Female Security Guards
Joy McCann
LaShawn argues over at VodkaPundit that no woman should ever guard a violent male felon.
I agree with her, but I don't think she takes it far enough. Let's think this through: we only want the best physical specimens with the maximum amount of upper-body strength guarding our inmates. We want the largest amount of brawn, the apogee of sheer physical power.
This brings me to the conclusion that no white people should be allowed to become corrections officers. We should only be recruiting blacks and Samoans for these jobs.
Hey! What'd I say? Why's everybody looking at me like that?
Wrestling (not WWE) is also predominately white.
Not that you don't have a point, Joy (both valid and humorous). I'm just saying, is all.
Then we can worry about adding an extra guard or requiring the guard be the same size or larger.
Extremely unlikely. A small male or female with excellent training against a big guy had better hit a fatal blow in the first or second shot; otherwise, it's over, and the small person will wish he/she never attempted it. In fighting, size and strength matter.
Strength and size matter, but the human body is surprisingly fragile and unstable. That being said, you are talking about something like 20 years of hard training to get to the point where a small woman could reliably beat a large, brawny male, making it kind of useless for police work.
That being said, I don't get why physical strength every should have come into play. Why on earth should anyone be within 6' of the prisoner?
As the saying goes, "God made men, and Mr. Colt made them equal." The biggest guy in the world is no match for four 9mm bullets in his chest, which the smallest woman in the world could deliver providing she had the proper training, was well outside of arm's reach, and was prepared.
And this is assuming the large male hasn't spent a lot of his time engaging in violence as well. With criminals, chances are, they've had some "training".
'Nuff said.
All true - but we still shouldn't have had grandma guarding, or even assisting in guarding, a hulking rapist.
We're paying a high blood price in order to conform our society to leftwing delusions about the sexes.
That is, frankly, unlikely. The sort of dedication to train in a single martial art to become a master in it just doesn't tend to work well with the sort of mentality that leads to violent crime. There's too much work and too much building to (generally) be willing to live a life where you're constantly trying to throw it all away.
But if you've got a large male with many years spent in martial arts training, no one should trust in their physical ability to stop him. When the alternatives are keep a police force of kung fu masters and keep a police force trained in the use of firearms (and how to not be stupid), the latter is far more practical, however romantic kung fu is.
Mark, I strongly disagree. The only thing is that if grandma is guarding a hulking rapist, she should do it with a drawn shotgun.
Let's be realistic: old women with firearms skill and a drawn weapon will win every time, unless their opponent is an elephant, in which case no man stands a chance either.
On COPS some time back, there was an incident in which two women cops went to a bar to see about a disruptive guy. He didn't cooperate, so other guys in the bar helped the cops get him cuffed. At that point, the guy's nutso wife started trying to haul him away from the cops. Instead of giving her a smart shove, which a big guy could do, one of the lady cops had to sap the wife over the ear. She could not win a shoving match with the lady. There was, obviously, more likelihood of injury with a sap to the temple than with a push to the floor.
As Ann Coulter says, this kind of include-the-women thing is a two-stage process. First, the feminists insist they don't want to change the standards which are, they imply, perfectly reasonable. Once the standards start keeping women out, the standards must be changed because they are discriminatory and irrelevant.
You may decide that the new standards are acceptable, but since the feminists lie about not changing them--when they start--it appears that they, at least, don't think the rest of us would approve of lowering the standards.
It's happened with cops, firefighters, and the military.
Two stages, and you can take that to the bank.
That goes for a 100-pound man, too.
When you're talking about running the bad guy down, sure. Women might not have the same ability as men there, and thus there might need to be some sanity regarding the gender equality position.
But the Atlanta guy wasn't at liberty, and the cops weren't trying to catch him. They already had caught him, and he was already under lawful restraint achieved via due process. In that situation, the person should be restrained such that all strength and size advantages--indeed, any advantages at all--are neutralized. If this is done, then the strength, size, and gender of the guards becomes unimportant.
And, wouldn't ya know it, it does seem like proper procedure was not followed for neutralizing this man's advantages.
So, I think the "female guard" issue is a red herring. Maybe women shouldn't be guards. OTOH, if there's anything to this idea that women pay closer attention to detail than men on average, maybe we shouldn't have male guards, because then maybe we wouldn't have important policies regarding restraint get overlooked.
The Navy used to have a test in Boot Camp in which two guys carried a third on a litter through simulated passageways. Women couldn't do it, so they now use four per stretcher.
There are several problems. If you have twenty guys, you can carry ten litters. If you have twenty women, you can carry five litters. What happens to the other five casualties?
Besides, getting through the passageways of a warship with a litter carried by four people is practically impossible.
Do the feminists care?
Ask around.
