By Lee Williams
The worst domestic violence I have ever seen involved a woman whose husband was out on bond for blinding their son with a baseball bat. He had struck the child so viciously he lost his eyesight. The woman had a temporary protection order against her husband, and a court date for another hearing. She never made the second hearing.
I was a rookie cop when I first met her. I was sent to an unknown call for the police. As I and my partner were walking up the stairs to the woman’s second-floor apartment, we noticed the coppery smell of blood. The door to her apartment was wide open. She was laying on the living room floor, clad only in a pair of blood-soaked panties. She looked as if she’d been dipped in a vat of blood. Unfortunately, her husband was no longer there.
Her apartment was awash in blood. It looked like one of Dante’s circles of hell. Her husband had slashed her more than 30 times on her arms, torso, breasts, neck and face. Her wounds were not deep, thankfully. She wasn’t bleeding profusely; it was more of an oozing since she had nearly bled out. She was fading in and out of consciousness.
For the only time during my law enforcement career, I gave the dying declaration. It’s a legal tool of sorts, which allows the victim’s last words to be used as evidence in court even after they’re dead. It starts with: “You know you’re about to die, who did this.”
She told me her husband had attacked her, and she provided his name. I really wish I could have found him that night. I might have saved taxpayer dollars. Fortunately, he was picked up a few days later on a felony warrant and held without bond.
To everyone’s surprise, the woman survived the attack. A series of painful reconstructive surgeries managed to conceal some of the scars on her face and neck. We spoke briefly after one of the court hearings for her husband. She told me she was undergoing counseling and learning how to defend herself with a handgun.
Police not responsible
Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun activists at The Trace recently cited the tragic tale of Sahmya Garcia, a Philadelphia woman who was shot and killed by her boyfriend last month just a couple days after she obtained a protection order against him. Garcia’s boyfriend shot her 10 times just blocks from a police substation. Her family blamed the police.
“They absolutely failed to protect her,” Garcia’s mom told The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Although the Philadelphia Police Department may have had a moral responsibility to protect their citizens from harm, no department has a legal responsibility. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled no such duty exists.
In the 2005 case Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Justices found Colorado police were not responsible for failing to protect a woman and her three children from her husband. After she obtained a restraining order, he kidnapped and murdered their three children.
Other courts have agreed. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision that said police were not responsible for the 2018 mass shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
When it comes to our personal safety, we are our own first responders. Besides, when seconds count, police will be there in minutes.
Making it worse
It’s difficult to understand why anyone would abuse a woman – and the overwhelming majority of domestic violence victims are women. It’s also hard to know what would stop an abuser. For some, a protection order is all that’s needed. They fear arrest, loss of income and the accompanying public humiliation. For other abusers, a protection order is just a piece of paper.
Not only has the entire gun ban industry ignored the obvious solution to domestic violence, they have purposefully made it more difficult for potential victims to defend themselves, because they believe a piece of paper will somehow magically stop all abuse before it starts.
I have worked hundreds of domestic violence cases, but not one involved a female who had a defensive firearm – not a single one. It’s almost as though an armed, trained woman is immune from domestic abuse.
Unfortunately, because of their zeal for waiting periods, complex and costly concealed-carry permitting processes and demonization of everything with a firing pin, the gun ban industry has made it difficult for women to obtain the one thing that’s guaranteed to stop an abuser in his tracks – a defensive firearm.
Nowadays, in the 25 states that have not passed constitutional carry, there’s no quick way for a potential victim to legally purchase and carry a defensive firearm. In some states it can take months to obtain a concealed carry permit, thanks to the anti-gunners and their supporters who hold political office.
This lack of immediacy has cost lives. If it’s allowed to continue, more women will be beaten and killed. This is one fact the gun ban industry never wants to talk about.
To be clear, their misguided and ill-informed efforts are killing women.
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
This story is part of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and is published here with their permission.
Many victims are brainwashed into defending their attackers. For these it’s harder to help. For those that don’t want to die the only real defence is hiding and weapons skill. The police cannot be there 24 /7. The victim can barricade, place motion detection, and shoot the aggressor, if they have the skill and resource and mental fortitude. Yet of course governments provide platitudes – call 911.
Yeah they just had a mass murder/suicide thing in Illinois. Russian gal had an order against her ex. Didn’t matter…
After 23 years of marriage, I can tell you sometimes a woman does deserve a tune up. I have never done it though, system is stacked against men. I made sure she understands that she doesn’t hit me either, unless she wants to tote an ass whoopin. You just don’t fight with opposite gender. I wish I could get momma to carry, she just won’t do it. I am lucky to get her to practice once a year. I am positive that we need more women shooting. Would make it a lot more friendly to 2A
There is an old adage…You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. However one cornered encounter with a genuine dirtbag and if the horse survives most will drink the pond dry.
Redneck says it’s okay to hit women if they deserve it.
Normal men are horrified at that idea.
