Did you move? I didn't think there was a subway in Buffalo!

If the police can't keep the area safe they should at least provide loaner rottweillers &/or glocks while they fix it.

No, there is. I mean, it's pretty useless since it just goes north-south, but it cuts a lot of time off my bus commute. (I think, technically, it's light rail and not subway, since it is both above and below ground.)

Shit! I actually bothered to read the link this time. From the looks of it, that's my sister's hood!

Your sister lives in my neighborhood?

She's on one of the streets named in the article.

Please be careful, kelly, and don't take any chances. Do you have a friend or co-worker you can "commute" with? Or is that the whole problem?

You might want to invest in one of those little cans of pepper spray. Then if some creep were to pull down his pants in front of you, you'd have the last laugh. ;)

Have you ever taken any self-defense courses? Wen-do is supposed to be excellent.

Repulsive. Is there any neighborhood defense or walk-home escort group getting up and running? The time is ripe.

She's on one of the streets named in the article.

She must live near me, then. I'm a block from the most recent attack.

I ordered pepper spray this morning, my roommate has some and he said I'm carrying it until mine gets in. no self-defense classes, but honestly, I'm such a mess physically I think I'd end up hurting myself more than anyone.

I'm already comminicating with some friends about walk-together/ride share stuff.

That sucks. I'm sorry, kellydamnit. "Limit your freedom of movement" is such a shitty thing to tell a community; I hope they catch the guy soon.

Is it worth contacting the police to see if there's anything being co-ordinated along the walk-home escort lines?

Man, that stinks. Good thinking to pair up. (On preview: wow, great idea, EJ!)

no self-defense classes, but honestly, I'm such a mess physically I think I'd end up hurting myself more than anyone

Self-defense classes aren't entirely about physical defense. One of the useful things you'd do (in some, anyway): you'd make a plan for the possibility of attack.

For example, the article says "... a man demanded that she follow him to a parking lot, where he pulled down his pants..." (emphasis mine.) Part of my plan: I'm not going anywhere with the attacker, weapon or no weapon.

Having made that decision in advance, rather than at the moment someone brandishes a weapon, I'm more likely to stick to it. I think that's a good thing. I also have a script to adapt to the situation, designed to defuse rather than escalate the confrontation. It might help, and it probably won't hurt.

The bad thing I took away from a self-defense course (through NO fault of the instructor): a false sense of invulnerability. Uh, I'm over that now.

Och, that's awful. Do whatever you have to do to stay safe, damnit, kellydamnit. Like, brandish a machete on your walk home, nobody messes with anyone brandishing a machete.

Or hire a big dog to walk home with you.

Take care.

Oh, my. I hadn't read all the way to the bottom of the article, where he knocks down his target and drags her where he wants her. After a few attacks without being caught or disabled, he's escalated his approach: he's getting bolder. That's alarming.

Elsa, my thoughts exactly. And, as awful as it sounds, until now it was a couple neighborhoods away, so while I thought it was awful, I didn't personally feel in danger. This one is literally one block from my front door, so I'm a bit on edge. And, the place where he attacked her is a busy street, near businesses and resturants. It wasn't isolated or anything!

Thanks for the concern, everyone. I'm sure I'm overreacting, it's just scary when this sort of thing is so close to home.

Expressing your concern is not overreacting, and you needn't feel sheepish. It is scary, and you're taking precautions. Good for you.

What Elsa said- you're not overreacting, you're planning ahead, which is exactly the right thing to do in a situation like this.

It is very scary. I lived in a neighborhood at a time when there was a serial rapist and I the neighborhood that I live in now can be shady in some areas. That said, I think the most important thing you can do to protect yourself is BE AWARE.

What I do when I am out walking in my neighborhood (I don't have a car):

- I carry either pepper spray or something sharp (usually a boxcutter) in my hand, ready to use (not in my purse). Be aware that any weapon could be used against you and weigh up the pros/cons in your mind. Personally, I still feel better having something. Also be aware that pepper spray may not work on someone who is on drugs.

- I am constantly looking around to see who is behind me, across the street from me, in front of me etc. CONSTANTLY.

- I do not let anyone get anywhere near me. If someone is coming towards me on the sidewalk, I cross the street (when they are still very far away). Same if someone is getting close behind me. I am not worried about offending people. The guy in the article seems to act as if he is jogging to go up to people - be aware of everyone who is around you and don't let anyone get near you. I think if an attacker knows you are aware of him and prepared, he might not bother. This is just a guess.

