911 Dispatcher Tells Woman About To Be Sexually Assaulted There Are No Cops To Help Her Due To Budge

If this woman had been trained in using a hand gun and if she had one in her home she would have to call 911 for them to come pick up her ex boyfriend's body after she shot him when he broke in and raped her.

How helpless she must have felt waiting for him to break in and choke her and rape her knowing that no one was coming to help her.

The woman told the dispatcher that Bellah previously attacked her and left her hospitalized a few weeks prior to the latest incident. The dispatcher stayed on the phone with the woman for more than 10 minutes before the sexual assault took place.

“Once again it’s unfortunate you guys don’t have any law enforcement out there,” the dispatcher said, according to Oregon Public Radio.

The woman responded: “Yeah, it doesn’t matter, if he gets in the house I’m done.”

Police say Bellah choked the woman and sexually assaulted her. He was arrested by Oregon State Police following the incident.

“There isn’t a day that goes by that we don’t have another victim,” Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilberson told Oregon Public Radio. “If you don’t pay the bill, you don’t get the service.”

seattle.cbslocal.com...

for under $200 this woman could have stopped this attack before it ever took place.
A shotgun is the best and cheapest deterrent against a home invasion attack. If this woman owned a shotgun, the knowledge of this may have been enough for her ex boyfriend to think twice before breaking in.

www.academy.com...

I hope she sues the crap out of her county and state. That's just sad. Couldn't she get a knife? Something? A bottle of bleach and vinegar combine them and throw mustard gas at him? I don't know how old she is, but this is just too sad.

Reminds me of Chicago PD no longer responding to crimes of burglary.

What are they doing with the people's taxes?!

I do agree with the rest of you guys though. She should definitely buy an AR-15/tank/predator drone/tazer/EMP bomb/depleted uranium ammunition ASAP.

Let us disarm more American's so this happens more... said no sane politician ever.
But it is where they are trying to take us.
M.

The sheriff’s department had to cut 23 deputies and the entire major crimes unit after it lost a multi-million dollar federal subsidy, according to Oregon Public Radio. There are now only six deputies left.

(Op Link)

Take the Fed's money, then see the state cut back in other areas as if it means a savings in the end. Then the feds own the locals ...or in worst case, actually pull the money arbitrarily like this, and leave the short sighted locals (the feds didn't used to base pay the local law enforcement ) without proper coverage at all. I suppose the state needs to dramatically step up state police coverage over what it now an unincorporated area .....or someone might think to sue them for failure to deliver basic public safety needs.

reply to post by Abstruse


The city, county, state, feds, Etc. are not liable for our safety.
This sort of a lawsuit has taken place before and failed miserably.
As far as mixing chems and using them, that is illegal and will get you arrested! (figure that)!!
This is why we have a 2nd Amendment, and why we should fight for its full reinstatement, full auto, silencers, Anything the military can have short of explosives.

Originally posted by Abstruse

I do agree with the rest of you guys though. She should definitely buy an AR-15/tank/predator drone/tazer/EMP bomb/depleted uranium ammunition ASAP.

edit on 23-5-2013 by Abstruse because: Monsanto is poisoning your family.

no need for anything fancy like that, a simple $200 shotgun would have saved her.
www.academy.com...

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by Abstruse

 

The city, county, state, feds, Etc. are not liable for our safety.
This sort of a lawsuit has taken place before and failed miserably.
As far as mixing chems and using them, that is illegal

and will get you arrested! (figure that)!!
This is why we have a 2nd Amendment, and why we should fight for its full reinstatement, full auto, silencers, Anything the military can have short of explosives.

I've seen that happen to area-51 employees that handled radioactive waste without proper protective equipment and sue Area-51. Bill Clinton steps in and says that place does not exist therefor you cannot sue them. So, I'm pretty sure your first sentence is mostly likely standard government protocol. I'm pretty sure not one official even cared about what happened to that lady, much less the operator. The operator didn't even give her an idea to defend herself. You know pick up stick? I like my planet/continent/country/state/city/county, but I sure hate the people running/ruining it.

I know it's something she herself could've prevented, but I can't in good conscience blame a rape victim.

So where are our liberal friends who say no one needs a gun? That the police are only a minute away. Who claim we have no right to self protection, when law enforcement is there to protect and serve?

This case, and many like it, testify to the fact that the 2nd amendment is more important now than ever.

Had to add this incredible statement.

>The sheriff’s department even put out a press release warning domestic violence victims to “consider relocating to an area with adequate law enforcement services.”<

Not ... "Purchase something allowing you to protect yourself" But instead ... "move".

I wonder this woman's attitudes towards firearms. She is, after all, living in Oregon. A liberal utopia. She'd been attacked and hospitalized several weeks before. She appears to have had a defeatist attitude on the phone to 911. What are her views on gun ownership?

This is why it's good for people to learn how to defend themselves. I'm not one of those right-wingers who fears and hates the government. With a small number of police and a large number of yahoos who could attack you at any moment. It would be wise to arm yourself and learn how fight.

Those of you saying that if she had a gun this wouldn't have happened are still blaming the victim if though it is unintentional.
You do not know her circumstances and why she didn't have a gun or use a knife.

