• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Petition worth signing

BStrong

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Jun 14, 2011
Messages
13,087
Location
San Francisco
http://www.change.org/petitions/sec...7398&utm_medium=email&utm_source=action_alert

"I joined the military because I wanted to serve my country. I served as a Lance Corporal in the Marines for over three years. In that time I was raped twice and sexually assaulted another two times.

The first time it happened I was serving abroad in Afghanistan. After that first incident I was assaulted three other times over the course of three years. It came to happen so often that I assumed it was normal and that it must happen to everyone. I never received any training on how to deal with sexual assault in the military- I didnt even know how to report it.

When I finally decided to report the sexual assaults I was led through a maze of questions and excuses and I was even discouraged from reporting the crimes. In the end, instead of getting justice I was ostracized and humiliated.

I learned that there is currently no national military sex offender registry and that offenders are not required to disclose their crimes on their discharge papers. A sex offender registration for convicted for military personal would help to address the impunity that surrounds rape within rape the military. Most veterans are honorable men and women who have served our country, but there are some who have committed serious crimes like rape and sexual assault during their service and the military has a responsibility to disclose that information for the sake of the public good."
 
Thanks for posting that. 'Circle the wagons' needs to go away as a default reaction... and not just in the military.
 
I go along with the late Col. Mike Hoare on the subject.

When he became aware that a trooper under his command in the Congo had raped a young woman, he shot the bastard through both feet with his BHP, put the guy on the first airplane out, which unfortunately crashed on take-off, killing everyone on board.

I don't go along with the aircrash portion of the story, but the shooting of the scumbag makes perfect sense to me - I'd go so far to say that he got off easy, outside of a fiery death.
 
Does this have anything to do with that "rape is an occupational hazard of the military" thing?

Rape by the enemy is an occupational hazard -- as is being killed by the enemy.

By your own pals is not. There is no "friendly fire" of rape.
 
Beerina said:
Does this have anything to do with that "rape is an occupational hazard of the military" thing?

Rape by the enemy is an occupational hazard -- as is being killed by the enemy.

By your own pals is not. There is no "friendly fire" of rape.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Friendly fire is a mistake. You can't rape someone by accident.
 
BStrong said:
I go along with the late Col. Mike Hoare on the subject.

When he became aware that a trooper under his command in the Congo had raped a young woman, he shot the bastard through both feet with his BHP, put the guy on the first airplane out, which unfortunately crashed on take-off, killing everyone on board.

I don't go along with the aircrash portion of the story, but the shooting of the scumbag makes perfect sense to me - I'd go so far to say that he got off easy, outside of a fiery death.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we know that very harsh punishments are a great deterrent to crime, historically.

Oh, wait, no we don't !
 
"It came to happen so often that I assumed it was normal and that it must happen to everyone."

It doesn't happen to everyone. Why is this girl getting raped so frequently?
 
Rape in the military is a very serious issue that warrants massive attention. What I can't stand is stupid-ass online petitions. They do nothing, they mean nothing and they are very, very annoying. The only reason the right to petition is in the first amendment is because most of the folks back in the 1780s were illiterate, one-toothed farmers and had no access to any meaningful sort of peaceful political protest.

This is friggin' mid 2012 people. If you want to stop an injustice you have to do more than punch a few keys on your laptop. Rant over.
 
Last edited:
Seriousness of [issue] aside, I think the only petition worth signing is one where I'm directly involved in the issue, the issue is directly the province of my local government (where my voice is most influential), and the petition is part of a formal process for redressing grievances or effecting change in policy.

Changing the policy towards rape in the military? That petition is probably not going to help much. Now, if she could get everybody who signed it to contribute a significant amount of money to a PAC... she could probably begin to make a difference.
 
The subject of rape while serving has come up in group, to the extent that the individual involved felt comfortable discussing it.

I'm ashamed to admit that the problem exists to the extent that it does, and so far no serious effort that I'm aware of has been undertaken at the command level to put a stop to it.

As much as I'm proud of my service and feel an obligation of service and dedication to my fellow vets, This issue pushes buttons inside me that I'm better off not having pushed.

