Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Pattern blindness

vastleft's picture
Thread: 

The invisible women:

Within a 3-square-mile area of Milwaukee's north side an unknown man strangled six women police say were prostitutes between 1986 and 2007. But it wasn't until this past week that the city's top cop said recent DNA tests had linked the killings.

Some people in the community, including the women's' families, wonder why it took police so long to discover the DNA link and announce it, and whether some officers' biases against the victims' lifestyles and race kept them from focusing their attention on the crimes.

"Crack whores," is how some officers in past decades referred to prostitutes, said LaVerne McCoy, who retired as a sergeant in January after 25 years in the Milwaukee Police Department.
0
No votes yet

Comments

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

People don't notice the ordinary and there's nothing unusual about women, especially prostitutes, being murdered. As Anthony McCarthy notes:

Every day four women die in this country as a result of domestic violence, the euphemism for murders and assaults by husbands and boyfriends. That's approximately 1,400 women a year, according to the FBI. The number of women who have been murdered by their intimate partners is greater than the number of soldiers killed in the Vietnam War.

Thanks for posting this, VL.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I'm surprised the victim's families failed to mention gender. Yes, race and class played a role, but gender is the determining factor here. Even when women (and girls) are white prostitutes, the cops are notorious for refusing to do their job. As an officer in the article said, they believe these women and girls basically deserved it. The same thing happens to rape or domestic violence victims who are just ordinary, white, middle-class women and girls.

It just so happens prostitutes are the easiest female prey. People don't hate prostitution. They ignore or even sympathize with the John. They glorify the pimp. Those two control prostitution. They do hate the prostitute, who unlike the John and the pimp, is either exploited (usually with a history of child abuse, rape, or drug addiction) or downright enslaved in the rape trade.

That's why we love reading about (misogynistic) serial killers. It's entertainment! We treat Ted Bundy and Jack the Ripper more like celebrated outlaws than violent bigots who belong with the likes of the KKK. Even when there's a Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy type who singles out men and boys for rape and murder (a gender hate crime as well), we've so heavily feminized rape and prostitution (in victimization and perception), we dismiss these victims in a similar fashion.

adrena's picture
Submitted by adrena on

THE UNKNOWN PROSTITUTE by Jen Whyte

The sound of a plastic tape
Cracking in the stiff breeze
Demarcation of death
A life thrown carelessly in a pile of trash
Blue-white glimmer of cold limbs
Odd angles insulting the sidewalk
And a frozen stare defying the moon
Who was she … this delicate corpse
Naked in her un-virginity
Cast aside in bestial rage
A tiny particle of life force
Snuffed out as easily as a candle
Who was she … this scrap of being
No more to offer her immortal soul in exchange
For fleeting comfort for her flesh
She is like soiled garments
Cast aside on concrete’s bosom
Of no more use to man or beast
She lies in clean white splendor now
Not in the tarnished sheets she’d known
But steel … cold and unyielding cradles her
In bright lit splendor while clinical hands
Perform intricacies on her cold flesh
Searching for the essence of her adulterer
What drove that brief span to end so soon
What karmic force took such a precious jewel
What crime against humanity deserved such sentence
Sleep peacefully now sweet flesh
No more will violation be your existence.

I recently wrote an essay on this topic.

adrena's picture
Submitted by adrena on

I'm having problems formatting. In the preview, the sentences were lined up and justified to the left side of the page. Also, the last sentence was formatted as a new paragraph. However, the post eliminated the formatting.

Submitted by hipparchia on

at the bottom of the comment box, click on "input format" and then click on "filtered html" [instead of "full html"]. usually the default setting is "filtered html" but for some reason it changes to "full html" sometimes.

Submitted by hipparchia on

it seems to have done that to me a handful of times lately. never used to happen before. perhaps the hamsters are engaging in civil disobedience.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

It was, indeed, because "full HTML" was selected. That mode is primarily used for when you want to embed a YouTube video in a post or comment. When selected, you need to use "br" and "p" tags to ensure that paragraphs break.

