frank-monte-donald-trumps-stalker-courtesy-nydailynews-com

A SIG SAUER Academy instructor began my armed self-defense class by dividing bad guys into three groups: opportunists, professionals, and stalkers.

Opportunists are compelled by drug addiction and/or the possibility of an “easy score.” They don’t plan. They take advantage of a low-risk opportunity when they stumble upon one: an empty car idling by the curb, an unlocked front door or a single woman walking down a lonely street.

Professionals plan their attacks. They’re good at what they do, and why not? It’s not their first rodeo. And don’t confuse “professional” with “gentlemanly.” The pros are ready, willing and able to use violence to achieve their goal. They use the same tactics that armed self-defenders should adopt: speed, surprise and violence of action.

The worst of the bunch is, well, check this out [via mercurynews.com]:

According to the [Santa Clara County, CA] Sheriff’s Office, the encounter occurred sometime around 11 a.m. Friday when William Brady [not shown] walked up to the Los Altos Hills home and appeared to be armed with a handgun. A woman inside called 911 to report Brady’s appearance at the home — where she was staying with relatives — and said he had been stalking her.

She was still on the phone with emergency dispatchers when Brady reportedly forced his way inside the home and started shooting at the woman and at least two other residents, the Sheriff’s Office said. A male resident armed himself when Brady was approaching and fired back, hitting him several times and forcing Brady to flee.

Responding deputies, joined by a SWAT team and an armored vehicle borrowed from Sunnyvale police, approached the home and soon found a wounded Brady outside, and he was taken to the hospital, the Sheriff’s Office said. A handgun thought to belong to Brady was also recovered.

No one inside the residence was injured, and the man who shot Brady was not expected to be charged with any crime. A law-enforcement source told this newspaper that the shooting by the resident is being treated as a case of self-defense.

You may or may not be surprised to know that Mr. Brady was the subject of emergency protective restraining orders for both the subject of his attention and her relatives. At least one of the victim’s relatives knew enough to keep and bear a firearm for self-defense. But notice that he didn’t shoot first. If the stalker had been a better shot, or timed his attack better, he could have avoided or killed the defender and finished his murderous assault.

Whether it’s a former co-worker/employee/lover or just someone random who fixates on you, stalkers are your worst self-defense nightmare. They’re cunning, patient, methodical and highly motivated. They’re ready to sacrifice anything to achieve their delusional ends. You can’t reason with them. You can’t threaten them. They’re not scared of you, the police, or the courts.

So, what do you do if you’re facing a stalker? Assuming, that is, you have a heads-up before they strike.

By all means, file a restraining order. The paperwork increases the odds of a successful police intervention, which, admittedly, is probably low. More importantly, a restraining order establishes a legal framework for a future claim of armed self-defense. You’re the good guy trying to mind you own business. They’re the stalker that’s a danger to your safety. Says so right on that piece of paper. See the judge’s signature? Like that.

At the same time, plan for an attack.

Remember: it’s not random. It’s personal. They’re stalking you. Watching, waiting, planning. So think like they do. How, when and where would you attack you? As I’ve said before, transitions — when you’re entering or exiting a building or vehicle — are your most dangerous time.

Change your patterns. Keep your head on a swivel. Layer-up your security with an alarm, a dog, a safe room, etc. Home carry. Extend your safety concerns to family members and significant others. If you can, show them a picture of your stalker and tell them to call the police if he or she ever approaches.

It’s no wonder people upend their entire lives to avoid a stalker. Victims hide. They move. Some even change their name. Yes, but…the gentleman above followed his victim from Georgia. Disrupting your life to deal (or not) with a stalker is difficult, expensive, and traumatic. And there’s no guarantee it’ll work.

I reckon it’s better to tool-up, raise your situational awareness to its highest possible level, and stand your ground. Oh, and when I had a stalker in London, I hired a private detective to investigate her background. The info gathered eventually led to her deportation. Result? So far, so good . . .

Recommended For You

79 Responses to Self-Defense Tip: Dealing with Your Worst Security Nightmare

  1. “Professionals plan their attacks.”

    So cops fall into the professional bad guys category. Got it.

      • He has stated in the past that he’s happy American soldiers have been killed in places like Viet Nam and Iraq. Has called them dumb animals.

        He’s a real charmer, our self radicalized, home grown jihadi is.

