# Unusual advice from the Illinois State Police



## Grenadier (Apr 11, 2007)

I am going to simply state, that I strongly disagree with these folks' recommendations:

http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/saconfronted.cfm

The scary thing is, that this is coming from the state police?


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 11, 2007)

Grenadier said:


> I am going to simply state, that I strongly disagree with these folks' recommendations:


 
And in place of those recommendations, you would council what?


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 11, 2007)

First, and foremost, to stop trying to go under the false impressions, that the would-be attacker is going to fall for such lines.  

Unfortunately, most of them aren't going to be fooled by such statements, and if they are in the habit of attacking women, then it's quite likely that they've done this before, and have heard the whole song and dance.  

Many criminals may very well be stupid, but experience can counter this to a certain extent.  

Second, stop giving contradictory messages.  When they assert:



> Since many attacks on women are not sexually motivated, and are designed to degrade and humiliate


 
and yet, focus on examples of verbal statements that *are* designed to "combat" sexually motivated attacks:



> There is documentation of assailants that left a would-be-victim alone after she told him that she was pregnant and it would kill her baby. (Some case were women that were too old to even have a baby.)
> Telling an attacker that you have VD or AIDS can discourage him.
> It may sound disgusting, but putting your fingers into you throat and making yourself vomit usually gets results. (This method is not often used except as a last resort.)


 
they're sending a badly worded message.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 11, 2007)

Grenadier said:


> First, and foremost, to stop trying to go under the false impressions, that the would-be attacker is going to fall for such lines.
> 
> Unfortunately, most of them aren't going to be fooled by such statements, and if they are in the habit of attacking women, then it's quite likely that they've done this before, and have heard the whole song and dance.
> 
> ...


 
Grenadier, that is a criticism of their message. If that message is insufficient, what would you replace it with? 



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> And in place of those recommendations, you would council what?


----------



## crushing (Apr 11, 2007)

Illinois State Police said:
			
		

> Use of a firearm to protect yourself or property is not recommended.
> 
> Guns stolen from residences are a primary way of getting guns into the hands of criminals.



What does how criminals obtain guns have to do with a woman using a firearm to protect herself?




			
				Illinois State Police said:
			
		

> Half of all the women that fire a gun trying to protect themselves shoot someone they do not want to, i.e. friend, neighbors, relatives, etc.



If there are the statistics to support this, then it sounds like a training issue.  Also, what percentage of the other half successfully stopped a rape or murder?


----------



## charyuop (Apr 11, 2007)

crushing said:


> What does how criminals obtain guns have to do with a woman using a firearm to protect herself?


 
If you are not trained to use a gun and use it for he first time chances that you miss the target are high. Not being used to the power of a gun can freeze you for few seconds after shooting giving the chance to the attcker (unfortunately more experienced than the victim) to take away the gun from you.

I prefectly agree on the lines issued by the police. I start from the idea that the attacker has more fighting experience than the victim and if you consider a woman as a victim, suggesting jump on the attacker and knock him out is just like saying kill yourself. Something they should have added is if talking fails look for help around. Yelling help usually wouldn't work because unfortunately the majority of people want to avoid troubles. Thus yelling something like "fire" or "please help my kid/baby" would attract more people towards you.


----------



## LawDog (Apr 11, 2007)

After reading this story, and that is what it is, a story, I am upset that a law enforcement agency would hand out mis leading information like this. 
*If a person carries a firearm for protection they should be willing to use it and this here is the problem area. If you are willing then the bad guy will read this willingness into your body and verbal language. They will probably think twice about attacking you.
Many will carry a firearm just to to scare a wood be attacker, they will scream, I've got a gun, I'll shoot. This statement just told the bad guy that you are scared to death and that you would probably not shoot or would not shoot well.
If they do shoot they will probably miss and the bad guy will take it away from them.
*Most of the street firearms do not come from the home owners though it is true that many are obtained from a home owner. Guns flow across our borders at an alarming rate.
*Tell someone that your pregnant? Attackers will rape 80 - 90 year olds, men, women, children and the handicapped so saying that your pregnant, especially if you don't look it, won't stop them. Saying that you have Aids or Hep. C may not stop them, many of the attackers have it themselves.
This sounds like a government agency that does not believe that private citizens should protect themselves. They believe that the law enforcement community can do it better and all by themselves. We can't and they know it.
:enguard:


----------



## tellner (Apr 11, 2007)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Illinois State Police are lying like a cheap carpet here. Pretty much every goddammed thing they are saying is complete and utter ********. The research has been out there for twenty five frickin' years. Every single bit of it completely contradicts everything they say. Half of women who use a gun shoot someone they don't mean to? ********. Fighting takes away your other options? Even more ********. 