Thanks for sharing a thought-provoking link!

mojave_wolf's picture
Submitted by mojave_wolf on

Thanks for bringing it to attention and detailing why things like this happen without anyone blinking.

lexia's picture
Submitted by lexia on

start randomly killing johns? I mean, they're guilty of exactly the same thing the murdered women were.

Gary Ridgeway killed 48 women, as established by law, and bragged about killing at least 90. Washington State has the death penalty but Ridgeway is still alive. I wrote and talked and argued to no purpose about the media coverage of the "Green River Killer's" victim's "lifestyles". That as much as anything gave the cops permission to ignore the deaths and the so-called justice system to dispense second class justice.

Robert Picton was tried for the murders of six women and charged with the deaths of twenty more. He fed the bodies of these human beings to his pigs. His sentence in the famously liberal Canada? Second degree murder. Oh, and it would cost too much to establish in law and in history the facts of the deaths of those additional women, so there was no second trial.

But I forgot - women can't even kill in self defense. Look at what was done to Aileen Wuornos. Look at the sentences women who have killed abusive husbands serve.

What relation do we have to law when it binds us to a system, like black South Africans under apartheid, that is so manifestly based on power and not justice?

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

And an answer to a simple question is a simple answer. No.

Even those sympathetic to Wournos wouldn't excuse her crimes as self-defense*, with the possible exception of her first murder, but who knows even about that one, given how many other lies she told/lived, and her previous violent history. She was a deeply disturbed person with a very sad background, but that doesn't excuse or mitigate what she did. Are you saying her victims deserved to be killed?

Since I'm not a capital punishment person, I disagree with her execution. The fact is, since her execution is being used to sell/glorify her life and crimes, it is just one more reason to abolish it. Furthermore, if you recall, she was the one who wanted to end appeals and hasten her own excecution.

I just find it absolutely disgusting that you would use the culture of violence in this country and the abuse many women are subjected to in their relationships to excuse Aileen Wournos's crimes. Aileen Wournos fired nearly a hundred bullets into seven human beings. That she was sent to prison or sentenced similarly to other multiple murders makes her no more a victim of violence against women than Ted Kozynski is a victim of modern society, or, I would submit, O.J. Simpson was a victim of racism. I mean, how well did that work out?

*I'm not going to bother to link on Wournos, there are thousands of links available.

lexia's picture
Submitted by lexia on

And the movie they made about him was called? How exactly did he kill each of his victims again, and exactly how much material was expended in their deaths?

And the cute name the media gave Wournos was? Oh, and what were all those take offs on that name again? Like, you know, naming an ice cream parlor after her? Or the many sigs women adopt that refer to her because killing men is, you know, funny?

Oh, and can you name each of the still living men who killed their children to get back at their wives for the crime of not staying under their control? Ok, I'll make it easy for you - just the ones in the U.S. in the last year.

Or the male school teachers who "seduced" or "had affairs with" their students? Remember, its only statutory rape when a woman does it.

I just find it absolutely disgusting that your one concern in discussions of the epidemic of male violence against women is to scold a woman for pointing out the indisputable fact that a woman was given a much harsher sentence for killing men than men are for killing women. Many if not all of those men had threatened her life and all of them were guilty of the exact same thing the media uses to justify the murder of women, when it bothers to justify it at all. It sounds like your facts have come from the distorted pile-on the media always does when any woman uses violence against men for any reason. Phyllis Chestler published a book with a far more believable account that the story line the media used.

If the media treated male violence against women with same profound deeply and sincerely felt outrage it treats any violence done by any woman against anyone, women would be a lot closer to having the house arrest we live under in the U.S. lifted. Instead, the media uses its male owned megaphone to sustain an environment where women cannot even defend themselves when it's common knowledge the law won't. OJ Simpson isn't your racial analogy, Mississippi before the nineteen sixties is.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

because Wuornos was not unjustly sent to prison.

Nor was Squeaky Fromme. Either time, as a matter of fact.

Being an apologist for a psychopath is every bit as disgusting when the psychopath is female as male.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

"But I forgot - women can't even kill in self defense. Look at what was done to Aileen Wuornos."

