“My son is dead. I want someone to pay for this.”

The title of this post is the cri de coeur of a father whose son died in his arms.  We can all sympathize with how he feels — except that it gets a little more complicated when you read the story about how his son died.  You see his son, armed with a gun, and an accomplice, armed with a knife, tried to rob a 21 year old man at a BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) station, a robbery accompanied by threats to kill the victim.  The victim fought back and, in the melee, managed to inflict a fatal stab wound on the assailant holding the gun:

A 23-year-old visitor from the East Coast had just gotten money from an ATM when he told his friend on a cell phone that he had a bad feeling about two men approaching him at the Fruitvale BART Station in Oakland.

His worst fears were realized when one suspect, Victor Veliz, 18, held a folding knife with a 5-inch blade to his neck and the other, Christopher Gonzalez, 18, threatened to shoot him Thursday night, authorities said.

In a blind panic, he lashed out at his attackers, grabbing the knife from one of them and punching the other as his friend listened in horror on the phone.

Without realizing it, authorities say, the man stabbed Gonzalez in the chest. Gonzalez stumbled to his family’s home around the corner, collapsed into his father’s arms and died.

The victim immediately turned himself in and is not being charged.  He was upset to learn that, in defending himself, he killed a man.  The dead man’s father is upset too, but not that his own son’s wayward conduct brought about his death.  Dad is upset that the victim dared defend himself:

Javier Gonzalez sobbed at the loss of his son, who worked with him in his roofing business and at Oakland Raiders games.

“I’m angry at both of them,” he said of the robbery victim and Veliz. “They took my son away from me. He was a hard-working kid.”

He added, “My son is dead. I want somebody to pay for this.”

Dad gets something of a pass here, because I can’t imagine the horror of having my son die in my arms.  Nevertheless, I still find it unnerving, at a deep cultural level — a level about personal responsibility — to hear a man laud as a hard-working kid the son who tried to rob a man at gun and knife point, while blaming the real victim for defending himself against this murderous assault.  I can understand blaming the dead guy’s compatriot (you know, “his friends led him down the wrong path”), but to blame an innocent victim of a felonious crime hacks me off.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Danny Lemieux

    - “He added, “My son is dead. I want somebody to pay for this.””

    No, Book! He gets a pass for the first sentence. He gets no pass for the second. Sorry if that sounds insensitive, but that ‘s the way it is and should be.

    His son made a terrible mistake. The father should be asking himself if he contributed to that mistake.

  • Charles Martel

    “My son is dead. I want somebody to pay for this.”

    Several people are already paying:

    Christopher Gonzalez died for his evil choice.

    Victor Veliz will go to prison (although he’ll be out in 3 years) where he will become bait for gangs, racists and sodomites.

    The father, Javier Gonzalez, if he hasn’t already, will soon realize that he did a f*cked-up job of parenting.

    The victim, although he is innocent, will be shaken for the rest of his life that he had to kill a man to save himself.

    I hope that’s enough payment to satisfy Mr. Gonzalez.

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    I’m with Danny…..as a father, I would be devastated to hold my son while he died. But, if he brought it on himself, as this kid did, there is NO WAY on G-d’s green earth I would say those words….

    He wants the world to see his son as a victim, rather than as a young man who made a terribly wrong, and ultimately fatal, choice. That’s not how I brought up either of my kids. And that may be why Mr. Gonzalez’ son was the one with the gun that night…..

  • Oldflyer

    My take focuses not so much on what the father said. By that I mean I don’t excuse the reaction, but I am not too surprised. History is replete with blood feuds because the culture of vengeance was paramount.

    I am bothered that the press gives the father an outlet to spew his hate.

  • 11B40

    Greetings:

    I’m thinking that the perpetrator’s father should probably make a claim under California’s crime victim program. It’s probably a better that 50/50 chance.

  • 1Lulu

    Some professions are riskier than others. I suppose being a gangster mugger is somewhat high risk I agree with Charles. Lots of people are paying. The son is living with the consequences of his bad and immoral decisions.

  • Ellen

    I do feel sorry for the father, but his son made a very bad decision and paid the price of it.

    I’m sure that the man who was robbed feels terrible guilt and sorrow, but somehow my cynical soul is pretty sure that had Christopher Gonzalez killed his victim, he would not feel anything.