- I am also constantly looking to where I might run to if needed, what houses have lights on inside, any stores nearby etc.

- I wear shoes that I could run in, if need be. If you happen to be wearing heels or stilettos (as I sometimes do), be aware that you can use sharp heels to protect yourself (stomping a toe with a sharp heel could do some damage). Know how to protect yourself with simple objects like this.

- Watch the cars around you as well. In the last year, I once had a man in a van who slowly drove past me, got to the end of the block, turned around and drove past me again, over and over. He did this until I reached my destination and went inside. Very scary.

- Watch where you're walking. In an area that I walk frequently, on one side of the road there is a sidewalk with a fence running along it. On the other side of the road, there is a sidewalk with an open wooded area next to it. I am obviously not going to walk on the wooded side as someone could sneak up on me and drag me into the woods.

- Look as if you know exactly where you are going - act confident.

- Read self defense websites and find out some simple self defense moves you could use that are effective - eye gouging etc.

Just some things off the top of my head. Keep yourself safe.

Keeping everyone inside is terrible advice; it makes the streets infinitely less safe for those people who have to be out. "Walk with company when you can" is a reasonable precaution; "don't walk alone" is simply unworkable.

Triggerfinger's recommendations are good. And hey, maybe you can coordinate something with Pie's sister? Or at least make a new friend in adversity?

Hoping they're nailing the bastard right now.

Keeping everyone inside is terrible advice; it makes the streets infinitely less safe for those people who have to be out.

That is so true. That's why I like the opposite tack - populate the streets with a clear presence.

It's not the same thing, but the psychology is the same: I was just reading that the local state U. campus has a program called something like "Street Team" which is made up of residents from the community. They're the same contingent who used to complain (and did suffer) from sports-related rioting, noise, and over-partying in their neighborhoods. Rather than take the oppositional town vs. gown stance, they've created this group that's half neighborhood watch, half student advocacy. They wear blue windbreakers with the name of their group on them, and 8 of them just walk through neighborhoods near campus on the evenings, Thursday through Sunday. They get to know the students and visit the frat houses, keep an eye for any people who are dangerously intoxicated, advise kids to keep noise down or take open containers inside, and listen for violence erupting. I think this is just such a brilliant response to the problem. Hiding inside and just calling the police was not effective and in fact perpetuated the problem. But by getting onto the streets, putting a face on the neighborhood, and showing that people were watching and cared about their quality of life, they've reduced police complaints dramatically.

This isn't the same situation, but the same absence of people openly watching, out and about, is what lets street crime go on, too. Definitely see what's happening neighborhood-wise. Not only may you make a real difference in someone's safety, it's an empowering response to a scary situation. Rather than feeling like you're supposed to cower at home in fear, maybe you can take action and make community connections.

Sorry....forgot to indicate a quote AGAIN,...sigh.

I love the Street Team idea. Think how different it would be if, in these situations, rather than telling women to stay home, newspapers and police told men to get out and help keep the streets safe.

It would be fuckin' awesome.

Carry a whistle and a cell phone w/ 911 on speed dial. A cell phone with no contract stills works with 911.

I think they should recommend that men not walk alone, since it's a lone male who's doing the attacks.

Carry a really bright flashlight to temporarily shine in someone's eyes, so you can run. Won't really hurt an innocent passerby.

Get involved w/ other members of the community to do neighborhood watch stuff and reclaim your safety.

As I understand it from taking part in a number of self defense classes - the vast majority of rapists aren't expecting a fight. Do fight back. Use your fingernails. Go for the eyes, throat, crotch and other soft targets.

If you must, pretend you're being attacked by a wild, stupid animal - because that's basically the truth. Eliminate any empathy you might have for your attacker as a human and be unafraid to cause grevious bodily injury or worse. Go for their fucking eyes!

One of the best, most portable self defense tools I've ever seen is the "impact Kerambit" or "traveller's wrench" as seen here and here, towards the bottom.

So, it's this little plastic wrench thing that fits in your hands kind of like a brass knuckle. It's made of some exotic, extremely hard and tough plastic. It is designed so that it's very, very difficult to take away from you, as well as give you leverage, as well as work very well with "panic striking", IE, overhead swings or random punching or pushing movements. Meaning you don't have to be a martial artist to use it. It meshes with "instinctual fighting", everything you would do with it in the line of defense is pretty much natural and unforeign - but it also works even better if you've done any self defense classes and know how to strike, where soft spots or pressure points are. (Just beneath the earlobe along the jaw line is a good one. Try it on yourself!)

