indifferent to pain, which is a state of being not worth achieving and AFAICT not enjoyed all that much by those who possess it.
What with having a big mouth and all that, I've been in quite a few fights and my record of success is not unlike that of France, without the Napoleonic aberration. However all the people I know who do martial arts have picked up far more injuries than me, in the course of what is presumably meant to be their hobby.
All the kids say, though, that practicing a martial art that's actually meant to be used to fight (many aren't), such as krav maga or brazilian jiujitsu is not only effective in a fight but a good way to become indifferent to pain. A state of being which may not be all that enjoyable, but the situation here isn't that someone wants to enjoy life more.
yeah, it's a straw man. when you're a woman a) you're not choosing to fight, you're getting attacked b) it's actually quite hard to get used to the idea of using violence. I was originally given a "Model Mugging" course as part of a job requirement, because I was going to be traveling alone to research & write a travel guide and the company knew its female researchers sometimes ran into situations. I took my second, much more in-depth course, after having been attacked, and I still had to get used to the idea of hitting or gouging with all my force to really injure someone.
ALso, when you do the self-defense simulation, particularly the test to pass the course, you absolutely are hitting someone who is trying to pin you down - these cops in body armor.
Most attacks involve you getting grabbed, as gswift says (in my case, my first clue anything was up was that my arms had been pinned and I was being dragged off). So they are very different from bar fights or men swinging punches at each other.
1)No-one is saying it's easy or you won't get hurt. But - you will have more control, and if you are hurt, it will be in a way you vastly prefer. And you won't be dead, which is always helpful.
2) you can do things you aren't usually physically capable of if you are scared or angry or full enough of adrenalin. If you fight dirty, you can absolutely hurt your attacker.
3) I wouldn't assume that a woman's main reaction in these circumstances is necessarily fear. For me, the main emotion was fury. Imagine someone trying to pluck *you* off the street like that.
A vote here for there being some use for self-defense, fighting back when attacked, etc. despite the huge strength differential between men and women. (Which, yes, very significant. I'm on the moderately large and strong side for a woman -- nonetheless, from playfighting and wrestling with guys, I've never playfought with a man where I've thought I would have had any chance in anything like a real fight.)
That said, I've been attacked twice, both times in Samoa (very violent culture, particularly high rate of sexual violence). One time I clawed at the guy's face as he grabbed me -- I don't think I hurt him particularly badly, but I surprised him enough that he let go and I ran. The other time I was holding a big glass bottle, and clocked the guy with it. Again, I didn't connect with any great force; the bottle didn't break, but he backed off a couple of steps and I got away. The goal of defending yourself isn't to win a fight, it's to end an attack, and even reasonably lame attempts to fight back may be successful.
I should also say that I think we're getting slightly overexcited here. I wouldn't want the guy living in my building either, and I'd get him evicted if it were me and I could figure out how, but there isn't any strong indication that he's any particular present danger to Perplexed -- his violent history is thirty years old, and age is one of the strongest predictors of violent criminal behavior there is. I'd say if Perplexed is genuinely worried, she should (a) figure out how to get him evicted, and if that's not practical (b) move out herself. State law will govern whether she has a legal responsibility to notify buyers, and a realtor should be able to answer that question. If she's not legally responsible, I'd warn female but not male prospective buyers before the sale, and ask 1st Floor to mention Rapist's history to any buyer after the sale is complete.
Buying a gun, pepper spray, etc., would be absolute last resorts for me, only if resolving the situation otherwise were impossible. (Although I still like the dog idea, at least for someone who likes dogs as pets. A nice, sweet, pleasant dog is very non-dangerous to anyone whose intentions are good, but is quite likely to try to hurt someone who it thinks is really trying to hurt you. This is a rotten idea for someone who doesn't want the dog for its own sake, but if you like dogs, you can get a lot of protection out of one.)
I'm sure mmf is right about what's appropriate. It sounds like great advice, and I tend to trust people who've had to worry about this more than others. Like MM, I was caveating about fights. In my very, very limited experience, people radically misunderstand what a bad fight can look like, and how much damage they may sustain.
Okay, my plan now is: carry pepper spray, take a full-contact women's self-defense class, consider getting a dog. (I don't travel, but I am out a lot, so it might not be good for the dog.) Maybe I will think about getting a male roommate (preferably a 300lb gay martial arts expert) though I'd be sorry to give up my privacy and space. Consider consulting a victims' advocacy group. Keep a low profile (I've already bought a silent violin for practice). This makes me really, really angry, but I guess that's life in the big city.
md 20/400: it's a boston 3-decker. It's not only that the guy is so nearby, it's that there aren't many others around.
Thank you all once again for your advice.
Still curious about 84, perplexed.
The only way to get good at fighting is to be more or less indifferent to pain
As someone who's also been in a number of fights, with a record much better than France's, and has had years of training, you are very wrong here. Watch mixed martial arts competitions like UFC and PRIDE fights. Tough guys who just go in and windmill get dropped.
All the kids say, though, that practicing a martial art that's actually meant to be used to fight (many aren't), such as krav maga or brazilian jiujitsu is not only effective in a fight but a good way to become indifferent to pain
My casual observation of brazilian jujitsu is that I can barely conceive of the sort of fight you could get into which would result in the sort of injuries which would be worse than people who do that sport seem to pick up in training as a matter of course. You could get knocked out or even have a few bones broken in a fight, but nobody will repeatedly sprain your elbow for you, over and over again.
I can barely conceive of the sort of fight you could get into which would result in the sort of injuries which would be worse than people who do that sport seem to pick up in training as a matter of course.
What does this mean?
I have to admit I may also be attacking something of a 'straw man' i.e. the person who thinks their 8-hour self-defence course makes them teh badass. Those people exist but they tend to be guys, I suspect, rather than women.
In my experience, women are often good students when it comes to things like shooting, self defense, etc. because they do exactly what you tell them. Guys all too often are hard to instruct because think having that Y chromosome means they already know how to shoot, fight, etc.
TMK, what's unclear about dsquared's statement?
As someone who's also been in a number of fights, with a record much better than France's, and has had years of training, you are very wrong here. Watch mixed martial arts competitions like UFC and PRIDE fights. Tough guys who just go in and windmill get dropped.
