by Alan Brooks
Restraining orders are like “gun-free zones” in that the criminals don’t really care about either of them. Case in point, Katherine German, who lived (past tense) in the gun-free paradise that is the Bronx, New York. According to the notoriously anti-gun New York Daily News, the 20 year-old German obtained a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend, 31-year-old Doines Espinal, in May of this year after he was arrested for assault. But that apparently didn’t stop Espinal from running her car off the road and stabbing her to death in the wee hours of Wednesday morning . . .
German’s current boyfriend, who was driving the car when it crashed, was forced to watch as Espinal brutally stabbed German to death in front of him. From the article:
The homicidal hack rammed his ride into the driver’s side of the SUV as they reached the northbound entrance of the New England Thruway, cops said. The impact sent the SUV hurtling over a concrete barrier and crashing on its side near a bike path adjoining the highway, police said. Espinal stopped his car, walked to the toppled vehicle and began stabbing his trapped victim. Jiminez, who was driving the SUV, suffered minor injuries.
After killing German, Espinal apparently waited at the scene for police to arrive and arrest him. Which just goes to demonstrate, yet again, that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
And so it goes……………
Hmm. I tried posting three times and get nothing but a white screen. Let’s try one last time.
There is only one non-violent way to effectively deal with an ex-boyfriend/husband (or less frequently ex-girlfriend/wife) who has threatened the victim:
the victim has to immediately move across the country and try to make sure the ex doesn’t know where and will never find out where. After moving, carry concealed everywhere, be as alert as possible at all times, and hope for the best.
Sure, it sucks for the victim to uproot their life but it gives them the best odds. Sticking around is gambling with your life, pure and simple.
Unfortunately, it is illegal for the victim to “strike pre-emptively” which is the only guaranteed way to survive.
I apologize for the delay. We’re having trouble with the commenting system. Posts must be updated manually after they post before they allow comments. We’re on the case. Meanwhile, if a comment doesn’t “take” hit your back browser, copy the text and wait ten minutes (or less). Try again. A PITA but there it is. Thank you for your patience.
Thanks, it’s been happening to me too, intermittently, the past few days.
Every post for the past 2.5 days has had to be manually released. It’s definitely a less than ideal situation.
Glad to know – I thought I was going crazy..
Now we can get back to the real issue: there are moonbats invading my neighborhood and I’m armed to the TEETH against them.
Y’know, this one pisses me off one fu¢k of a lot more than the usual such news item.
When Bloomberg kicks it — hopefully a whole lot sooner than later — I’m going to visit the Evil Empire™ State just so I can spit on the grave of that thrice-cursed son of a bitch.
This I swear.
Russ,
The victim does share a small amount of responsibility … although not in the “she was asking for it wearing that tight skirt” kind of way like rapists try to claim.
Even if Miss German had been armed (legally or otherwise) there is still a decent chance that a reasonably smart, patient, and determined former boyfriend would be able to kill her without too much difficulty. Hanging around after a former boyfriend seriously threatens and assaults you is foolish in my opinion whether you are armed or not.
I strongly encourage any women in Miss German’s situation to immediately relocate across the country, carry concealed everywhere, stay as alert as possible at all times, and hope for the best. When I say everywhere, I mean everywhere. If you want to be sure you do not run afoul of local laws carrying everywhere, then move to Utah where there are no restrictions for licensed concealed carriers.
While such a course of action is definitely not “fair”, it provides the best odds of survival. Sometimes bad things happen in life and the more we are willing to adapt, the more we are likely to survive.
And people under threat of violence are supposed to afford this how? I agree it’s a good idea if you can afford it, but that seems utterly impossible for most people.
If you can afford to just pick up your life and move it across the country, you can probably afford private security.
While you are technically correct in your assertion that a gun might not have helped, this story nonetheless highlights the insanity with which every New Yorker must exist — and which the State of Insanity exports like Mexico exports crystal methamphetamine.
Were he to have his way, the people of unincorporated Leavenworth County would be just as helpless as those of the Bronx.
I do well and truly hate that man and his whole Orwellian machine.
As an aside, a young woman of (probably) limited means might find it to be nearly impossible to get away.
“Hi! I’m Katherine German, and I just escaped from New York. Have you a bed and a job?”
If Ms. German was armed, and carrying in a proper holster, she might have had a fighting chance. Second, deterrence.
But you’re right.
Of the three major criminal groups—opportunists, career criminals and crazies—the latter is the most difficult to counter. The most dangerous time when guarding against these dangerous people: transitions. Coming and going between home and car/bus/subway. Workplace and transportation. Like that.
