Jogger fights off attack

December 21, 2011

A woman jogger attacked Tuesday morning on Vachell Lane near the San Luis Obispo city limits escaped serious injury after she aggressively fought off her assailant.

Sheriff’s officials said the woman, who was not identified, was running alone about 7 a.m. when she saw a man approaching her from the opposite direction. She stopped to adjust equipment, she told investigators, and the man suddenly grabbed her from behind and placed a hand over her mouth.

She spun from his grasp and swung her iPod at him, causing him to back away. She then started shouting at the man, who then fled, said Sheriff’s Department spokesman Rob Bryn.

The victim ran toward the city limits calling for 911 assistance. Responding deputies could not locate the man, said Bryn.

The suspect was described as male Hispanic, late 20’s to 30’s, 5-8, stocky build, dark hair, black beanie, black parka, blue and white plaid long shorts.

Deputies are asking anyone who may have seen the suspect in the area to call the sheriff’s office with information.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I believe and will defend my right to bear arms, but I will not join the ranks of the gun nuts.

Gun nut wild assertions, that we get repeatedly, such as suggesting that every person who is robbed or attacked or threatened would always fair better if they were “armed and dangerous” is an absolute, dangerous, ill-conceived generalization that pushes our community closer to hell.

You can be a gun nut if you want, but even though I support my right to bear arms, I’m not going to be a gun nut or idiot about it. Nor am I going to cling to a gun like a baby clings to a blanket or a mothers tit. I don’t need a gun to live and prosper or feel comfortable. That’s another way I distinguish myself from the gun nuts.

Resorting to name calling is not an effective way to further your position.

However, using peer reviewed doctoral studies over several decades is an effective way to further my position and totally discredit your position:

I am sure that you won’t let the facts get in your way though.


So, you refer me to a book aimed at reassuring gun nuts that their fear-based, edgy, shoot-to-kill view of the world makes sense. But if you check out the reviews posted on Amazon for that book, you will find interesting criticism of the book that points out its flaws. Check out the review by Travel4fun.

So, how do the gun nuts explain that European countries have less guns and less violet crime?

So, you cite one anonymous review as a reason to disregard a university level, peer reviewed, scientific study with date that can be replicated at will?

….and you think that I am the nut job?



I think you are likely a gun nut, which is different than a “nut job.” I’ve defined “gun nut.” You seem to fit the definition. But perhaps I am wrong. You can decide for yourself.

I have more than one reason to believe that arming everyone in the nation will not make our community safer. The anonymous reviewer has simply provided us with some clear reasoning as to how we all might best interpret the information in the book you cite.

By the way, what are you presuming my “position” is that you are claiming to “totally discredit”? Seriously. You are so rabid in your promotion of guns that you seem to have totally misread my statements.

I will not join the ranks of the anti-gun nuts. Don’t believe in self-defense? Fine, just leave the rest of us alone who do. And I do. People today are such cowards and sheep. You deserve the POLICE STATE which is now tightening the noose around your neck. Hope you enjoy it, especially when it cuts through your wind pipe and you are in your death throes.

Gimlet, your extreme violent fantasies , and your fears, that you express so freely here suggest that your obsession with guns is a reflection of an unhealthy mentality, and are among those who would do themselves and their family and friends a favor by staying away from guns. Too often it is the mentally unstable, with violent tendencies, who use their guns in the most horrifying and illegal ways.

By the way, you might wish t reread my postings and note that I never said anything against “self defense”, nor am I anti-gun.

“She stopped to adjust equipment, she told investigators, and the man suddenly grabbed her from behind and placed a hand over her mouth.”

Under the California Self-Defense Law described below in section one, if this woman was carrying a hand gun, preferably a .380 auto for jogging, she could have used it on her assailant by pointing it at him, and if he was stupid enough to continue in his advances, then she could have used it, PERIOD!

What was her option if he had stayed to do additional harm? Oh yeah, the victim frantically calling 911 and telling her attacker to please wait until the police get there! NOT!

According to California law, you act in lawful self-defense if you:

1. reasonably believe that you are in imminent danger of being killed, seriously injured, OR UNLAWFULLY TOUCHED,

2. believe that immediate force is necessary to prevent that danger, and

3. use no more force than necessary to defend against that danger.

California self-defense law justifies your injuring (or even killing) another person if these conditions are satisfied. This means that if these requirements are met, self-defense can serve as a complete defense to a California violent crime if you are forced to kill or INJURE another.

The police can’t be everywhere! If you’re a candy-ass, and don’t want to be trained in using a knife, martial arts, or the use of a hand gun, then what happens to you is your fault in an incident like this.