I am not wrong, and mixed martial arts competitions are more or less irrelevant here. Everyone who takes part in that sport has to be more or less indifferent to (or at the very least, accepting of) pain because otherwise they would not train.
What does this mean?
People who train in Brazilian Jujitsu, I casually observe, seem to pick up lots and lots of injuries - mainly the sort of joint injuries that are more or less bound to lead to problems in later life. So while in principle they are real badasses who could win a fight really easily, in practice they spend half their time hobbling round and with their arm in a sling - they appear to spend more of their time injured and in pain than they would have done if they'd just not bothered and got themselves beaten up once in a while.
109: Dsquared is saying that someone who practices brazilian jujitsu ends up suffering more pain and worse injuries than would be at all likely in a bar fight. (Or so I understood him.)
111-- never mind, figured it out. I was misreading "worse than"
At some point perplexed is going to have to make difficult cost/benefit judgments. I'm kind of on d2's side here, in this way: even if the stuff does work, it often involves a big commitment that doesn't fit in with the rest of her life. If you want to spend your free time sparring, great, but some people don't.
If you're serious about the violin, for example, you probably don't want to be beating the crap out of things on a regular basis, because small, otherwise-inconsequential hand, wrist, elbow injuries can mean a week or two of no practicing. If you're out a lot, you might end up making your dog crazy. And so on. We've sort of shifted from "how should this actual person approach the problem" to "hypothetical rape-proofing strategies," which is fine, but it's also a different topic.
107: I think you may be forgetting about some of the things that are available in a real world fight that (I assume) aren't in competition, like weapons, edges, and friends. A little while back, in SCMTville, someone got knifed to death at a residential intersection in a good area over a very minor traffic accident.
Here's a vote for self-defense classes for women as probably not being totally useless. As it stands now, I have never thrown a punch nor received a punch *in my life*. I have a hard time even imagining hurting someone. The skills I've been relying on--briefly, be paranoid, run away--have stood me well enough so far, but it might not be a bad thing for me to get some practice imagining punching someone.
even if the stuff does work, it often involves a big commitment that doesn't fit in with the rest of her life.
That's what makes the gun the whore of the defense world. For a few hundred dollars you can get what you want with no stings attached.
119: Really? I'm blindingly ignorant about firearms (again, city person here) but I had the impression that there was a reasonably significant skill level required before you'd have much hope of actually hitting anything. Aren't we still talking about classes and such?
#120
A class or two. In your home you don't need to be an expert. Hitting a person at 10 or 20 feet isn't hard.
Yeah, but isn't the gun of limited usefulness? Sure, if the guy breaks into your place, you know this (that is, you're not asleep, say), and you have access to the gun, you're in good shape. But if you're leaving for work or coming in after a night out you (presumably) don't have the thing on you, it's not really a big help.
I like squeezing off a few rounds as much as the next guy, but I don't see how this is a really good solution.
I think the full-contact self-defense classes are good for helping you get in a place where you can think clearly if something happens. In the one I took when I moved to New Orleans, you were put in positions where the male instructor was pinning you down with all of his weight or grabbing you forcefully and restraining your arms and you had to fight back with all of your strength. Even in a controlled environment, I found that my mind kind of shut down at first with a panicked "what do I do?" A big part of the course was just desensitization to that feeling so you could get in a place where you could develop a strategy. The other big component was learning how to use momentum and torque to your advantage because a woman isn't going to get free relying just on strength.
I agree with LB in 103, that we may be freaking Perplexed out a bit more than is necessary. That is to say, in light of 105, do you think you're really in enough danger to warrant getting a roommate? Maybe I value living alone a lot more, but that just seems like a major, major disruption of one's life, and if the guy isn't really a threat it just won't be worth it. Talk to the victim's rights group about whether he's really a present danger, and if he is you should do something. But if not, don't plan your life around this guy. Pepper spray and self-defense classes sound like a good idea, a dog if you want one; and the silent violin, it might or might not be a good idea anyway; but maybe your quality of life will be better if you decide you're going to avoid this guy but you're not going to let fear of him change your life.
Of course, I'm a guy, and I don't have any neighbors in my building, so this is easy for me to say.
The other big component was learning how to use momentum and torque to your advantage because a woman isn't going to get free relying just on strength.
This is actually one thing worthwhile to learn because there is all the difference in the world between bridging properly and just squirming about and I would guess a lot of the kind of people who tried to pin you to the ground would not know how to cope with someone who knew how to bridge. But it takes like about ten minutes to learn what to do so I maintain that taking up martial arts as a hobby is complete overkill.
I'm not advising against the self-defense course or anything, just saying that the full-on martial arts stuff might not be worth the cost. If you can get a reasonable chance of increasing your getaway time with a small investment, great.
As it stands now, I have never thrown a punch nor received a punch *in my life*.
In which case, it is almost certainly a good idea not to start imagining doing so since, to be frank, you'd probably be no good at it and you are therefore safer knowing you can't than thinking you might be able to. Both experiences are wildly over-rated, btw.
106: of all the things I've never wanted to do, being a landlord is high on the list. I've never owned a place before, and the last thing I want to do is have to manage two places. If I decide to move out, I'll sell. I love this apartment--it's on a hilltop with beautiful views, great light, studio space. It happens to be in a bad part of town, but I have always lived in bad parts of town. Really. I've never been hassled on the street, I'm prepared to deal with property crime. I just hate that this guy (who, pace schneider, is not some unfortunate victim of the system, but a sexist and racist white guy who thinks he's smarter than everybody else) is in unavoidable proximity.
LB, you've said the one thing that reassures me a bit--that violent criminals are overwhelmingly young.
But with the highly topical musician's instincts: Screw martial arts -- it could interfere with your ability to practice!
(Which, actually, given my sense of the actual risk levels and likely effectiveness of martial arts, sounds like excellent advice. Just struck me funny.)
128: I think this is confusing "I'm going to learn how to win a fight" (admittedly, terribly unrealistic)with "I'd like to learn some more effective techniques for making flight possible if attacked." Again, in the two times I've been attacked, some really not very effective fighting back got me out of the situation each time -- some extra education on how to go about getting away from an attacker, which might include a little desensitization to being hit, and some information on how to hit with as much effectiveness as possible given one's status as a small person who basically doesn't fight, couldn't hurt and might help.
#122
Frankly, it often isn't much of a solution. As you say, it's really primarily useful if you're home and someone breaks in.