        • Soldiers who willfully invade another sovereign nation based on lies and deceit in a war of aggression, and murder the residents on behalf of politicians, they deserve death. This is common sense.

          If foreigner soldiers invaded the US, everyone on this board would agree with this wholeheartedly. But somehow American welfare queens get a free pass for doing the same in Iraq and Vietnam. Go figure. 🙂

          Every dead invading soldier partaking in criminal wars of aggression is a blessing for humanity.

        • @more dead soldiers

          I have no problem with foreigners dying on foreign lands when American interests so require.

          Just mind the aftermath, and the hate bred, that is. Long-term welfare of the American people should be the only thing the politicians consider. All else is a means to this end.

        • @MDS, your cowardice is evident. You also speak as though you think that the troops on the ground actually understand the realities of what they are partaking in. The vast majority of the German military (and I do mean vast) had no idea what the Nazi’s were doing and they were appalled and devastated when the truth came out.

          In my judgement, you have only a slight understanding of the realities of the world, and a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.

        • “when American interests so require”

          Pray tell, how did the wars in Vietnam in Iraq further American interests in the short or long term, even as you acknowledge the aftermath of these criminal wars as detrimental.

        • “You also speak as though you think that the troops on the ground actually understand the realities of what they are partaking in”

          I am sorry if expecting a modicum of intelligence from soldiers is too high an expectation. 🙂

          “cowardice”

          Because signing your life over to feckless politicians is the sign of courage. As Henry Kissinger said, that is the behavior of “dumb animals”.

        • Mo’ded ain’t from here, she’s not Christian, can’t understand how the US works, doesn’t understand human nature. The US can’t wait for a reason to F with what wishes to F with us. Hoooooboy we’re ate up with it. Can’t wait, we’re willing to fight over who gets to do it.
          It’s sweet that she wants an explanation, but . . .

        • Feel free to explain how the Vietnamese peasant or Iraqi tribal “f’ed with us”.

          Violence upon others due to ignorance and gullibility is the new Christian way, in the minds of uneducated militarist buffoons. I am sure the Jesus (aka the Prince of Peace) would have approved of this idiocy. 🙂

        • More dead soldiers understanding of history is a mile wide and an inch deep. The only problem with the wars in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq is that we lack the will to win a war right. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan changed because there was a GI carrying a garand on every street corner. Those countries today are some of our best allies. Our lack of political will to win and enact our view of things is the only reason those places continue to be hell holes.

        • “The only problem with the wars in Vietnam, Korea and Iraq is that we lack the will to win a war right.”

          Right on. The only thing preventing American victory in Vietnam was “lack of will”: a war launched and fought entirely without a clear strategic goal, with a fabricated casus belli, all to prop up a despised local despot, against a battle-hardened enemy with the backing of a rival superpower.

          Behold, the erudition of the American militarist sub-type: the Vietnam war revisionist. Please, enlighten us more with your inch-and-half understanding of the Vietnam conflict. 🙂

        • Soldiers who willfully invade another sovereign nation based on lies and deceit in a war of aggression, and murder the residents on behalf of politicians, they deserve death. This is common sense.

          The invasion of Iraq was not a war of aggression, it was a war of self-defense and no it was not based on lies. Congress does not rely on the White House for its intelligence and no members of Congress are going to make a decision to go to war based solely on what the White House is saying. The reason why the Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq is because the evidence showed that Saddam was a major threat. And he may well have been. No one knows for sure to this day if he might have moved WMDs out of the country at the last minute, and we have no idea how he would be right now.

          In addition, what “murdering” of the residents did the U.S. do? There were virtually no people killed in the U.S. invasion. The major fighting started when Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization, came in and started fighting the U.S. and killing the innocent Iraqis as a result. So bad were they to the Iraqi peopls that the Iraqis turned against Al-Qaeda and sided with the U.S. during the Surge.

          If foreigner soldiers invaded the US, everyone on this board would agree with this wholeheartedly. But somehow American welfare queens get a free pass for doing the same in Iraq and Vietnam. Go figure.

          If the U.S. was under control of a tyranny and the American people were having trouble overthrowing said tyranny and foreign soldiers came in to help from fellow liberal democracies, most Americans would welcome it I think. If foreign soldiers invaded with the goal of overthrowing our liberal democracy and oppressing the American people, that would be different, but that is not at all what the U.S. did in invading Iraq. There is no comparison whatsoever.

