3 ms·

> Let's be frank : the probability it's a "she" is so close to 0 that we can say "he" without passing for horrible misogynists Not really. And that's not beca

> Let's be frank : the probability it's a "she" is so close to 0 that we can say "he" without passing for horrible misogynists Not really. And that's not because I'm some PC-police kind of person, either. Women are being allowed into more and more places in the military (in the US, other countries are far ahead of us on this) and I suspect that there are tons of them in the intelligence community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Fo... Finally given that it's "always" "bad guys" that do this kind of thing if you're playing a strategic game at some point you have to realize that women have a huge advantage; since it "can't" be a woman who does that, women can absolutely get away easier and more cleanly than men can. And if you really are doing stuff at a national security level where it never becomes public anyhow then there's no reason not to use women to their full potential aside from squeamishness on the part of the people giving the orders. I suspect that isn't a huge roadblock; either you're a sociopath who's fine with sending people to their death because "who cares?" or you're a true believer in which case everyone can fight for the cause. Now I'm not suggesting that women commit violent crimes at the same rate that men do by any means. The statistics bear out that they don't. But at a state-sponsored level I would imagine that a lot of bets are off.

jmnicolas 11y ago
These kind of women are very rare (much more than men which are more prone to be sociopaths and as sociopaths are more prone to use direct violence), why would you risk this "rare asset" on a "simple shooting" that can be done by a man ? If a woman had been seen the investigator would have still tried to find her even if they thought she was just a witness. I'm not even aware of one known instance of a pro killer that was a woman in the last 10 years. I don't say they don't exist but they're in "black swan" category. BTW the investigators know exactly the sex and probably even the ethnicity of the killer. It's not clear in this article, but it was said in several others that they have his ( ;-) ) DNA, I think from the piece of the gun that was left on the crime scene. I think there's even some tech that allows you to make a mug shot of someone from her DNA, I doubt it's really accurate though.
- msandford 11y ago
  They're rare that we know of. If the various intelligence/security institutions know how to find/train them, surely they wouldn't tell everyone as it then destroys their tactical advantage. I'm not suggesting that I know they're common by any stretch of the imagination. But to say that you know they aren't is intellectually dishonest.

jmnicolas 11y ago

These kind of women are very rare (much more than men which are more prone to be sociopaths and as sociopaths are more prone to use direct violence), why would you risk this "rare asset" on a "simple shooting" that can be done by a man ? If a woman had been seen the investigator would have still tried to find her even if they thought she was just a witness. I'm not even aware of one known instance of a pro killer that was a woman in the last 10 years. I don't say they don't exist but they're in "black swan" category. BTW the investigators know exactly the sex and probably even the ethnicity of the killer. It's not clear in this article, but it was said in several others that they have his ( ;-) ) DNA, I think from the piece of the gun that was left on the crime scene. I think there's even some tech that allows you to make a mug shot of someone from her DNA, I doubt it's really accurate though.

msandford 11y ago
They're rare that we know of. If the various intelligence/security institutions know how to find/train them, surely they wouldn't tell everyone as it then destroys their tactical advantage. I'm not suggesting that I know they're common by any stretch of the imagination. But to say that you know they aren't is intellectually dishonest.