The major point remains: unless you’re the President of the United States or the Mayor of New York City (for example), you are responsible for your own self-defense. A gun is the best tool with which to defend oneself.
Those who would deny Americans their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms have blood on their hands.
And they spit on the memory of all the blood spilled to this point.
Don’t get me wrong. Notice that I strongly recommended any woman in Miss German’s situation to carry concealed everywhere. I am harkening back to the TTAG article some months back that a sidearm is not a magic talisman and I don’t want to give women a false sense of security.
To your point, when was the last time you relocated? It is quite an undertaking to uproot your entire life and move it elsewhere. Getting out of town for a few weeks (or months) is one thing (which wouldn’t have helped in this case, as he was arrested back in May for the assault). But considering all the ducks you need to get into a row to permanently move…
-Getting out of a current lease or mortgage
-Finding a new residence
-Finding a new job
-Packing
-Transporting your stuff
-$$ for all of this maneuvering
-Keep all of the above a secret from someone who has a keen interest in your whereabouts and activities
Is the trouble worth your life? Of course. But it doesn’t make it any easier to accomplish.
I know the difficulties and expense of moving all too well: I have moved something like 20 times in my life and it has never been cheap, easy, or fun.
Russ,
Wouldn’t pouring a 32 ounce Coke on his grave be a touch more poetic?
That’s an idea. Both, then — ending with a gob o’ ick.
but he didnt use a gun . . . . . so Bloomy can claim victory
What does “forced to watch” mean? Were his legs broken? Was he tied up? Or just a spineless wimp?
I suspect pinned. Unable to get the seatbelt to release because of his hanging weight pulling on it, or by the steering column.
I’ve seen a lot of accidents, and trapped ain’t at all uncommon — especially in the kind of accident described. He’s lucky that the son of a bitch didn’t pour some petrol and toss a match.
Well, kind of lucky; I would seriously hate to be him, and hope that he has support.
Especially if the SUV was laying on its driver’s side. Then he’d be laying on the bottom trying to reach up.
Whether he was on the up or downside of the vehicle, he could have easily been in a helpless situation.
what is “DGU” ?
Defensive Gun Use.
thanks!
have seen this behavior pattern more often then i care to recall.
dont know which is worse, possessive men or dependent women who allow such behavior.
Until women can defend themselves, maybe we need an underground railroad to spirit victims to remote areas…
Some shelters and cities have them. I had a friend in ABQ in the mid-2000s who would go with battered women to gather essentials from their homes when they decided to finally leave a bad situation. I was one of her on-call drivers to take her and the woman to the house where she had 5 minutes to gather documents, records, and personal memorabilia and then it was in the car and to a meeting with second driver who knew where the shelter was.
Two of my customers are safe places, one for battered women and the other for rescued slaves. Yes, slaves — in America.
The former is a local operation, but the latter shuttles victims to places far from their former oppressors.
Both have some serious security requirements.
“But, but, but… If he had a gun then he would have shot her and killed her instead of stabbed her and killed her. That would have somehow been worse. Then the gun would have made him shoot the boyfriend and the cops and maybe even himself! See, this is a perfect example of why we need more common sense gun laws and background checks.” ~ Mike Bloomberg
/sarc… But, maybe not?
Where’s Edward Woodward (“The Equalizer”) when you need him?
And since Hollywood is into plot recycling, why not give the concept another go, w/o the feminist rhetoric (not that the original had any, but this is the 21st Century).
That’s what I’m prepared to be every time I carry outside the home.
Well… The street walking variety, rather than on call.
From the dissenting opinion in Riss vs the City of New York
(Linda Riss telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened her. The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. [Note: Linda Riss obeyed the law, yet the law prevented her from arming herself in self-defense.])
“What makes the City’s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.”
Decision in 1968, nothing has changed, disarming the victims just makes them easier targets.
I’m hardly an expert here, so I must ask. In California in the early ’70s, a kid could buy a handgun at a yard sale and noone thought anything of it.
Am I to understand that New Yorkers were disarmed as far back as ’68?
EDIT: The incident occurred in ’59. That’s a long time ago for anywhere in the U.S. to have been already following the disarmed road to Perdition.
New York has had the Sullivan Law, restricting firearms ownership to police, criminals and the politically connected, since 1911.
So I have since found out. Hard to grasp that California was until recently a comparative hoplophile’s paradise.
Yet another reason as soon as my two girls can carry legally they shall.
+1
In a sane world; a restraining order should also be issued with a gun if the woman can’t afford one for herself; now that would be real “common sense”.
I’m sure the NY anti-gun media will be pleased to point out that at least the attacker did not have a gun, therefore the gun laws are working.
Comments are closed.