          Vietnam was about containing communism. The country was going to go communist because the North outnumbered the South and the North supported a communist oppressor, and in addition the communists were notorious for rigging the elections anyway. Part of the reason the war was lost was for one, North Vietnam was off-limits to bombing throughout most of the war. This was due to fear of creating a repeat of the Korean War where tens of thousands of Chinese troops were poured in to fight. But North Vietnam is not like North Korea, which geographically is a fantastic place to invade mainland China, and thus why China did that. Also the U.S. didn’t know it at the time, but China was in no position to fight even if it wanted to because of Mao’s “Great Leap Forward.” So the North would attack the American soldiers, then retreat back over the border to safety.

          There was also micromanagement by Lyndon Johnson, such as when generals drew up a list of infrastructure targets to take out and he stopped them. The U.S. also had respected Cambodia’s neutrality, while the Soviet Union and the North ignored it completely. A lot of Soviet and Chinese supply lines went through Cambodia.

          Another thing a lot forget is that South Vietnam was successfully defended by the U.S. After we withdrew, it was able to stand on its own against the North. But then the Democratic party cut the funding to it and the North went in and slaughtered a million people.

        • “The invasion of Iraq was not a war of aggression, it was a war of self-defense and no it was not based on lies”

          Truly a ludicrous statement. The purported WMD capability, even if it did exist (and they were proven to be entirely fictional according to David Kay’s Iraq Survey Group, as in, your “we have no idea” line is a lie), was supposedly a threat to the noble ally of the US, Saudi Arabia. Ergo, even if the justification for war was not a total lie, the war was never about self-defense.

          “There were virtually no people killed in the U.S. invasion.”

          Semantics. The US government launched the war and is entirely responsible for its consequences. Moreover, your Al-Qaeda blame is a lie, the vast majority of the anti-occupation resistance was local Iraqi in origin, and tribal support during the surge was entirely bought and paid for for dollars, not as a result of anti-anti-resistance sentiment. This is demonstrated by the immediate collapse of tribal support, and the subsequent formation of ISIS from the remnants.

          “If the U.S. was under control of a tyranny and the American people were having trouble overthrowing said tyranny and foreign soldiers came in to help from fellow liberal democracies, most Americans would welcome it I think”

          Infantile and delusional. This is the same line used by the Bush hawks during the prelude to war: “they would welcome us as liberators”. Look how that turned out.

          “Vietnam was about containing communism. The country was going to go communist because the North outnumbered the South and the North supported a communist oppressor”

          Vietnam was about imposing the will of the US government upon Hanoi (according to LBJ).

          “North Vietnam was off-limits to bombing throughout most of the war”

          This hardly made a difference, the American bombing that did occur was ineffectual. Then there was the issue of political consequences: something that militarists ignore completely, even though war is ultimately a political exercise.

          “The U.S. also had respected Cambodia’s neutrality”

          An absurd statement, considering the continual bombing of Laos and Cambodia (see Operation Commando Hunt), a continual series of covert operations into said countries, then eventually a conventional invasion by the ARVN supported by the US.

          “But then the Democratic party cut the funding to it”

          Another absurd statement, given the debacle that was Lam Son 719 and a total lack of strategic success by the ARVN against the NVA in the entirety of the conflict. On top of that, ARVN funding was not guaranteed by the Paris Accords. Considering the total loss of the Central Highlands by the ARVN prior to said funding cuts, the ability of the ARVN to fend off the NVA with any amount of funding is highly suspect.

        • Truly a ludicrous statement. The purported WMD capability, even if it did exist (and they were proven to be entirely fictional according to David Kay’s Iraq Survey Group, as in, your “we have no idea” line is a lie), was supposedly a threat to the noble ally of the US, Saudi Arabia. Ergo, even if the justification for war was not a total lie, the war was never about self-defense.

          The war was about self-defense, as the threat of WMDs constituted a major threat. We also know for a fact that Hussein had the ability to quickly start up a WMD program again, so it could very well be the case that he moved WMDs out of the country at the last second. It also would have been one heck of a lie to pull off to fool all of the intelligence sources to the point that the Congress itself was fooled.