A petition like this put to a congressperson or senator might have a beneficial effect, along with testimoney from vets/victims like McCoy.
 
Please don't take this as me saying it was the young woman's fault for not fighting back.
Assuming she went through basic training, would she not have some self-defence training? Further to that - one of the main purposes of basic training is to form a mental mindset that the use of physical force is OK under circumstances when you or your buddies are endangered.
So, my question is: Why did she not use physical force (especially a weapon like a knife) when it happened more than once?
There is never any justification for rape and there is no requirement for the victim to fight back; However, it just seems strange that a trained member of the military would not take measures to protect herself given the multiple occurrences under what she claims are almost "routine" circumstances.
 
rockinkt said:
Please don't take this as me saying it was the young woman's fault for not fighting back.
Assuming she went through basic training, would she not have some self-defence training? Further to that - one of the main purposes of basic training is to form a mental mindset that the use of physical force is OK under circumstances when you or your buddies are endangered.
So, my question is: Why did she not use physical force (especially a weapon like a knife) when it happened more than once?
There is never any justification for rape and there is no requirement for the victim to fight back; However, it just seems strange that a trained member of the military would not take measures to protect herself given the multiple occurrences under what she claims are almost "routine" circumstances.
Click to expand...

The only troops or Marines allowed to carry weapons are doing it as part of their MOS - Military Occupational Specialty - and off patrol on base weapons possession is very strictly controlled. Carrying a concealed weapon w/o autoriziation is a very serious offense in the UCMJ, and fear of assault (sexual or otherwise) probably wouldn't be a mitigating factor. The penalty iirc could be a BCD and a year in prison.

The other thing you should be aware of is that the basic training curriculum wrt combatives isn't anywhere near as comprehensive as you might think, and unless an individual is trained and practices those combative techniques until their combative response is automatic, what they're taught isn't much use.

No stereotype meant in this either, but in general the average female recruit hasn't had the exposure to combative type sports like football that has a mental and physical combative mindset - many males do, and it shows in the training curve for males v. females.

I have no explanation for frequency, but it could be that a given environment where the assaults took place was known by offenders to be "safe" for them to commit such acts.
 
rockinkt said:
Please don't take this as me saying it was the young woman's fault for not fighting back.
Assuming she went through basic training, would she not have some self-defence training? Further to that - one of the main purposes of basic training is to form a mental mindset that the use of physical force is OK under circumstances when you or your buddies are endangered.
So, my question is: Why did she not use physical force (especially a weapon like a knife) when it happened more than once?
There is never any justification for rape and there is no requirement for the victim to fight back; However, it just seems strange that a trained member of the military would not take measures to protect herself given the multiple occurrences under what she claims are almost "routine" circumstances.
Click to expand...
Not all rapists allow a fight to happen.
 
rockinkt said:
Please don't take this as me saying it was the young woman's fault for not fighting back.
Assuming she went through basic training, would she not have some self-defence training? Further to that - one of the main purposes of basic training is to form a mental mindset that the use of physical force is OK under circumstances when you or your buddies are endangered.
Click to expand...

I've been through basic training. It's not as you describe--not in the US, at least.

The main purpose of basic training is to form a mental mindset suitable for participating in a system of warfare, of which the use of physical force by individuals in self-defense is perhaps the least important part.

Soldiers whose operational specialty involves combat will receive more advanced training in the use of physical force, but even then it's not really about personal self-defense against individual assailants.
 
theprestige said:
I've been through basic training. It's not as you describe--not in the US, at least.

The main purpose of basic training is to form a mental mindset suitable for participating in a system of warfare, of which the use of physical force by individuals in self-defense is perhaps the least important part.

Soldiers whose operational specialty involves combat will receive more advanced training in the use of physical force, but even then it's not really about personal self-defense against individual assailants.
Click to expand...
The USMC has a combatives program for all personnel, it has nothing to do with combat specialties, and it is very much modelled on dealing with individual assailants.
http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCO 1500.54A.pdf
 
This is like some Reddit rubbish people post in hopes of getting a fundraiser going for them. No woman happens to be raped 4 times and not report it, if she didnt report it after the second time, its her own fault, assuming its true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom