Dartmouth College Denies Stalker Victim Right to Armed Self Defense, Perpetuates #waronwomen

Taylor Woolrich courtesy foxnews.com

Taylor Woolrich, a student at Darmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, has been victimized by a stalker since she was 16. You’d think that being a continent away from the man against whom she has a restraining order would provide some peace of mind, but Richard Bennett has been more than persistent. As foxnews.com reports, “Woolrich says he constantly harassed her during her first two years at Dartmouth, stalking her on social media and sending messages in which he ‘promised’ to fly across the country to see her at college.” Not wanting to find out how serious the 67-year-old creeper is about paying her a visit, she asked the ivory tower powers that be at Dartmouth for permission to carry a firearm . . .

Do we really have to tell you their answer?

Dartmouth officials declined to comment on Woolrich’s situation, but they said their strict weapons policy is necessary.

“It’s strictly prohibited and we are not in the habit of making exceptions,” spokesman Justin Anderson told FoxNews.com. “But we certainly do everything we possibly can to make all our students feel safe.”

“We feel that it is a top priority,” he added. “We are equipped and committed to providing the best safety possible for all our students.”

Somehow, that wasn’t enough to give Woolrich much comfort.

Woolrich says Dartmouth’s Department of Safety and Security told her that instead of carrying a gun, she should call campus security and arrange for an escort if she felt unsafe after dark. But she says she was often asked to justify her requests when she called, and security officers gave her a hard time for calling often.

“What they don’t understand is that it’s not enough,” she says. “Stalkers just don’t only show up after dark. Unless they have an armed guard in front of my dorm room, I’m not sure how safe I will be. I don’t think there’s much an unarmed guard can do.”

Dartmouth officials declined to comment on Woolrich’s situation, but they said their strict weapons policy is necessary.

Woolrich isn’t getting much help from her #notonemore friends in the civilian disarmament community either.

Some experts say the solution isn’t to put guns in the hands of potential victims, but to keep them out of the hands of stalkers.

“Many people don’t know that current federal law allows criminals convicted of misdemeanor stalking crimes to legally buy and possess guns,” said Erika Soto Lamb, a spokeswoman for Everytown For Gun Safety. “This is a real problem. A study of incidents in 10 major U.S. cities found that nearly nine in 10 attempted murders of women involved at least one incident of stalking in the year before the attempted murder.”

Lamb said the Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act, which was recently brought before the Senate, would close loopholes that allow stalkers to obtain guns.

There’s only one problem with that approach. When Bennett was most recently arrested for harassing Woolrich,

A search of his car uncovered a slip noose, a knife, gloves and other items.

While the story doesn’t specify, we’re guessing neither Lamb nor Everytown sock puppet Shannon Watts would have any suggestions for how Woolrich should defend herself from a knife-wielding Richard Bennet should he one day attack her. After all, just like the victim in Everytown’s oh-so-successful recent video spot, Woolrich already has a restraining order. So, you know, what else can really be done?

[h/t Matthew P.]

comments

  1. avatar big blue says:

    Clearly we need legislation banning knots resembling nooses.

    Maybe collect all the books depicting this knowledge and burn them.

    Oh wait, what does that sound like…

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      I’m guessing the “slip noose” was for her hands, to make whatever else he wants to do to her easier. And I ain’t even gonna ask if they figure on banning tape, rope, cable ties, scarves, etc, etc, in addition to knives, ball bats, glass bottles, human hands with opposable thumbs… The problem is, honest to God, those cretins seem to be fixated on the idea that it doesn’t hurt or kill if it wasn’t done with a firearm.

      1. avatar big blue says:

        Sounds fair. Course we wouldn’t want to impact the sport industry, so we’ll have to carve out exemptions for hockey, golf, baseball, etc.. and have them suitably license and protect those implements.

        So Athletes could have baseball bats, but only transport them in a commercially manufactured baseball bat case that completely encloses the bat; and only transport it between their home/place of sojourn, and scheduled practices or competitions.

        And of course when they no longer play baseball, they’d have to turn over any baseball bats in their possession. Perhaps an allowance would be made for sentimental bats. Of course they’d have to be made inert and mounted for display purposes by a federally licensed bat manufacturer.

        Because that wouldn’t be crazy.

        1. avatar Buzzy243 says:

          Don’t forget about those evil black bats with the should thing that goes up!

          Also the Class 3 bats that hit more than one ball in a single swing! Oh my, those aren’t suitable for civilian use!