I found that objectionable, (as have others obviously). I find your equating Wuornos and her crimes to people who have been battered (proveably) and then killed in self-defense an insult to those women who are actually in a situation out of their control (unlike Wuornos). The only people who has given any evidence (actually no evidence, just words) that she even picked these people up as a prostitute are Wuornos and her lover. The dead don't speak.

Maybe she flagged them down to have them fix a tire. Maybe she picked them up in a bar. My question: would you take Ridgeway's* word regarding the facts of his crimes if they were self-exculpatory? I rather doubt it. I wouldn't. Your mileage obviously varies. I'm not "scolding" you for anything, I'm rejecting your equivilating.

But you take this too far for me to converse with you. I wasn't excusing ANY violence, not against women certainly. And, after blaming me for supposedly being indifferent to men on women violence you say this:

"Many if not all of those men had threatened her life...."

So, it was ok to murder a couple of 'em?

You and Dick Cheney should get along fine.

I've got more issues with your deeply disturbing posts on this topic, but forget it, I'm outa here.

* Ridgeway, a psychotic mass murderer who surely will burn in hell if there is one, and to whom you seem to be accusing me of being indifferent.

lexia's picture
Submitted by lexia on

should get along just fine, you apologist for psychopathic serial killers.

See? Anyone can use that persuasive style of argument, though I don't know what it proves.

Others have disagreed with you many times. Does that fact in itself make you wrong?

As for Sarah being the other, I should not have replied to her. I know from seeing her comments on other posts by Lambert and Vastleft that we have no views in common and I really don't like the name calling.

Lambert hasn't yet said what facts he's convinced I'm wrong on nor what supports that conviction, so it's hard to say what he agrees with about your assertions.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

"use that persuasive style of argument". Not without backing it up with something that I said that would justify it. And since I didn't say anything like that you can't do that. Not honestly anyway.

For at least the third time, I'm not minimizing the culture of violence against women, and especially against women who are forced into (or "choose") the sex trade. I would even go further and say "street life", since it includes drugs and homelessness as additional factors increasing the risks for women (even more so than men). I have have had several very close friends who have either come out of that life, or had family who were. There is no way to minimize the barbarity of it (mosty coming from "pimps" by the way, not "johns"). I'm also not trying to justify or minimize violence OF ANY KIND. It's becoming pretty clear that you are at least when it is a woman perpetrating it. I base that on what you write, including, with no trace of self-awareness, a line like the following and when it is pointed out, not walking it back:

"Many if not all of those men had threatened her life and all of them were guilty of the exact same thing the media uses to justify the murder of women, when it bothers to justify it at all. "

I'm sorry. I'm calling total bullshit on that. Outright bullshit. The only person who can prove any of those statements is the person who killed them. There is no hard evidence of any kind to support those statements. Shockingly, the characterization Wournos gave of them threatening her life, or even of them picking her up as "johns" obviously makes her more "sympathetic" and dehumanizes them as victims. Obviously you believe her. You ignored me when I asked if you would accept Ridgeway's self-serving statements about his victims, characterizations which dehumanize his victims in a similar fashion as did Wournos's descriptions of her victims. No doubt an inconvenient question! I am not a mind-reader, but apparently you believe her only because she was a woman.

I also made it clear that I was against the death penalty. That means I was against her death penalty as well. That means I felt she should have spend the rest of her life in prison, the same as any other mass murderer.

Finally, I initially focused on only one small item you wrote that disturbed me. I never said anything about you personally. But rather than clarify it, you took it as a personal attack. Throughout, I have only objected to your apparent (and clearly NOT just apparent) excusing of Wournos' murders, and conflating them with, what in many cases I agree could be justifiable violence by women against men. You make many other characterizations I disagree with, but since you can't even manage to provide one shred of evidence regarding your beliefs on Wournos, and that as of now you haven't brought one shred of linky evidence for any of your other claims, it makes those conversation not worth my time.

lexia's picture
Submitted by lexia on

for both violence and sexuality when it comes to women, and how this creates an environment where the murder of women by men for the non-capital crime of prostitution becomes commonplace. I went on to question the relation a person has to law when it is not only known to fail to protect her from violence from a known source, but will use force to prevent her from protecting herself.

