Front Page  »  

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.


Loading...
Subjects:     
Related:


64 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Do you gun nuts really believe every man and woman should have the right to carry hidden machine guns to any public place and public school at any time?  Where you draw the line? 


Is there ANY place where you think a person should be prohibited from carrying a hidden firearm?


0

Who said anything about machine guns?


Go read the Heller & McDonald decisions. The supremes talk about limiting “Bear” in certain sensitive areas.


You rant from a position of emotions and feelings rather than facts, laws, regulations, the Constitution, and court decisions. Calm down, read penal code & court decisions and then apply some critical thought. Our Constitution contains mechanisms for change should you feel strong enough in your position.


0

Here is a link to article from the New York Times that presents a sad story that perfectly illustrates how would be “heroes” carrying guns end up being killed exactly BECAUSE they were carrying a firearm when it wasn’t necessary.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/nyregion/a-routine-errand-to-drugstore-turns-deadly.html?hp


The story points out other instances where other off-duty cops carrying concealed weapons ended up shooting innocent people while hoping to thwart a crime. How sad.


This pretty much counters the ridiculous argument by some (typical gun nuts) that arming all adults with concealed guns will make our society safer.


0

In other news, an off duty officer was involved in an auto accident killing a carload of nuns and children. This is ample evidence that allowing everyone to drive is ridiculous.


“According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year — one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.”


So WiseGuy would have us believe that isolated bad incidents are reason enough to keep 2.5 MILLION people from defending themselves each year.


Still not sure where ANYONE in this thread has advocated arming ALL adults as asserted by WiseGuy. This is quite different from advocating that all law abiding citizens should have the PERSONAL CHOICE whether or not to arm themselves.


.


0

What is interesting, and what the gun nuts cant comprehend, is that I’m not “anti-gun”. I support the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. But unlike those tied to the gun industry, I don’t feel it necessary to promote gun ownership and use and I don’t believe our society will be safer if every adult is allowed to carry hidden firearms whenever and wherever they want.


My position is moderate and rational. We can’t say the same about the gun nut position. The gun nuts treat the gun issue like a religion, wanting to recruit as many into their gun loving cult, not feeling content unless gun and gun use continue to proliferate in all areas of our culture, self-deluded into believing that the proliferation of guns will solve all of life’s persistent problems. Guns are their easy answer. They obsess about it. Guns are their substitute for what is really missing from their lives.


0

That post was full of hard facts and your position has a solid Constitutional foundation.


NOT


.


0

The gun nuts want us to believe that every woman who jogs will be safer if they carry a gun with them. The gun nuts wlsh us to believe that the woman who was attacked in SLO would be better off if she had been carrying a gun.


This is pure, unsubstantiated speculation from the gun nuts and, among other things, ignores the number of people who end up shot with their own gun, or end up shooting innocent people by mistake. The gun nuts want us to believe that if everyone carries a gun our community will be safer.


Watch the news next month. I guarantee there will be at least one American gun nut who murders someone with his gun on purpose. Then, of course, there will be all the others who shoot people, or themselves, by mistake. Oops!


Ironically, its the gun nuts who most often are the exact people many of us wish would voluntarily give up their guns to make our community safer and not give a bad name to the rational people who simply wish to exercise their right to have a gun.


0

I wish that you would stop using your 1st Amendment civil rights to attack my 2nd Amendment civil rights.


You are openly and actively working to oppress the civil rights of law abiding citizens. Living in our Constitutional Republic means that we are able to enjoy our Liberty. You sir are oppressive to Liberty and I have no use for you or your ilk. You are no different than anyone else who has openly oppressed civil rights throughout the history of this nation.


.


0

Choprzrul, now you are truly acting delusional, accusing me of things I’ve never done. I challenge you to show me any posting of mine where I’ve suggested taking any of your civil rights away.


Go ahead a sleep with a gun every night if you want, make love to it if you want. I don’t care. But that doesn’t mean I want everyone in the world to always be carrying a gun whereever they go.


That’s the problem with gun nuts. If a person doesn’t wish to see every man, woman and child armed and dangerous, then the gun nuts say you are taking away their rights.


Just because I don’t want every man, woman and child in the world to be obese doesn’t mean I want to take everyone’s food away. It’s the same with guns.


I wish to retain my right to own a gun. But I’m not going to be a gun nut about it, believing the world will be better off if everyone carries a gun, or that every “liberal” wants to take away my rights. I don’t believe in the propaganda. I don’t live in fear. I don’t need a gun to feel comfortable. I don’t need to arm the world to reassure myself that I’m not a gun nut.


0

“The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”


Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2007/apr/18/shooting-may-force-high-court-to-address-2nd-9th/#ixzz1haQWnc8s

– vcstar.com


0

Zaphod, you need to stay current on your links. Your article was written a year before the USSC’s Heller decision which completely changed the 2A landscape and subsequently the McDonald decision which incorporated the 2A against the individual states. Contrary to what the article states, the supremes held:


“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified,which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding,responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”


0

Choprzrul, you can cut and paste all you want, but the fact remains:


Our community will NOT be safer if every jogger in our community always carries a gun on their runs.


And despite your rants to the contrary, my opinion on this DOES NOT, in any way, take away or threaten your civil rights or the U.S. Constitution or liberty and justice for all.


The fact that you can’t get this, and proceed to bring up copious amounts of irrelevant blathering, suggests to me you are, for lack of a better name, a true “gun nut.” If you’ve got a better name for it, let us know.


0

“…copious amounts of irrelevant blathering…”


United States Supreme Court decisions are “…copious amounts of irrelevant blathering…” ???


Professor John Lott’s peer reviewed study over decades that shows increased gun ownership results in lower levels of crime.


All you offer is your personal opinion with ZERO facts to back them up. I cite Supreme Court opinions and scientific studies. The best you can retort with is name calling.


I advocate IN FAVOR of civil rights.


You advocate AGAINST civil rights.


I get the feeling that you don’t realize just how wrong you are and much of an affront to personal Liberty your positions are to law abiding citizens.


Sad.


.


0

Seriously Choprzrul, I think you are going off the deep end, and are a prime example of an irrational gun nut.


Despite your crazy statements to the contrary, there is absolutely NOTHING I’ve posted here that has anything to do with taking away anyone’s civil rights. Nothing.


All I’m saying is that, contrary to the gun nut and gun industry propaganda, our community will NOT be safer if every adult in the nation carries a gun.


How is this opinion taking away your civil rights? Get real, please and try using common sense rather than trying to prop up gun nut ranting based on irrelevant information and propaganda promoted by the gun industry.


By the way, lots of “peer reviewed” theses are found to be misleading and misinterpreted and used as propaganda. It happens all the time. There’s also something called a “tipping point” that your “peer reviewed” work doesn’t address.


I suggest you put down the propaganda and use a little common sense.


0

Fair enough.


I am curious though. Do you believe:


1. All law abiding citizens have the fundamental civil rights to keep & bear arms for the purpose of self defense?


-and-


2. All law abiding citizens should have the Liberty to make a personal decision whether or not they wish to exercise their civil rights as I have outlined in #1?


-and/or-


3. Do you believe that a government bureaucrat or elected official should be in a position to arbitrarily permit the exercise of civil rights?


It will be interesting to see how succinctly you can answer these simple questions.


.


0

The problem with your set of questions and your “argument” in general, is that you do not have an adequate definition of what you mean by “civil rights” in relation to “right to bear arms.”


So, in effect, you are offering trick questions that ignore the complexity of the issue at hand. The gun nut and gun industry propaganda continually tries to boil this issue down to some idiotic simplistic view that riles people up.


Once again, like most gun nuts, you are trying for an easy answer to a complex problem. But there is not an easy answer and that is why our society and courts still grapples with this issue. It is not because there is some secret government conspiracy to strip you of your rights.


For instance, does your idea of “civil rights” include the right to own and operate nuclear arms? Your argument so far, suggests that you would believe in my right to arm myself with nuclear weapons.


Where do you draw the line?


Also, I’m not sure if you understand the meaning of ‘arbitrary”. It is NOT the same as “random”.


This comes down to the well worn discussion about rights and the right of free speech vs. the right to shout “Fire” in a crowded theater.


Chopr, I see you as an angry, frustrated person who is desperately trying to reach for easy answers in some attempt to feel in control. But you are being delusional, because there is NOT an easy answer and thus you will continue to be frustrated and angry until you are willing to accept that.


0

I may be an unhinged gun nut (by your definition), but I do firmly believe that each and every law abiding citizen should be free to make a personal decision whether or not to carry a firearm for personal protection.


This is called Liberty.


I am not advocating the government forcing every man, woman, and child to carry.


That is not Liberty.


I am saying that the government should not be the one making the choice for me. The choice should be mine.


Again, this is called Liberty.


If this makes me a gun nut, so be it. I choose Liberty.


.


0

Since you are unable to grasp the simple concept of a civil right, I present Justice Scalia writing for the majority in Heller v Washington D.C.:


” c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed”


This is the law of the land. Whatever you think or feel differently have ZERO bearing in this argument because “WiseGuy” does not trump the USSC. As matter of fact, it looks like Scalia was addressing WiseGuy directly in his ending of Heller:


“Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”


Sorry WiseGuy, you lose. The Supreme Court trumps your arguments in affirming the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense as fundamental individual civil rights.


0

Chopr dude, you are seriously delusional. There is nowhere tho be found where I’ve argued against the right to keep and bear arms. I didn’t argue that then, I’m not arguing that now.


Talk about having blinders on! I know you can read, but you can’t seem to comprehend. Your cliche responses don’t make any sense.


I fully support the Second Amendment. Comprehend?


Maybe if you weren’t so busy cutting and pasting and repeating cliche propaganda, you would pay more attention to what you read that doesn’t fit into your narrow pre-conceived notions and prejudices.


You are a perfect example of an over the top gun nut, so rabid in your delusion, paranoia and self-righteousness that you are blind to reality. I SUPPORT the Second Amendment. What is it about that that you can’t comprehend?


0
1 2