        2. avatar DickG says:

          Crazy? No. All in your post are “Common Sense” measures to prevent violence against women.
          .
          //Sarc-off//
          .
          STOP THE WAR ON WOMEN!
          All women should be armed.
          .

    2. avatar Tomyironmane says:

      Like the scene from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”

      “…goose stepping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them.”

  2. avatar Jack Brown says:

    What they fail to understand is I don’t need a gun to kill someone but they’re going to need one to stop me.

    Y’know, if I was evil.

    1. avatar B says:

      “Some experts say the solution isn’t to put guns in the hands of potential victims, but to keep them out of the hands of stalkers.”

      Just complete insanity. Its like saying the solution to car crash deaths is to remove all brick walls and solid objects in the world. Sure it would theoretically fix the problem, but its not bloody likely. They just approach it from the complete opposite direction of logic and they blame the continued deaths on not removing enough brick walls.

      1. avatar Scrubula says:

        No, they would say ban all cars and require people to use public transportation (the cops in this analogy) to get where they need to go.
        Might work in 5% of all cases where people need to go somewhere or defend themselves, but there is no comparison in effectiveness of personal transportation and personal protection.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Nice analogy.

          If I may extend it slightly, public transport has wrecks, too, just like cops sometimes are the bad guys in an armed confrontation.

          The level of trust the Statists put in government to do right and be infallible is truly mind boggling.

          They think free people are evil just waiting to go off. They hate their fellow men so much as individuals, but give that same fellow a badge or a uniform and title of sort, and all of a sudden that same person becomes beyond reproach, infallible, and wonderful in every way.

          It simply makes no sense at all.

        2. avatar Rokurota says:

          I’ll refine the analogy even further. Ms. Woolrich desperately needs to get to a hospital across town for regular life-saving treatments. She requests “permission” to own a car, which is readily available to people in other cities. Her mayor tells her no, because there are so many deaths and injuries from wrecks. Take the bus, he says. Woolrich retorts that the buses only run once every two hours and never after dark, so it doesn’t work for her. She wants her car. Sharon Waits, head of Everytown For Car Safety And Against All Cars Too said the solution is not car ownership, but for cities to build more and better transit, never understanding that in the time it takes for that to happen (likely never), Woolrich will die from lack of treatment.

          If “Waits” were sincerely interested in Woolrich’s welfare, she would advocate her having a car while the mayor breaks ground on that 24-7 subway. But no. Just no.

  3. avatar Chris Johnson says:

    Everytown and other anti gun groups could careless about people like this woman.

    They could careless how she should defend herself..as long as it’s not with a gun.

    They have been fleeced into aiding the government with total gun ban.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      I’m starting to think that they really, truly would rather see a young woman strangled with her own pantyhose than see one defend herself with a gun.

      1. avatar Herb says:

        Or, they would rather see a young woman hideously murdered rather than see a young woman explaining to police how her stalker/attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

        1. avatar Rokurota says:

          You laugh, but I have heard these very words from the mouths of anti-gunners.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          I don’t laugh at all Rok, I am utterly serious and it’s starting to get under my skin.

  4. avatar Shire-man says:

    Dartmouth has been holding some steady media time as a rapey free-for-all too.
    Note to self: don’t send daughter to Dartmouth

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Perhaps they could, like UNC-Chapel Hill, declare the campus a “Rape Free Zone” and sell the same kinds of t-shirts UNC did…not once, but many times over a decade and a half.

  5. avatar Chris says:

    No idea why Taylor Woolrich would not carry anyway. Until she can transfer to a better State and school. What is her life worth to her?

    1. avatar Jolly Roger That says:

      +1

      Concealed is concealed.

      1. avatar Richard In WA says:

        +2

        College policy is not law, and this is one of many cases where civil disobedience would go a long way. It could save her life and get her kicked out of college – or she could die still enrolled. Most likely a pocket pistol would just live in her purse and she’ll graduate without incident, but just for that 1% chance it seems like it would be a good idea to carry.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          But law is law, and the law is no guns without university approval. So college policy is tantamount to criminal law. She still needs to make her own decision, of course, just be mindful of the potential consequences.

          For instance, it would be extremely difficult for her to keep her secret a secret on campus. She’d be discovered, expelled and convicted, only to return home with a record, without a diploma and still have to deal with this menace.

        2. avatar Hannibal says:

          And what would make it extremely difficult?

        3. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

          Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

          Plus, pussy pass, she’d be just fine.