I'm interested in the fact that on the episode of Cops referenced above, two women were partnered. The question becomes: what kind of women? I know a handful of women who are 5'7"-5'10", and stronger than men who tower over them. Some women are blessed that way. But if these ladies are both petite, they shouldn't be working together: they should be partnered with big guys.
The failure in Atlanta was procedural, and it had to do with the fact that those who worked out how this would be done weren't really taking their jobs seriously enough. The consequences were tragic.
I'm sorry but this is a myth... the entire idea of "the master" etc. has been exposed as fraudulent in Mixed Martial Arts tournaments. All those 'masters' got the crap beaten out of them by grapplers and/or muay thai guys or boxers. Pancration, nowadays, usually is a fancy way of saying MMA, and MMA itself has shown that the idea of a woman knocking a big tough guy out with a single blow is about as realistic as the idea that Jet Li could beat up Roy Jones Jr. That single blow attempt might work 1 out of a 1000 times, it probably won't work at all.
Not that it matters as far as this individual case goes, lol.
Thanks. I didn't want to push the point because this is something you know or you don't. What's cool about these ultimate fighting tournaments is they've settled the debates once and for all.
Typically an argument has both evidence and a conclusion. When it's just a conclusion, it's called an assertion. :-)
"What's cool about these ultimate fighting tournaments is they've settled the debates once and for all."
No they haven't. They've settled what people willing to go fight for no reason (in a situation where you're not supposed to try to kill people from the outset) can do. Moreover, how many completely unskilled big guys won in those competitions, given that they're almost entirely won by gracie jiu-jitsu fighters? (as I understand it, they tend to grab people, immobilize them, and joke them out in record times.)
But in any event, take a simple example of Judo on the streets. When you throw someone to the ground and do it in such a way that you slam their head into the concrete, gravity + concrete == broken head.
The point is not that a small woman can beat a large man of equal skill. But give me a small woman who's trained for 20-30 years in a real martial art (not grocery store karate, but something real like judo, gracie jiu jitsu, one of the real kung fu's, etc) against a big guy who's never trained in anything, and the smart money is on the woman.
Now, and here's the actually meaningful point: take any 7'8" male martial artist and pit him against a woman standing 8' away trained in the use of a (loaded) shotgun which is pointed at him, and you're a moron if your money is on the 7'8" guy.
As the saying goes, God made men and Mr Colt made them equal.
I agree with u about the difference in the martial arts. the mcdojo vs hard core school thing. having said that,the thing is, that Judo girl would have to be ABLE to throw the guy on his head... and would probably not be able to before he punched her lights out. same goes for BJJ... (I have a blue belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, (they say Brazilian instead of Gracie nowadays) btw, and I'm 6'4 250 lb... and I would not feel confident fighting that dude.)
but we're in total agreement about that shotgun. gun-fu is, basically, invincible. only someone better in gun-fu can defeat it. :)
I'm also skeptical about these contests as "settling" anything: if you want to see what really happens, put people in life-and-death situations. (You can't, which is why we'll always speculate.) When I wrestle with my husband, I will grab for his fingers so he'll know "I could have just broken your finger off, and that's what I'd do if you were a real attacker," but I can't really break 'em, of course. He's a foot taller than I am, and mass matters. Of course, sometimes I let him win for various reasons ;)
Mass matters. But other things matter too: training. Knowing what will hurt people. Knowing what will damage them. Knowing how to kill them.
And a woman who works out enough can really even out the odds in terms of upper body strength: sedentary men lose their advantage as the years roll by if they aren't lifting weights. Athletic young women with reasonably large frames can be easy to underestimate.
BTW, there are a lot of fat, sedentary cops out there, but I don't see Ann Coulter or LaShawn Barber complaining about them. No: just cops with ovaries.
For the record: I did not mean to imply, above, that there is a brain/brawn trade-off. I don't think a person's stature tells us anything about their brainpower. I meant that for cops brains are just as important as brawn, and that simply isn't the case with firefighters. I want my firefighters strong--but my cops, smart.
That said, it's just common sense that any smaller cop--male or female--should be partnered with a bigger one.
And what the heck -- shoulda put panties on his head while they were at it.
Pink panties with lace, too...
(I suspect you were being sarcastic... I, otoh, am simply reacting to your comment by giggling...)
Really, the man had previously been caught with a hidden weapon (while in custody). Seems to me that there should have been some extra security on him, not just one person -- no matter their sex or mass.
If the deputies had be watching the surveillance cameras that showed Nichols taking the keys to the weapons locker from the female deputy, running to the locker to get the weapon, running down the hall and over an outside landbridge to Judge Barnes' courtroom, we might still be having this conversation, but it would be significantly different.
David Wilhelm would be getting ready to move into his (earthly) home and Ashley Stuart would be finding her purpose in private.
In short, it wasn't just the size of the first deputy that lead to the deaths of these people, but gross negligence/incompetence among several others.
Compared to a 100-pound woman?
Oh never mind ...