Teh Daily Squeak

Apparently, her karmic life plan is strongly geared toward achieving a prison stay.

Which, good for her for reaching for her destiny.
 

Do I hear heavy breathing?
 

Large - it's just me, sneaking up behind you.

*Poke*

(scampers off hahahahahaha)
 

Yahhhh!
 

You got a link from Patterico; teh yay!©
 

Welcome, Patterico readers!

Make sure to visit the Deborah Frisch Timeline (http://debfrischtimeline.blogspot.com/) and Don't Hire Deb (http://donthiredeb.blogspot.com/), the top two spots on the web for tracking Dr. Frisch's stalking, law-breaking, and general maliciousness.
 

What happens to her dog?
 

I scoured that Sherrif's log for trace of Ms. Unfortunate and didn't find the related incident report.

The tear gas and mace and stun gun charge - might she have had just one of those items , or maybe really all three?
 

It appears unlawful possession of ANY of those items would result in the same charge -

linky to law

So she may have had some pepper spray or mace on her person and no stun gun at all.
 

She's charged with ORS 163.212, "Unlawful use of an electrical stun gun, tear gas or mace in the second degree", not with possession.

The logfile for November 2 is long since expired.

The incident occurred in Lane County, not in Portland. Portland statutes would have no jurisdiction.
 

I don't quibble with the "use" part necessarily, but am fairly certain the "laundry list" aspect of the charge would be very similar to the portland violation.

That is, she may have used pepper spray or mace, not a stun gun, and the charge would appear exactly as written.
 

Just to clarify, I was referring to the incident log linked above, captured before it expired from the local website. (incidents from Nov 2 were listed).

Did anyone else see an incident potentially related to Ms. F? I couldn't find it.
 

And so I looked up the Oregon revised statute.
It's a person felony - she's charged with using it on purpose to hurt someone else, and "use" is indeed narrowly used to mean she discharged her weapon.

However, it might have been pepper spray or mace, and not a stun-gun.

I see to have some dim memory of her mentioning that she carries mace or pepper-spray.
 

Largenfirm, would you happen to have more detailed information about her attack? I saw a comment made by you on one of F's blogs that indicated you might.

Do you happen to know if she actually used a stun-gun?
 

Allegations are that she pepper-sprayed the victim inside Ms. Frisch's own house. There are rumors that there was other assault involved, but nothing I've seen in public documents to that effect, to date.

Note the address on the quote of the incident report - it is that of Ms. Frisch's home, which has been widely published (again, from public documents, despite Ms. Frisch's hystronics otherwise) on the web.
 

"hystronics" -> "histrionics"

Geez...
 

Just so I get this straight, you guys pour through public records and publish the incidents of a person's life and SHE's the stalker?

Seems to me, her stalking was in the past while Sarah and kirk got theirs going on now.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

But, fear not, folks, for we should not be judged by our actions, but by our intentions. Since Ms. Frisch is a shattered evil woman and you guys are good, then whatever you do to her is also good.
 

Hardly, Tim.

A large number of folks watch, document, and archive her public activities, and provide the collected information to the legal authorities at the appropriate times, so that she may someday get the mental health help she needs, but refuses.

We do not act on that information. We are not law enforcement. We are not health care professionals.

We are private citizens. We watch. We document. Admittedly, we occasionally mock her in public places, such as here.

I am surprised that anyone, other than Deb herself, sees what she does as OK.

What we do is no different than what any number of "watch" organizations do, is perfectly legal and aboveboard, and bears no resemblance to the crime of stalking.

So far, Deb has been convicted of telephonic harassment, and is now facing charges of illegal use of a weapon, and assault.

She's been the subject of at least one civil suit, that one concerning her making sexual and death threats against a toddler.

She's libeled literally hundreds of good people.

She's been banned from the University of Oregon campus.

She's one phone call to my house away from another charge of telephonic harassment.

To the best of my knowledge, not one of the Deb watchers has ever had anything more serious than a speeding ticket.

We employ lawyers to make sure we stay on the right side of the law.