    2. avatar Tomyironmane says:

      Because she’s now on record with the college as a “troublemaker” in all probability. Wanna bet there aren’t folks just waiting to ruin her life for daring to carry a piece? They’d rather a thousand young women die horrible deaths than risk them stepping up, renouncing their special snowflake victim status, and become responsible for anything.

      God forbid, they might realize that they’re not weak and in need of a Big Brother figure to protect them! They might even start *thinking!*

    3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “What is her life worth to her?”

      Actually, that may be a bit a thorny question.

      People that buy into the whole “they will / can keep me safe” (I’m not saying this particular young lady buys into it…) don’t ask that question with the full understanding what it means.

      Too often, people just believe “it” won’t happen to them. Until it does. Then it’s too late.

    4. avatar Rokurota says:

      I was thinking this, too. If she had to plug Bennett on campus when he came at her, I dare Dartmouth and the media to crucify her. American women would see these institutions for what they are. Finally. Maybe.

    5. avatar IdahoPete says:

      +1 more – North American Arms Mini-mag Sidewinder .22Mag. VERY easy to hide, and it would go a long way towards enforcing the restraining order. Or one of the smaller .380s, if she is comfortable with a semi-auto. What’s the worst Dartmouth can do – expel her? You have to be alive to be expelled.

  6. avatar General Zod says:

    “But we certainly do everything we possibly can to make all our students feel safe.”

    Right. Because feeling safe is so much better than her having the ability and the tools to ensure for herself that she IS safe.

    And, of course, they miss the salient point – she DOESN’T feel safe.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Love that last bit….priceless!

  7. avatar BlueBronco says:

    I like how the jackass Justin Anderson said “we like to make all our students feel safe.” That is just the thing. Just like government cops, that is all they can do is make people “feel safe” and are under no legal obligation to do so.

  8. avatar General Zod says:

    Stupidest comment quoted in the article:

    “What we don’t want to see is a convicted stalker have the ability to arm themselves like Rambo,” said Ladd Everett, director of communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

    The stalker doesn’t have to be “armed like Rambo” you idiot. All he has to do is present a credible threat to this young lady. Like, you know, showing up at her home with a noose and a knife. And y’know, if the nutburger who’s stalking her is potentially armed with a knife, a brick, or a freaking copy of “War and Peace”, then she has every right to have an overwhelming advantage over him by having a gun in her possession. Because it’s idiotic to expect a young woman to give her stalker a “sporting chance”.

    1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

      That and her stalker isn’t going to give two flying fucks if he is allowed to carry a gun on campus because if he goes to see her “armed like Rambo” its probably because he wants to kill her. So their little gun free zone illusion does exactly nothing to stop that and puts this girl at an even bigger disadvantage.

      And yeah even if he just brings a knife, or bat, or whatever, Im all for her having a completely unfair advantage… dude puts a hand on her he deserves good dose of lead poisoning and a long term dirt nap.

      That’s the problem though, Liberals want people to be victims, because victims need help from somebody (the government in their little sick wet dream). People who look out for themselves don’t need help and thus don’t need the government holding their hands and tying their shoes for them.

    2. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

      “What we don’t want to see is a convicted stalker have the ability to arm themselves like Rambo,” said Ladd Everett, director of communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

      Uhhhh, Rambo armed himself well with a KNIFE……as have many real life predators……..

      Banning ANY type of weapon means NOTHING to those who refuse to abide by the law.
      Ladd Everett you are an…………….

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      Unless SHE is the stalker I’m not sure what this has to do with the university’s policy on this young lady anyway…

  9. Either transfer to another school or carry concealed – regardless of the administration’s policies. She’d be far better off alive and expelled than murdered by this psychopath.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Better alive to ask forgiveness, than dead after asking permission.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      The Ivy League didn’t seem to have any problem with armed defense of a student when it was Emma Watson’s graduation from Brown earlier this year.

      Now, I’m aware that alternate versions of the 2A were kicked around the Constitutional Convention, but I don’t recall any considered which resembled:

      “……the right of rich and famous show business celebrities to keep and bear arms, or have them kept and born by their hired goons, shall not be infringed.”

    3. avatar Rich Grise says:

      How much is she (or Daddy) paying these nincompoops? I agree, carry concealed or take your hard-earned dollars and invest them at a school that’s run by sane people.

      Money talks, Bullshit walks!

  10. avatar John says:

    She should have her lawyer send them a letter putting them on notice that they are now responsible for her safety and must take all measures necessary to protect her. The same measures they would expect for themselves in the event of a known imminent threat – 24/7. Anything less and call them out for their complicity in the real war on women.