As the resident "gun nut", I will now provide a peek into the world of the real nuts. The Northern Utah Defensive Pistol Association has a bunch of their proposed and past courses for shooting events posted online. Comedy gold. I recommend "Bus Stop", "Concerto in .45 Major", and "Walking the Dog", to name a few.
some extra education on how to go about getting away from an attacker, which might include a little desensitization to being hit, and some information on how to hit with as much effectiveness as possible given one's status as a small person who basically doesn't fight, couldn't hurt and might help.
Now that's just crazy talk.
with the highly topical musician's instincts
Wow, do you play music too? It would be interesting to me, at least, to get a general head count of how many Unfos play what instruments (or sing), what genre of music and what perceived skill level. It seems to me like I see a lot of people mentioning their music incidentally in comments about other stuff.
I myself play guitar moderately well -- Travis-picking blues and oldtime music -- and fiddle less well. I was a pretty accomplished violinist as a kid but gave it up out of resentment toward my mother, whose idea it was for me to study the violin. Only picked it up again this year. I can carry a tune but have not yet rediscovered the tricks and techniques that make fiddle music.
I remember talking about this question to feminists who were learning assertiveness and self-defense about 30-35 years ago, and one of the thresholds thay had to cross was getting used to the idea that they should prepare themselves to be able to seriously hurt someone in certain circumstances. They just never had prepared themselves for that sort of act.
Whereas the guys I knew, mostly mild-mannered and unthreatening and usually not from tough neighborhoods, whether or not we actually were capable of fighting effectively, all knew that there were certain circumstances when badly hurting the other guy, if possible, was the preferred response.
135: Me? No -- that is, I know a couple of guitar chords, and can play anything that doesn't require me to (a) change chords more than once a measure or (b) change my strumming pattern at all, or (c) not sound like shit. But not a musician.
Labs plays either bass or cello, though, (some sort of very large violin, in any case) reasonably seriously.
When my son was about 12 I read him a newspaper article saying that when you pop someone in the nose, for neurological reasons the punch is more effective than it would seem, and that most people are disoriented immediately afterwards. The next day or so he tried it on some guy who'd been bullying him, and it worked. The guy just hadn't been expecting a response.
It totally does sound ridiculous, but if the violin is important enough, and the sparring gets in the way, etc etc.
More interesting: the contrabass is not (at least on some taxonomies) a member of the violin family, since it's usually tuned in fourths and has a different body shape.
re #131
a little desensitization to being hit,
I do not believe that there is such a thing as "a little" desensitization to being hit, if by this you mean "the kind of desensitization to being hit that you might be able to get without actually being hit, hard, a lot, so it hurts, during the period when you're very sensitive to being hit". I became desensitized to such things by being brought up playing rugby and what a jolly, jolly waste of time that was.
and some information on how to hit with as much effectiveness as possible given one's status as a small person who basically doesn't fight
Anything that can be learnt on this subject, can be learnt in about one single class in a village hall (or to be honest, from a book or video). The rest is simply punching the heavy bag for an hour every day, which is fine if you enjoy doing it. A really gifted boxing coach can certainly teach you how to hit much harder than you otherwise would be able to, but once you've got to the point where you would be able to make use of that kind of instruction you would have crossed the border from "just a bit of information" into "quite a serious athlete" quite a while ago.
If you've managed to get out of a situation with "some really ineffective fighting back" then it wasn't ineffective, and it is almost certainly within an estimation error of the best that you're going to be able to do, unless you decide to get seriously into boxing or martial arts (which I maintain is a real waste of time).
Everyone should click through the link in 133. Terribly entertaining, in a worrisome sort of way. I liked the course instructing the student in how properly to gun down three burglars holding the student's wife. One hopes that part of the instruction included the words "With great care."
I've read over this whole thread, and I still think my advice in 30 is the best that's been offered. Unless Perplexed decides she's comfortable living next to this guy (because he's older now, or whatever), I really think this is the best solution.
hey d2, come now, the point isn't to box or win a fight, it's to stun the person, make them let go, whatever's necessary, and give you some time to get away. john's point in 136 is still very true, too.
perplexed, the feeling very angry at home is hard.
maybe a shar pei dog? entertained by the cats when you are gone? they are loving to care-takers but fierce - i took care of one this summer that was constantly being mistaken for a pit bull. her looks scared small children and some adults (!). all the wrinkles get a little smelly in the summer, but it was just so relaxing having her around, especially when i took walks at night around clinton hill in brooklyn.
she was a sweetie, but her favorite game wasn't fetch - it was "let me sink my teeth into this stuffed animal and pretend to pull it to pieces while you playfully try to pull it out of my grip."
141: Fair enough, but I think what we're talking about is this sort of thing: "about one single class in a village hall ", which sounds like more than Jackmormon's got already.
perplexed, the feeling very angry at home is hard.
Seconded. I'm with the people suggesting that if you can't resolve the situation somehow either by pressuring the owner on 2 or recalibrating your own unhappiness that you find a new place sooner rather than later. It just isn't worth it to live somewhere you feel crappy.
Anything that can be learnt on this subject, can be learnt in about one single class in a village hall
And you know this because you have no training, and when you get in fights you...lose.
I think a more convincing argument would be, "training is a waste of time seeing as I have none and when I get in fights I kick ass"
Speaking as an old guy [who, I imagine, is about as old as your misogynist neighbour] I can confidently admit to being less aggresive and certainly much less strong than I was when I was younger and also [and this might be the most valuable indicator] much more aware of the consequences of any rash actions I might make.
I fully appreciate that we men can never really empathise with women in your situation - my wife still worries sometimes when she is left alone at night in our apartment and I cheerily tell there's nothing to worry about - but if you don't want the responsibility of keeping a dog, how about, if you pass your neighbour on your way into your apartment block, playing a recording of a dog barking when you open the door and loudly 'welcome' your artificial hound on entry?
Speaking as a foreigner living outside the US can I be permitted to say how surprised [and gratified] I've been not read loads of 'get a gun' advice?!!
