Man loses testicle after random, vicious kick by women

Clark was walking along 200th Avenue in the Brookswood area of Langley one afternoon in early September when he passed his assailant on the sidewalk.

“I was looking down and then I took a passing glance and saw her walk up to me,” he said.

That’s when the young woman inexplicably kicked him in the groin hard enough to send one of his testicles into his abdomen.

Clark wasn’t aware of the severity of his injury until later that night when he “noticed something was missing.”

Clark wasn’t aware of the severity of his injury until later that night when he “noticed something was missing.”

He consulted his doctor and a specialist, both of whom believed his testicle could be brought down again in surgery.

It wasn’t until he woke up afterwards that he discovered the doctors were wrong — the force of the assault had caused his testicle to rupture. It had to be removed and will be replaced by a prosthetic before Christmas.

“My doctors say I will still be able to have children,” Clark said. “But at 22 that’s not something I want a stranger, this woman, to decide.”

Embarrassed by the situation, Clark didn’t go to the police until nearly four weeks after the attack.

Constables have told him there have been three or four similar assaults on other men, Clark said.

[3-4 similar assaults? And no one has been interviewed? Would that happen if a women was sexually assaulted? (These are clearly gender-based assaults, but a sexual assault on a male can only take place when penetration occurs.) I wonder if the Police issued a bulletin as they have when suspected rapists are in neighborhoods?]

Another DV Myth - for the police

Another DV Myth "debunked" by Glenn SACKS.

"Domestic violence situations are, by far, the number one reason that police officers are wounded on duty."

From Milwaukee WI "Domestic Violence Calls No. 1 Cause Of Police Injuries, Experts Say" but who are these "experts"? Employee's from a Women's Shelter would be the last I would call "expert" and surely a journalist would realize they are merely promoting their own interests by inciting fear over DV (Doesn't anyone ever fact/gut check anymore?)

So ok, True or False? Actually it is hard to say from the FBI Stats. Factually "Disturbances" DO PRODUCE THE LARGEST NUMBER of assaults upon police, but there are a few caveats.

1) The "Disturbance" category is NOT ALL "Domestics" - it includes "Regular" disturbance (bar fight, person with firearm, etc.) as well. Hence we can not attribute ALL THE Assaults' to "Domestic Disturbances". We do not have this breakdown.

2) Likewise, Injury's are not broken-down within the total so we have no idea of the number of injuries from ANY Distrubance - Regular or Domestic - as it is not disclosed. Overall for 2007 there were Total Assaults of 59, 201 which led to 15,749 injury's (26.6% of Assaults). (Out of 57 Fatalities in 2007 only 5 were from Disturbances - see data here).

3) To claim DV calls are the MOST DANGEROUS (or even MOST LETHAL) requires the "rate of incidence" or Assaults/Injuries per Service Call - which is not provided by the FBI data.

So despite Glenn's contention it is hard to tell. Glenn's post claims that the FBI Stats on Police Assaults and Deaths show this not to be true, but I am afraid these tables lack the correct data to corroborate that claim. In fact they parallel the Women's Shelter story BUT ONLY because "Disturbances" (including Domestic Disturbances) account for 31.7% of all Assaults upon Police while on duty. As such it is true that "Disturbances" cause the largest number of police assaults incidents among the 10 circumstances recorded - including Robbery, Traffic Incidents, Ambush and others.

However as it turns out Glenn's comments WERE TRUE in referring to a study carried out by a few enterprising criminologists to establish this useful measure in 1994;

The contribution of domestic violence calls to the danger of police work has been a matter of major concern to police, policy makers, and researchers for decades. Building on prior research, the authors examine three years of data on police calls for service, assault, and injury to determine the danger of domestic violence in relation to other types of calls. Of the 10 categories of police activity examined, domestic disturbance ranked fourth in the ratio of assaults to calls for service and fifth in the ratio of injuries to calls for service. No significant differences were observed in the background characteristics of victims and offenders in domestic disturbance and other incidents. Consequently it was recommended that policies to enhance officers' safety be directed mainly at handling incidents in general rather than being geared specifically to responding to domestic disturbances.

[From "The relative contribution of domestic violence to assault and injury of police officers" by J. David Hirschel; Charles W. Dean; and Richard C. Lumb of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte - Published in the journal Justice Quarterly, Volume 11, Issue 1 March 1994 , pages 99 - 117]

BBC Radio Debunks DV Propaganda - May 15, 2009

This weekly BBC radio programme called "More or Less" covers mathematics and the world of statistics in daily life. It's host is "undercover economist" Tim Harford.

The May 15, 2009 podcast (13mb, 28 mins) addresses the often heard "false factoid" regarding the incidence and severity of Domestic Violence data in Britain (ie. DV is the leading cause of death for women aged 15-44)  broadcast on BBC 10PM newscast in March 2009 - and thoroughly debunks it.   It notes how such figures metastasized quickly without much concern for accuracy, veracity and context - but does little else to trap the purveyors of such propaganda - which is the real crime.    They do find these "factoids" quoted all over official documentation in the Ministry's of Justices, Social Services, CSO and elsewhere.    They are among the most pervasively promulgated lies imaginable - but little effort seems to have been taken to stamp then out.   I think the real story would have examined how such "factoids" are themselves generated at the BBC News department - but that might be asking too much.

It is worth a listen.