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      Excellent point. Unless they can guarantee her safety, then they’re liable for putting her at risk with their policies.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        No they aren’t. Things aren’t a certain way just because you’d like them to be. She can leave that school at any time; she is not forced to be there, she chose to do so. She probably signed all sorts of general liability waivers as well when she started attendance.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Absolutely. I agree completely. She should get right on that as soon as she has corralled a satisfactory loaded gun and trained so that she can use it if needed.

    3. avatar Matt in TX says:

      Then they will just kick her out of school. Problem solved and their hands aren’t dirty.

  11. avatar LarryinTX says:

    I was in college 1964-69. I somehow never found the place I was supposed to ask someone if the 2A had been repealed. Carried whenever I felt the need (.357 Python) and never asked anyone to let me. What is she thinking? Must not be too important. Also, if he shows up and attacks her, I bet she will be all alone without anyone to help him. Watch him drop, then walk away, pitch the gun in the creek, and STFU.

    1. avatar B says:

      There’s no need for that, she would be well within her rights, no jury would convict her, and a DA that pushed it would be destroyed publicly. Lawyers would be fighting for her case. She needs to be carrying yesterday.

  12. avatar Full Cleveland says:

    It’s twisted that a college would try to enlighten students and at the same time take away liberties endowed by the creator. Ms. Woolrich has a decision to make. I hope she remembers that no one cares more about her than she.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Nice.

  13. avatar John L. says:

    “Some experts say the solution isn’t to put guns in the hands of potential victims, but to keep them out of the hands of stalkers.”

    Right. Because a 190-pound male stalker has zero chance of physically overwhelming a 140-pound female stalkee.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      No guns for either! So once again, its about equality. *facepalm*

  14. avatar ST says:

    If you thought Dartmouth or any other college prioritized student safety, you’d thought wrong. See, college today is a business-and higher education businesses must appeal to as many customers as possible. Every teenager who enrolls represents a $50,000+ annual income potential to the University, and most of their higher paying clients come from major leftist strongholds like NYC, Chicago, Boston, etc.

    Having a 2nd Amendment friendly policy means scaring the Democrat voting rabbit people with multiple college age kids and fat wallets. In other words, gun rights are bad for business as far as major colleges go.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Cool! Then we can send our kids elsewhere, and let those Dem’s kids die!

    2. avatar IdahoPete says:

      The whole “take out a big student loan and get a college degree” scam represents a HUGE transfer of wealth from soon-to-be-poor college students to the wealthy faculty and administration leeches at the colleges. Absolutely horrible scam – get a degree in some liberal arts major, have a college loan debt approaching $100,000, and get a highly fulfilling job as a Starbucks barista. But hey, those college profs have salaries in the 6-figure range, so they have to fleece someone besides the taxpayers.

  15. avatar Leadbelly says:

    Just get the damn gun and don’t tell anybody! For Christ’s sake!

    1. avatar John L. says:

      Having received the response she did, I agree with you.

      However, I commend the young lady for trying to follow the rules first, and asking for an exception.

  16. avatar DrVino says:

    “…do everything we possibly can to make all our students **feel** safe.”

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Feelings trumps everything on the Left. They would rather FEEL good than DO good.

  17. avatar Publius says:

    Someone needs to explain to this girl that “concealed means concealed”.

  18. avatar Excedrine says:

    “But we certainly do everything we possibly can to make all our students feel safe.”

    Obviously not, being that a restraining order quite clearly isn’t enough to keep that creep Bennet away from her. At all. Obviously not, being that your own security staff are deliberately giving her a hard time for, y’know, actually wanting them to do their damned “job”. Obviously not, being that she doesn’t “feel” safe. Obviously not, because you aren’t even allowing her to actually be safe. Obviously not, being that you’re straight-up lying about providing any real security at all in the first place. Obviously not, being that you don’t even care enough to ensure that her personal safety is actually achieved. Obviously not, being that you’re deliberately allowing your pretended sense of duty and moral superiority cloud your judgement enough that you can’t see that you’re categorically WRONG.

    Mr. Anderson and Ms. Lamb, you are the problem — and Ms. Woolrich’s circumstances, which you are in fact knowingly making worse instead of better, only serves to conclusively prove this.

    Sans reproach, full-stop.

