Officer Wood, I understand that in the 2nd half of September of this year, that a woman out for a run was attacked or grabbed on a city sidewalk while near Greenlake.
Is that right?
And I understand also that she did not provide you or the public with a photo of the guy. Is that right?
And she would like to promote and protect public safety. Correct?
And for some reason, this woman did not turn and photograph the guy. Is that right?
Now, officer Hay, is it possible that her not photographing the guy is reasonable, from a safety viewpoint, because it is not safe to be a certain distance from a person who has aggressive and hostile intent, even if the guy with hostile and aggressive intent is not armed with a knife or gun, or not using a knife or gun?
A person who has aggressive and hostile intent should be, for you to be safe, kept away from you by a certain distance? Is that right?
And what distance might that be?
Now, by the way, according to some court orders, some people are supposed to stay several hundred feet away from other people, is that correct?
Maybe the distance at which you are either safe or in danger, when in the proximity of a man with hostile and malicious intent, is something over 5 feet and less than 500 feet. Is that possible?
Officer Hay, is the distance a different distance for men and for women? You know, the distance at which we are either safe or dangerous when in the area or proximity of a person with aggressive and hostile, malicious intent.
Now, is that distance less than 10 feet or more than 10 feet? More?
Now, why is it that the safe distance at which you wish to keep a man of aggressive and hostile intent is something greater than 10 feet, and that any distance less than 10 feet is a distance at which a person should have a reasonable, highly elevated concern about their safety?
Is there something different about 5 feet compared to 15 feet? What is that?
Do you expect those who are men and who are small and weak to allow themselves to be closer to aggressive, malicious and hostile men than you expect frightened women runners to be, cause the distance you want the aggressive guy to be away is different?
If we allow that the distance at which the guy has for a safety zone is different for the women, then, at times, the guy is going to get beat up by an aggressive man using the lack of distance and the close proximity, to launch an attack on the guy. Is that right?
Is there one distance of safety for women who are runners, and another distance of safety for men? Also, if there another distance of safety for a transgender person? If a person is different than his or her biological gender, should he or she expect that there be a different distance of safety?
If I am a man, then, I should be willing to allow a man of aggressive and hostile intent to be approaching me or talking to me at 5 feet away, but if I were a woman, then I would rightly refuse to entertain approaches and conversations from aggressive and hostile men who are 5 feet away. Is that right?
Men who are small and weak should allow other men, who are big and strong and have clearly manifested aggressive, hostile and malicious intent to get within a closer distance than you expect that a woman runner might.
If there is a guy and he is being followed or pursued by a man of aggressive and hostile intent, and if the hostile and malicious intent is clear, at what distance is it reasonable for the guy to be concerned about his safety?
If there is a woman and she is being followed or pursued by a man of aggressive and hostile intent, and if the hostile and malicious intent is clear, at what distance is it reasonable for the woman to be concerned about her safety and to stop the guy with hostile malicious intent from approaching further?
Is there even such a distance? Is it kind of random?