I doubt we're much of a "shoot him in the face" crowd. Most Americans don't own guns, although there is a small, wealthy, and extremely vocal minority who do. Even most conservatives are conflicted about the issue. My parents, for example, never allowed me to play in a home that had a gun, and they would (embarrassingly) ask all my friends' parents if they were firearms owners before giving permission. Now, however, they have two couples as friends who are card-carrying NRA members. One of the men has a loaded Beretta Velcroed to the inside of every closet in his house. "When They come for me," he says, "I'll be ready." My mother is seriously conflicted about the problem of wanting to vote "pro-life" when those same candidates are violently anti-homosexual, pro-war NRA supporters. It just doesn't make sense.
>This is actually one thing worthwhile to learn because there is all the difference in the world between bridging properly and just squirming about and I would guess a lot of the kind of people who tried to pin you to the ground would not know how to cope with someone who knew how to bridge.
This doesn't sound so effective in a fight.
"When They come for me," he says, "I'll be ready."
Neat. One wonders who "They" are, exactly.
Most Americans don't own guns, although there is a small, wealthy, and extremely vocal minority who do.
This, on the other hand, I'm not sure about. Most city-dwellers don't have guns, but once you get out into more rural areas, it seems like most people I know had at least some contact with guns (target shooting with a .22 or something) growing up. If 'most' is more than half, maybe not, considering how many people live in cities, but lots of people do own guns.
I should correct myself. Some gun-owners are poor, trailer-park-livin' rednecks. However, they're not the ones who contribute to the enormous NRA machine that runs Washington with an iron fist. It's the guys who spend thousands a year on wildly expensive hunting gear or who are "gun enthusiasts" (a phrase which makes me shudder) who collect military and assault weapons to show off to their equally globally disengaged friends. I mean, how disgustingly ignorant and disconnected do you have to be to "show off" a weapon that is exclusively used to murder real people all around the world?
151: My people are lower-middle-class from rural Alabama and Oklahoma (I grew up in Kansas), and even there, guns are not very common. Yes, most of us are taught how to shoot when we're kids (I was), but gun-ownership is still not terribly common.
And you know this because you have no training, and when you get in fights you...lose.
Actually I don't lose but I always think it sounds really dickish to boast about what a hard bastard you are on the Internet.
Joe O: the technical term is "Upa" and it is worth knowing. See I just saved your life there buddy.
I third or fourth or fifth the worries that this interesting thread is going to make perplexed much more worried than she needs to be, because people here enjoy discussing hypothetical situations of violence. In one sense, most of the advice in this thread would have been more useful in the "how many five year olds could you beat up" thread.
I did want to add one thing, which is not advice to perplexed, and is meant to dispute something that, as far as I can tell, no one said:
In a study of people who had been either raped or subjected to attempted rape, which is in one of my books which I can't get to right now, it was found that fighting back is better a really, really high percentage of the time, both in the obvious "not getting raped" sense and in the less intuitive "being physically injured less." I'll try to drum up a cite later.
OMG, dsquared. That Upa link is hot. Why is it that all fighting tutorials online look so much like hot gay sex? A long time ago I found one for military training purposes that went on for pages and pages -- all with two guys in camo putting their faces in each other's privates*. Sometimes it looked like they were just softly postcoitally cuddling.
* Tee hee!
I do not believe that there is such a thing as "a little" desensitization to being hit, if by this you mean "the kind of desensitization to being hit that you might be able to get without actually being hit, hard, a lot, so it hurts, during the period when you're very sensitive to being hit". I became desensitized to such things by being brought up playing rugby and what a jolly, jolly waste of time that was.
When I first began sparring (boxing), I would be a little stunned after getting hit the first time, and my reaction time would be slower. It was simply a surprising thing to be punched in the face by another human being. If you train yourself to react despite the shock of being hit, it can make a real difference in reaction time, and also, I'd imagine, just keeping your wits about you.
#158: Yes, that was what it was like for me too. (to clarify, I don't fight at all any more and when I did it was not in bars or any such but on rugby fields, usually in order to establish the principle that it was not possible to gouge or bagsnatch me with impunity). But it takes quite a long time to get used to it (some things, like gouges, you never really get used to or at least I didn't) and given the balance of risks, it is decidedly not worth bothering with.
re: 158
Yeah, I spent a few months training pretty hard as an undergraduate without sparring and then the first time I sparred in a boxing class I really got nailed hard a few times by someone who really didn't get the idea that it was about training and was going all out to knock me out. It is/was totally disorientating -- surprisingly so since it wasn't like it was the first someone had ever punched me.
My point isn't that self-defence is necessarily useless but that, at best, it gives a small edge and is largely no use against the the combination of big + strong + determined which trumps pretty much any skill set.
I suspect wearing practical shoes that let you run quickly and being physically fit and generally aware of one's surroundings is likely to be of more long run benefit.
I like squeezing off a few rounds as much as the next guy
ATM.
(Let me know if you ever need a target.)
I third or fourth or fifth the worries that this interesting thread is going to make perplexed much more worried than she needs to be, because people here enjoy discussing hypothetical situations of violence.
Thanks, washerdreyer, but not to worry. I am practically a regular here under my real pseudonym, so I understand the thread-drift.
There is a bjj school with quite a good rep not far from me, but not only am I too old to tolerate frequent injury (I find I don't heal as fast these days) but it's just too awfully intimate. Perhaps I could fill my house with five-year-olds.
Eh, you might be right, but I think one can get past the psychological shock fairly quickly. If she worked at it once or twice a week regularly, it might make a big difference in a real situation.
Perhaps I could fill my house with five-year-olds.
For target practice you mean? Or to distract the downstairs neighbor after he breaks in?
You might be right Andrew but not everyone is going to enjoy the sort of regular semi- or full-contact sparring that gets you used to that sort of thing.
re 160
Well, but the point of self-defense is simply either to delay whatever the goal of the attacker is, increasing the chances that he'll be caught, or raise the amount of effort he's going to need to invest, or stun the attacker enough to escape. The point is to defeat the purpose of the attack, not to defeat the attacker.
A lock on the door or window isn't going to defeat someone determined to enter either. But as a delay device they can be very effective at turning away a criminal.
164: for protection. he'd have to get through the five-year-olds to get to me.
Well-trained five year olds I hope!
they don't have to be that well-trained, if you have enough of them.