    1. avatar DickG says:

      So the young lady should call campus security for an armed escort EVERY TIME she wishes to leave her dorm room if even to go to the bathroom.
      .
      A record should be kept of each time they do not arrive forthwith.
      .
      Given their denial of the use of a firearm for her own protection, and the penalties threatened to be imposed if she keeps and bears a firearm, they have violated her Constitutional Rights of free, unmolested, safe movement EACH TIME they are more than a minute or two late.
      .
      I’m sure there are many very good attorneys that would jump at the chance to take on her case for half whatever settlement.
      .

  19. avatar Vhyrus says:

    It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so heartbtreakingly sad. She has to either choose to live in near constant fear or give up her entire lifestyle. Yet another chance to hit the gun control movement right in their high horse.

  20. Funny how there’s no mention of her parent’s position on this matter. Perhaps, it’s time for someone to pay Bennet a visit. He’d be far less of a threat while bound to a wheelcrair missing his testicles.

  21. avatar Roll says:

    What the hell more incentive do they need? This guy is making active threats against this girl and all the Dartmouth admin can say is “sorry”? This is the type of stupidity that is destroying our country…I thought academics were supposed to be smart damnit.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      Smarts are topic-specific. And being smart =! being bright. Unfortunately.

    2. Regardless of intelligence, many academicians are narrowly focused and lack common sense.

      1. avatar John L. says:

        Indeed. And many simply do not understand that just because they’re an expert in, say, Renaissance pottery, they are not automatically more qualified to comment on, well, anything than the average citizen.

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        As a dumbvuck with a measured IQ of 144, I can testify to that in spades!

  22. avatar cwp says:

    As a Dartmouth grad, disappointed, but not remotely surprised.

  23. avatar Avid Reader says:

    Or, in the famous words of the administration of the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs:

    “Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
    Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
    Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
    Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
    Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.”

    Unless your action involves carrying a gun to protect yourself. Then you’re up the creek.

    1. avatar B says:

      “After your 3rd or 4th raping, you should settle into a comfortable safe routine of what you’ve found to work.”

  24. avatar rlc2 says:

    This reminds me of the response of UCSB admin to the increasing rapes at Isla Vista, and the pc response from the campus pd that the numbers were up maybe because “women felt more empowered to report them…”

    1. avatar BDub says:

      now THAT is putting a positive spin on something. Whoa, I’m dizzy.

      1. avatar B says:

        Women were in fact demanding rape, and were insulted if it didn’t occur.

  25. avatar Foster says:

    Seems to me that, if someone has been threatening to kill me for years and I’ve tried to abide by the ‘rules’ and I’m still being threaten with no action taken by the ‘rule makers’, then it’s time for me to prepare to defend myself by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Being armed 100% of the time and getting the necessary training to defend myself with a firearm, knife, hands and mindset. Otherwise I see few alternatives; 1) Forget about the threat and maybe be attacked when you least expect it. 2) Prepare and train to defend yourself. It’s ridiculous that she has to look over her shoulder her whole life. If she’s prepared and the guy shows up, she would be in her right to defend herself. Personally, I would FEEL SAFER if someone was stalking the stalker. But that’s not politically correct is it?

  26. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    And what do you want to be that if she DOES tool up, they just happen to want to search her, or (if on campus) her residence, on the twisted pretense that, since she is endangered, since the university will do nothing to protect her adequately, the university has denied her permission to carry – they’ll assume she’s carrying and want to make an example of her.

  27. avatar John Thomas says:

    “A study of incidents in 10 major U.S. cities found that nearly nine in 10 attempted murders of women involved at least one incident of stalking in the year before the attempted murder.”

    do the semantics here tickle anyone else, just a little?

  28. avatar Tom says:

    If I was the father of this girl, I would deal with this stalker personally. He would think twice before he ever stalked her or anyone else again. Its sickening how you have to even consider extralegal action because the rule of law has failed.

  29. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    And which side of the political spectrum is actually perpetrating the war on women?

  30. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Carry anyways, rules be damned.

    Would you rather be a raped and beaten, given you survive, college graduate who followed the rules? Or a non-raped and non-beaten college washout who didn’t follows the rules, but maintained their dignity.

    Easy choice, the way I see it.

    1. avatar Herb says:

      “Gun control: the mistaken belief that a woman found raped & strangled to death with her own pantyhose is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got those fatal bullet wounds.”

  31. avatar gemalo says:

    Kinda gives new meaning to the phrase, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. Or as I am fond of opining, if it’s concealed, how will they know?

