How do you know when you are assaulted? What exactly defines an assault situation? When do you switch from being safety cognizant and careful to being defensive and bringing the stun gun or defense pepper spray out? There are three situations that one must assess:

1. distance—your safety circle,


2. verbal assault,


3. physical assault.

If any one of these situations is perceived, do not hesitate to use your defense tool. Realize this only applies to stun guns or pepper spray. A firearm will be a different article. If you are wrong to shock or spray the guy, then you can apologize later. At least he will live. And you will not feel guilty of maiming this guy for life. If you are right to shock or spray the guy, you might have saved your very own life.

Distance—your safety circle

We all have a distance zone or safety circle we put up around ourselves. Our comfort level when our safety circle is violated varies from situation to situation. We feel fine with someone a foot away if we are standing in a crowded checkout line or elevator. Yet we become hypersensitive, uncomfortable, or even scared, if a total stranger is suddenly the same distance away in an open parking lot without a good reason to be. In other words, the size of our safety circle varies according to the situation at hand. The size of our safety circle is the result of our innate survival instincts. Whenever our safety circle is intruded or violated against our instincts, our bodies undergo the autonomic sympathetic response. This is the "fight or flight" response. Given this response should you react defensively with your pepper spray or stun gun.

Let us consider the following scenario. A woman leaves the grocery store carrying a large shopping bag and a purse. As she leaves, a young man loitering near the door about 15 feet away asks her for the time of day. She pauses and responds, "About 6:15," and continues walking toward her car. In this situation, the distance of 15 feet is enough for her to feel safe. This is her safety circle. She feels safe at this distance. Now consider that the woman approaches her car and finds the same person walking immediately behind her. Only he is 10 feet right behind her. Her safety circle is violated. She is isolated. The person is walking the same direction as her with no reason to be doing so. Should she be using her pepper spray or stun gun? Yes. In the absence of any other stimuli, she has every reason to believe the young man is after her. She has every right to defend herself in a potential mugging, robbery, or sexual assault.

The key is whether to not the safety circle involved gives you any choice. If the perpetrator is rapidly closing the distance between you and him, then you must react defensively especially if you are isolated or even partly isolated. If you are in an isolated position and cognizant of potential danger that is just too close, then react defensively!

Verbal Assault

Verbal assault is another situation that determines if a defensive reaction should be used. It can take the form of a threat, demand, or an indecent proposal.

Verbal assaults are usually in the form of demands. Threats are a good case for using defensive countermeasures. If a perpetrator approaches you and says, "Give me your purse or I'll hurt you," that is considered verbal assault. If a demand is made and the perp displays a weapon, that too is considered verbal assault. If a beggar approaches you and asks you for some change to buy food, then that is not assault.

Beware of street beggars especially if you find yourself in an isolated position. They may continue to press you on for change even if you do not oblige them. As long as they ASK you for money and do not DEMAND it, then verbal assault has not occurred. Therefore, you can not use your pepper spray or stun gun against him. The moment he DEMANDS money from you, attempts to detain you by grabbing you, blocks your path, or makes a verbal threat along with any of these actions, then the situation has escalated to verbal assault. This warrants the use of your defensive weapon such as your pepper spray or stun gun.

Sometimes, a perpetrator's "request" is simply a test to determine your reaction and your handling of the situation. He may be attempting to break down your natural defense instincts by using a non-threatening approach.

The same occurs with sexual assault. Sometimes the perpetrator will ask you simple questions like time of day or directions. He may go on to make suggestive remarks in order to get a rise out of you or harass you to gauge your reaction. Are you afraid and hesitant? Are you fearful to look them in the eye? Or are you confident and able to deal with them? This is what they look for in a victim. If a perpetrator feels you are weak-minded, he may resort to physical assault.

Do NOT allow this to happen. Stop an assailant dead in his tracks. A verbal reaction of "Get away!" or "Leave me alone!" should be enough. If he persists with harassing or verbally assaulting you, or goes beyond that such as physically touching you, be prepared to use your defensive weapon especially if he is following you! When you make a demand to be left alone, only then should you look him straight in the eye and verbalize, "Get away and leave me alone!" If he is stubborn and continues to follow you regardless of your demand, then use your self defense tool.

Physical Assault

Physical assault is defined as any unwanted touching, hitting, grabbing, shoving, or tripping. It is also the implied or obvious threat of physical action against you. If he touches, grabs, or rubs up against your breasts, buttocks, or genitals, this too is physical assault, but more specifically sexual assault! You must stop the perp before he has a chance to escalate the assault to rape or even worse, murder.

AT A GLANCE:

The international commitment to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) recognizes the need for scaling up the volume and quality of aid. This commitment, stemming from a global consensus reached at the 2002 UN Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, also calls for all development partners to share the responsibility of making aid more effective —and it calls for action on both sides of the aid relationship.

Nationally, governments are increasingly setting clear goals and targets linked to public actions, improving their budgeting and monitoring systems and embracing a more inclusive discussion of national priorities and policies. Donors are working harder to align and harmonize assistance with countries' priorities, and are trying to fill country-specific analytical gaps. Yet connecting results with resources remains a major challenge. Aid allocation based on country performance (in governance, policies and intermediate indicators of results) is on the rise.

The March 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, agreed to by more than 90 countries, represents a shift from past aid practices and appears to be slowly having an impact. In 2006, indicators of donor harmonization and alignment were collected and monitored for the first time.

But at the same time, the architecture of the global aid system is becoming more complex, with the emergence of new donors and a multitude of earmarked funds. Scaling up aid to meet the MDGs requires a more coherent 'aid architecture', with better donor coordination and less fragmentation and 'ear-marking' of aid.

The global community is also working on better practices to deliver aid to fragile states, where poverty is increasingly concentrated.

Recognition is growing that governance is crucial to ensuring aid effectiveness—the 2006 Global Monitoring Report on the MDGs(GMR) proposed a framework to monitor governance, including actionable indicators. Since then, developing countries, donors and international financial institutions began adapting parts of the framework to improve practices and to get more out of their development dollars. For its part, the World Bank is undertaking a new Governance and Anti-Corruption Strategy that places issues of institutional quality, accountability and better procurement and fiduciary rules at the center of the development agenda.

The 2007 GMR assesses recent trends in official development assistance (ODA) and examines the performance of international financial institutions (IFIs), since those entities aim to serve as standard-bearers for improved aid coordination, harmonization and effectiveness.

'Confronting the Challenges of Gender Equality and Fragile States' is the theme of the 2007 GMR. The report stresses that achieving gender equality and the empowerment of women (MDG3) is essential to advancing the other millennium goals of halving poverty, primary education for all, and a lowering of the under-five mortality rate. And, improving prospects for the 485 million people living in fragile states is vital as well.