I boxed in college, not intercollegiately but in a class and subsequent sparrings. Being hit in the face and head hurts, a lot; I remember walking around campus hours latter with a ringing sound in my ears. But for me, the sensation never approached the shock of remembered schoolyard punchings and beatings. I think shock is the key word, because when you're boxing you have prepared yourself, you know whats going to happen. Even with arranged after-school fights (does this even happen any more?), there's much more uncertainty about whether you'll fight at all--worse in some ways. And the gloves do cushion things somewhat. I remember a solid punch on my jaw from an older boy when I was about thirteen as being so hard it was paralysing. It probably wasn't, I'd probably recover quickly now, but the first time is a real shock. I'm sure humiliation, that I didn't fight better, and that girls had gathered to watch--oh, yeah--contributed, but you do need to learn desensitization; that first time is unforgettable.
they don't have to be that well-trained, if you have enough of them.
Even with arranged after-school fights (does this even happen any more?), there's much more uncertainty about whether you'll fight at all--worse in some ways
I'd say the uncertainty is still there. To date, I haven't fought either of them (and thought more challenges had been issued).
Also, your average 5-year old is not especially hesitant about hitting people, headbutting them, or going for their groin.
I wouldn't last three minutes in a boxing ring, even when I was fit. It's a whole different kind of conditioning and it takes quite a while to develop. It's not really that similar to a normal fight which lasts about half a minute before the referee or equivalent pulls you apart.
I just hate that this guy (who, pace schneider, is not some unfortunate victim of the system, but a sexist and racist white guy who thinks he's smarter than everybody else) is in unavoidable proximity.
Oh no! We must take up our pitchforks and our flaming torches and drive this monster from our peaceful village!
Sorry, that was too snide by a lot; I'm running a fever, can I claim diminished capacity?
Tia had it absolutely right when she said "even the scummiest misogynistic fuckwads are entitled to some privacy." That's the nature of life in a pluralistic society. We're going to find some, perhaps even many, of the people around us to be disgusting and reprehensible. You don't have to let him in your house, or be his friend, or go to his rallies to repeal the 19th amendment, but in public he deserves civility and to be left alone.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't take precautions. Deadbolts, strong doors, learn self-defense, perhaps pepper spray - whatever seems prudent to and for you. That's sensible in any case. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I thought those things were just standard sensible practice, like learning to read a map and do arithmetic.
You can do more if there's reasonable grounds for a belief that he poses a particular, individualized danger. But if it's just a matter of holding and expressing opinions and beliefs you find offensive, that's your problem and none of his.
Perhaps I'm overreacting because I tend to get this sort of grief. I'm a crazy old man, and I don't bother to cover. Yet when I drive around the country, even in Kansas and Oklahoma, I expect to be served in restaurants and motels and such with civility. When I'm disappointed, when in Oklahoma I get to sit beside I40 for an hour, meet the drug sniffing dogs, be searched and threatened and bullied and then released with a bullshit warning about improper registration tag display because some Oklahoma State Trooper decides I'm probably a liberal, I get pissed.
So I'm all in favor of not making trouble with neighbors and not escalating conflicts. Be polite and distant - unless and until there's some real particular basis for fear.
I did hear from a friend of mine who is a public defender that a certain sort of sex crime is becomig more common among the elderly. The example was a music teacher, in his late 60s or 70s, who had taken to patting 12 year old girls on the bottom. Not groping or grabbing, just, well, patting. He was charged with several felony counts.
#175: that really depends where you are, though (in a subculture sense). In some places, `normal fight' is sort of a grown up version of a schoolyard fight, I guess, and a referee/friend/whatever will pull you apart after a short while. Others, though, not so much. I can recall where `real fight' meant one of two things. One was sort of a pissing contest that could go on for ages and might or might not also involve alot of trash talk. This sort usually didn't involve much real damage, or at least stopped when something broke. The other type was deadly serious, also lasted on average about half a minute or so, but at that point one or other of those involved probably wasn't in much shape to move. There might be a punishment phase at that point, but you couldn't really call that a `fight'. No referees unless you count police & EMT's showing up a bit later. Oh, there was also brawling, but that's more of a sport, really. Agree that boxing is quite a different thing though.
I haven't read all of the preceding comments, but I second Tia's initial advice. Look at it this way -- either the guy is going to commit more crimes, or he isn't. If he isn't, then it doesn't seem quite right to chase him out of house and home because of his status as an ex-con. But if he *is* still a threat, then it's unwise, to say the least, for Perplexed to arouse the attention and anger of a misogynistic violent rapist.
I think the best Perplexed can do is feel out Second Floor Owner, to see if SFO is friendly or creepy, and whether SFO knows about Mr. R's history. If SFO is friendly and ignorant, then maybe educating SFO, and letting him know that you are scared and uncomfortable (but willing to help SFO find another boarder, if money is an issue) will get Mr. R out of your hair. If SFO is creepy and/or already in the know . . . well, self-defense classes really aren't a bad idea. You'll probably (hopefully) never have to use them, but you'd be surprised how much more confident and tough they can make you feel.
You can do more if there's reasonable grounds for a belief that he poses a particular, individualized danger. But if it's just a matter of holding and expressing opinions and beliefs you find offensive, that's your problem and none of his.
I can sympathize with your position right up to where it applies to a multiply convicted rapist who is still showing signs of being dangerous. (I can't judge how persuasive those signs are, I don't have details. My guess is that he's probably not acutely dangerous, but I'm not there.)
Perplexed is not required by any ethical or moral principle to give this guy the benefit of the doubt on whether he's a bad guy.
The example was a music teacher, in his late 60s or 70s, who had taken to patting 12 year old girls on the bottom. Not groping or grabbing, just, well, patting. He was charged with several felony counts.
This strikes me as appropriate. Touching another person for sexual gratification without their consent is a big fucking deal, regardless of the type of touching. A defense that the touching was accidental is perfectly reasonable, but a man isn't entitled to run his hands over a little girl's ass just because he does it gently.
It is legitimate to not want to have convicted rapists or child molestors living near you. This may be NIMBY-ism, but who cares. People don't want to get raped or have their kids molested.
I think my position is roughly Joe O's. At the end of the day, people look after themselves. Pretending they shouldn't is silly; pretending they don't is naive.
Perplexed should sort out the pragmatic responses (self-defense classes, dog, better doors, police contact, etc.), and do them.
#179: I think you've pinpointed what makes this sort of thing difficult. Perplexed certainly doesn't have to give any benefit of the doubt, but on the other hand there are constraints on what perplexed can legally do about the situation (for good reason), and it's a tricky balance.