          Semantics. The US government launched the war and is entirely responsible for its consequences. Moreover, your Al-Qaeda blame is a lie, the vast majority of the anti-occupation resistance was local Iraqi in origin, and tribal support during the surge was entirely bought and paid for for dollars, not as a result of anti-anti-resistance sentiment. This is demonstrated by the immediate collapse of tribal support, and the subsequent formation of ISIS from the remnants.

          The U.S. certainly bears responsibility for not thinking through what overthrowing the government of a “nation” as Iraq (as it never really was a nation to begin with in the conventional sense) would result in, but the fact still remains that the majority of the killing was caused by the actions of Al Qaeda terrorists fighting the U.S., not by the U.S. itself.

          Tribal support during the Surge occurred due to the sheer amount of violence that Al Qaeda was committing against the Iraqi people which turned them against Al Qaeda. The idea that one can simply “buy” people to turn against a group like Al Qaeda is naïve. That would be like trying to “buy” people to turn on the mafia. It only will work if the aggressor is so extreme that people see they really have nothing to lose but to fight back.

          ISIS formed from the remnants by the re-strengthening of Al Qaeda, which again began terrorizing the Iraqi population. It isn’t like the whole country just became ISIS.

          Infantile and delusional. This is the same line used by the Bush hawks during the prelude to war: “they would welcome us as liberators”. Look how that turned out.

          They did. The problem was that unlike the hypothetical example with America, Iraq was never really a country to begin with. It was a land consisting of a multitude of different groups that never really liked one another to begin with that was drawn up as a “nation” by the Europeans after WWI. When Saddam was overthrown, this caused a lot of havoc as a result. Much different from if the American people were trying to fight a tyrant that had come to power.

          Vietnam was about imposing the will of the US government upon Hanoi (according to LBJ).

          It was primarily about containing communism as the threat was that all of east Asia could go communist (and might well have if not for the U.S. intervention as bloody as it was).

          This hardly made a difference, the American bombing that did occur was ineffectual. Then there was the issue of political consequences: something that militarists ignore completely, even though war is ultimately a political exercise.

          How do you know? If the North had been subject to bombing from the beginning, it might have completely changed the outcome of the war.

          An absurd statement, considering the continual bombing of Laos and Cambodia (see Operation Commando Hunt), a continual series of covert operations into said countries, then eventually a conventional invasion by the ARVN supported by the US.

          Yes, under Nixon. I should have been more clear. Under Johnson, Cambodia’s neutrality was respected, but under Nixon, he opened up bombing of Cambodia and the North.

          Another absurd statement, given the debacle that was Lam Son 719 and a total lack of strategic success by the ARVN against the NVA in the entirety of the conflict. On top of that, ARVN funding was not guaranteed by the Paris Accords. Considering the total loss of the Central Highlands by the ARVN prior to said funding cuts, the ability of the ARVN to fend off the NVA with any amount of funding is highly suspect.

          They may have been having trouble and the funding wasn’t guaranteed, but that was no excuse to literally cut the funding and thus guarantee that the North could go in and slaughter the South. With funding, the South could fight, even if with questionable success, but without it, they couldn’t fight at all. That the funding wasn’t guaranteed by the Paris Peace Accords was no excuse to cut it. Cutting that funding was one of the worst decisions in the history of foreign policy.

        • “The war was about self-defense, as the threat of WMDs constituted a major threat.”

          By parity of logic, any nation can make up a WMD threat in some other nation to justify a war of aggression.

          “We also know for a fact that Hussein had the ability to quickly start up a WMD program again”

          Proven to be false by David Kay’s ISG.

          “It also would have been one heck of a lie to pull off to fool all of the intelligence sources to the point that the Congress itself was fooled.”

          It is a phenomenon called “The Big Lie”. Go read about it. Keep in mind, most European intelligence agencies were not fooled so easily.

          “a “nation” as Iraq (as it never really was a nation to begin with in the conventional sense)”

          And what “conventional sense” may that be? Iraq was and is considered a sovereign nation by every other nation in the world. Are you seriously contending Iraq’s status as a sovereign nation in 2003?

          “but the fact still remains that the majority of the killing was caused by the actions of Al Qaeda terrorists fighting the U.S., not by the U.S. itself.”

          This is a red herring. All the deaths caused by the US military in the criminal invasion of Iraq is mass murder, that other parties in Iraq took advantage of the situation to commit mass murder does not change that fact.