  • Al

    God forbid that the dead son be held responsible for his actions. Much less the father for rearing a child happy to take what is not his.
    The father is probably considering the best target to sue as we write.
    After all, someone/thing (with money) must be responsible.
    Al

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    Ellen: I only feel sorry for the father at one level…..think about it:

    Had Child Gonzalez killed the man he wanted to rob, what are the odds that Daddy Gonzalez would be bleating about having his kid pay for the life he took!?

    When pigs fly, is what I’m guessing.

  • Bill C

    Search for Johah Goldberg and Amerigo Bonasero. Goldberg writes about the appeal of the Godfather films to Americans because they represent a code of honor and swift justice that is often lacking in America’s courts. When people lose faith, or never had faith, in our civil justice system they will turn to tribal connections to exact justice. I am afraid that this man’s reaction to his son’s death is symptomatic of many Latin Americans who come from countries in which the gov’t cannot be counted on for justice. Americans sense of fair play and our faith in courts is a cultural trait that must be learned and we are in danger of losing that tradition if we allow too many immigrants into this country who refuse to allow the Anglo justice system to work.

  • suek

    >>…we are in danger of losing that tradition if we allow too many immigrants into this country who refuse to allow the Anglo justice system to work.>>

    We’re also at risk because the Anglo justice system seems _not_ to work these days. Or when it _does_ work, it’s years after a crime is committed. The rights offered the accused frequently seem to deny rights to the victim. When the courts do not provide justice, look for people to supply it themselves.

    This is not to deny your comments on the Latin Americans – I agree with you on that – but to state that they may be showing us the way since our legal system seems to be in questionable condition. Activist judges make laws these days, they don’t just interpret them.

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    Yeah, well…..in this case, if our system worked properly, this man would not get what he wants – which is retribution against those who killed his boy. He doesn’t care what the right and wrong of it are — he is displaying the whole tribal (Hatfield and McCoy) thing. Someone (else) has to pay!

    And I agree that if we achieve a certain threshold of that sort of citizen, then the American experiment is at risk.

  • suek

    >>He doesn’t care what the right and wrong of it are >>

    True.

  • Mike Devx

    The father’s reaction is typical of many people. Their belief system states: “He wanted your wallet and your money and you killed him. Your property is not worth a life. You must pay for taking a life.”

    I’d like to make the assumption that after his grief wanes, the father will realize that his son was in the wrong, and paid the terrible accidental price of his life for doing wrong. But I’m not sure that’s the case, because there are a number of people who truly do believe that the victim should pay for taking a life, merely (ahem, sarcasm here) MERELY for having his life threatened and his property about to be stolen.

    If the victim were skilled in the manner of Ymar’s capabilities (I have forgotten its name), possibly the criminals would both still be alive, if with a few crushed kneecaps, elbows, and concussions. But no sane civilization can *require* its victims be skilled enough to merely disable their predators.

    Victims cannot be charged if they submit to their predators either. But I and many of us here in Book’s domain obviously agree that it’s better for victims to fight back. And that allows lethal force, accidental or otherwise.

    I bet there are – unfortunately – communities, cities, counties and states, that actually do have laws on the books where, even if someone threatens your life in the act of trying to take your property, and you kill, you can be charged.

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    I hope you’re wrong, Mike – I’ve been reading too much about Britain, where homeowners are prosecuted for their actions against home invaders…..

    Get it? A jury, sitting in a nice warm room with armed bailiffs around to protect them by visiting violence on anyone who might threaten them, presume to judge just how hard the homeowner “should have” hit the perpetrator, and with what….in order to protect his life and his property. And if the homeowner used a bit too much force, off he goes to jail. And then the home INVADER, using a taxpayer subsidized attorney, can sue the actual crime victim for damages.

    We have people in this country who think that’s only right, but I do pray that they are few and far between……

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    America has always recognized proportionality. That’s why we don’t approve of shooting a bad guy in the back. If he’s already running away, you’re not at risk, and you shouldn’t shoot him. American law still (for how much longer?) recognizes that you can use lethal force if your own life is at risk — as, perhaps, when someone has a knife at your throat and someone else is threatening you with a gun. In other words, for the bad guy, his own behavior constitutes an assumption of the risk. Proportionality allows a life for a threatened life.