Debbie spouts off some dumb sh*t as usual.
Normal men now realize there are exceptions to every rule.
You know damn good and well I’m not beating mrs redneck. Sure wouldn’t be on her to practice with a gun if I was beating her. A good friend was working every day, taking all the ot he could get. Paycheck direct deposit to joint account, momma supposed to be paying bills. He gets notice house note 6 months behind, bitch pissing away the money. You gonna tell me you wouldn’t beat her ass?
I am responding to your last post. No, i would not beat her ass. I would kick it to the curb or her parents house. The only reason I would get physical with a woman is if she was attacking me and causing damage/pain to me. And only then enough force to stop the attack. If she would do what you friends wife did, I think some decision time is in order.
“To be clear, their misguided and ill-informed efforts are killing women.”
Well, of course they are. Not only women but (collectively) thousands of women, men, children, die every year because of anti-gun “misguided and ill-informed efforts” those efforts, that anti-gun desire that they be harmed/killed rather than use a gun for defense or be defended by use of a gun.
Our own dacian and Miner49er are two of those that have the blood of these victims on their hands.
While all of this is true, it’s also on her. Why did she marry such a person? One can’t marry a bad person and then expect society to save her.
I’m all for folks being more circumspect in their mating habits. After all, I married a hysterical Hispanic woman, and I have the dented skillets to prove it. However, if I ever reacted with violence, it would all be on me unless I was clearly defending myself in kind with no other reasonable option.
That’s not to say that the “stupid things with stupid people in stupid places” principle isn’t valid. One will likely have a harder row to hoe by continuing to make poor decisions, but such does not mitigate the culpability of others in their own choices to act.
The article is pure bullshit. This is right from the statistics of the FBI.
In 2011, in incidents of murder for which the relationships of murder victims and offenders were known, 54.3 percent were killed by someone they knew.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data
analyzed national government surveys involving more than 14,000 people and reported that guns are used for self-protection in less than 1 percent of all crimes that take place in the presence of a victim. They also found that people were more likely to be injured after threatening attackers with guns than they were if they had called the police or run away.
In a landmark study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1993, researchers found that having a gun in the home was linked with nearly three times higher odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance. Studies using more recent data have come to the same conclusion. In a 2019 study, researchers found that states with high levels of household gun ownership have more domestic gun homicides than other states do. In fact, the quartile of states with the highest rates of gun ownership have 65 percent more domestic gun homicides than the quartile with the least, which is worrisome considering that domestic violence has worsened during the coronavirus outbreak.
https://www.thetrace.org/2020/04/gun-safety-research-coronavirus-gun-sales/
darcydodo…Never mind your lame omni directional finger pointing…The question for you remains: Gun Control is Racist and Nazi Based. Yes or No?
@dacian
1: “They also found that people were more likely to be injured after threatening attackers with guns than they were if they had called the police or run away.”
we aren’t talking about threatening. We are talking about ‘imminent threat of great bodily harm or death to the victim” meaning right now this instant in time if its not stopped right now this instant in time, actually pulling the trigger or coming to the point where if the bad guy did not back off in an eye blink the trigger would have been pulled. We aren’t talking about saying “I have a gun, go away!”. You seem to have missed the context here … well, you always do that anyway
I don’t know how to explain this to you, you have no frame of reference. I’ve been there, it is an eye blink at most that you have to respond to that ‘imminent threat”.
I suggest you look up the word ‘context’ and learn what it means.
2. “analyzed national government surveys involving more than 14,000 people and reported that guns are used for self-protection in less than 1 percent of all crimes that take place in the presence of a victim.”
False. There was no such national government survey.
3. “In a landmark study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1993, researchers found that having a gun in the home was linked with nearly three times higher odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance. Studies using more recent data have come to the same conclusion. In a 2019 study, researchers found that states with high levels of household gun ownership have more domestic gun homicides than other states do. In fact, the quartile of states with the highest rates of gun ownership have 65 percent more domestic gun homicides than the quartile with the least, which is worrisome considering that domestic violence has worsened during the coronavirus outbreak.”
have all been debunked by non-biased actual scientific research by independent researchers.
An example hint for you:
not domestic abuse but representative for the reason here for victimizing women > Woman Shot For No Reason During Armed Carjacking > https://concealednation.org/2022/12/woman-shot-for-no-reason-during-armed-carjacking/
This year, so far, 2022; ~85% of firearm unarmed crime victims male or female were either shot or other wise seriously injured by the criminal(s) after complying with the criminal(s) demands. ~2% of firearm armed crime victims male or female were either shot or other wise seriously injured while resisting with firearms and ~97% did not suffer any harm by resisting with firearm.
Boil away the fat and the old ‘studies’ and it seems dacian is all for women being defenseless?
Wonder what his motives are?
It’s the only way he can score!
He/she has nNo testosterone. He/she has to drag them into the bushes by the hair. Certainly, victims with guns would be inconvenient.