Our Christian God used force all the time to kill His creation in many different and horrifying ways within our bible, therefore, we should follow suit, praise! An old LA edict was, if it’s a knife fight, bring a gun! Be over prepared!

The problem is Ted, in your ideal world where everyone carries a gun, the attacker would have also had a gun. It’s also not logical to assume that just because you carry a concealed weapon you will be safe in a situation like this. People who carry guns often end up shot by their own gun in situations like this

I’m not calling for a ban on guns. But I am saying, absolutely, that a world in which nearly everyone carries a gun will NOT be safer.

All these misguided people who try to tell us that the majority of the world’s violent crime problems will end if everyone carries a gun are the exact people I am referring to when I use the term “gun nut.”

These gun nuts seem to believe in this crazy idea of an “easy fix” to violent crime–just arm everyone. Unfortunately, there is not an easy fix to violent crime. Arming everyone is one of those ridiculous “easy fixes” that gun nuts spout off about, giving themselves the illusion that they have the easy answer to one of the worlds biggest and oldest problems. That truly is NUTS. Sorry.

For decades, Vermont has had ‘Constitutional Carry’ laws. In other words, no permits, licenses, or other restrictions on carrying concealed or openly; just like the founders understood ‘bear’.

Here is the 2010 Vermont crime statistics per 100,000:

Violent Crimes: 130.2

Murder: 1.1

Here is the 2010 California crime statistics per 100,000:

Violent Crimes: 440.6

Murder: 4.9

Yep, everyone having guns really creates a lot of problems. Problems for the criminals that is. Unfortunately, CA panders to the criminals and ignores the victims.

Choprzrul, thank you for providing a perfect example of gun nut “logic”, which, as you have illustrated perfectly, violates the most basic rules of science and statistical analysis. Comparing California and Vermont, without regard to the myriad other variables relevant to any conclusion is misguided and misleading beyond reason.

The question I wonder about is whether you actually believe in this lame logic, or you are purposely trying to sucker people with misleading propaganda.

If you actually have faith in what you wrote, with all due respect, I advise you take a basic community college class on statistics, or at least try to learn something about it via internet learning resources. Thank you.

So, let me get this straight: you start by making statements without any facts to back them up. I go and find government statistics and follow it up with “…CA panders to the criminals and ignores the victims.” (I notice that you didn’t actually address this in your retort?). Then, you reply back with zero statistics of your own and covertly challenge my intelligence.

This is a fundamental individual civil right that we are talking about and you resort to name calling (“…gun nut…”). Highly inappropriate.



“Wiseguy” is from the school where Mary Malone, Cindy, Standup, et al, went for their assumed training in debating in a cogent way.

They base their arguments upon assertions, and at times, hearsay. Ask them for empirical evidence, and they usually disappear rather quickly, like Cindy has done with me in the Toxic Waste Spill thread. :(

So let ME get this straight: You are claiming that misguided, misleading statistical analysis is better than no statistical analysis in supporting your opinions?


First off, start becoming what your moniker states, and that is “wise!”

Where did I say in an ideal world everyone should carry? Along with your stats class mentioned elsewhere, I suggest that you also LEARN another class, and that is “Fallacious arguments examples!” If you would be aware of these argument examples, then you wouldn’t have made the ignorant error of assuming as a premise the conclusion in which you wish to reach in erroniously stating that I say everyone should carry! When you did this child like act, it is to support your otherwise VERY WEAK ARGUMENT!

I am stating that the ones in the “know” would carry. Not everyone is capable of even thinking about a gun as a weapon, and are afraid of it’s use, as you so state in am milke toast way!

Using your stats, what are they relative to someone’s gun being used against them? Within the outcome, is it better to take this chance instead of being their “empty-handed” for the assailant to do what he wants at will as YOU would do? Gun TRAINING also provides the person in showing them HOW NOT TO HAVE THIS GUN TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM!

If you have a family, and since your throwing out assertions, like this forum loves to do, let me give you one. You car breaks down upon a back road, you hear the sounds of motorcycles in the background. Subsequent to their arrival, you ask them, “what are you sexually going to do with my wife before you rob us?” Yes, Mr. Wiseguy, you stand there playing pocket pool with no defense as you hear your wife shouting out for help!

A firearm is like insurance. You have fire insurance upon your home, but you don’t intend to use it, do you? In the same vein, one has a gun, BUT, we certainly don’t want, or intend to use it! Get it? Guns even out situations if out numbered.

No, you don’t deserve a firearm in any way, and for that, it is truly SORRY!