          “The idea that one can simply “buy” people to turn against a group like Al Qaeda is naïve.”

          The irony of you calling bribery naive, but actually believe that US citizens would welcome foreign invaders under certain circumstances. The US spent at least $16 million a month paying “salaries” of the “Sons of Iraq” groups.

          “ISIS formed from the remnants by the re-strengthening of Al Qaeda”

          The Iraqi core of ISIS are the former “Sons of Iraq” Sunnis who were prosecuted by the US-backed Shia regime.

          “They did.”

          Then explain how both the Sunnis and Shia immediately began anti-occupation resistance operations after the fall of the Baathist regime. They “welcomed” the US only in the sense of new opportunity, which is totally different than your “we welcome the liberators” myth.

          “and might well have if not for the U.S. intervention as bloody as it was”

          Demonstrably false. There is evidence that Laos and Cambodia would not have gone communist if it were not for the Vietnam debacle.

          “How do you know? If the North had been subject to bombing from the beginning, it might have completely changed the outcome of the war.”

          Unproven conjecture, and highly dubious considering the total failure of Linebacker and Commando Hunt to achieve their strategic goals.

          “Under Johnson, Cambodia’s neutrality was respected”

          False, Commando Hunt was executed during the LBJ years, as were the infiltration into Cambodia and Laos by MACV.

          “With funding, the South could fight, even if with questionable success”

          False, the ARVN had no strategic success against the PVA even during the years of US intervention. Vietnamization (i.e. the planned transition of military duties to the ARVN with full US support) was a complete failure from the outset. Your attempt to attribute ultimate defeat to a politically driven cutoff of funding is a pipe dream.

        • GW1 began when the World, thru the UN, asked us to get saddam out of Kuwait (we did it handily). We were going to go downtown Baghdad but the UN asked us not to so that the EURO-Peeons could do Oil for Food http://www.cfr.org/iraq/iraq-oil-food-scandal/p7631

          We held back under agreed ARMISTICE http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/202883.pdf (U.S. Currently, the Code of Federal Regulations, 3.2 (i) does not list an official end date).

          We had two fly zones according to that Armistice, which saddam violated http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/State/state-iraqres-032003.htm.
          We had a POS prez in Bill Clinton WHO DID F_<k-aLL about it.

          There WERE WMD's USED http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-21814734
          There WERE WMD COMPONENTS http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/secret-us-mission-hauls-uranium-iraq/#.WBdtCU0o5Qs
          ONLY THE TRUE POSs OF THE WORLD NEEDED ANOTHER REASON, BUT
          GW Bush came in and did GW2, (again we did awesome).

          F (in the eye) all those not paying attention and whining about it.

        • The GW1 armistice is signed under the authority of the UN, ergo breaches are to be determined by the UN, not unilaterally by the US. Your links regarding the use of WMD were pre-GW1 and is irrelevant for determining on Iraq’s fidelity to the GW1 armistice. David Kay’s ISG (a US government organization, not UN) conclusively determined Iraq had nothing of the kind of WMD capability claimed by the US government pre-bellum.

          Try paying attention to facts that matter, not the delusion in your own head.

        • Wet Ca-Ca UN had a limited authorization of the use of force in Iraq. The U.S. stayed within the bounds of that authorization. But Saddam Hussein sued for the cease-fire [ARMISTICE] under certain terms, (i.e., he asked the only World governing body that had authorized the use of force in the first place) to stop the U.S. from hunting him down [you don’t see the U.S. doing UN-style rape and pillage crews there do you?]. We acknowledged the UN resolution for the use of force, AND EVERY UN RESOLUTION CITING VIOLATION OF ITS TERMS (http://www.un.org/press/en/2002/SC7564.doc.htm). The U.S. did nothing during the broke (D)I<K Bill Clinton years, and it may be that the Clinton Foundation received monetary benefit from doing nothing.
          GW Bush was elected, 9/11 happened, and GW Bush, and the U.S. received direct threats from Saddam Hussein who was violating the UN resolutions.
          The U.S. asked for the UN to take action, the POS (needs to be sh_t-canned) UN did nada because too many POS in the world were benefitting from the Oil for Food program. The U.S. except the POS (D) said f-dis, and declared War. We prosecuted that war brilliantly until our current POS prez hit the "let's make ISIS" button over there and did the (wish your mom made your dad) pull-out ("Obama Bug Out").
          Today, we have a lot of liberal_progressive_communist_globalist (D) whining about Bush's prosecution of the War, even though the live-birth-rate crept up 1% in every month of March 2007 thru September 2007. There have been more civilians killed by wars around the globe (mostly by the rabble indigenous, but some by bad players from surrounding states like yours) in the 8 years of Ohole than in every war previous since Korea combined.