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    I agree with all of that, BW….but when someone invades my home, or continues in the attempt to do so, and I fear he has a weapon, then no jury should be given the right to judge whether I am guilty of an unlawful killing, if the perpetrator ends up dead. If we insist that I can’t shoot until there’s a knife at my throat, then we’ve delivered the innocent into the hands of the evil.

    Anyone who unlawfully enters another’s house has taken his life in his hands, and he will keep it only by luck, or the extraordinary forbearance of the homeowner….who has NO legal obligation to forbear.

    At least, that’s how it works in my world, and that’s how it has worked in the United States of America for a long, long time….I’m not ready to hope for change in this long-standing bit of Americana.

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    By the way….I’m arguing on the basis of principle, not (immediate) personal interest. The only operating firearm in my house is a single-shot .410 shotgun under my wife’s side of the bed.

    Although…..I’m looking to buy a 1911 .45, and my wife wants one of those smaller .38s for a woman’s hands…..

  • Charles Martel

    Speaking of weapons, I am now ready to buy the first firearm in my six decades of life.

    I need good, solid advice from the people here who know their way around weapons. I have a limited budget and can only start with one good basic weapon.

    My requirements are simple, but I have no problems if any of you tell me that I’m not framing them correctly:

    —Sufficient firepower to kill a man with one well-placed shot. I need to know what is the optimum range of effectiveness for any of the weapons you suggest

    —Pistol or shotgun? What are their relative advantages and drawbacks?

    —Simplicity of construction and ease of maintenance

    —Easily available and commonplace ammunition

    —Do I need semi-automatic capability? Advantages? Drawbacks?

    —A reasonably short learning curve in tems of becoming proficient and confident in its use

    —Storage and readiness advice: Where is the best place to keep it available while also out of sight? There will be no problems with children or strangers having access to it.

    —Post acquisition, how often should I practice to maintain my skills? What are the best kinds of exercises or simulations to do?

    —Is NRA membership useful?

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    I’ll let someone with actual expertise advise you on the gun….but JOIN THE NRA!

    I’ve belonged for decades, even before I owned the .410! :-)

    They are defending the Second Amendment, the one that allows the citizens of the U.S. of A. to defend all the rest. You and I, Charles, are members of the militia….and we are the body the founders intended to take up arms in case of need. Joining the NRA is a statement that you believe in the Constitution of the United States, not something “living” that will change as the power-brokers in D.C. change through the years.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    I posted a comment here and I thought it went through, but now it isn’t here. Not sure what happened there. The comment was supposed to be between 13 and 14.

    Guess it slipped into the twilight zone.

    I made the comment that the names of the perps sound Mexican and since it is kalifornia, I think MS 13 or Mexican drug cartel/mafia/subsidiary gang branches. That would make the father’s comment a non-American one, rather than an American one. Non-Americans still practice tribal warfare and “justice”. They still practice the blood feud and they still rely on the “strong man”. They are backwards like that. While fine in Mexico, this is the United States and in the United States, people should be, and formerly were, proud of having killed somebody that needed killing.

    The duties of a citizen weren’t just paying taxes and following the laws. No, the duty of a citizen is and was to defend civilization against all internal enemies and external enemies, but primarily internal enemies in a time of peace. That is what it was. Right now, seems like what a citizen should do is to become a sheep and produce sheep milk for the Obamanation. Obama will make you work, alright, like slaves.

    Our times have changed and regular citizens need not take up arms against foreign invaders any more. But that doesn’t mean the other half of the equation disappears nor does it mean that one can substitute civic awareness and vigilance with an enforced draft. When a draft is no longer militarily necessary nor are the political and warfare situations calling for so much manpower in wars, then you are left with the political expedient of drafting to promote “civic virtue” when there is no real need for it. This has the result of dragging people off from their homes and family for no real benefit to civilization or to one’s nation and society. Hell, whenever there are wars, the bandits, thugs, and pirates come out in spades since the ability of a society to dampen crime decreases in war time with so much military manpower out in the beyond. That’s not a good thing, btw.

    I’m sure that the man who was robbed feels terrible guilt and sorrow

    To the extent that a man should feel guilt, he should feel guilty that he had to kill a rapid animal. To the extent that he has personal responsibility for the end, he is only primarily responsible for accidentally killing without a prior intent to do so. That he should be held accountable for, for it means sloppiness and a reliance on luck which is the antithesis of duty, honor, and skill. But to the extent that he killed someone who needed killing, he did a service to this society.