That round plastic bit that sticks out and forward from the bottom of the fist is the main pokey bit. It looks relatively painless, but the size and shape of it, combined with the density of the plastic make it just hurt when you're poked with it. There's something about the shape and density of the plastic that makes it quite pokey. I would frankly rather have someone jab at me with the end of a maglight or a baton than that thing.

Does it work? Yeah, it works. I have a friend who has really bad MS and a host of other issues. While he's still ambulatory, he uses a cane to get around, and is a total wimp by admission, and would still be even without the MS. As it is now, the guy can barely stand up and walk around.

He lives just south of Market in SF. Calling it a "rough neighborhood" would be understating things. He carries his kerambit whenever he goes out, and has had to fend off crackheads and junkies with it a couple of times.

Seconding the "really bright flashlight" suggestion.

The other nice thing about pepper spray is that most formulations include an invisible UV dye that marks the attacker for some days afterwards for positive ID if the cops pick him up.

Even if there's a serial rapist prowling your area of a (moderately large) urban area, you're still more likely to raped by someone you know.

Try not to be afraid and furtive. Rapists target those they feel they are most likely to terrorize.

You should not generally avoid being out in public, but you should try to avoid certain high-risk situations and places within the area the rapist is operating. The obvious example is a dark and lonely parking garage at nighttime. But, in general, you shouldn't be afraid of doing most of the things that you normally do. If the rapist is operating in your neighborhood, it makes sense to be more careful than usual about locking doors and windows. Even so, you're still not at relative risk compared to, say, each time you invite a new date in after coffee.

Part of the workings of the misogynist, patriarchal culture is a Culture of Fear where women are constantly reminded that they are vulnerable to any man's sexual assault. This is a lie. It is difficult and dangerous for a rapist to attack a stranger in a public place. It's not that easy to attack anyone, anywhere, actually...all of us are mostly victims of violence committed by people we know, not for the least reason that people we know have much more opportunity, and some of those opportunities have very low levels of situational risk.

There's what I consider an unholy convergence of otherwise diverse interests in the playing up of the risk of stranger rapes, especially in the cases of serial rapists operating in a specific area. The police are unsubtle and naturally take the most blunt approach to preventing crime. If they had their way, there'd be a curfew. And a curfew would certainly reduce crime. But that doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do. You have a right to be on the street, doing your business. It's your city, your neighborhood. The duty of the police is to stop the rapist, not control your actions. The fact that their first instinct is to tell women what to do should tell you something.

By their natures, serial rapists are terrifying criminals, not unlike serial murders. They are clearly pathological, they frighten us with their alien-ness. We are instinctively afraid of predators in the dark places, that's a primal fear.

In a misogynist culture, where the majority of women will experience at least one sexually violent attack in their lifetime, women naturally experience a constant and nebulous fear. The specter of a strange rapist lurking in the dark corners of public spaces is a convenient repository of that fear—not the least because it seems as if there's a relatively trivial means to counter it: don't walk outside alone after dark and the like. Who can be afraid to go to a job, on a date, to a party and yet do all these things? Few of us. So we pretend the risk there doesn't exist and we compensate by placing it where we think we can keep an eye on it.

Few people want to deal with the true face of sexual violence against women. In fact, the majority of people in the US continue to use expressions which implicitly deny that sexual violence against women by people they know is "really" sexual violence. Because of this, there's little will to confront it and little outrage in response to it.

In contrast, everyone is horrified by a serial stranger rapist. Those who are concerned about sexual violence in general are consulted when a serial stranger rapist stalks a neighborhood while, in contrast, they are ignored when they talk about the conjunction of the phenomena of battered wives and rapes. And serial rapists are problems and we should talk about them. So we do.

But none of this changes the fact that only a very small portion of women that are raped are raped by a stranger in a public place. It is a horrifying crime and it should not be tolerated. And the US's rate of such crimes is relatively high. This, too, should horrify. Even so, what is truly sad are two things:

1) That we, as a society, would even tolerate a request that half of our population is periodically asked to not go out in public during the nighttime. This is not a reasonable request. Women are regularly asked to take extraordinary measures to ensure their own safety—safety that they should be able to take for granted in a society governed by the rule of law. Safety that men, everywhere, every day, take for granted. Can anyone imagine a request by the police to men to stay off the streets because there is a serial rapist raping men?