  32. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Shannon’s oldest daughter (Abby Troughton) is a senior in HS or a freshman in college. Now if the shoe ends up on the other foot and some guy who cannot take no for an answer takes a fancy to the young Ms. Troughton (hey, some guys like chubby chicks), then what? Oh wait, I know – complain to the school and get a restraining order, right ? Why do I sense Bloomberg’s bald-headed overweight goons may pay the gentleman a visit. with their Glocks on their hips using their LEOSA exemption. . . . . . but the general masses don’t need guns. just our betters’ armed escorts. Irony indeed.

  33. avatar Kevin L says:

    “Many people don’t know that current federal law allows criminals convicted of misdemeanor stalking crimes to legally buy and possess guns,” said Erika Soto Lamb, a spokeswoman for Everytown For Gun Safety. What the hell?! These people have not a trace of shame! It’s all about ‘guns are evil’ with them, and they don’t give a single sh1t about this poor woman looking to defend herself! They only want the free publicity to promote gun control! F*ck you Erica Soto Lamb and Bloomberg! /rant over PS: she might want to think about carrying anyway…

    1. avatar tacocat says:

      Because, you know… stalking isn’t a crime.
      OK, so he breaks laws on stalking and restraining orders, but gun laws…. he’ll follow those.

      1. avatar Kevin L. says:

        I know, Taco, I was just ranting about how Everytown was using this poor woman who was stalked to promote their stupid agenda…

  34. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Dartmouth officials declined to comment on Woolrich’s situation, but they said their strict weapons policy is necessary. Yes it is necessary so they can be masters of the universe and promote a more liberal weapons free zone where the armed students will not go crazy and shoot one of the liberal profs. Gun free universities are inherently safer, even if a few bodies show up on campus. My daughter goes to IUPUI and the policies are just as or more idiotic. No knives are even allowed.

  35. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Oh, by the way, an armed robbery occurred at Riley Hospital across from IUPUI, and they sent a text message campus shelter in place lock down an hour after the event occurred. The perpetrator escaped through the IUPUI dorm area.

  36. avatar Call Security! says:

    “A search of his car uncovered a slip noose, a knife, gloves and other items.”

    Charming. Sounds like the essential components of a kidnap/rape kit. With this guy’s history, I’d be a tad concerned.

    1. avatar B says:

      To be the literal devil’s advocate, that could be like saying they found bomb components in your house (name any oxidizer and fuel.) Seriously, how many of us don’t keep rope, a knife, basic tools, duct tape, and mechanix gloves in our car?

      1. avatar Call Security! says:

        Fair enough B. But that’s why I mentioned the guy’s history. Those items would be just one piece of the puzzle. Of course, the burden of proof is still on the state, but it doesn’t look good.

  37. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Hey this is Kommiefornia. They will be moving him in next door to her after he gets out of the pokie.

    1. avatar Micah Rubin says:

      That is too scary-funny.

  38. avatar jjimmyjonga says:

    what are the “carry” laws in NH? if they are restrictive, she should just rent a room 1 minute across the river in good old Vermont – no gun law restrictions here (beyond loaded long-guns in vehicles, and no silencers/suppressors, both enacted to prevent game poachers).
    she would not be violating any state laws, so only has to deal with the college campus, which is very small area. she could carry stun gun while on campus.

  39. avatar Kendahl says:

    There are places that don’t object to concealed carry on a college campus. Utah comes to mind. How good you are as a student is more important than where you get your degree. She should dump Dartmouth and transfer to a college that respects her right to defend herself.

    1. avatar jjimmyjonga says:

      Must be a “campus” thing, because VT and NH are both states that are “carry” friendly. When i attended U of VT in the 1980’s, many of us had shotguns and rifles for hunting in the dorms, and never heard a peep about it. i would suggest this girl should carry off campus and demand college escort while on campus. if she is lucky, her stalker would meet with a nasty “accident” and save the tax payers a bundle.

  40. avatar former water walker says:

    Carry a gun, hire a gangbanger to mess up your stalker or just ask one of us to jump in. I don’t live nearby.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      …..hire a gangbanger to mess up your stalker …

      I’d imagine a baseball bat to the knees of a 63 YO would slow him down for a hell of a long time. I wonder what that costs?

  41. avatar Micah Rubin says:

    If I were her, I would carry….. a gun, a knife, brass knuckles, a taser, some pepper spray, a few of those Chinese star thingies, and another gun (maybe one of those better pocket pistols in the earlier post), oh, and some D-size batteries in a tube sock. They could suspend me later if I’m not dead.