    As for criminals loading up the system and them getting out cause the system is broken, if every citizen is armed with the knowledge or tools to deal instant and crippling damage to their attackers, you won’t have many criminals going through the “justice system”. Or rather, they would, but in pieces and they would come out in pieces; they won’t be doing much crime without the ability to stand upright, I can tell you that, cause their spines’ been half way torn out. What the state and the nation cannot countenance (arbitrary execution and infliction of injury of and on those captured), the average citizen can and should do. Or do you think the government should make all these important decisions for you? The Left does. PillowC does. Reid does. They all do. But they don’t care whether that gets you killed or not. But you should care whether you get killed or not. You really should.

    If the victim were skilled in the manner of Ymar’s capabilities (I have forgotten its name)

    TFT, Target Focus Training.

    What usually happens in this situations is that there becomes a struggle for the “weapon”, meaning the knife. The wielder is using his muscular strength to pull the knife towards him, away from the victim, who is pulling the knife away from the assailant. In this tussle usually the victim gets stabbed, cause assailants usually don’t pick on stronger men then they. They pick on women. They pick on men that look weak or who lack self-confidence. They pick on small guys or small women or people that travel alone. That’s how criminals operate. That means, statistically, if you try to wrestle for the knife, you are going to get stabbed, repeatedly, and then you will die from combination blood loss, shock, and organ failure.

    Now, what happened here, and I don’t need to read the details of the story to know this, is that the victim was able to somehow land or inflict an injury on the assailant using the assailant’s own knife. Usually this is not cause the assailant is super skilled and strong and wrestles the knife away, does a flourish, and then conducts a killing blow. That’s not how these things work, primarily because most people that killed wouldn’t need a knife to kill in the first place and they would NOT be the ones targeted. Criminals know killers when they see them in the eyes and they avoid them like the plague. These types of situations usually happen a couple of different ways but all of them rely upon 2 to 3 factors. Penetration and injury and rotation. There is no “intent” here, for the victim is usually just trying to get the knife away cause he sees harm in the knife, harm to him that is, not harm to the criminals. The penetration occurs when the knife goes into the assailant due to the assailant’s own strength. If you are pulling the knife towards you while wrestling, and the victim loses his grip, and then his body comes barreling towards you, and the knife is pointed shard end first for you, what do you think is going to happen? The knife is going to dig deep into your body cavity: penetration. That is the first component The second component is rotation. Not only is the knife going to stick in your central nervous system and get to where all the goodies are at (critical organs in torso or vital blood networks in neck) but because of the physics involved with two people, the knife can “twist” while imbeded in you. If you ever took studied the way of the sword, you may notice a few things. First, a deep stab is survivable if no major organs are destroyed and you don’t die of internal bleeding blood loss. This is why when you stab someone with a sword, on removal you gyrate and twist the sound as it is coming out. This opens up the hole, destroys blood vessels and organs, and essentially makes the wound fatal. That is “rotation”. Both penetration and rotation, combined, produces injury. ANd injury leads to death or permanent disability.

    presume to judge just how hard the homeowner “should have” hit the perpetrator

    Most people have no experience with violence. They are not competent to judge, just as they are not competent to judge military tactics and strategy. What do they lack? They lack fundamental wisdom and knowledge. They don’t lack intelligence.

    In violent situations, just as with warfare, you cannot succeed by taking the “minimum approach”. This is cause all too often the “minimum” will come back and bite you on your arse, just like using the minimum force in war tends to do. The enemy has a vote and thus Murphy will always fauk up your plans. This isn’t like civil engineering where things go the way physics tell it to. This isn’t like the life of a civilian where what they plan for today actually gets done more or less close to schedule. Violence is chaotic like war is chaotic. It can only be controlled if you are the aggressor, the attacker, and the damage dealer. If you pull back and try to limit things, you may find that the insurgents have just found your number and the address of your friends in the nearby village for a little midnight execution run.

    That’s why we don’t approve of shooting a bad guy in the back. If he’s already running away, you’re not at risk, and you shouldn’t shoot him. American law still (for how much longer?) recognizes that you can use lethal force if your own life is at risk — as, perhaps, when someone has a knife at your throat and someone else is threatening you with a gun.