Have to agree with you about the 12 year olds though. While `sexual gratification' is unclear, and multiple felony counts might or might not be harsh (really don't have enough information), there just isn't any acceptable reason for him to go there. Of course that isn't restricted to 12 year old girls, but imbalance of power makes things worse.
Deadbolts, strong doors, learn self-defense, perhaps pepper spray - whatever seems prudent to and for you. That's sensible in any case. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I thought those things were just standard sensible practice, like learning to read a map and do arithmetic.
Carrying pepper spray down to the basement along with the laundry doesn't strike me as standard practice, you self-righteous prig.
oops, sorry. serious violation of mineshaft protocol. I ban myself.
176 -> I wouldn't say `old fashioned' so much as `out to lunch'. Nobody should have to worry about their personal safety to this degree within their own home. The fact that some people do, doesn't make it ok. Actually, this generalizes a lot, but especially within your own space it is especially true. We aren't talking about an abstract `what if I get burgled/what if I get hit by a bus' scenario, but a specific (if somewhat unquantified) threat.
184: Commenters do not have the power to ban, and wrongfully claiming such power is an offense. Consequently, perplexed is banned!!
Commenters do not have the power to ban
That's absolutely ridiculous and totally against Mineshaft tradition. LizardBreath is banned.
Selling out your homies the moment you get promoted is banned too.
#183: No, it's not standard protocol, and frankly, it shouldn't be. I don't own pepper spray, and frankly I've never learned self-defense (although I have a long-standing desire to learn how to hit someone, just because I think that not knowing how is silly). I deliberately don't take the "normal" precautions women are "supposed" to take because I resent the idea that I'm not supposed to walk around my own city at night, etc. So I damn well do it. So far, so good (then again, stranger rape is really an anomaly (did I spell that right this time, Ben?) and most cities are safer than people think). If I end up paying the piper someday, that will suck, but I have a chip on my shoulder about exercising my right not to live in fear.
The example was a music teacher, in his late 60s or 70s, who had taken to patting 12 year old girls on the bottom. Not groping or grabbing, just, well, patting. He was charged with several felony counts.
There was an old man like that in my village. He was dealt with extrajudicially, by a polite but firm deputation informing him that he wasn't allowed to live round here any more. I'm Hayekian about this.
My keepers only let me post occasionally ... but.
I suspect some of you have lived in Boston 3-deckers (students in Somerville, etc.) and are well aware of the layout. But I'd like to stress that it is less like apratment living and more like 3 residences in one wood-frame house. You can easily tell when someone (upstairs or downstairs) is in. You can often tell what they're cooking for dinner.
Perplexed mentioned doing the laundry in the basement. Yeah, that's common. And you have to go down a narow back staircase past the 2nd and 1st floors to get there. The basement probably has been divided with storage units and it houses the utilities. More need to go down there. Also, in my experience living on 1st & 2nd floors, you can hear everyone who passes on the front and rear staircase, so you can be heard coming in and leaving.
I doubt anything I am saying will increase Perplexed's anxiety. I figure that she is well aware of the situation. I'm a guy and I wouldn't be comfortable in that situation.
LB & alia are right; violent offenders get less so with age. Heck, men get less violent with age. That is reassuring. He sounds like an asshole with a heinously violent past.
Perplexed, if you do the things that seem reasonable to you and you still feel you're living there in fear, well, that's probably not how you want to live. I agree that your options are few and not attractive (a mob hit has SOOO many consequences). The question would then be which outweighs the other?
Nobody should have to worry about their personal safety to this degree within their own home.
Her own home? My understanding is that part of the premises is her home, but part is a common area which she has a non-exclusive right to use (usufruct!). No question that she can keep him, or anyone, out of her home area for any reason or no reason. But the common areas, to which all three owners have equal right of access for themselves and their invitees, for those I think she needs a good reason to exclude someone.
Perplexed is not required by any ethical or moral principle to give this guy the benefit of the doubt on whether he's a bad guy.
In her home, I absolutely agree. In common areas, which strike me as being more like public spaces, I disagree. It's too much like pre-emptive punishment, as Labs noted above.
I want an objective standard for dangerousness because otherwise it can become too arbitrary and unfair. If I can draw an inapt analogy to self-defense, we don't (generally) want people shooting without good reason. Similarly, if there's no way for a person to tell what might cause another person fear, there's no way to avoid being frightening.
You don't view this as R's home, but I put weight on the statements "I bought a floor in this 3-decker last year. ...[R's] been living there off and on for years." Again, maybe I'm overreacting because I let an otherwise homeless guy share my house for most of a year. I believe him to be both honest and harmless, but he certainly did strike people as weird. I would have been irked if a new neighbor had moved in next door and wanted me to toss him out. He wasn't a convicted rapist, so this is also inapt, but it colors my opinion.
I can sympathize with your position right up to where it applies to a multiply convicted rapist who is still showing signs of being dangerous.
Is he still showing signs of being dangerous? That's the key point. If he is, then I agree with you, as I tried to make clear. I don't think that the nearly 30 year old convictions, absent recent evidence, is enough. Maybe the current reported misogyny is enough. It's just not clear to me. Considering it a public space, and that he's been there (on and off) for years, I want something more than that he's "a sexist and racist white guy who thinks he's smarter than everybody else" before driving him out.
I agree about the elderly music teacher, too. I tossed it in merely as an example of a type of sex crime which may be common among the elderly. Somehow the idea of an old geezer shuffling his walker towards Perplexed feloniously intent on patting her bottom struck me as more funny than frightening. That was insensitive. Of course, if R had attempted to pat Perplexed's bottom without consent, that'd move him right into the dangerous category for me.
/s/
Out to Lunch
>Considering it a public space, and that he's been there (on and off) for years, I want something more than that he's "a sexist and racist white guy who thinks he's smarter than everybody else" before driving him out.
He isn't reproducing the patriarchy; he is raping people.
194:
No, he's not raping people, at least that we know. And yes, he committed heinous crimes 30 years ago, but from a practical standpoint, what is Perplexed going to do about that now? She can't have him re-arrested for crimes that he's already served time for. Nor can she simply drive him out of his home -- aside from the fact that harassment is illegal, if she is dealing with a violent person, incurring his anger would be terribly unwise.
you don't reproduce the patriarchy, you reinforce it, by subtly undermining women who are smarter than you are and saying thngs like "atta-girl, sweet pants!"
