When office workers in the downtown area of a western city began experiencing a rash of parking lot assaults, a group of them decided to take a proactive approach to the situation, with positive results.
An office worker left her building at dusk.
As she entered her car and was about to put the key into the ignition, a man sprang up from his hiding place, rushed to her open car door and pushed her down on the front seat.
Since she still held her key ring she was also holding a container of pepper spray.
As the assailant attempted to move forward and onto her, she simply raised her hand and unloaded the entire container of pepper spray in his face.
When he screamed and backed up she kicked him squarely in the midsection, forcing him out of the car.
She sat up, slammed the door and drove away.
From the safety of her moving vehicle she also called the police who later reported they apprehended the perpetrator.
He was easy to spot because he was still suffering from the effects of pepper spray.
Two weeks later, a similar incident occurred.
After working late at a law office in the same neighborhood, Ms.
G.
assembled her personal items, set the alarm, and left the building.
As she walked she held her key ready, which meant she also had access to the pepper spray attached to her key ring.
When she neared the car she spotted the figure of a man.
He was wearing dark clothing and lurking in the nearby bushes.
Ms.
G.
's internal alarms went off so, rather than risk a confrontation, she returned to the building and called for help.
Moments later, the police arrived and apprehended the man, who turned out to be a felon wanted in a series of assaults.
In both situations, quick thinking and prior preparation made what could have been a life-and-death difference.
When questioned, the women made similar statements.
Exactly what do these to examples have in common? oBoth women had considered what they could do in a potentially dangerous situation.
oBoth women assessed their circumstances and made effective choices, based on earlier preparation.
oBoth women had armed themselves with non-lethal weapons prior to the time when they were needed.
oBoth women carried their weapons in such a way as to have them readily available, not buried in the depths of a handbag.
oBoth women had actually practiced what to do in a variety of situations.
oBoth had practiced using the pepper spray in a controlled environment so they would know what would happen if and when they chose to use it.
oBoth women seized the opening to take action.
oBoth women left the area as soon as possible.
oAs soon as they reached safety, each one called for help.
Clearly, prior planning makes a difference.
Even when the exact situation has not been practiced, the very act of having thought about what might happen and one's possible responses to threat greatly enhance the chances for avoiding harm.
An office worker left her building at dusk.
As she entered her car and was about to put the key into the ignition, a man sprang up from his hiding place, rushed to her open car door and pushed her down on the front seat.
Since she still held her key ring she was also holding a container of pepper spray.
As the assailant attempted to move forward and onto her, she simply raised her hand and unloaded the entire container of pepper spray in his face.
When he screamed and backed up she kicked him squarely in the midsection, forcing him out of the car.
She sat up, slammed the door and drove away.
From the safety of her moving vehicle she also called the police who later reported they apprehended the perpetrator.
He was easy to spot because he was still suffering from the effects of pepper spray.
Two weeks later, a similar incident occurred.
After working late at a law office in the same neighborhood, Ms.
G.
assembled her personal items, set the alarm, and left the building.
As she walked she held her key ready, which meant she also had access to the pepper spray attached to her key ring.
When she neared the car she spotted the figure of a man.
He was wearing dark clothing and lurking in the nearby bushes.
Ms.
G.
's internal alarms went off so, rather than risk a confrontation, she returned to the building and called for help.
Moments later, the police arrived and apprehended the man, who turned out to be a felon wanted in a series of assaults.
In both situations, quick thinking and prior preparation made what could have been a life-and-death difference.
When questioned, the women made similar statements.
Exactly what do these to examples have in common? oBoth women had considered what they could do in a potentially dangerous situation.
oBoth women assessed their circumstances and made effective choices, based on earlier preparation.
oBoth women had armed themselves with non-lethal weapons prior to the time when they were needed.
oBoth women carried their weapons in such a way as to have them readily available, not buried in the depths of a handbag.
oBoth women had actually practiced what to do in a variety of situations.
oBoth had practiced using the pepper spray in a controlled environment so they would know what would happen if and when they chose to use it.
oBoth women seized the opening to take action.
oBoth women left the area as soon as possible.
oAs soon as they reached safety, each one called for help.
Clearly, prior planning makes a difference.
Even when the exact situation has not been practiced, the very act of having thought about what might happen and one's possible responses to threat greatly enhance the chances for avoiding harm.
Source...