Ted, you’re confused. I am NOT anti-gun.I believe in the right to bear arms. But I’m not going to use typical gun-nut propaganda logic to promote foolish notions and fear-based gun-nut ideas.

Please don’t be offended by my term “gun nut”. I defined it elsewhere in this thread. It fits, it’s accurate.

Gun nut wild assertions, that we get repeatedly, such as suggesting that every person who is robbed or attacked or threatened would always fair better if they were “armed and dangerous” is an absolute, dangerous, ill-conceived generalization that pushes our community closer to hell.

You can be a gun nut if you want, but even though I support my right to bear arms, I’m not going to be a gun nut or idiot about it. Nor am I going to cling to a gun like a baby clings to a blanket or a mothers tit. I don’t need a gun to live and prosper or feel comfortable. That’s another way I distinguish myself from the gun nuts.

Funny how you finish your statement above wanting to take away my right to bear arms. Have you ever heard the word “hypocrisy”?

P.S. I don’t care for your misplaced, inappropriate an irrelevant, perverse sexual allusions that you had best keep to yourself if you want to be considered a gentleman.


“You can be a gun nut if you want, but even though I support my right to bear arms, I’m not going to be a gun nut or idiot about it.”

Have you heard of the proposition of “mutually exclusive concepts?” LOL You support your right to bear arms, but at the same time of bearing arms, you’re not going to be an idiot about it? Since you proffer to bear arms, in what “sense” is using a firearm not idiotic?

My hypotheticals are used to get through to mindsets like yours. If you were offended, then they worked, thank you!

Nonetheless, you remain eerily silent upon them, but only responded by introducing your red-herring of “perverse sexual allusions” into the discussion. A ruse that is used by your faction to save face upon the fact that you cannot answer the hypothetical and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath.

Oh, and where are those “statistics” that you mentioned that support your otherwise, at this time, WEAK ARGUMENT that choprzrul, The Gimlet Eye, and myself are tearing you apart on?!

What “weak argument” are you referring to?


Again, your silence is deafening upon the topics posed to you.

I do not have the time to banter with you, in that you like to play little child like word games, and run from the obvious questions addressed to you, for the obvious reasons that you can’t address them. You are who you pretend to be.

Now, for you to save face, although it will be in vain to the discerning eye, tell everyone that I didn’t address your “non-response” to my questions. LOL It will give you a sense of security, although false, but nonetheless, that is all you have to offer.

Good day.

By the way, invoking God’s name in order to justify killing is the oldest trick in the book.

You give a bad name to gun owners, Ted, what with all your violent rhetoric and macho posturing.

And for you to suggest that anyone who has not had gun or martial training is at fault if they are raped or murdered is just plain sick.

Telling rape victims it is their “fault” because they weren’t carrying a gun is a prime example of gun nuttiness and depravity.

Although I am a believer in martial arts and self defense, I am concerned that it often gives a false impression of security. While I supported my daughters in their martial arts, I reminded them of the seldom quoted statement of the legendary Samari warrior Matsumoto Musashi:

“The best defense is not being there.”

Vachell Lane? 7am?

Always being quick to fault the victim, as Roger continually does with situations like this, is troubling.

Whenever there is a woman victim of potential or actual sexual attack, no matter where and when, even in broad daylight in this case, there are too many people who, for one reason or another, no matter the facts, go out of their way to tell us and the victim that the victim did something wrong, even though that “something” is something no man would ever be faulted for.

In some Islamic communities, women who don’t wear a veil over their faces are blamed for “inciting” men. In SLO women are blamed if they exercise in public, fully clothed on a bright morning.

“The best defense is not being there.”

This is an insidious statement, because violent crime can be initiated ANYWHERE!

. . . and the fact that violent crime CAN happen anywhere is all the more reason not to go jogging or walking alone with ear buds that block out the sound of an approaching assailant, vehicle, or other threat such as a dog or other animal — and this applies to men as well as women. Playing the “you’re blaming the victim” card in cases such as this sometimes clouds the very real issue of the danger associated with isolating oneself not only geographically but from the sounds in ones environment, as well. I’m very glad the woman escaped further harm. Yes, the thug who attacked her deserves to be found and punished but there are far too many such reprobates just seeking an opportunity to take advantage of the unwary. So be wary.

I agree with your point that we must always be situationally aware. Walking around in condition white is dangerous.

I think that everyone agrees with “…violent crime CAN happen anywhere…” at any time. This is the same as an accident can happen on the freeway anywhere at any time. We have no problem putting on a seatbelt to help mitigate the risk of an auto accident, but some people cringe at the thought of putting on a gun to mitigate the risk of violent crime.