Some people did not pay attention during their patriarchy rituals.
Nor can she simply drive him out of his home -- aside from the fact that harassment is illegal, if she is dealing with a violent person, incurring his anger would be terribly unwise.
I don't know that this is the case. I would think that if, say, she could talk the 2d Floor owner into asking him to move out, that the safety gain from having him no longer in the building would outweigh the safety loss from annoying him.
A couple of things are getting confused here -- what can she legally do to get him out of the building; what may she ethically do; what is she practically well-advised to do.
On the first, I don't know, but probably no more than ask his roommate to evict him. If there's something in the condo docs prohibiting roommates that are objectionable in some defined sense, she could work with that, but I doubt that there's anything.
On the second, I think she may, ethically, do whatever she's legally able to do. When this guy committed three rapes, I think that he forfeited the right to be treated as if he were a safe person to have around forever. Hounding him out of the neighborhood would be too much, but doing what she can to get him out of her building is not wrong. People who haven't been proven to have committed violent crimes have a right to be left alone -- multiply convicted rapists, less so.
On the third, what she is practically well advised to do? If, in her best judgment, he isn't dangerous, use normal urban safety precautions and forget about it. If she thinks he may be, try to get him evicted in any way that won't attract his attention to her too much. If that doesn't work, think about moving out, if possible, and start taking enhanced safety precautions.
But it takes quite a long time to get used to it (some things, like gouges, you never really get used to or at least I didn't) and given the balance of risks, it is decidedly not worth bothering with.
So gouges are extremely painful, very difficult to get used to, but aren't worth learning as a self defense move? You seem to be presenting this as a choice between reading a book on the proper way to punch someone, or years of formal martial arts.
Joining a martial arts studio is not what I'm advocating here. But women who are interested in learning self defense are best served getting instruction, preferrably in a class that's designed for women.
Is there any pursuit in life where this kind of advice doesn't apply? Isn't eschewing professional intruction largely bad advice for anything?
I don't hold with none a that book-larnin.
I think the idea is something like, "Maybe not worth it to call the 800 number to 'Learn how to buy hundreds of properties with No Money Down!'" Instruction is always useful, but sometimes people get over-confident in its use.
But I think most peoole agreed that self-defense classes could be helpful.
"Isn't eschewing professional intruction largely bad advice for anything?"
I've heard that in some departments it's better to learn as you go, though my grandfather would say differently.
Pretty much what SCMT just said.
I missed the part where SCMT referred to prostitution.
But I think most peoole agreed that self-defense classes could be helpful.
I think he's overestimating just how useful a book or video would be to the average woman. He has actual experience in fights and grew up playing rugby. He's got all kinds of learned responses that he takes for granted. Things like maintaining balance when a force is applied to him, knocking an opponent off balance, sensitive places to hit someone, the lack of shock when he gets hit, not to mention the willingness to hit are all things that are likely fairly reflexive for him.
I've assisted with teaching women's self defense classes, and from what I've observed, your average woman without training reacts very differently.
Time for Tia to post a new "Ask the Mineshaft and Get What For" column!
So gouges are extremely painful, very difficult to get used to, but aren't worth learning as a self defense move?
No. First up, very few attackers will have a go at you in any situation remotely analogous to a scrum. And second, you don't need training to know how to stick your finger in someone's eye (I very much doubt that ny of the gougers I encounter, even those French bastards, actually trained at gouging).
Things like maintaining balance when a force is applied to him, knocking an opponent off balance, sensitive places to hit someone, the lack of shock when he gets hit
Are all not learnable without more trouble that (on a risk-adjusted basis) it is worth. The prowess of the average "local sports centre self-instructor" in a scrap, as far as I can see (often quite embarrassing) confirms me in this view.
A good class can teach basics without much risk. As you pointed out, basics like Upa escape are quite useful, and are fairly easily taught without risk of injury.
That remark about "prowess of the average "local sports centre self-instructor", unfortunately, is all too accurate.
(just to clarify the above): Eye gouging is extremely painful, but it is only any real use as an attack against someone who has their head held motionless, a condition that prevails in a rugby scrum but not all that much elsewhere.
Furthermore, the more I think about this "maintaining balance" stuff, the more it seems like typical martial arts bullshit. You could teach someone all about maintaining balance, not to be shocked when they get hit etc etc, and guess what? They are still going to get flattened when attacked by someone bigger and stronger than them, for reasons easily explainable through Newtonian mechanics.
This sort of training might be highly useful in learning how to fight other women, but is that really such a pressing need? Anything beyond a single class in a village hall; this is how to not break your knuckles, this is the correct way to bridge etc, is time better spent doing yoga, or masturbating, or anything fun.
An eye gouge isn't going to be something used in a regular fight, but again, when women get attacked by men, they get grabbed, not a swing taken at them. Your insistence on viewing this through the lens of a male on male fight is wrong.
Winning a fight, and and a woman momentarily shocking a male attacker so can escape are very different scenarios. There's a number of things that are useful to learn in this regard. How to hit with your elbows, how to hit with a hammer fist, how to headbutt, how to gouge an eye, the vulnerable places to hit, and so forth.
when women get attacked by men, they get grabbed
which might suggest that an eye gouge would be a useful technique to teach if you were running a course for rapists, but when someone grabs you it is your head that is immobilised, not theirs.
The "vulnerable places to hit", aren't. Any attacker who is "shocked" by this martial arts bullshit is someone who would have been shocked and made to back off by exactly the "somewhat ineffective fighting back" that LB described earlier. All you're teaching is false confidence (particularly, false confidence in low-percentage techniques like eye gouges) and that is dangerous.
Typically, when someone grabs a woman, it's not by the head. They grab shoulders, clothes, etc. If you grab someone by the clothes and pulls you in close, because their hands are being used to grab, they can't defent their face as well. If the woman can't get in a punch, she can still often get a thumb or finger into their eye.
When hitting someone, it doesn't matter where? A blow to any part of the body will have the same effect? A punch to the shoulder feels exactly the same as a punch to the nose, right? Punch to the thigh, punch to the groin, it's all the same.
