What could have prevented Eliza Fletcher's death?

Of course Eliza Fletcher is now sadly and tragically dead.
This is widely reported in the media.

But the question arises, in my mind at least, 
was there any way this outcome could have been prevented?

Well, there is one way, which may not be palatable to many.

Suppose she was carrying a gun, a lady's model to be sure.
Suppose that when she saw this black male running "aggressively" to her,
she had shot him, possibly killing him.
Or, less leathlly, used pepper spray or Mace.

I know how the media would have played that, 
as an instance of white racism.

But what do you think?
Was there any way of preventing her death?

The record of violence by black men against white women is clear, 
if generally ignored.
What can forestall that violence?
In the words of Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy, 
this was "an isolated attack by a stranger."

See also;

"Fletcher's death while out for a run quickly drew comparisons to the deaths of at least six women who in recent years were also each killed while running in their city or neighborhood streets ...."

For background on the situation in Memphis Tennessee that led up to this heinous crime, see

TUCKER CARLSON: The murder of Eliza Fletcher and the fall of Memphis, law and order


"Abston [Henderson] leapt out, beat her bloody, smashed her cell phone, then dragged her into his vehicle. 
Within an hour, Eliza Fletcher was dead. 
She'd been sexually assaulted and murdered."


Ukraine situation: overviews on

Here are several excellent overviews of the geopolitical mess centered on Ukraine:

George Beene, 2022-09-04

American efforts to strong-arm Putin into retreat by crippling the Russian economy and isolating him on the world stage have sputtered. Western sanctions are no doubt hurting Russia; the International Monetary Fund forecasts a 6 percent decline in Russia’s GDP this year, and its technology sector faces a grim future. But this compares to a greater than 40 percent economic plunge in Ukraine. Russia’s currency is stronger today than it was before the war, despite President Biden’s vow to “turn the ruble into rubble.” Russian earnings from energy exports have actually grown thanks to higher oil prices and reluctance outside the West to join sanctions. Putin is persona non grata in the West, but he is hardly a pariah in the rest of the world, as his scheduled attendance at the G-20 summit meeting in Indonesia in November will attest.

Meanwhile, the economic fallout from the war is landing on the West as well as on Russia. Americans are grappling with higher gasoline and food prices. Europe is facing not only the prospect of a cold winter, but also significant disruptions in key industries, as sanctions-related shortages of natural gas and other Russian commodities take their toll on the construction, metals, and automotive sectors. Germany, highly dependent on Russian energy supplies, is headed toward significant economic turbulence in the coming months if current trends continue.


Western sanctions on Russia have proved to be an economic bonanza for India, which is eagerly purchasing Russian oil at discount prices and reselling it in Europe. On balance, the Global South is far more alarmed by perceived American economic and cultural imperialism than by Russian aggression in Ukraine.

Military escalation in pursuit of a Ukrainian victory would be an enormous gamble. <b>Washington’s large cadre of hawks</b> insists that we should “pull out all the stops by providing Ukraine the means it needs to prevail.” But this almost certainly would require much more than simply sending longer-range artillery and rocket systems. Ukraine needs massive help operating and maintaining these systems, equipping and manning its air force, and training and expanding its ground forces — all time-intensive tasks that could drag the United States more deeply into the fighting. Those advocating all-out military support for Ukraine presuppose that Putin would accept defeat rather than risk a direct — and possibly nuclear — clash with NATO. If that assumption were proved wrong, the consequences could be catastrophic.

Fostering political change inside Russia is at best a long-term endeavor. But if Washington means to encourage opposition to Putin, its current approach is backfiring. Even Russians who have no love for Putin and lament the rupture in relations with the West have been shocked by the degree of Western animus toward the Russian people and culture in recent years. The United States is doing little to appeal to Russia’s citizenry or to show that we are open to improved relations in return for improved Russian behavior. Washington’s recent announcement that it is establishing a separate military command to oversee the aid mission in Ukraine appears to bear out Putin’s messaging to Russians that their fight is with the United States, which is intent on Russia’s demise.

As long as we are unwilling to steer toward a compromise settlement — which, as Kyiv itself proposed early in the war, would have to involve some form of armed neutrality for Ukraine — we face a choice between escalating our involvement and engaging in an endurance contest in which Putin likes his chances. Neither approach is likely to end well for Ukraine or for the United States.

Christopher Caldwell, Summer 2022

<blockquote>The [Biden] administration proclaimed its commitment to those affected by Russia’s recent invasion—
“especially vulnerable populations such as women, children, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons, and persons with disabilities.”</blockquote>

John Mearsheimer, 2022-03-01

John Mearsheimer, 2022-08-17

Patrick Buchanan, 2022-09-15