(AP Photo/The Baltimore Sun, Lloyd Fox)
Related Articles
We saw from Monday's Gun Rights Examiner column about Annie Le that daring to suggest young adults in college have a right to defend themselves produces quite a violent reaction among anti-defense zealots. So this really ought to make them come unglued: a student has successfully defended himself. With a weapon.
Hopkins undergraduate John Pontolillo used a samurai sword to kill an intruder in his off-campus residence...
Let's see, it's after 1:20 a.m., the student hears a noise, gets a sword, confronts an intruder ( "a career criminal with a history of 29 arrests who had just been released from prison") , orders him to stop, calls the police, the intruder lunges...
Yeah, sounds like about the right response...
And then there's this response:
"We were very fortunate that no student was harmed last night. All of us should take action to minimize the chances that we will be victimized," Dean of Student Life Susan Boswell wrote in an e-mail to the student body on Tuesday afternoon.
It was more than fortune, Dean Boswell. It was a convergence of fortune, preparedness, will and availability of a defensive tool.
Which would not have been there had Mr. Pontolillo been living on your campus and following your rules. Per Johns Hopkins University Standards and Policies, among the prohibitions is:
I. The unauthorized use, possession, or storage of any weapons, chemicals, or explosives, including fireworks, on university property.
And especially prohibited are g-g-g-gunnns.
This prohibition also extends to any person who may have acquired a government-issued permit or license. Violation of this regulation will result in disciplinary action and sanctions up to and including expulsion, in the case of students, or termination of employment, in the case of faculty and staff.
Unless, of course, you're an "Only One."
So sorry, Mr. Pontolillo, if this had happened to you in campus housing, the story might have had a very different ending.
But back to Dean Boswell. The MSNBC account of this story completes her sentiment:
[S]he also advised other students not to follow the swordsman's example.
"If you ever suspect that there is a prowler in your residence or on your property, call 911 immediately," Boswell said. "Experts advise that you do not attempt to confront the intruder, but rather secure yourself in a locked area until police arrive."
Because, as ordinary citizens, we're just not competent enough to handle an immediate threat, so we need to wait until rougher men we pay to do the dirty work arrive, and risk their lives protecting us. Assuming, of course, the home invader is agreeable.
And if he catches us in the mean time, we should just give him what he wants, right?
What if what he wants is us?
Again, per JHU, aside from taking a course in self defense (Annie Le reportedly weighed 90 lbs.) and carrying a whistle, here's one thing we must never do:
Resist a rapist or robber at the cost of endangering your own life.
They're serious. They think we should let animals violate human beings in the most violent and degrading way possible, and we should submit like sheep--and trust that placing ourselves under the complete physical domination of a twisted and depraved monster is the best way to minimize risk.
There is nothing these people will literally fight for. Not even themselves. Certainly not Liberty.
No wonder some of the comments in Monday's column were so filled with seething, impotent hatred and rage. Deep down, many of these anti-choice fanatics--particularly the so-called "men"--must realize what miserable cowards they are, what craven betrayers of a legacy won for them by better men with blood and steel. Secretly, they have to be deeply ashamed of themselves.
They deserve to be.
Filed by David Codrea/Gun Rights Examiner: 16 September 2009
Comments
Carry a whistle? What a pathetic nation of cowards. I'm ashamed to be human. I just graduated from college in florida, where carrying a weapon onto the property was a felony, but I carried nearly every time, not because I'm paranoid, but because I felt it was the responsible thing to do and the chances of getting caught were very low. The crime rate on campus and its surroundings was sky high; murders, rapes, car jackings, you name it. The rate near campus was many times that of surrounding Orlando, why? Because every dirtbag knew where the lowest hanging fruit was.
very well written article. it is sad the world we live in.... so much evil and apparently we should bow down to it and let it happen. im sure the intruder was "turning his life around, getting his GED".
That ain't all they deserve.
David:
Don't hold back. Say it like you mean it.
I've passed this around to everyone I know.
Keep up the good writing.
I have to wonder if the Dean or anyone else that wrote these policies are hypocrites or if they follow their own policies? Like anti-gun politicians that rally to keep citizens from carrying arms for protection but have their own concealed permit or personal armed bodyguards. Wouldn't it be great to know if these fools have their own defensive weapons or security escorts whenever they want?