    The good thing about TFT is that it allows you to destroy, kill, or maim anybody you wish, so long as you can prove it is self-defense. For any attacker armed with nothing but his bare hands, you don’t need much. If it is a social fight, like a bar fight, it would be illegal to use TFt anyways and highly not recommended. It would be like bringing a grenade to a rock-paper-fist competition and then throwing it at the opposition after saying “my rock beats your scissors and paper”.

    But the real advantage here rests when you are outnumbered or when they have a knife/club/gun and you don’t. Then you can pretty much kill all of em or do whatever you wish, and the law, here in Georgia at least, will have no grounds to do anything to you. What are they going to say? 110 pound woman destroyed and killed 3 men? Well, bad luck for the men, I suppose. A 150-200 pound guy killed 2 other guys? I’m pretty sure some prosecutor will want his mark there. Oh wait, did you say the 2 other guys had a knife and a gun and the 150-200 pound guy had nothing but his bare hands? Well… then it is a much harder case to make and retarded/megalomaniacal prosecutors will get off your back cause it will be a hard case to make to a jury.

    However, none of these considerations apply tactically. They only apply strategically. Meaning, once in a fight, strategy goes away and now you should be concerned solely with the tactics of the fight. Kill or be killed. Don’t let all these other distractions slow you down, for certainly the thug over there isn’t worried about jail time when he is coming after your head.

    Another nice thing about TFT, different from other systems, is that TFT teaches you how to become a sociopath for limited periods of time with training and such. Just as the Marine Corps trains healthy citizens and peaceful pacifists and makes them able to kill on command, so does TFT do the same for peaceable and loving sheep/citizens.

    Ask any criminal you would by chance know. Does he fear the law/police more or does he fear the dyed in the wool sociopath, that wouldn’t blink an eye at slaughtering the 10 closest people, more? Even criminals have a code. Even criminals love their family. But sociopaths need killing. And criminals know this, just a soft terrorists know that hard core terrorists like Zarqawi aren’t the ones you want to mess around with.

    This is the real fundamental truth nobody wants to hear. To kill a terrorist, you must use the same violence that the terrorists use. Fake liberals want you to “not become the enemy”, i.e. not use his tools. But if you don’t use the tool of violence, how are you going to win? The answer is that you aren’t going to win and that is Perfectly Fine with fake libs. After all, fake liberals aren’t the ones that are going to lose their lives. They are perfectly safe behind the shields of the US military and the US police system. To kill a criminal or mass murderer/sociopath, you need to adopt their terms for fighting, their tools. And their tools are not pretty. Violence exists to destroy tissue and make grown men into helpless screaming infants about to have their skulls squashed like cockroaches and worms. You may not think that a peaceable citizen sheep will have the guts to do such things, but let me tell you, when the self-survival mechanism is engaged, humans are capable of more than is apparent.

    It is only when you control the situation, when you have all the cards because the other guy has been decimated beyond the possible point of return, that you can “dictate” what mercy you provide. In war, this was after unconditional surrender. In personal situations, it is when you pull off all your limiters and set out to totally destroy your targets in the manner that a butcher conducts 10 chicken head beheadings each 10 seconds. Mechanical, efficient, and utterly devoid of guilt or hesitation.

    When the guy is sprawled on the concrete and his head is half way bashed in by the way he hit the concrete when he went flying, you get to choose, right then and there, to purposefully end his life with a foot stomp to his throat. By that point, you should have realized that this guy is no longer a threat to you and any damage you do to him at this point would be excessive. Perhaps not in a court of law, but you would know it. And that is the only thing that matters in the end. For you will be the one making such decisions, not a jury. They can only second guess you.

    If he is moving or trying to get up and grab something inside his clothes? Well, that’s a different issue. Then you need to kick him upside his head a few dozen times until he stops. Moving that is. and Breathing. And screaming. That’s annoying.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    —Sufficient firepower to kill a man with one well-placed shot. I need to know what is the optimum range of effectiveness for any of the weapons you suggest

    —Pistol or shotgun? What are their relative advantages and drawbacks?

    —Simplicity of construction and ease of maintenance

    —Easily available and commonplace ammunition

    —Do I need semi-automatic capability? Advantages? Drawbacks?

    —A reasonably short learning curve in tems of becoming proficient and confident in its use

    —Storage and readiness advice: Where is the best place to keep it available while also out of sight? There will be no problems with children or strangers having access to it.