I believe you missed that.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

not so much inaccurate as incomplete.

Equal protection under the law exists. ENFORCEMENT of that equal protection, not so much.

Why is that?

Well, overwhelmingly, our police forces remain staffed with men.

Our society permits prejudice against drug users and the poor. Prostitutes are often one, or the other, or both -- whether those prostitutes are male or female.

Men don't murder women for prostitution -- or at least not just for prostitution. They murder women for money, sex, drugs, jealousy, blackmail, outrage, or sexual release; in the case of serial killers, the motives may be so intertwined as to be unclear. Not all victims of serial killers are female, but females are far easier to prey upon in the US culture than are males. Why this is, I can't say; I don't know.

It may be the training we give our children, that feminine implies or demands helplessness and also predisposes to deceit.

lexia's picture
Submitted by lexia on

I replied to Okanagen with the same hyperbole with which he replied to me, also not on point. Your reply was a reply to that, not to the fact the law imposes different sentences depending on the gender of the perpetrator and of the victim. That fact is pretty well established.

As for the law providing protection for women, two recent Supreme Court decisions overtly establish a far inferior right for women to protection against violence, specifically from men, than for anyone else: "U.S. v. Morrison" and "Gonzalez v. Castle Rock".

You say in your most recent reply that you don't know why women are targeted by men so often. My original post was one explanation: the media excuses the most extreme violence done by men to women, and has no tolerance at all for any violence women may use for any reason. The law reflects this in imposing extremely disparate sentences on women and men. The sexual double standard whereby women, but not men, are punished for acts in which men and women both participate, usually with men having the greater agency, is reflected in both the law and the media. This makes prostitutes especially likely victims.

One consequence is that when a man makes the decision to harm someone who has not harmed him, a woman's inability to defend herself, the law's refusal to defend her and the absence of social disapproval for male violence against women must all play a part in whom he chooses to harm and the degree of harm he chooses to inflict. Until recently, a man's beating his wife or girlfriend was no more than a misdemeanor and still is in many places. As for social disapproval, from Miles Davis to Hiram Monserrate, there is none. I think one need look no further to find a motive.

Submitted by lambert on

Lexia writes:

... murder of women by men for the non-capital crime of prostitution ...

Sarah responds:

Men don't murder women for prostitution -- or at least not just for prostitution.

No response to that, at least.

NOTE I don't like facts that are "pretty well established." I like links. In fact, I'd love to see some posts on those two decisions, with some real analysis. That would be great!

lexia's picture
Submitted by lexia on

I don't like replies that begin with personal attacks and go on from there. I also don't like endlessly replying to tangents.

I should not have responded to Sarah's first reply and will correct that now.

Submitted by lambert on

this is pretty confusing. Lots of people confuse an argument that they're wrong on the facts with a personal attack, in case you haven't noticed. It's even more confusing when a personal attack is alleged, and the person making it isn't mentioned; that's the old "some say" trick. And when the unsupported assertions start flying, it's hard to figure out what's tangential and what isn't.

Anyhow, I'd like to see the case law analyzed, as I said. More light, please.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

You say this:

You say in your most recent reply that you don't know why women are targeted by men so often.

I said this:

Not all victims of serial killers are female, but females are far easier to prey upon in the US culture than are males. Why this is, I can't say; I don't know.

It may be the training we give our children, that feminine implies or demands helplessness and also predisposes to deceit.

Your response is to something you postulate, not to what I said. What I said was that women are far easier prey. I limited my contention to the US but a few minutes with Google suggests the truth is the same worldwide: women are far more often murdered by men than the other way around. I said nothing about targeting by men. I said I feel we teach our children that proper women are helpless and deceitful.

Ever heard "tease" applied to a cheerleader, for example?

Lambert, what response do you want from me on the point regarding prostitution?
It's a simple fact that prostitution, while criminalized in 49 states (and Clark County Nevada), puts its practitioners at higher risk of injury or death than do such pink-collar professions as, say, nursing or schoolteaching or hairdressing or fashion designing; but in point of fact the profession itself is not nearly as often the motive for a murder as is something else in the murder victim's life. Honor killings may be the exception; I don't know how many of those go on in the US in a given year.

