TexasCHLforum.com

flintknapper wrote:"Excaliber" wrote:

I'm not suggesting that everything has to be learned through personal experience - that's certainly not true.

No, I knew you weren't....I was just taking the opportunity to make a point.

You're certainly right that there's plenty of information about the true nature of criminals and the viciousness they're capable of available for anyone who bothers to so much as read the papers.

Yup.

My point is that many people who have never come across a cold blooded psychopath cannot get their heads around the fact that these people exist and that they may very well encounter one in a life and death situation some day, regardless of how many crime blotter reports they read.

Its an amazing thing, but true!

It doesn't make logical sense to be that naive - but it does make emotional sense, which tends to overwhelm logic, and I've seen the phenomenon many times.

Exactly! "If I refuse to accept the facts...then I don't have to deal with them (emotionally)"

Another form of intellectual dishonesty IMO.

It is indeed a form of intellectual dishonesty and escapism - adjusting one's understanding of fact to accommodate one's feelings.

Like most infantile thinking, it only seems to work until its apparent success is demolished by an encounter with reality.

flintknapper wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

She discovered the hard way that her assumptions about the nature of criminals were wrong and the folks who led her to believe them hadn't done her any favors.

Assumptions...

I gnash my teeth whenever I read, hear, or see citizens making "assumptions" about criminals, and criminal intent. Especially when it comes to home intruders.

Far too many citizens have been killed by criminals because they "assumed" they were in the presence of a burglar/mugger/car thief/robber and NOT a murderer/rapist. I just don't understand the mindset of these folks.

When an individual demonstrates they have NO respect for law and NO respect for property, how can one logically make an assumption that they will respect life and limb? When the consequences for a wrong assumption are your life and limb, or your family, the only logical assumption is to treat the criminal as the threat they truly are, and prepare to use force to stop their threat against you, up to, and including, deadly force if necessary.

Whoever raised this young lady failed miserably to teach and prepare her to recognize and face the monsters in the world.

You are most certainly correct on that last point.

The reasons behind how the young lady, and many others like her, behave under criminal attack is more complex and difficult to understand.

I believe much of it has to do with being raised in an environment where violent criminal attacks were either infrequent or carefully shielded from view by the responding agencies. There are ugly and unforgettable things behind those flashing lights, crime scene tape, and blue tarps at crime scenes.

Anyone who has seen the immediate aftermath of a violent criminal attack first hand does not harbor illusions about "nice" violent criminals, but those who have never had the benefit of that experience are heavily influenced by what those around them tell them - and those people typically haven't had the up close and personal experience with violence either. Law enforcement officers, firefighters, medics, and folks who live in areas where violence is commonplace get a thorough and realistic education bright and early. These folks don't waste time asking how a burglar got in, or politely asking him to leave - they know how to respond when the wolf breaks in the door.

Folks who lack first hand experience with violence often harbor assumptions about how the world and the people in it behave. These assumptions are usually comprised of baseless fantasies mindlessly repeated by other folks who haven't had direct contact with the real deal either.

Unfortunately, the eventual reality check often comes at high cost, as it did in this case.

If this were true, then the same people would have to actually "jump of the proverbial cliff" to see if they would get hurt (instead of learning from the mistakes of others). This woman was old enough to know better (no matter where you live). I'm sticking with "Stupid" for several reasons (or maybe Pacifist..not that there is much difference).

I'm not suggesting that everything has to be learned through personal experience - that's certainly not true.

You're certainly right that there's plenty of information about the true nature of criminals and the viciousness they're capable of available for anyone who bothers to so much as read the papers.

My point is that many people who have never come across a cold blooded psychopath cannot get their heads around the fact that these people exist and that they may very well encounter one in a life and death situation some day, regardless of how many crime blotter reports they read.

It doesn't make logical sense to be that naive - but it does make emotional sense, which tends to overwhelm logic, and I've seen the phenomenon many times.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

She discovered the hard way that her assumptions about the nature of criminals were wrong and the folks who led her to believe them hadn't done her any favors.

Assumptions...

I gnash my teeth whenever I read, hear, or see citizens making "assumptions" about criminals, and criminal intent. Especially when it comes to home intruders.

Far too many citizens have been killed by criminals because they "assumed" they were in the presence of a burglar/mugger/car thief/robber and NOT a murderer/rapist. I just don't understand the mindset of these folks.

When an individual demonstrates they have NO respect for law and NO respect for property, how can one logically make an assumption that they will respect life and limb? When the consequences for a wrong assumption are your life and limb, or your family, the only logical assumption is to treat the criminal as the threat they truly are, and prepare to use force to stop their threat against you, up to, and including, deadly force if necessary.

Whoever raised this young lady failed miserably to teach and prepare her to recognize and face the monsters in the world.

You are most certainly correct on that last point.

The reasons behind how the young lady, and many others like her, behave under criminal attack is more complex and difficult to understand.

I believe much of it has to do with being raised in an environment where violent criminal attacks were either infrequent or carefully shielded from view by the responding agencies. There are ugly and unforgettable things behind those flashing lights, crime scene tape, and blue tarps at crime scenes.

Anyone who has seen the immediate aftermath of a violent criminal attack first hand does not harbor illusions about "nice" violent criminals, but those who have never had the benefit of that experience are heavily influenced by what those around them tell them - and those people typically haven't had the up close and personal experience with violence either. Law enforcement officers, firefighters, medics, and folks who live in areas where violence is commonplace get a thorough and realistic education bright and early. These folks don't waste time asking how a burglar got in, or politely asking him to leave - they know how to respond when the wolf breaks in the door.

Folks who lack first hand experience with violence often harbor assumptions about how the world and the people in it behave. These assumptions are usually comprised of baseless fantasies mindlessly repeated by other folks who haven't had direct contact with the real deal either.

Unfortunately, the eventual reality check often comes at high cost, as it did in this case.

flintknapper wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Oh gosh...

And.... If the victim wasn't going to defend her house, why didn't she leave the premises or call the cops? It seems she had the opportunity to either flee, call 911 or pick up a kitchen knife before the perp CAME BACK from dropping off her stuff outside.

NOT her fault, but, bad judgment on her part..... Costly mistake.

I hope the BG gets what he deserves.

What was it John Wayne said?

" Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid."

I suspect the victim acted as she did because she expected the bad guy to behave as she had been taught he would - her expectation was that he would politely leave when confronted by an obviously nonthreatening and polite victim.

This is a form of ignorance in that her model of the world failed to match what happens in real life.

She discovered the hard way that her assumptions about the nature of criminals were wrong and the folks who led her to believe them hadn't done her any favors.

I would expect (and hope) that she learned from the experience - which is defined as what you get when you don't get what you want.

On the other hand, if she failed to learn from it, that would be evidence of stupidity, which is the inability to learn from one's experiences.

The big difference is in the fact that ignorance is temporary and can be cured by education, but stupid is forever.

This video was shot on cell phone by a young woman who was home in the morning when a burglar smashed into her apartment and began carrying away her valuables. She can be heard quizzing him over how he got in, and then asking him politely to leave.

Not surprisingly, he took the opportunity to sexual assault her before departing with her possessions.

Another Californian shown on the news interview portion of the video thinks she did just great with her tactic. He apparently didn't consider the outcome untoward either.

I may be old fashioned, but in my book, a response tactic that ends with a sexual assault and loss of valuables isn’t considered a success.

It might have something to do with the fact that I didn't learn values and logic in the leftist enlightened state of California.