I spent fifteen years of my life trying to fight these lies and give a few women a fighting chance. I did actual research that had to pass peer review and got broken bones, concussions and emotional trauma that it's taken years to recover from for that cause. When smug lying bastards do this kind of thing they undo that work and are responsible for destroyed lives and shattered dreams.

These guys are lying. It's not "a mistake". It's not "an alternative interpretation". It's not "special knowledge that only police have". They have to have someone on staff who's heard of crime reports or defensive tactics or victimology or criminology. If they do he or she will have heard the real scoop. These sorry SOBs are putting women in danger by their lies. To hell with them, and to hell with every single one of their superiors, bureaucrats and any member of the Illinois State Police who goes along with it. They're disgraces to the uniform, and I sincerely hope they're un-naturally raped by HIV-positive perverts. Then they can tell us how wonderful their advice is.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 11, 2007)

I think the most relevant part is this:


> Fighting for your safety may be necessary. However, if you start out fighting you cancel any other options that might be open to you. Since many attacks on women are not sexually motivated, and are designed to degrade and humiliate, talking your way out of it may be easier.
> 
> * There is documentation of assailants that left a would-be-victim alone after she told him that she was pregnant and it would kill her baby. (Some case were women that were too old to even have a baby.)
> * Telling an attacker that you have VD or AIDS can discourage him.
> ...


 (I'm not going to get into the gun issues; I've got no problem with private ownership of reasonable firearms, but I also support regulation and waiting periods along with training prior to purchase...  In short -- that's something that I think fits into an entirely different thread.)

I'm not particularly impressed by some of that, either.  At the same time -- there are cases to support most of their statements.  The simple truth is that rape and sexual assault is an incredibly complicated criminal behavior; some rapists truly are in it for sex, while with others, it's got nothing to do with sex except as the incidental accompaniment to what really get's their juices flowing.  I do think that immediately launching into a physical confrontation may not be the best or wisest choice every time, which is not to say that it's never necessary.  

To me, I'd say that the website is trying to cram too big of a concept into too small of a space, while covering all their bases.  I think they'd have been better advised to stay out of it, or, at most, provide a referral to whatever programs they may have for public self-defense instruction.


----------



## tellner (Apr 11, 2007)

No, JKS, there isn't a case to be made both ways. The research is cross-discipline and uses many different methodologies. Every single bit of it for about twenty five years has come to exactly the same conclusion. Playacting, trying to get a rapist to be reasonable, pleading, begging, pretending to be sick or pregnant, saying you're menstruating and all the rest of that unadulterated crap _*DO NOT WORK.*_ Just to summarize all of that, and yes, I did write a professional peer-reviewed literature review on the subject, here's how it goes....


If you do nothing the completed rate of sexual assault is a bit above 90 percent.
If you try the ******** they recommend the completed rate goes* up* slightly but measurably.
If you run, it drops by about half.
If you fight - not slap, not struggle, but earnest physical resistance - it goes down to between 20 and 40 percent depending on the study methodology
If you yell and swear - not scream - it drops a bit.
If you combine running, fighting and yelling in any combination it drops to a bit under 20 percent
If you use a knife or gun the completed rate of sexual assault drops to such a low fraction that the rate of completed sexual assault is not statistically distinguishable from zero.
When firearms are used in self defense they get fired a bit less than 10 percent of the time. There's plenty of documentation on this from Kleck to the NIJ. When it is fired the wrong person is hit (again, many studies by real researchers) less than 4% of the time by regular citizens. With the police it's between 8 and 11 percent largely because they tend to be in trickier and more ambiguous situations.
There isn't any controversy here. The ISP are lying pure and simple, almost certainly for political CYA reasons and out of the common but by no means universal police contempt for "civilians" using force in self defense.


----------



## ArmorOfGod (Apr 11, 2007)

You know, I have been training for 16 years and the vomit thing is new to me.
I would never teach that as a self defense technique.

AoG


----------



## RBaddorf (Apr 12, 2007)

So, how do you feel about this type of program?
http://bunco.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3798573&GT1=9273


----------



## tellner (Apr 12, 2007)

Well, it's much better than the great steaming early 70s cowflop that started the thread. But it's still turning over rocks looking for goblins while there's a great freaking bear standing in the middle of the path. The advice is exclusively "stranger danger". Even the most conservative studies like the ones done by NIJ indicate that the great majority of assaults - simple, aggravated and sexual - are not strangers out of the blue but acquaintances. But that gets into emotional and political minefields for the presenter and the students.