Prostitutes are prey -- for the johns, for the pimps, for drug dealers, for the police. It's no less true of male prostitutes than female. That their status as "natural prey" (think krill in the ocean, antelope on the African plain or rabbits in the Arctic wilderness) gives them less status in the eyes of law enforcement professionals is not the fault of the law, but of the individuals who choose to regard those murders as less worthy of investigation, those murderers as really not harming anybody.

It's very similar to the way the world really wanted to look at the jerks who murdered Mathew Shepard, but it's only similar -- Shepard was killed over sex. Far oftener, prostitutes are killed over money or drugs or not turning enough tricks to meet the pimp's expectations.

There's an argument some feminists make that all interactions between men and women can be limned down to a form of prostitution, even marriage (her sexual favor in exchange for his providing food and shelter for her, and perhaps children if the relationship continues). I find that argument unpalatable and disingenuous: it recognizes no natural affection among family members and cheapens mutual commitment. (Perhaps one of the reasons behind the visceral objections to same-sex marriage we continuously hear from the same people who will tell you that God loves hookers, but only God can or should, since hookers are the lowest form of life shaped like humans. I find those people reprehensible, too. Lots of them seem to make their living by standing up and shouting at people to give them money.)

EDIT: sorry, lambert, I wrote this before I absorbed the last graf in your comment.

Submitted by lambert on

In fact, FWIW, I don't think prostitutes are murdered, at least in the great majority of cases, because they're prostitutes, but because they're women who are also targets of opportunity, as you point out.

There's a post on political economy and patriarchy with one link between them as prostitution, for sure. In my copious free time. For sure, patriarchy's a lot older (ie, more adaptive....) than capitalism, so perhaps it has pride of place in causal terms. Dunno, dunno. After the primaries, it assumes much greater centrality for me. I know I'm a bit late to the party on that one...

adrena's picture
Submitted by adrena on

Re: violence against prostitutes - because society considers prostitutes to be an inferior and separate class of females, violence against them doesn't count as violence against women. The Whores receive violence on behalf of the Madonnas.

Re: what Sarah said: "I feel we teach our children that proper women are helpless and deceitful. That's exactly what some of the traditional Fairy Tales do. "Little Red Riding Hood", "Cinderella", "Snow White", and "Sleeping Beauty" teach little girls to passively wait to be rescued by a male. None of these stories inculcate into little girls a sense of strength, independence, and power. While in earlier folklore the protagonists of these tales had been inventive and strong girls, over time, the original characters and narratives were transformed to better reflect the ideal of 'femininity' (female powerlessness) as prescribed by the dominant class.

So please, do your daughters and granddaughters a favor - get rid of those damn fairy tales.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

I have to say I don't think it's just women in prostitution who are killed because they're available to killers' use. It's men too. It's kids, too. It's a hazard on the job, as that chief inspector says.

The lack of money, the lack of safe places, the lack of social status, and the lack of protection are big factors. That they're considered fair prey by society -- see that quote I found from the UK earlier -- arises not so much from their being women, I think, as their being perceived as lacking worth for other reasons, such as addiction to alcohol or street drugs.

Now, comes the part I'm going to say that will make me sound apologetic for the system; the problem is I'm not apologizing. I'm not explaining. I'm complaining.

There aren't enough streetlights, there aren't enough safe bars, there aren't enough police officers, and society wants it that way. A certain percentage of society regards safety as something only the righteous deserve, and another percentage of society regards taxes (i.e. the revenue the government uses to pay police officers, buy them guns and bullets and cars and tires and gas and flashlights and radios and teach them how to do their jobs; the revenue the government uses to pay prosecutors' and investigators' and judges' salaries, provide offices and courtrooms and jails, clerks and computers and file cabinets to support what we call the criminal justice system) as a robbery from their pockets for which they get no benefit.