  42. avatar Dennis says:

    Here is the problem I see with doing the “right” thing and asking for permission. In doing so she has now self-identified as someone who might carry in spite of the denial. She will now come under closer watch as someone who is a problem, making it more difficult to carry. Stop and frisk, anyone? This increased scrutiny will likely NOT occur when she most needs it; after-hours, late at night, alone between classes or when leaving campus.

  43. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    I don’t know about federal, California or New Hampshire law, but in Texas, a stalking conviction is a 3rd degree felony for a first offense, 2nd degree for a second offense. That means you may not legally purchase, possess, etc. a firearm. This creep apparently hasn’t been convicted yet, but that’s ok, we have another piece of paper to protect women in the meantime.

    Anyone under court order, protective order, or on bail for a stalking charge may not legally possess a firearm in Texas, either. Whew! Relax, ladies, the do-gooders and their pieces of paper are here to save you! And if those aren’t enough, somebody will write up some more at the federal level. Unbelievable.

  44. avatar doesky2 says:

    She filed a restraining order, but it did little to keep Bennett away. Woolrich says he constantly harassed her during her first two years at Dartmouth, stalking her on social media and sending messages in which he “promised” to fly across the country to see her at college.

    Seriously….. where is the elder Mr. Woolrich?
    You know what I’m saying?
    .

  45. avatar Mk10108 says:

    More evidence that Dartmouth denies lawful self protection, encourages rape & murder of their students, has evidence a stalker possess equipment for rape, and wants his target to “feel safe” while denying the means to protect one self. As if words inked on paper is a deterrent.

  46. avatar dan543 says:

    Time was… her father, older brother, boyfriend, et al would simply have stomped the living crap out of this creep. problem solved. pity we’re so evolved now…

    1. avatar Micah Rubin says:

      So true. I was fortunate to have two brothers, and well, like you said, “problem solved”. No restraining order necessary.

  47. avatar Don says:

    Carry anyway. It’s stupid to even ask for permission in this circumstance. All it does is put you on the University’s radar, and the imbecile bureaucrats making the decisions only care about the University’s public image and liability, they don’t give a shit about you. They’d literally (literally) rather you be raped and killed privately and quietly than defend yourself against their rules and have that go public.

    The reality is that colleges have zero physical security measures to protect you from bad guys. This translates into zero physical security measures that will be able to detect you breaking their self-serving and infantilizing “no guns” rules. You are far less likely to get caught carrying than you are to have to defend yourself.

    1. avatar Charles says:

      Just expect to be barred from campus if caught, even if only caught after having to use the firearm and be prepared to be brought up on any charges they deem fit for using the firearm to save you (make it worth the years you’ll spend in jail).

      1. avatar Don says:

        1. There are plenty of other colleges to go to if you get barred from campus.

        2. Unless you are going to college in a state you shouldn’t be patronizing in the first place, it’s just against their rules to carry on campus, they can kick you out but it’s not illegal and there will be no criminal charges whatsoever.

        1. avatar Charles says:

          You missed my point. She wouldn’t likely get caught anyway unless she had to use it in the first place. Given the way police act when people generally try to defend themselves, or even carry for that matter, there can be a whole host of charges she could be brought up on. Unlawful carry of a concealed weapon (if she didn’t get a permit) etc.

        2. avatar Don says:

          Wherever you live, you ought to move.

  48. avatar Charles says:

    Restraining orders don’t work since they are only a piece of paper. Banning baseball bats or similar items wont work because people can easily make them, unless of course you ban things like wood and metal. Yea right, like that will ever happen.
    I respect her decision for wanting to put space between herself and the nut, but going to a place that doesn’t allow guns, wasn’t the greatest move.

  49. avatar JR_in_NC says:

    She should contact Nikki Goeser for help fighting these administration bozos.

    Nikki’s husband was killed by a man stalking her. Nikki, a CCW holder, was disarmed at the time because they were in a “gun free zone,” aka (in her case), a restaurant.

  50. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    There is no place on earth where the risk of attack is zero, however low it might be in some places. This “stalker” is not the only potential attacker, by any means. If she has her focus on this one, she may neglect to watch for other threats.

    I am troubled by the idea so may seem to have that she will be guaranteed safety if she has a gun, even if she knows well how to use it. There are no gurarantees, and even armed and ready we will not always prevail. Overconfidence can be as deadly as helpless victimhood. The gun is only about 10% of effective self defense, and those who do not learn and practice all of it are very little better able to defend themselves than the disarmed/unarmed.

    No other person is ultimately responsible for one’s safety, and nobody else can make you “feel safe” either. I don’t enter “disarmed victim zones” myself. Her choice, obviously, and I wish her well.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “I am troubled by the idea so may seem to have that she will be guaranteed safety if she has a gun, even if she knows well how to use it. There are no gurarantees, and even armed and ready we will not always prevail. “

      That’s a very good point, but I don’t think most here are saying a gun GUARANTEES she would prevail.

      The main point being that if she were armed, she’d have a much better fighting chance.

      There are other threats, too, and you do make an excellent point. But this case is especially poignant because she has a KNOWN THREAT, and it is active. It would seem reasonable to assume an attack is “when” not “if” in this case.

  51. avatar Achmed says:

    “Feel safe” . . . ach same old BS

  52. avatar Mister Fleas says:

    Here is a article written by Taylor Woolrich:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/06/dear-dartmouth-am-one-your-students-am-being-stalked-please-let-me-carry-gun-to/

    From the article:

    “Over the last four years, I have lived with the constant threat from a stalker – a stalker who is now in jail for the third time for violating a restraining order.

    Every day I live with these questions: What if today is the day that my stalker posts bail? What if today is the day that he discovers my parents’ new address? What if I go to a lecture on campus and he shows up there?

    I feel that I have no control over my life. My family was forced to move. I have had stay indoors, keep drapes closed, avoid posting on social media sites, and even change my car. It’s almost like being held hostage.

    Should myself and other female victims just have to put up with this? The answer, hopefully, is “no.” Women must be able to defend themselves. The most effective way of doing this is by using a gun. When police arrive to enforce a restraining order, it is usually too late.

    I have been living such a nightmare for over four years. I was 16 and working a café in San Diego when a 67-year-old man, Richard Bennett, came in the store for coffee. He kept coming back, staring at me for long periods of time, and trying to flirt. He then would sit outside the store for the entire day.

    The nightmare soon got much worse. He followed me around outside of work, demanding to talk and saying that he was “trying to protect [me],” then he began bothering my friends, security had to remove him from scholarship pageants that I participated in, and he attempted to attack my then boyfriend in high school. I was forced to take out a restraining order. . . .”

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “I feel that I have no control over my life. “

      This is the single most important sentence in that entire letter.

      And, that’s EXACTLY what the Statists in general (and those in the college administration) want…for her to have NO CONTROL OVER HER OWN LIFE.

      Disgusting.

      1. avatar IdahoPete says:

        Hey, Dartmouth probably gives her free birth control and abortion access, what more control does she want?

  53. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    As usual, the real #WarOnWomen is waged by liberals.

  54. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Sounds like a stalker needs a stalker, you know, to impress upon him a little empathy…
    And while we’re at it,
    Sounds like a college president needs a stalker, you know, to impress upon him a little empathy….

    Oh, did I say that out loud?

  55. avatar Jay-El says:

    It’s better to make it harder for stalkers to access guns?

    Clearly her stalker’s twisted plan does not require or even include a gun. It’s also evident that arrests and court orders have not deterred him.

    If Dartmouth is unwilling to provide round-the-clock armed protection for this student, they have no business denying her the means to protect herself from a very real threat.

  56. avatar DetroitMan says:

    “But we certainly do everything we possibly can to make all our students feel safe.”

    This is the anti-gun position in a nutshell. The goal is to *feel* safe, not to actually be safe.

  57. avatar Mike walker says:

    Simply put, the liberals would rather have a strong willed woman willing to defend herself be raped, and let a rapist stalker destroy her life, than have her defend herself with a firearm. If you dig deeper, it’s obvious that they view her as a threat to their way of life (armed bodyguards and bulletproof cars) and would rather her be silenced by a horrible crime perpetrated against her. They fear an armed populace so much that unthinkable crimes against the people are a better option for them.

  58. avatar Amok! says:

    I suggest she get proactive with a real man that will a visit to her stalker and offer multiple “suggestions” repeatedly “stated” to stop.

  59. I’m curious if the school would be against stun guns, pepper spray, kubotans or other types of self-defense products? A stun gun isn’t intended to kill anyone, but simply stop them long enough for the victim to get away. I work for a company called Damsel in Defense. Our mission is to Equip, Educate & Empower Women. If anyone reading this comment is interested in learning more about this amazing company, please don’t hesitate to contact me. I would love to educate and empower others! Courtneywallace07@gmail.com.

  60. For most recent news you have to go to see world wide web and
    on the web I found this web page as a most excellent site for latest updates.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email