    —Post acquisition, how often should I practice to maintain my skills? What are the best kinds of exercises or simulations to do?

    Disclosure: I don’t own a gun nor have I trained in firearms usage. However, I believe my theory is pretty sound for two reasons. I have, in the process of acquiring more than a layman’s understanding of war and violence, been required to learn the tactics, even manufacturing principles, and the mechanics of firearms, historical or modern. The second reason is that I have plenty of veterans and gun nut friends and associates, net and real life, to inform me of what I am missing. And I don’t forget what they say, ever.

    Many pistol users like the .45 ACP round for man killing power. It has been proven in war. For range, you don’t need more than 50 meters, cause that is where most criminal fights happen. 50 meters, if not 1 meter.

    Pistol for CQB. Shotgun if you want wide area dispersal of mobs and packs (for example, if you are defending your house from a fortified position). Shotguns are not very nice in your house, since you may shoot through your ways and kill your neighbor or your pets or your family or your children. That’s not a good thing, btw. Shotguns use either solid core shells or scatter buckshot. Neither are good for your house or apartment, and the shotgun requires a lot of elbow room, which is not effective for CQB. Handgun banning enthusiasts like to say that you only need a shotgun for home defense, not a handgun, cause the military uses shotguns to clear homes in war. But I’ll let you contemplate just exactly why the military uses shotguns to clear a house. Somebody else’s house, that is.

    9mm JHP (jacketed hollow point) is plentiful. could also buy Ak 47 rounds ,but you’d need an AK 47. .45 ACp is bigger and thus more expensive.

    There are various courses in California that trains you in how to shoot. Sign up for one. That is the only real bar against learning how to shoot, time on the range. The more you shoot, the better you are. Depending on your natural proficiency and your time on the range and the level of your instruction, your ETA for proficiency will depend.

    For storage and readiness, a concealed carry permit is ideal for self-defense. For home defense, keep the gun loaded and safety on or near your bed or under your pillow. If you absolutely have to keep it locked up cause of laws or children, then you should train in hand to hand fighting and grappling. In fact, if you want to use firearms at all, you should train in disarms anyways, just so you know what not to do when too close to the thug. Course most marksmen are accurate enough that the target doesn’t get close enough… but in cQB, that is not always the case.

    As for the other subjects, those with experience in the use of firearms would have more useful and specific information than I.

    Btw, the reason why you hear that the military needs to put multiple 5.56mm rounds into a drugged up insurgent to drop him is cause those 5.56 mm are FMJ not JHP. Full Metal Jacket is armor piercing and goes through a target, JHP destroys tissues and opens a big ass hole out the back. Why is it FMJ when insurgents don’t wear body armor? Cause of NATO. The US adopted the NATO round style for ammunition interchange between “allies” and the NATO round specification obeyed European concepts on “brutality in war”, which restricted or banned JHP rounds. There’s progressive European values protecting your interests, right there.

    Btw, a lot of people say that the concentration required for shooting is very meditative and calming. You know when men like to space out in front of football? It is the same deal when a sniper goes into the ‘Zone’. No distractions. They don’t exist. Wife could be nagging you or house burning down, but you are “Focused”. There is a certain evolutionary advantage for men to be like that, given the fact that you needed “Focus” when stalking and hunting food. If a man got distracted easily, he’d lose focus, lose the kill, and his family would starve. There ends that gene line.

  • suek

    >>If a man got distracted easily, he’d lose focus, lose the kill, and his family would starve. There ends that gene line.>>

    Whileas women stayed home and had to do stuff at the same time they were watching out for multiple children. Hence the tendency for men to lack multitasking skills, while women handle them more readily, and vice-versa – women tend to be more easily distracted.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/ Ymarsakar

    Hence the tendency for men to lack multitasking skills, while women handle them more readily, and vice-versa – women tend to be more easily distracted.

    I think women are more easily distracted by “talking” rather than just easily distracted. Women at home could do nothing else for entertainment except talk while sewing or cooking. Men had to stay silent for fear of being detected by predators, other war raids, or spooking the prey. That’s why men don’t want to talk when they are chilling out or doing something while women like to talk when going to restroom or social cliques and cooking and so forth.

    Btw, Suek, where’s that report concerning your husband at?

    Also, thisi s an example of what the usual results of real world American crime is

    The victim dead and the perpetrator prosecuted, although not necessarily convicted.