        • All irrelevant since the ultimate arbiter of Iraq’s compliance and punishment if found to be in violation is the UN, not the US.

          In the case of your cited “threats” from Saddam Hussein, that is an outright fabrication.

          Of course you can argue that the veneer of legitimacy from the UN is irrelevant, but then you would have to justify the idea that unilateral wars of aggression are somehow a good thing.

      • What do you mean? Hilary is by far the more warmongering president, soldiers should be supporting her if they want more conflict and more hazard pay.

        “gay club”

        Is that now a euphemism for the US military? 🙂

        • Oh yeah, because the hazard pay is so worth it. Its a couple hundred extra bucks and if you understood the military as well as you think you do, you would know that the only people that want to go to war are the crazies and the military industrial complex. The average soldier would rather not get the hazard pay.

    • Yeah, even if she boils your rabbit. That’s shocking-crazy but not necessarily bad. 😊

      I heard a comedian joke about how some women are crazy, but guys like that because it makes the sex crazy. He said he read a story about a woman to beat her man to death with a shoe. And he was like Ooooooohhh Yeeeaahh their sex had to be crazy. The only sad part is, right up to the time she killed him, he was probably thinking ‘Ooooooooh Yeeeeeah we’re gonna do that crazy shoe-beating thing’.
      😊

    • *facepalm*

      You know, when someone says “I found a shoe,”

      And you jump in and say “That’s MY size 9-1/2,”

      You kind of proved his point, don’t you think?

    • Woman stalkers are no joke. I had a brief relationship with a lovely female fitness model. There were more than a few times I though that I might wake up in a pool of my own blood with my pecker on the nightstand. She was in the upper right quadrant of the hot / crazy matrix.

      • What makes a crazy woman scarier to me is the love they seem to have with knives and fires. Shoot me, if you must. But don’t cut pieces, especially the ones I deem important off me and don’t set my stuff on fire.

        • i married mine and we had two kids. she’s entering her 16th year of post partum depression. and here comes menopause… plus, she has an identrical twin i call “the other.” there are reasons why twin gals don’t often marry.
          we have a boat named “waves of lucidity.”

    • Simple enough solution, stalker boy. Admit what name you claim you used when I was alledged to have abused you so.

      You can’t do that simple thing because it proves 1) I was right about you or 2) it never happened and you’re even crazier than I first believed.

      Simple move. Name yourself.

  2. I’m totally stealing that picture. It’ll be useful as a meme someday.

    And just so everyone knows, that’s not Mr. Brady in the photo.

    • Hi Points was going for less than 2 bills before fees last time I was at the fun store. An SD could be had for about 350. You can still get a mossberg shotgun for less than 3 bills.

      But the restraining order, while useless against an attacker, does establish you as the victim. I’d spend the money, if I was starting from scratch, and get the order and a pistol and a shotgun.

      • Really, gosh, I never thought of that. It wasn’t like I was suggesting that based on the capabilities of the threat, the risk of prosecution and conviction might be the better gamble.

        • Advocacy of “striking first” might encourage a naive reader to do something stupid that would ruin their life forever. And by that I mean shooting someone who does not pose a clear and present danger, no matter how big of a scumbag they are.

          If the stalker is just standing there looking at the house from across the street in violation of a restraining order, I would just put my phone on speaker, call 911, and then keep the stalker in my weapon sights as discretely as possible until the police arrive. I would not fire upon anyone unless I felt that my safety, or the safety of others, was in immediate jeopardy.

        • Do you think readers here are so impressionable and unimaginative, that my opining that, when confronted with a stalker that is likely to try to kill them, striking second is a losing proposition will cause them to commit an obvious crime? I am imagining that you are young because you are writing like you expect your parents and or teacher to see your posts and pat you on the back for them. Also if the stalker is standing out side of your home is not an immediate threat and in fact doesn’t even see you – why would point your gun at them? Also, why would they stand there long enough for the police to get there and arrest them. Are you are an RPGer?

