Police only show up after the crime has been committed, but the targeted victim was there from the very beginning. Once the violent crime has started, they are the first responding person with the motive and opportunity to end it.
If that’s what you “heard”, you need to get your ears checked.
I’m talking about victim empowerment, not blame. It is our duty to support the victim, in part by ensuring they have the means to support their motive to forcefully end the attack at the earliest possible opportunity. That “earliest possible opportunity” occurs long before anyone else can respond to violence. We must be proactive, engaging people before they decide to become perpetrators, and enabling people to stop violent attacks before they become victims.
If that’s what you “heard”, you need to get your ears checked.
I’m talking about victim empowerment, not blame. It is our duty to support the victim, in part by ensuring they have the means to support their motive to forcefully end the attack at the earliest possible opportunity. That “earliest possible opportunity” occurs long before anyone else can respond to violence. We must be proactive, engaging people before they decide to become perpetrators, and enabling people to stop violent attacks before they become victims.
The first responder to a violent crime is always the victim. It is our responsibility to ensure the effectiveness of their immediate response.
The only people who will always be at a violent crime are the perpetrator and the victim. One of those two is motivated to start crime. The other, to stop it.
Addressing the perpetrator, I first have to convince them to do a 180 on their motivations. I have to convince them that the weak, tasty victims they have been preying upon shouldn’t be touched, and that they should instead go after tough, bland game instead. This is what you want me to focus on.
Addressing the victim, we merely have to show them how to achieve their goals, whether that is to be something sharp and vicious who can fight back, or how to be mistaken for one who can.
The reality is that I am focusing on that first part: it’s a lot easier to convince those perpetrators not to perpetrate when we can show them their victims are likely to fight back.
Aside from the perpetrator, there is only one person guaranteed to be present at the scene of every violent crime.
That person’s involvement is important.
… The victim???
Correct.
Police only show up after the crime has been committed, but the targeted victim was there from the very beginning. Once the violent crime has started, they are the first responding person with the motive and opportunity to end it.
Sounds like victim blaming to me.
If that’s what you “heard”, you need to get your ears checked.
I’m talking about victim empowerment, not blame. It is our duty to support the victim, in part by ensuring they have the means to support their motive to forcefully end the attack at the earliest possible opportunity. That “earliest possible opportunity” occurs long before anyone else can respond to violence. We must be proactive, engaging people before they decide to become perpetrators, and enabling people to stop violent attacks before they become victims.
If that’s what you “heard”, you need to get your ears checked.
I’m talking about victim empowerment, not blame. It is our duty to support the victim, in part by ensuring they have the means to support their motive to forcefully end the attack at the earliest possible opportunity. That “earliest possible opportunity” occurs long before anyone else can respond to violence. We must be proactive, engaging people before they decide to become perpetrators, and enabling people to stop violent attacks before they become victims.
The first responder to a violent crime is always the victim. It is our responsibility to ensure the effectiveness of their immediate response.
You are still focusing on the wrong part for preventing crime.
The only people who will always be at a violent crime are the perpetrator and the victim. One of those two is motivated to start crime. The other, to stop it.
Addressing the perpetrator, I first have to convince them to do a 180 on their motivations. I have to convince them that the weak, tasty victims they have been preying upon shouldn’t be touched, and that they should instead go after tough, bland game instead. This is what you want me to focus on.
Addressing the victim, we merely have to show them how to achieve their goals, whether that is to be something sharp and vicious who can fight back, or how to be mistaken for one who can.
The reality is that I am focusing on that first part: it’s a lot easier to convince those perpetrators not to perpetrate when we can show them their victims are likely to fight back.
So it’s the victims place to prevent criminal behaviour when you don’t know how to actually deal with said behaviour?