Along with the rest of the antifa troop to join in.
dacian, the DUNDERHEAD. I have two words for you. GET HELP!
dacian says ” guns are used for self-protection in less than 1 percent of all crimes ” then goes on to argue nonsense.
Well, you idiot, that IS the problem. More victims should be armed, then fewer predators will predate the victims. What is it about you mush-minded progressives? Do you simply hate women, or is it more complicated than that?
so many words for ypu to tell us you are a moron.
“ When it comes to our personal safety, we are our own first responders. Besides, when seconds count, police will be there in minutes.”
But we’ll defend the salaries and jobs of the folks perjuring their oaths to the 18A/5A right to property of heroin, cocaine, and marijuana.
Why do American conservatives salivate over having more prisoners than China? It wouldn’t be 13A slavery exception would it?
Eric O:
“Why do American conservatives salivate over having more prisoners than China? It wouldn’t be 13A slavery exception, would it?”
I don’t believe that you should lay that one indiscriminately at the door of conservatives. Rather, put it on the greedy businesses (of which some are “woke”) who take full advantage of the cheap prison slave labor to which you refer. I believe the 13th Amendment should be revised to eliminate the “exception” to which you refer. If that were to happen, I also believe that the prison population in the United States would magically begin to subside.
The take away here is that your experience, Lee, is almost exclusively a trait of Blue States and big cities. I live in MS, and outside of the very few major population centers run by Democrats, there is very little of this. And I’m pretty sure you’d find a high percentage of our women Statewide who not only have access to a firearm, but also carry daily with,or without, a Voluntary carry permit. MS, as you likely know, has been permitless carry for several years, and other than the Federal laws there are no restrictions on purchase/transfer whether it’s retail or private.
This is not an intractable problem.
If a restraining order saves just one person, restraining orders are worth it.
If every firearms were universally banned, there would be no gun violence. Well, there would be gun violence, but not in places I, or my family, would go; a gun ban would be worth it.
Confiscating all legally owned guns would be easy; we are talking about law-abiding people, after all. Such law would codify gun bans, and confiscation. The number of annual deaths caused by other objects converted for use as a weapon is infinitesimal compared to allowing just anyone to get a gun.
As police forces are defunded, the money saved goes to alternative services, like talk therapy and job skills training, which save lives, and even rehabilitates them. People are born good, and have to learn through hard experience how to be evil. The society that causes people to turn evil is responsible to provide workable, successful programs to bring evil people back into normal society; no matter how used, guns rehabilitate no one.
No, it wouldn’t, because that would be unconstitutional. You’d have the change the US Constitution first. Good luck.
By the way, I am not against defunding the police as you mentioned. The police all over the USofA have shown their willingness to abuse citizens and violate their rights, even the right to take video or photos in public. They keep arresting people and they keep losing in court but they don’t care because they don’t get fired and it doesn’t come out of their pockets.
So as long as the citizenry keep approving this and not complaining, then screw them, defund the police who violate the Constitution and let the citizens suffer. Rights? What are those? You have no rights.
I’m not sure agree with your last sentence. Seems to me that any number of miscreants are rehabilitated–permanently–through the use of firearms. Once sufficiently ventilated, they never offend again.
“I’m not sure agree with your last sentence.”
It’s ok. The whole thing was just a goof on people who live in an alternate universe.
Are you a parent? Did you ever have to teach your child to lie?
Whenever Sam writes something like the above statements, your first response should be to ask yourself whether it’s possible he’s playing devil’s advocate again. Then craft your reply accordingly.
“…ask yourself whether it’s possible he’s playing devil’s advocate again”
Or just mocking the buffoonery of the Dims and anti-gunners.
All of the above.
(nodding)
“…buffoonery…”
Another apt word. I dearly love the richness of our common tongue.
Nero:
That’s funny. I just went back and read it again, and if it is sarcasm, I could not detect it. Some commenters on this website don’t seem to realize how hard it is to convey sarcasm in writing without actually labeling it as such. I’m afraid that it’s a pet peeve of mine.
“Nero:
That’s funny. I just went back and read it again, and if it is sarcasm, I could not detect it.”
Perhaps, I can help….
Sam I Am is a 2A absolutist.
And an iconoclast.
“For other abusers, a protection order is just a piece of paper.”
Not how I would put it. That piece of paper is more like kindling to stoke a raging fire. Divorce papers seem to have the same effect, bringing out the violence in people–most of whom (not all by any means) are men.
If a restraining order is meant to protect anyone, then the order should be printed on a Kevlar vest. Then it might actually protect you, IF the predator uses a weapon that Kevlar is capable of protecting against.
Of course, it will do nothing about an ice pick in the ear . . .
@Nero “…diction, not grammar…” Wolfe
“I dearly love the richness of our common tongue.”
Last I knew, there are 6mil words in the English language. Think I am proficient is using about 600 of them.
Comments are closed.