I stand completely behind this student, along with pretty much all the students at JHU and believe he did the right thing in defending himself. Criminals know where the students live and they are frequently robbed, assaulted, etc. Most students I know who live off campus have weapons, whether they be samurai swords, cross bows, or simply baseball bats. I'm outraged that this poor kid is still in custody after what happened.
However, when you speak about the on campus policies, I believe the Deans are completely correct and to understand that, you have to understand the security at Hopkins. Living in on campus housing there is security 24/7 where you must walk past a security guard and swipe into your building. These aren't the type of building that you can hold the door open for someone behind you. I have never felt unsafe and there truly is no reason to have a weapon in the dorms.
This goes back to the liberal fear of everything. They think that their fear and cowardliness is the default. Granted I would be scared to confront a bad guy but I would still confront them. Liberals can not bear the fact that they are cowards so they want everybody to be like them.
"Resist a rapist or robber at the cost of endangering your own life."
News flash, Patricia A. Martin, Ed.D., JHU Director of Education for Health and Wellness. Maybe that works on your planet, but here the mere fact you're facing a robber or rapist is already endangering your life.
Especially the rapist. Trust me, there are worse things than being dead.
Personally, with the help of my 1911, I will do everything in my power to stop the attack.
I've taken a JHU self-defense class, and I have to agree with Dean Boswell's comments about not resisting a rapist or robber at the cost of your life. One of the things that was repeatedly uttered in the class was, "If you survive, you made the right decision." No one can judge you-- if you survive, you win.
Let me turn your comment on its head, Mr. Codrea-- I ought to fight and die rather than be raped? My chastity is more important than my life? My value as a person is reduced to the state of my reproductive organs? How very "Rape of Lucrece" of you.
I hope, should I ever be in a dangerous situation, the circumstances are such that I can and will fight back. But, quite frankly, it's no one else's business to judge.
Not surprised they'd say this - they want to make money off of students paying tuition - at the cost of our OWN LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!
jhugirl
Do you ever leave the "safe" dorms? I hope that your false sense of security does not cost you your life someday.
anotherJHUgirl, certainly it's your own choice whether to allow yourself to be raped or fight back. Nobody is judging the victim! The issue is whether that choice to fight EFFECTIVELY should be taken away from you by "politically correct" bureaucratic nonsense.
I believe studies show that if you fight an attacker unarmed, you have more of a chance of suffering physical injury than if you submit, you're correct. But fighting back with a firearm DECREASES the chance of injury and INCREASES the chance of your survival from either submitting OR fighting unarmed. Not only that, but the presense of a firearm most often PREVENTS the attack altogether.
"I have never felt unsafe and there truly is no reason to have a weapon in the dorms."
Bully for you, but once we've started down the "reason" path, it's all over. Emergencies of all kinds happen entirely aside from "reason", which control-freaks use as a red-herring to, well, gain more control over what other people can do.
You can probably understand that the value of a seat belt is not in wearing it, but in what it can do for you in an unexpected emergency. Thing is, that emergency can come to you any time you travel, so you wear the belt all the time. Funny thing is, no one's ever called me "scum", "subhuman", "disgusting", or any of a horde of other not-very-creative names because of this attitude about seat belts. Why should the same attitude about defensive weapons be any different?
This is about forcibly removing a rational choice from peaceable free men and women.
More to the point, Johns Hopkins is a notorious EXPORTER of the gun-ban mental disorder. They even maintain a special "Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research," whose entire philosophy seems to be "guns bad, ban guns." They employ Stephen Teret, an idiologically-blinded professor who attempted (but failed) to mug John Lott and smear his seminal work on a C-SPAN panel hosted and stacked by HCI. They have preached that "litigation against the gun industry [is] a critical public health tool at a time when such efforts are threatened by pending federal legislation that seeks to protect the gun industry from lawsuits." They hold campus "family fairs" on "gun safety" sponsored by the Brady Million Mom March, and they get their funding from the ultra-liberal, anti-gun Joyce Foundation.
You should put no more trust into a press release about gun issues from Johns Hopkins than you should one from the Washington Post or NY Times.
anotherJHUgirl: Did you ever consider that maybe Annie Le thought she was in for "just" a rape? There are some outcomes you just can't enjoy no matter how compliantly you lie back.
In surrendering to a presumed rapist, the victim bets his or her life that the attacker is not actually a rapist/murderer bent on eliminating witnesses. Not a bet I would make.
"My chastity is more important than my life? My value as a person is reduced to the state of my reproductive organs?"
And here I had the apparently false understanding that rape was a crime of violence and domination, not sex and chastity.
Your choice is your own, for certain, and if you are willing to accept the consequences thereof, no one can question you. (Well, I won't.) But that is only because your choice is your right, alone, and someone else's choice is her right, alone. You have no more right to force someone else's choice than anyone else has to force yours.
Some people choose to act like every other life form in the history of the planet, and defend themselves when attacked.
JH must have lowered their standards to have this JHU woman on here saying she would lay back and enjoy being raped. What if the rapist also likes killing his victim before/during/after the rape? Your chance of survival goes to ZERO!
How shallow of you to think of a rape as simply the state of your organs. You obviously have no self respect whatsoever.
anotherJHUgirl: Ever been raped? I have. That's why I said there are worse things than being dead.
That's why I am now prepared to defend myself EFFECTIVELY. Not by getting some unarmed male to escort me to my car. Not by blowing a whistle. Not by hoping I can get Somebody Else to come to my rescue.
I have no intention of being at a criminal's mercy ever again.
If your JHU so-called "self-defense class" didn't cover the tools, skills, and will it truly takes to STOP an attacker, it was a pathetic sham.
"JH must have lowered their standards to have this JHU woman on here saying she would lay back and enjoy being raped."
I believe what I actually I said was "I hope, should I ever be in a dangerous situation, the circumstances are such that I can and will fight back. But, quite frankly, it's no one else's business to judge." Implying that anyone could enjoy rape is more than a little insulting.
My comments were addressed to the columnist who (I felt) implied, and the commenter who said, "Better dead than raped."
You said that at the end, but first you clearly stated that you agreed with the moron Dean Bozwell and that being raped and surviving was a better alternative than fighting back. So, which is it? Will you fight back or lay back? I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees, what is your preference?
I see it this way, if I am attacked, I MUST assume my attacker plans on causing me great bodily harm or death. I will fight with every fiber of my being rather than doing as I am ordered and hoping, in his benevolence, my attacker will let me live.
I can honestly say that when my daughter is old enough to attend college, I'm going to send her off to a College where open carry is accepted. Given the options of my daughter being raped or killed, or centerpunching a scumbags shrivvelled heart out through his rotten spine, guess which one I'm going to encourage my daughter to do? Centerpunch is the one and only correct answer, tell 'em what they've won, John.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Thanks David and keep up the great work.
anotherJHUgirl said, "Let me turn your comment on its head, Mr. Codrea-- I ought to fight and die rather than be raped? My chastity is more important than my life? My value as a person is reduced to the state of my reproductive organs? How very "Rape of Lucrece" of you."
At the risk of being blunt, there is no cure for HIV or many other deadly STD's. The people who advocate compliance over resistance maybe sentencing you to a life with a deadly incurable disease.
Not something I would wish on anyone.
"...when my daughter is old enough to attend college..."
Boy, I am already sweating this one myself, and she's only nine months old. (I guess that's new fatherhood for you. :-)
The reality is this: I have no idea what choice she will make when she gets there, but what I absolutely can promise is that she WILL know that she does have a choice, and that it is hers, alone.
No surprise at the JHU advice. The latest issue of Reader's Digest advises us to carry 'mugger money' so if one is accosted one can quickly comply, thereby satisfying the criminal. Sorry; some of us are still sheepdogs.
Dan,
I remember years ago in my teens when I was walking in a city with my dad. He told me something similar where you keep loose cash in your pocket that you throw in one direction and run in another. It wasn't until I was enlightened until I re-considered the idiocy of such wisdom. It just completely requires the person being attacked to have no self-worth.
Also, for years my mom wouldn't allow guns the house. That was until I went out and bought a few. So when make the occasional trip home she is faced with the fact that they are mearly a tool of their master. First she got used to them in my locked car, then I was able to make her realize that that isn't a safe place to store guns either and they made their way into my room when I stay there. Her fears were based on completely irrationality, but when confronted with simple reality of a piece of metal just sitting there experience allowed her to accept it.
Example of the idiocy of surrender to scumbag rapists.
Sep 16 2009 Paisley Daily Express of UK:
Man 'raped and murdered' mum and 10-year-old daughter
Surrender and hope the scumbag would spare you a life is really unfounded belief. Anyone who believe this is an idiot. I rarely hear about resist-killed cases, but often hear about raped-killed ones. The fact is that women who resist have higher chance of survival without being raped.
Sheep and slaughter.
I always carry some 'mugger money.' You throw it on the ground and as they go for it, you have time for a proper draw and acquisition of sight picture.
People who are unaware of their surroundings will never "feel unsafe", even when they are in grave danger. That is what allows predators to get the drop on them. Of course if you ARE aware and feel unsafe, it is nice to have a tool and the training to use it
Another JHU girl; "I hope, should I ever be in a dangerous situation, the circumstances are such that I can and will fight back. But, quite frankly, it's no one else's business to judge."
Granted, but neither is it your business or right to enforce non-resistance or helplessness on others by denying them the tools of self-defense. It is not your business to judge.
Play by your own damn rules. Idiot!
The goal of universities is to provide an environment that promotes investigation, study, reasoning, logic, and discussion, and develops lifelong learning skills in the students.
So... let's look at this rationally. I can carry a weapon for self defense, and at worst risk suspension or expulsion as a student, or risk firing as an employee, or I can forgo carrying a weapon and risk serious injury or death from others who really do not care about any university policy. Which choice minimizes my risk?
I see dat a cuple JHU broads prefer being raped rather than resisting. Dats awright, fat, ugly, nerdy girls need lovin too, but dey normally look to dem nerdy schoolboys too drunk to know better ti the mornin when dey chew der arms off cause dem girls is coyote uglies layin on em!
"my dad... told me... you keep loose cash in your pocket that you throw in one direction and run in another... the idiocy of such wisdom. It just completely requires the person being attacked to have no self-worth."
Not at all. Even Massad Ayoob gives this advice. (He wraps his around a matchbook to get better distance.) It's just part of the available continuum of force. The cash is the speaking softly; the .45 you pull if they persist is the big stick.
"Let's look at this rationally. I can carry... at worst risk suspension or expulsion as a student, or risk firing as an employee, or I can forgo carrying a weapon and risk serious injury or death... Which choice minimizes my risk?"
A good start on a risk assessment, but not a rigorous one. You also need to compute the expected value -- that is, the chance that you will be detected by the proctors as a gun carrier, vs. the chance that you will be accosted by an assailant.
one thing that has been a constant in my life ever since I was a little kid is this; Do not be so concerned with what you can do to me if I don't accept your interference in my life, your time would be much better spent worrying about what I can do to you.
When all our citizens held that viewpoint we were a much healthier society. Since that attitude has been less and less prevalent everybody and his brother has interfered in our lives and most of us have been thankful that all wasn't taken from us.
I am not one of that number. Don't take anything from me, and I won't hurt you. That is the only deal we can make. That goes for universities, governmnents, thugs, cops (redundancy alert), and all else who somehow think there is a higher station in our society than citizen.
They don't want people who resist. They're trying to breed and train it out of us. The collective is more important than the individual, and the individual's rights must not supersede the collective's, power to control the individual or the collective cannot function to create the order and control desired by those supporting and advancing the collectivist mentality.
Freedom isn't even a consideration to these people. It is simply a word that they "use" to pry open and destroy individual liberties, freedom in general and a country called the United States of America, in particular.
Where this started doesn't matter but we can use all the examples elsewhere in the world as instruction as to how this must be addressed. This country was started based upon individual liberties and freedom from class linage. Our freedoms are disappearing, especially the freedom to learn and discuss the truth openly, propaganda and indoctrination have replaced the news, entertainment and education.
anotherJHUgirl said:
"Let me turn your comment on its head, Mr. Codrea-- I ought to fight and die rather than be raped? My chastity is more important than my life? My value as a person is reduced to the state of my reproductive organs? How very "Rape of Lucrece" of you."
I should think the best case scenario is that you fight and win, which is only possible if you are not illegally deprived of the means to effectively defend yourself, as is the case on most campuses.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!