The men -- and increasingly the women -- who staff PDs and SOs and constabularies across this country (and I suspect the rest of the world) are under pressure to solve cases. That pressure is higher when the victim(s) in the case prove sympathetic figures in the public imagination (Patti Hearst is a good example) or when the perpetrator(s) suspected in the case prove notorious, striking fear into the public psyche.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

is on the streets. Craigslist's erotic /adult services categories offered maybe a measure of safety that the streets don't -- but as long as there's dope to be kept out of an addict's hands as a matter of power, as long as pimps are such sorry excuses for humans they profit off others' misery -- there will be prey available because the predators find ways to create prey, find ways to use prey, find ways to profit off prey.

You could carry it farther -- as long as money controls politics none of us is any safer than that parking-lot chippie, but that's not the point here.

One thing Schwarzenegger may inadvertently get right in California, if he's able to get the lege out there to legalize personal-use quantities and tax marijuana just like tobacco and whiskey (which makes more sense to me, especially if the state of California can do a better job inspecting the grass than the USDA does with peanuts), one of the good things that might follow is (gasp) affordabilty / quality control. But what do I know? I'm a dumb old girl.

So there but for the grace of FSM, Ceiling Cat and all the gods ... the streets are a scary damn place, when you don't have to be on 'em to make your living at the mercy of the next car that pulls over. When you're on 'em to make your living trying to protect your neighbors, trying to stop idjits from running drag races on the same streets kids play, trying to catch the dope dealers and get their crap out of circulation before somebody else dies from their poisonous commerce, the streets are damn scary. That's without even having to be sick from the lack of a fix, or having to keep the bruises from showing, or even having to be a chick with no money and no home.

So ... here's the thing. There's no way to eliminate the predators. There's no real way to actually protect the prey -- not as long as there's money in using them, money in ignoring them, social status in not being one of them. Gotta change the way they're seen, gotta change the way we value WOMEN and CHILDREN -- boy, girl, both, either -- gotta stop the whole "piece of ass" mindset.

How to do that, like I said before, I have no notion. It's so far beyond my ken I might as well try developing submarines to use on Saturn. But in my lifetime we sent men to the moon -- in the middle of a war in Southeast Asia, as a matter of fact. In my lifetime we've had Medicare come along (Social Security is older than me). In my lifetime we've had a black man elected to the White House.

So I say again, we have to focus on doing what we can where we are with what we've got. What I know is, the things I can't fix, I have to at least point out need fixing. Somebody's out there who's smarter or better trained or has enough a different slant on it than me, maybe they can fix it.

I mean, hell, we've got marriage equality in five states now, and in Massachusetts it's demonstrably had a positive effect on their economy. In California the actor in their statehouse wants to legalize marijuana. It's even possible we could have another Democrat lite gov in Texas in my lifetime.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

Other officers, such as Detective Chief Superintendent Max McLean, do care. He has spent more than a year investigating the murder of a 19-year-old prostitute, Becky Hall, in Bradford. He appealed for help on Crimewatch and is dismayed by public indifference.

"Your general man in the street, I think, genuinely doesn't care if a prostitute gets murdered. And if you speak to any senior detectives throughout this country, the first decision they make when they find a naked prostitute who's been murdered is whether to tell the press she's a prostitute. Because you think, right, if I go to the press and say that a 19-year-old single mother has been brutally murdered in the street, then I'm going to get the shock, horror, I'm going to get people interested."

Many of the prostitutes are young women who have been abused as children. Now their deaths bore the public. "If I say that a 19-year-old prostitute's been found stripped naked and murdered in a red-light area, the public think it's one of those things, isn't it, hazard of the job," says McLean.

HeroesGetMade's picture
Submitted by HeroesGetMade on

Or the lack thereof, has been on the mind lately. I remember way back, maybe a few years after I'd moved to Albuquerque, watching the local news one night and being stunned by the plea of a local exotic dancer, who was pleading with the police and the whole town at large, to mount a search for her friend, also an exotic dancer, who had gone missing. She made mention of the fact that her friend was a mother, somebody's daughter, somebody's sister, and a fellow human being of worth, despite her profession. I was stunned by the knowledge that she was pleading for some show of human decency precisely because she (and I) knew that none was likely forthcoming. It's altogether likely that this woman who went missing all those years ago was laid to rest, or rather dumped like trash, out on the West Mesa. I know I'd have to answer in the affirmative to the following question:

Does anyone else feel like we’re being told: Yes, we are still pulling bones from the ground but these people were drug users, prostitutes and transients (and not coincidentally, apparently all women) so… all you normal people out there in ABQ, sitting on the couch watching this on the news, you have nothing to worry about.