      • Now this is all hypothetical, but, say, Stalky McStalkyperson is following you around and has been escalating his behavior. There is a restraining order that he ignores repeatedly. The cops can’t do jack. You are legitimately scared for your life and/ or the life of your family. Your crazy, hot ex girlfriend generally does not rise to this level.

        But if the stalker is a clear and present danger – then something like an unlocked door is your best friend when you know the creeper has been building up to hop that train to crazy town. Make sure he knows you are home alone. Peek out the window – looked scared. Creepers love that shit. Turn off the lights in the bedroom. The bait is set. Then, go downstairs to get your glass of water … and wait. Chances are your stalker is not some ninjer or movie bad guy. You’ll hear him coming. So when Stalky comes in then bang, bang, bang.

        You have a restraining order out for this guy. He has an arrest record for violent crimes. He entered into your house at night with his rape kit, maybe a crowbar in his hand. You say: “Officer, I was terrorized and afraid for my life. I know you have to do your investigation, but I would like to talk to my lawyer before I say anything else.”

        STFU and chances are you ill be fine. Criminals walk on a lot worse everyday. There will be some hassle and, yes, risk, but at least you don’t have to deal with a human IED following you around.

        Basically, pick the time and place of battle by creating an opening that appears natural. Make the stalker initiate the attack. The home is the best because you control the battle space and have the advantage.

        • So you’re willing to set yourself out as bait, on the chance that you can ambush someone?

          Unless you are an “operator operating operationally”, and have a few compadres at your back to close the deal, you are much more likely to end up dead than your stalker.

          You forget that stalkers are obsessed with details, and believe that everyone is against them. They are likely to see right through your trickery. They will either avoid your trap, or use it against you and kill you.

        • No — listen, you don’t have to be an operator operating operationally, because unless you have a Navy Seal as your stalker, you don’t need to be. Chances are Stalky McStalkerson has major personality disorder and is a broken unit. He is not evil movie genius thinking 8 steps ahead. He likely believes he has object of affection effectively cowed.

          Yeah, sure you gotta plan. But – you are better off than living your life in condition red and constantly in fear, because if someone really, really wants to get you, guess what? In the absence of 24 Secret Service protection they will. I suggested the home, because it a place where self defense and a claim of self defense is tactically and legally most likley to be successful. As noted above – all you need to do is leave an opening in a PLAUSIBLE WAY. Yes, you might even need to do it a few times. After a while, the mouse gets used to the trap. People get complacent. Your Stalker is not Keyser Sose or Robert Deniro in Cape Fear.

          YOU CHOOSE the time and place of battle and roll the dice. If you’ve done the leg work, you have better than even chances. Or live life as cowering R selected rabbit. Your choice really. But one does not need be a an “Operator” to take arms against a sea of trouble and by opposing end them.

  3. Laws against gun violence are like restraining orders; based on the quaint notion that a sheet of paper stops bullets.

  4. “Oh, and when I had a stalker in London, I hired a private detective to investigate her background.”

    Since it was England, was she at least a polite stalker?

  5. “You can’t threaten them. They’re not scared of you, the police, or the courts.”

    I beg to differ. One of my friends was stalked a while back. I had a talk with the stalker, accompanied by my friends Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.

    The stalking stopped immediately thereafter. Not all stalkers are immune to fear. And that stalker had every right to be very afraid.

  6. A crazy woman at my office told me her husband was going to my houae. You see she followed me home the day before to see where I live and what not.
    I contacted a lawyer who had the state police pay her a visit and suggest she stay off my street. Then I dropped off a letter at HR asking them how they would handle a 100yard buffer One if a judge granted it.
    They reassigned her to another building and that was that. But I kept a few toys ready in my garage for about three months until I heard she was fixated on someone else.
    She had a disorder where she thought people were out to get her. Not my problem, but hers.

  7. The worst thing about a stalker is that they are relentless. They will not stop until you have become what they want you to be or you are dead. They will wait until the best time to attack, or maybe they will kill everyone who stands in their way to get to you. If they are not killed in an attack and you survive also, then they will try again. After they leave the hospital, after they get out of prison, etc. They will not stop until they or you are dead. SCARY people!