For all we know she may have had a gun, but fear and panic could have have interfered with her thinking clearly causing her to forget about it.

She may have felt ill-prepared to use a gun she just purchased and feared that he could over power her and take the gun making things worse.

She may be afraid of guns.

$200 is a lot of money to a minimum wage worker and financial difficulties may have made such a purchase impossible. Or maybe she had lost her job and was barely making it.

I could continue with scenarios but you do not know her situation. Saying a gun would have stopped this sounds great in theory but in reality there are factors we don't know, and so it places the blame back on the victim instead of the perpetrator and the lack of police.

The issue at hand is the lack of law enforcement. Ways that the residents in that county can defend themselves is certainly something to be discussed but saying that this wouldn't have happened if she didn't have a gun is an incorrect assumption and places the blame in the wrong hands.

So they have the budget to hire people to take calls. Yet not enough to finish the other half of the job...



I wonder when cities will bar firefighters from connecting their hoses until the home owner of a building on fire hands over their credit card information.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

reply to post by calstorm


Well. You lay out several scenarios, and could have continued, then tell us we can't produce scenarios in which she could have protected herself with a gun.

You're right. We don't know her circumstances. We do know that she spent 10 minutes on the phone with 911, with what I would call a defeatist attitude. I don't hear fear or panic in the words, "I'm done". I hear, "Oh well, whatever."

This is also a story on personal responsibility. She has to be responsible enough to know the law enforcement situation in her area. She'd been attacked several weeks earlier. She knew that police situation. It is then up to her to take responsible actions to protect herself. She obviously didn't. Defeatist attitude.

In short. Some of the blame does lie in her hands.

reply to post by 2ndthought


A gun may have very well protected her, then again it may not. My issue is with saying this wouldn't have happened if she had a gun and placing blame on the victim. Defeatist attitude or not, it is still not a reason to blame the victim.

I do believe it would be more productive to discus steps that the residents of Josephine county, herself included can take to protect themselves in the future.

reply to post by calstorm

Those of you saying that if she had a gun this wouldn't have happened are still blaming the victim if though it is unintentional.
You do not know her circumstances and why she didn't have a gun or use a knife.

For all we know she may have had a gun, but fear and panic could have have interfered with her thinking clearly causing her to forget about it.

She may have felt ill-prepared to use a gun she just purchased and feared that he could over power her and take the gun making things worse.

She may be afraid of guns.

Indirectly blaming??
If someone has a means of defense and does not utilize it, shame on them for being led to the slaughter.

reply to post by calstorm


The blame for the attack is on the perpetrator.

The blame for sitting there waiting to be attacked, knowing it was coming.....that is all on the victim.

I am of the mindset that I will never be a victim. I am a firm believer in channeling that inner bobcat. Even if the bobcat wants to carry a shotgun.

WalMart often has a 410 for under $100.

reply to post by calstorm


Again. She had a history with this attacker. Recent history, which put her in the hospital. She knew there was no help coming from the police, as there weren't any police in the area. Yet, she made a decision to take no steps to protect herself. Blame the perp, he deserves it. But blame her and her 'whatever' attitude.

What would be your suggestion for that productive solution. Raise taxes to hire police? How much would be needed. $1000 per resident? As suggested earlier, $200 would buy a serviceable shotgun. A few boxes of buckshot, some time on the range punching holes in paper, and you can than feel confident that you can protect yourself. Your neighbors as well, if needed.

And to lesson the chance that it would be taken from you. One, yell out that you have a shotgun, and are willing to use it. Two, rack a round. The sound alone could sent your attacker running. Three, if it goes that far, get as far from the door as possible, aim at it, and as soon as it flies open, fire. And again, and again.

Don't give the attacker a chance to get close. With a handgun, sit on the floor against the opposite wall, brace your arms on your knees, arms straight, gun in both hands. Aim at that door.

reply to post by 2ndthought


The beautiful thing about a shotgun is that you don't even have to be a good shot!
you just point it in the general direction and the bb's will do the rest.

reply to post by Thunderheart


The one thing I don't get about this woman is the fact that her boyfriend "raped" her before and yet she didn't even call the Sheriff or local authorities about it:

The woman told the dispatcher that Bellah previously attacked her and left her hospitalized a few weeks prior to the latest incident.

I mean, what's wrong with this woman? It is as if she was asking for round 2? She could have filed charges on him after the first go.

It is Not the job of the Police to protect citizens from harm or crime.

Ask any cop they will tell you this. This girl is at fault because 1) she didn't know the law and 2) because she failed to protect herself - sorry but those are the facts.

Here is what the US Supreme court says on the matter:

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

www.freerepublic.com...

More sources:
en.wikipedia.org... Warren v. District of Columbia

disinfo.com...

from this last link above:

It was the most shocking thing I learned in law school. I was studying Torts in my first year at the University of San Diego School of Law, when I came upon the case of Hartzler v. City of San Jose. In that case I discovered the secret truth: the government owes no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. Not only did the California courts hold to that rule, the California legislature had enacted a statute to make sure the courts couldn’t change the rule.