Seems like an unhealthy fear of an inanimate object to me. Autos kill, injure, and maim more people in this state than guns do, but the same anti-gun voices have no problem jumping in a car and hurtling themselves through space at 70mph with a brand new driver beside them in the next lane. Doesn’t make much sense to me.


Choprzrul, you sound confused. Being rational and logical and employing common sense about guns does not equate to being “anti-gun.” But what you seem to be suggesting is that if everyone in America carried concealed guns day in and day out, America would be a safer place. I think you’ll have a hard time proving that using standard logic or respectable statistical analysis. Even common sense suggests that your premise is weak.


As I proffered to you above, then stop all of your “statistical analysis flag waving” and show us some empirical FACTS to your point of view!

Enough of the assertions, show us some meat!

I’ll put my common sense up against your “statistics” any day.

Besides, you have your guns. Why are you so interested in arming everyone in the nation? Could it be because you have a job where you profit from the proliferation of guns?

Perhaps you would like to discuss a comparison of crime statistics between California and Switzerland?

Perhaps a couple of pictures of Swiss citizens would help drive home the point for you:


Maybe you should educate yourself and read my previous blog about C.E.R.T.. The C for chauvanist that gave the class in Cambria years ago, still owes me thirty-five bucks for sending me to a class that was never given.

E for ergo, CERT does not equal First Aid. Educate yourself to what CERT actually teaches in the class.

R for remember, even twits like you can learn something new if you actually show up at either class.

T for therefore, I rest my case….

Scratch that!

Fire Depts. should be teaching First Aid YEAR ROUND! Not only does it educate the community, but it helps them to review what they learned in their own training (those that took the EMT training.,) and reinforces their accomplishment. It also gives them an introduction to the residents in the neighborhood of their Fire Stations, and provides them a new resource in times of emergency.

Seems like the city of SLO is having alot of activity within its borders lately.

I had taken a model mugging class a few years ago and I think about the possibility of an attack often and prepare whenever I step outside my door.

Good job on being situationally aware danika.

The 6 P’s: Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance.


The Outlaw Josey Wales: “Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you’re not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. ‘Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That’s just the way it is.”


Then he spits.

But, at the same time, Josey had a “big iron” on his hip in the form of a Colt 44-40! That’s how he backed up his meanness!

Sorry, the story takes place circa 1865-1866 at the end of the war of northern aggression. The 44-40 didn’t come out until the mid 1870s. He used .44 caliber black powder pistols. Here is a picture that clearly shows black powder pistols:


I stand corrected by your superior knowledge!

So, Chopr, are we to presume it is through Hollywood Western movies that you gain your “facts” and “wisdom”? Do you realize that “Outlaw Josey Wales” is a FICTIONAL character? Wouldn’t it make more sense to find your role models from real life?


I post a movie quote, properly cited, and you make the assertion that I somehow have this fictional movie character as a role model?


Otis McDonald, Alan Gura, Gene Hoffman, Brandon Combs, and my father are role models.

Your relentless trolling is getting old.


No, the point I’m making is that some fictional character in an idiotic Hollywood movie makes some wild-eyed, violence prone statement and you seem to treat it like it is gospel and applies to everyone and is some sort of answer to life’s most persistent problems.

You “one-size-fits-all” problem solving attitude strikes me as particularly lame.

The very best thing this brave woman did was to not “freeze” up; she didn’t panic into a coma-like state, she moved, she screamed, she protected herself, all of the “right” things to do in a situation like this. I am very glad she is okay and hope the idiot who attacked her is caught and punished.

It isn’t what you look like, or what you are wearing that could make you the victim of an assault. It is simply OPPORTUNITY.


Demand that members of your Police Dept. regularly provide free self-defense classes for women. Before they ask for another dime, make them prove they are properly trained and sensitive to the unique issues of economic class, race and gender.

The same goes for the Fire Dept.. Every Fire Dept. should be regularly educating the public about First Aid in an emergency. The Red Cross does not provide these classes and they are not getting paid with the regular funding streams that go to law enforcement and the fire dept.. The reason they do not provide regular classes as described above is because they don’t want to educate their “competition”.

Instead of lamenting the lack of funding and the lack of personnel, they should attempt to remedy these perceived issues by educating their constituency, rather than looking at them as “the enemy”, the “helpless”, or the “inferior.”

oto….The SLO City Fire Department DOES provide classes on first aid. It’s called C.E.R.T. and they put it on at Station 1 at least once a year for anyone who wants to learn and it’s FREE.

Maybe you should educate yourself a bit before coming at other people for not educating you….typical.

Sounds like someone took a model mugging class and got a chance to use it.

Good for her.