That serial killer who may or may not be running around? He’s not after you.

So I think we have some questions for ourselves. Do we as a society value life for life’s sake, or do we only care about certain kinds of lives?

The fact is that although serial killers may be crazy, they aren't stupid. That's why their all-time favorite target is prostituted women. As long as you stick to doing indefensible things to women, you can get away with it for a very long time. Maybe Michael Vick missed the memo on that one - cruelty to animals we care about, women though, not so much. And the Virginia Tech massacre - would we even be calling it a massacre if the gunman had not shot any men? After all, it was just a domestic disturbance until he aimed his sights on some men. I'm seeing a pattern here, and it isn't pretty at all.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

where the two guys were convicted for killing a girl because of the dog hairs found in her sox?

Cops hate "domestic disturbance" calls above all others -- even more than with a traffic stop, you never know what's going to be waiting for you when you go on one of those. Maybe it's one drunk, maybe it's two, maybe it's more; maybe somebody's high,
somebody's shooting
, somebody's got a knife or a baseball bat, maybe there are kids involved .... maybe by the time you get there the survivor is holed up ready to kill the first cop out of a car 'cause it ain't a domestic disturbance anymore, it's murder(s), and the killer's got nothing left to lose. Or maybe the whole thing's an ambush.

The thing is, with a domestic disturbance, if you get there and interfere, the party being hammered on is apt to turn on you, too. It's like Stockholm syndrome run amok -- the nearest thing I can think of is the Branch Davidian women who wouldn't leave or let their kids leave, the last few days of that giant horrible disaster the Flyin' Big Idjits created outside Waco (way to have handled that was a nice quiet nab of Vernon Howells on one of his morning jogs, IMNVHO -- the kind of thing the Rangers would've done if they hadn't been overruled) and/or Ruby Ridge. (Yeah, I'm as anti- as they come, when the law enforcement in question is being stupid. Between the Flyin' Big Idjits and the Amateur True Fools, it's tough to tell who's being stupider, sometimes. That said, IN the areas where they are -- separately -- experts, they've got damn near no equals on the planet at what they do. It's just that, when they mess up, they do so spectacularly and in spades, right out in front of FSM, Ceiling Cat, all the gods, and everybody ... and in general people get killed who didn't need to get killed. The Flyin' Big Idjits have scaled way back on their agents provocateurs since Hoover died, I note. Of course, the Dead End Addicts and the Amateur True Fools, trying to hang onto their share of the Homeland Security Administration moolah, are upping their antes of "sting" and "bait" ops, so ... I dunno, maybe it's a wash.)

Do you guys have an FB&I office in Albuquerque? Will the local cops ask 'em in?

HeroesGetMade's picture
Submitted by HeroesGetMade on

No, I know of no connection to the two guys convicted via CSI on dog hairs. Yes, it turns out Abq has a Federal Bureau of Intimidation field office, and with the proper motivation, no doubt they could get to the bottom of who murdered all those women and dumped them out on the West Mesa. But that's sort of the entire problem - law enforcement, no matter how good they are at their jobs, tend to only be motivated to find the perpetrators of crimes where they are able to identify with the victims. Law enforcement tending to be mostly male, and the victims here being prostituted women, well, I'm sure they think they have better things to do. Hopefully it won't have to turn into an international scandal like the 400+ disappeared women of Juarez before law enforcement gets off the dime.

I realize domestic violence calls can go wooly in 1001 different ways, but so can many situations cops have to deal with involving any combination of FITH people with guns. Maybe one of the reasons they hate the domestic violence calls the worst is because sometimes they see themselves or their coworkers in those calls.