Well, that and I've got too much to do today to dig up the Frequently Accessed Rant about pepper spray 

There are some actual pearls of save-your-life wisdom here, especially:


Be aware of your surroundings when you are out and about. Avoid doing things that distract you such as talking on your cell phone as you are approaching your car in a parking lot and listening to music with headphones when you run or take a walk.
Dont be nice. If a stranger approaches you and asks for help with his or her bags or wants directions, just say no and keep on walking. Dont worry about looking foolish or rude. 

If you are approached for your purse or wallet, throw it in the direction of the attacker and run in the opposite direction while you scream loudly. This is what my friend did when she saw the gunthat action saved her life. They instinctively went for the purse and she and her friend ran.
. Be strong and confident in your voice and stride. Remember, they are looking for easy prey. Show your strength and confidence. Attackers dont want to be identified later. Look them straight in the eye. Dont smile. Let them know you will remember their face.
Attackers dont want a fight. You have to react quickly and decisively in the face of an attack. Scream at the top of your lungs. Yell No! Get Away! Shout obscenities. Run as fast as you can. Make a real scene. This accomplishes two things. It is an element of surprise for the attacker who wants a willing, passive victim, and yelling actually forces you to breathe. If you dont yell, you will hold your breath and get weak at a time when you need to be strong.
Have a home invasion plan. You probably have a plan for escaping your home if there is a fire. But does your family have a plan if someone breaks in?
Have a plan of your own. Act like a problem instead of a victim. Be decisive. Do everything you can to slow the bad guy down and break his script. Breathe. Make him react to you instead of the other way around. Above all, don't be nice to people who aren't nice. 

Personal preference here: When I taught women's self defense I concentrated more on attacking than on breaking holds or blocking. There were pedagogical reasons for it that could be discussed later.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 12, 2007)

Grenadier said:


> I am going to simply state, that I strongly disagree with these folks' recommendations:
> 
> http://www.isp.state.il.us/crime/saconfronted.cfm
> 
> The scary thing is, that this is coming from the state police?


I have no problem with these suggestions. I know a guy that avoided a rape in jail by defacating. It really killed the mood.
Sean


----------



## charyuop (Apr 13, 2007)

RBaddorf said:


> So, how do you feel about this type of program?
> http://bunco.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3798573&GT1=9273


 
If someone attacks that woman I have a feeling she would die in 5 minutes. Man she takes 1 class a year and she has the confidence of 10th Dan BB, while in my opinion her degree of self defense is below 0. Suggesting her to run away? 100% agree, but making her believe that she can defend herslef against an attacker who for sure did it many times...well I fear thinking about the outcome.
I have been going to class 3 times a week for the past 6 months and still I think I would have alot of problems in case of self defense...that woman was shown how to break a few holdings and talks like Bruce Lee. I hope it is just a pure commercial and not a real woman's thoughts.


----------



## LawDog (Apr 14, 2007)

Tellner,
your posting, #13,  is very good.
:ultracool


----------



## tellner (Apr 14, 2007)

LawDog said:


> Tellner,
> your posting, #13,  is very good.
> :ultracool



Doffs cap. Tugs forelock. Thankee, guvnor.


----------



## tellner (Apr 17, 2007)

charyuop said:


> If someone attacks that woman I have a feeling she would die in 5 minutes. Man she takes 1 class a year and she has the confidence of 10th Dan BB, while in my opinion her degree of self defense is below 0. Suggesting her to run away? 100% agree, but making her believe that she can defend herslef against an attacker who for sure did it many times...well I fear thinking about the outcome.



You might be surprised. The real key isn't having perfect technique. In self defense it's almost always a matter of realizing there's trouble before things go completely pear-shaped and being there for the scrum when the ball's thrown in. Often it's not a matter of beating someone on points or by a TKO. It's convincing him that this was more fight than he wanted, hurting him badly enough that he's more worried about what will happen to him instead of what he wants from you, breaking the internal script he has for the encounter or just not acting the way he was expecting. 

It's like the guy who wore tennis shoes when he was bear hunting. "I don't have to be faster than the bear. I just have to outrun you." Unless someone has a very personal reason for going after you in particular it's often possible to convince him to look for easier prey. 

If he does have a real ****** for you and you only, well, it's better to bear fangs, growl and attack than to cower wondering if you're good enough. At the very least you'll go down swinging and have a better time of your recovery than someone who just caved in. And if he kills you you get to go to Valhalla and party until the end of time because the Allfather loves valor and honors all slain in battle.


----------

