And we have left an orphan who cannot hope to escape without some psychological damage here. Where does the child go? Into the system-and into possible abuse himself?
I have no answers, but surely there is a better way. What causes abuse and the certainty that a woman (or man) is better off dead than away from the abuser? Is it the “I don’t want her(or him), you can’t have her(or him)” type thinking? Why do these abusers cling to their spouses, even as they “push” them away by harming them? I think we need shelters, sure, but we need to look at root causes, too. Will this kid, now left without parents-will he (she?) grow up to abuse or be abused?
More than one child, from the sounds of it. The victim’s family has also been quoted in the article, and I believe (no cite) that typically children will be placed with family before winding up in the foster system.
[QUOTE=wring]
so you admit you have no real information about the scope of the problem, the nature of the help needed, but yet are confident that you know that armed guards are a viable possability? interesting.
in my mid sized area, there are 4 shelters. Four. and most are full all the time.
re: renting, how much short term housing is available in your area? not much in mine (except hotels), and of course, food and shelter are not the only needs provided for at these places. there’s also access to counseling and other programming to help offer longer term assistance for prevention of reoccurance.
research the situation, find out what is needed, what is provided, costs involved, funding availability, then come back and tell us again how easy it would be to simply put in armed guards.
[/QUOTE]
Why are you being such an ass? I never said it was easy. I never said I was “confident” about how simple anything was.
What I said was it is incumbent on an organization that exists to shelter battered women, to provide them with some degree of physical security from their batterers. Period.
[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=]
If the locations were actually secure, with multiple doors, ideally operated by remote from inside, then people would be much safer.
[/QUOTE]
I think the degree of security probably depends on location and who is running the shelter. I taught at a Salvation Army shelter last year, and the location was kept concealed as far as possible. But to get in, you had to have the door opened to you by someone inside, and they could see you on a security camera first.
It was positioned on a street with a number of other businesses and blocks of apartments around it, so that the numbers of people coming and going wouldn’t stand out, as it would in a quiet, suburban street.
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
Why are you being such an ass? I never said it was easy. I never said I was “confident” about how simple anything was.
What I said was it is incumbent on an organization that exists to shelter battered women, to provide them with some degree of physical security from their batterers. Period.
[/QUOTE]
why are you assuming that they don’t provide 'some degree of physical security from their batterers? this story is about an anomoly, not the routine.
I think the real ass is the one who is claiming that the shelter involved failed to “provide (victims) with some degree of physical security from their batterers”, because this one homicidal lunatic was able to succeed in his desire to kill. Where’s your evidence that the shelter failed to provide ‘some degree’ of physical security? I’d say you’ll have a difficult time coming up w/evidence since, apparently, many others have stayed there and been safe from their batterers.
[QUOTE=wring]
doesn’t that suggest that some how the cost of the guards would be made up by simply listing the address?
[/QUOTE]
What? No, it doesn’t. How on Earth did you get to that conclusion? That doesn’t even remotely make sense. All he’s saying is, if you can’t afford money for guards, you have to find some other way to keep the people in the shelter safe. One really cheap way of doing this is not to let everyone know where the shelter is, as a lot of other shelters already do.
I believe that would be the dead woman.
Former Domestic Violence Shelter worker checking in:
the shelter where I worked was not a place that was published in the phone book. Job interveiws were given at the restaurant down the block. There was a chain link fence around it and television monitors. There was a Avocate in the office 24/7.
That being said it was a small town, people knew where it was, especially Law enforcement. If there was a safety issue, like the abuser threated, drove by etc. The sherrif was called and secruity measures were taken. We did not have armed guards( could afford them?) and basically we could slow them down but stop a determined person to commit a crime of violence impossible.
[QUOTE=Miller]
I believe that would be the dead woman.
[/QUOTE]
don’t be an ass.
They were unable to stop one homicidal maniac. That does not equate to the shelter failing in its responsability to provide ‘some degree of security’ to those who stay there. Unless, of course, you’re suggesting that all others who’ve ever stayed there also were beaten/murdered by their abusers.
[QUOTE=wring]
They were unable to stop one homicidal maniac. That does not equate to the shelter failing in its responsability to provide ‘some degree of security’ to those who stay there.
[/QUOTE]
Like fuck it doesn’t. If having a woman under their protecting killed inside the shelter doesn’t constitute failing in their responsibility to keep the women in their shelter safe, I don’t want to know what does.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Like fuck it doesn’t. If having a woman under their protecting killed inside the shelter doesn’t constitute failing in their responsibility to keep the women in their shelter safe, I don’t want to know what does.
[/QUOTE]
So, the secret service, as an agency is a failure 'cause one homicial maniac managed to kill Kennedy?
There is no absolute. Christ even maximum security prisons have murders occur. That doesn’t mean they’re failures 'cause they’re unable to achieve perfect record.
[QUOTE=wring]
So, the secret service, as an agency is a failure 'cause one homicial maniac managed to kill Kennedy?
[/quote]
No, I think the President of the United States getting his brains splattered all over a Dallas street was a smashing success for the agency. :rolleyes:
Yes, actually, that does mean they are failures. In fact, if I wanted to find an example of an institution that fails spectacularly on just about every conceivable level, I don’t think I could find a better one than the US prison system.
So, wring, tell me something about your background that qualifies you to be an exper in the subject of battered women shelters.