2) That we, as a society, would even tolerate asking women to take responsibility for their own safety in an extraordinary manner while, simultaneously and in contrast, we are reluctant to even make laws against and prosecute men who rape the women close to them, in their shared bedrooms and workplaces and colleges.

Take the reasonable precautions any person would make. Otherwise, live your life, go where you wish, do what you want, and refuse to live in terror because some men prefer it that way.

“As I understand it from taking part in a number of self defense classes - the vast majority of rapists aren't expecting a fight. Do fight back. Use your fingernails. Go for the eyes, throat, crotch and other soft targets.”

You're right—and fighting back will probably scare off most rapists. However, as a rule, rape crisis folk and other experts don't give the advice you give because:

A) The decision to respond to violence with violence is a very individual and personal decision. Some people just are not temperamentally suited to do this, even mildly. It's not reasonable to "ask" everyone to behave this way. Furthermore, it's a decision that most cannot predict they would be able to make until they are in such a situation. Setting someone up for the expectation that they will be able to make this decision when, in fact, it turns out they are not able to, is not helping them.

B) The most insidious (and revealing) aspect of sexual violence with regard to women in a sexist society, is the way in which the responsibility for the rape, and protecting oneself from rape, is placed upon women. Everyone who is a victim of violent crime has at least one or two regrets afterwards. But our cultural legacy of rape is that even today (when things are much improved, relatively speaking, over the past) guilt, regret, shame, and second-guessing by the victim are still the primary psychological aftershocks, often lasting for years or lifetimes, of rape. This is astonishing and outrageous if you think about it. Put succinctly, women simply do not need more ways in which to second-guess, and subsequently blame themselves, for being raped. Telling a woman that all she has to do is fight back is an implicit condemnation of the woman who doesn't fight back.

Fighting back, running, screaming, or any other response is a choice that each individual person has to make in an extreme and terrifying situation. There's not one-size-fits-all, and, ultimately, there's not any wrong choices. Being attacked, being sexually attacked, is outside the boundaries of the normal, rational world. There is no "right" way to react and you're not responsible for how you react because, frankly, the responsibility for everything that happens falls on the person, the rapist, who has sailed over the edge of the world into evil.

The rapist's actions are wrong, the survivor's actions are right, by definition, no matter what they are.

Yay, kmellis! I so agree with so much of what you've said.

I also like occhiblu's solution:

...if...newspapers and police told men to get out and help keep the streets safe.

except change the word "men" to "people."

Your arguments are valid and strong, kmellis, and I don't at all mean to place any burden of responsibility for rape on women.

Granted, I only have a small grasp of what it's like to be a woman. An inkling.

All I know is that if someone was trying to assault me like that (be they male OR female) it would probably be a fight to the death - but I suppose I should reckon that the ability to call up violence (even in the form of self defense) so easily is mostly a male trait.

Again, I highly recommend the plastic impact kerambit. Legal, cheap and effective. And by all means, do take a self defense class. It does wonders for ones self-confidence and actual abilities, and it teaches valuable lessons and gives one the chance to test themselves in conflict, and learn that they're probably a lot tougher than they thought.

Yeah, of course I don't understand what it's like to be a woman in this context from direct experience, either. :) But my work in rape crisis taught me a lot.

I pretty much feel certain that a below-average man in terms of size and strength is about the same as an above-average woman in terms of size and strength. That is to say, there's pretty much no difference between their abilities to defend themselves. But that small man has been taught all his life to take for granted a certain level of self-defense ability. Maybe not directly. Maybe he feels cowardly. Nevertheless, our culture explicitly makes violence an option for men. And many men go through a period in childhood where they become, at least, acquainted with the idea of defending themselves physically.

And this just isn't true for most women.

The implications of this are complex. On the one hand, it implies that most woman are far more capable of defending themselves against male attackers than they believe, if only they had the will and perhaps a little practice. On the other hand, you simply cannot underestimate how strongly confidence and social conditioning play a role in this.

To my mind, the bottom line is that if a woman decides to learn how to defend herself physically, the truth that men and women aren't that different should be an encouragement. But for women who do not make this decision, that men and women aren't that different should not be part of the equation. Because, for those women, perhaps they are.

And the way in which we men take for granted the acceptability of violently protecting oneself is not immune from scrutiny. Why do we assume this? Is it not perhaps possible that it's this very familiarity and even comfort with violence which plays an important role in making violence against women (more) socially acceptable?