    • I tried stalking but it cut into my “me time”. Then we went on one date , she got pregnant, took my checking account, car and lava lamp. I got even I married her stuffed her with two more kids and I plan on dying young. Who’s laughing now? And I got a cold sore. Oops.

  8. I had a friend that, unbeknownst to me, was stalking a girl that we’d been mutual friends with in highschool. This was five years later.
    I hadn’t heard from her since then, but out of the blue she called and told me about it. She’d gotten an RO against him, which accomplished exactly jack & shit. So she found out I was still friends with him, and thought I might be able to talk him into stopping.
    I agreed to have a firm chat with the guy, and suggested we meet somewhere to talk more about things & catch up. We met at Denny’s, where I learned the details of the stalking; following her after work, sitting down the street from her house with binos, taking pictures, weird comments & PMs on Fedbook, etc. She’d printed out some of them, and I read a lot of garbage, including some “if I can’t have you, no one will”-type threats. At that point, I told her to follow me, and I took her to an LGS right down the street.
    This girl had never held a gun before in her life, and I remembered that back in school she was semi-anti gun. But she was scared enough to walk into that store and consider buying one. I handed her over to the proprietor, and stood back while he introduced her to some home-defense firearms.
    After about two hours (with a smoke-break midway to talk herself into it), she walked out with a little not-pink Charter Arms .32. It wasn’t the best, but it fit her budget and needs. A few days later we met up at the range, and she learned how to shoot the thing… which she did quite well, better than I could manage with it.
    And as promised, I had that chat with my soon-to-be-ex-friend. He denied everything, even when I read off his emailed threats. At that point, I strongly suggested that he not even go near her, and that he’d have both of us to deal with if he did. The guy was an idiot, but knew I carried a gun (and understood that his target was now armed); he wasn’t stupid enough to find out what would happen if he kept it up.
    The result was that neither of us saw or heard from him again; while the victim of his stalking turned into a proficient gun-owner, who also became a fervent 2A advocate. After a while we lost touch, but the last I heard was that she was a stalking victim-advocate, and included firearm ownership as part of her advocacy.

  9. So, wait, should stalkers not have guns then? Should we take away someone’s guns if Robert draws a restraining order on them?

    Would you have voted yes on this thing if you lived in WA? After all, an Extreme Risk Protection Order would apply to stalkers in addition to supposed domestic abusers and those accused of being suicidal.

    • They keep their guns until they go to jail after properly applied due process.

      Makes no sense singling out the 2nd out of the whole Bill of Rights.

      It’s pre-crime, and a cruel punishment applied summarily, to preemptively remove a constitutional right from a free person when the only thing he/she does is emotional harrassment. If a specific, credible death threat is made, the guy should already be in cuffs.

      Don’t fall for unscrupulous politicians’ tricks. They don’t care about the people. They care about showing they care about the people. They blame the easiest to blame, instead of solving the root cause, which would be difficult, unappeallin on TV, unattractive to emotional libtards, and slow to have results shown

    • The problem with a law that says someone with a restraining order against them can’t have guns is the same as the problem with the restraining order itself: a piece of paper can’t stop anyone from doing anything. Okay, they’re not “allowed” to have guns. How is that enforced? Do police ransack the guy’s house every day and follow him everywhere he goes to make sure? Or do they just charge him with the crime of violating the order after he shoots his victim? Does the law also prohibit him from having knives or buying gasoline? Because if someone wants you dead, there are thousands of ways to kill a human being that don’t involve guns. If the guy is dangerous enough to justify taking away one of his constitutional rights, why not take away the rights protected under the 4th-8th amendments and just lock him up forever? What about the 2A makes it more acceptable to ignore than the rest of the Bill of Rights?

      This kind of thing is just more pointless security theater that, at best, does nothing, and at worst gives victims a false sense of security that can get them killed.

      • Yeah, well, you’re both right, and it’s almost certainly too late, as this troublesome nonsense was on my ballot and I’m pretty sure it’s going to pass. Because it feels right to so many people even though there are so many things so clearly wrong with it. So.

  10. Smh…………gone for awhile, do a little reading.
    Its like i never left.
    Same ol silliness.
    Mds should have stayed anonymous,if ya know what i mean.

Leave a Reply

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