An eye gouge on someone who is not held motionless is called a "poke in the eye" (as in "a poke at the Mineshaft is better than a poke in the eye"). It's not a very effective attack at all, compared to the real twisting, finger-in-the-socket number that goes by the name of "la forchette" in unsportsmanlike clubs de sport in the Southwest of France.
All your other "vital area" strikes are also useless, frankly. It's not that they don't hurt much more than a normal punch, it's just that the difference is not great enough to make a difference, particularly when you take account of the fact that precisely targetting a blow on an opponent who is bigger and stronger than you is a waste o'time.
Real waste of time. That must be why this stuff is taught to FBI, Special Forces units, etc. You should give them a call and set them straight.
Maybe you two should settle this in the Octagon.
I am not sure there is any need, as online martial arts forums tend to work on the principle that a mention of "special forces" triggers the equivalent of Godwin's Law.
It's fun to read a .rec martial arts thread without having to go there. Dude! I am the man of titanium! If someone tries to headbutt me, their skull will be crushed like paper!!!11!
While I know it's a waste of time, I have one last word for Schneider here. In his little fantasy, he's clearly cast me as the mean yuppie bitch who can't tolerate a little difference in the people around her. I just want to make it clear that in fact I have an intellectually challenged relative whom I love (and whom I cannot invite to visit me because I'd be afraid to leave her alone in this house), two friends who have been through episodes of major mental illness and who might well be categorized as weird, and, finally, I spent fifteen years living with and supporting a severely mentally ill person. So guess how impressed I am by how kind he is to his homeless friend? If he had anything of value to contribute to a discussion of my actual dilemma, it would have been welcome, but he has only repeated others' advice between sarcastic taunts. Not what I expect of my imaginary friends.
I am not sure there is any need, as online martial arts forums tend to work on the principle that a mention of "special forces" triggers the equivalent of Godwin's Law.
What, does your country use a different term? In the U.S. it's often used as a generic term for the units assigned to Special Operations Command. Mostly Army, but there's now a Marine unit assigned to SOCOM as well.
The point though, is that techniques you call a waste of time are taught to elite military units. Perhaps you're at the pinnacle of hand to hand expertise, and qualified to make these assertions, but I rather doubt it.
"elite military units", it gets better. Perhaps the Navy Seals?
LB, right again. This thread needs more vox day jokes.
Yes, "elite", as in there's quite a selection process involved. I'm not familiar with what the Seals are doing, but the Marines have formalized their martial arts training as the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program, or MCMAP. As I recall there's 5 belts or so including black, and multiple levels of black.
Speaking of nicely bouncy, d/en B/este has posted his full review of the "I always look away" video. The highlights:
The more interested I got in the characters, the less I wanted to see them naked. But it isn't possible to skip the nude scenes, because a lot of important plot exposition happens when the three sisters bathe together and talk things over. [...]
I guess the best way to put it is this: if this series had been filmed with live actors, owning it would be a felony. That's because all four of the main female characters are objects of ecchi fan service -- including Mii, who is nominally in grade school. She is shown full nude from the front again and again in the many bath sequences, without any foam or steam or plant branches to obscure your view. Mii is very strange, because she likes to fondle other girls' tits, and does so at nearly every opportunity. She was easily my least favorite character in the series. [...]
Recommended? No, unless you like looking at drawings of naked grade-school girls. (None of the reviews I consulted before buying Popotan mentioned this aspect of it. If they had, I would never have bought it.)
I read him as being genuinely annoyed by all the bathing.
I have a fantastic den Beste related link but it is not really worksafe.
Nor does it fit in the margins of this paper.
Christ, d2, you're killing me. Will you post it if I promise to close my office door?
It is a small web community for people who like to hug strippers. I will put it in one of your comments threads this weekend.
One night a man was watching some anime. He was watching naked romping children anime.
Across the screen flashed scenes from his darkest dreams. For each scene he noticed two gazes interlocking: one belonging to him, and the other to the PORN.
When the last scene of the movie flashed before him, he thought back on those interlocking gazes.
He realized that many times during the movie there was in fact only one gaze vainly seeking the other.
He also noticed that it happened at the very basest and most depraved parts of the movie.
This really bothered him and he questioned the PORN about it:
"PORN, you said that once I decided to watch you, your phosphor glare would be my constant companion. But I have noticed that during the basest and most depraved parts of the movie, there was only one gaze vainly seeking the other. I don't understand why when I needed you most you would leave me."
The PORN replied:
"My dearest Steven, I love you and I would never leave you. During your times of greatest need, when there was only one gaze vainly seeking the other, it was you who looked away, to keep from"—
Whoops, look at the time.
While I know it's a waste of time, I have one last word for Schneider here. In his little fantasy, he's clearly cast me as the mean yuppie bitch who can't tolerate a little difference in the people around her. I just want to make it clear that in fact I have an intellectually challenged relative whom I love (and whom I cannot invite to visit me because I'd be afraid to leave her alone in this house), two friends who have been through episodes of major mental illness and who might well be categorized as weird, and, finally, I spent fifteen years living with and supporting a severely mentally ill person. So guess how impressed I am by how kind he is to his homeless friend? If he had anything of value to contribute to a discussion of my actual dilemma, it would have been welcome, but he has only repeated others' advice between sarcastic taunts. Not what I expect of my imaginary friends.
No, I am not your imaginary friend. I only met you day before yesterday, and I know so little about you.
However, I have tried to treat you with civility and courtesy. While I have questioned whether your especial fear of this particular individual in this circumstance has a rational basis, I thought that was within the bounds defined for this discourse. I believe that examining the implicit assumptions can be an important part of answering a question.
I certainly intended no attack on your character. I only intended an inquiry into whether your reaction in this particular circumstance was disproportionate. Many people react disproportionately in many circumstances for many different reasons. It's something I try to watch out for in myself, and in others. I intended my bits of self revelation not as proof of my good character, but as indications of possible bias, experiences that might be making me react disproportionately.
I'm sure you're a wonderful person. I'm sure you're trying to cut back on your consumption of fricasseed five years olds, as am I. I'm sure that in you case it's not solely concern about the cholesterol.
But I'm also still doubtful that you have an ethical right to prevent 2's invitee from using the common areas areas of the house, even if he was twice convicted of brutal rapes. As a general principle, I still believe that one person's unreasonable fear cannot justify a deprivation of another's freedom.