Let's put it another way: I was taught to drive a car by my father, who raced cars, and I was taught from the first time I went behind the wheel to learn to control a car in extreme situations, to know where the envelope of performance for the car gives way. I can, and have, avoided accidents because of this.

The question is: is it reasonable to expect drivers, in general, to have these skills?

I don't think it is. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean that you have a responsibility to realize it. Isn't it easier to teach most drivers to drive more safely, perhaps a bit more defensively, and thus avoid more accidents before they began rather than relying upon there being more highly-skilled drivers who can drive their way out of accidents as they happen?

It seems to me that it's not any person's responsibility in a civilized society where the rule of law prevails to obtain self-defense skills. If you want them, fine. If you ever need to use them, all the better. But is it an answer to the problem? No. Should people be encouraged to do this because it will help solve the problem? No. In a way, it's avoiding the problem, not solving it.

And all that is completely independent upon the psychological ramifications for a survivor who has been led to expect that a) they will be able to decide and act upon their decision to protect themselves and b) attempting to do so will make a difference. In theory, I think in most cases it would. But practice is different. To my mind, the things I discuss above and the negative ramifications for the countless survivors who will feel guilt for failing to defend themselves outweigh the benefits from telling people that they are able to defend themselves. I think those who emphasize this are doing most people a big disservice.

In my opinion, the right way to go is to just give people options. If someone wants to learn some self-defense, they should be supported in that choice. If they don't, they should be supported in that choice. And in no event does their choice make them responsible for an attack or its outcome.

And in no event does their choice make them responsible for an attack or its outcome.

Again, that's not my intent or implication. Not disagreeing, but observing. I totally agree with what you're saying. I'm not trying to simplify matters or make decisions for anyone.

I am trying to encourage women to not be afraid of or to hold themselves back from kicking ass, in any realm. (One of my favorite things about modern skateboarding is seeing women shredding it at the local parks. Didn't have that when I was a kid and street-skating was outlaw and almost entirely male.)

I really wish I could just easily introduce some less-confident women to my sister, who grew up in a household the youngest of three older boys. Holy crap did we ever learn to not mess with her. If it wasn't her scathing, deprecating wit it was a knuckle sandwich with extra meat.

Also, part of "growing up" for me has been trying to step outside the box and acknowledge and realize the sexism inherent even in the fundaments of the English language and how to eliminate it from my vocabulary. I was just discussing this with a studied language-arts housemate, and she and I were talking about gender pronouns, how "girl" seems too offensive and diminishing, and "women" seems too matronly and formal - and what was there in-between!? Nothing. Bah.

I taught my sister how to properly throw a punch when she was little. When she was a teen, some knucklehead did the macho "hey, punch me in the stomach thing". She floored him.

This happened at the train station I park at every day. I had always felt pretty safe parking there, because of the high fencing around the car park and the large number of security cameras - apparently, these are not monitored, only recorded (contrary to what Queensland Rail have previously advised). I arrived on the train about an hour after this happened and saw the police hanging around a car that had obviously been broken into, so didn't think much of it until I heard that seven other cars has been broken into. Apparently, the person who handed himself in is a regular "ice" user, which explains who he would try breaking into cars in a car park where police are known to regularly check cars for valuables left visible and hand out warnings to cars that are potential targets. From the eight cars he broke into, he got absolutely nothing. My point is that you can't expect people engaging in this sort of behaviour to act rationally or in any way you could reasonably expect them to - don't use what you would do in any situation as a guide to how other people are likely to react.

Be on guard, be careful, but don't let some scumbag rule your life. I second that the media/police should be saying "people, get out in the streets and make it safe for everyone" instead of telling people to hide under a rock, but that ain't gonna happen in this litigious world.

Kelly, first it's good that you're aware of this, tho its by no means a threat to you. You should take basic precautions tho (i've not completely read the thread, so I may be duplicating what others have said). If you're unsure of the route home, take a different one, even if its longer. More, if there's someone that can pick you up from a public space, take that option.

Don't wear anything that would restrict your vision or hearing (ie ipod). (I have to apologise for some of these comments because theyre not from me but De Becker's book The Gift of Fear) but also because there's some sage Tao story I'm reminded of which basically grounds to villagers terrified of going down an alley because of a dog that ate them up, and several each night would try. The Monk just went the other way. Know your route and possible esacape avenues.

Triggerfinger has pretty much what I wanted to say because its excellent advise. And if you choose to arm yourself, HAVE IT TO HAND, if necessary use it, and then leg it.