While being transported from the Fulton County jail to the courtroom, Nichols was stopped in a backroom of the courthouse so that the sheriff’s deputy transporting him could take his handcuffs off.

Under the rules in virtually all of America’s courts, defendants must have their handcuffs removed before entering the courtroom so that the jury will not see the defendants handcuffed. If the jury sees the defendants handcuffed, the reasoning goes, the jury will no longer presume that the defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

To have such a rule apply to defendants who are charged with violent crime is truly insane.
When accused rapist Brian Nichols was released from his handcuffs, he very easily overpowered his solitary guard and seized the officer’s firearm. As soon as Hall removed Nichols’ handcuffs - as the law requires - Nichols beat and knocked Hall down and stole her gun. Hall was left lying critically injured in the backroom of the courthouse as Nichols raced into the courtroom with her gun. While making his escape, Nichols allegedly killed four people–trial Judge Rowland Barnes, court reporter Julie Ann Brandau, Deputy Hoyt Teasley and federal agent David Wilhelm. (I love that. “allegedly” when there were witnesses to the crimes he committed.)

“Political correctness” was also responsible for the other great failure in the court security system: there were supposed to be two armed security guards watching on the television monitor of a video camera everything that takes place in the backroom of the courthouse where Hall removed Nichols’ handcuffs.

But the two “affirmative action” court security guards did not do their job of watching on the video camera monitor. Indeed, they were not even in the video camera monitor room when Nichols attacked Hall.

Using the gun he took from Hall, Nichols ran into the courtroom and shot to death Superior Court Judge Rowland Barnes and court reporter Julie Brandau.

As he fled the courthouse, Nichols then shot to death sheriff’s deputy Hoyt Teasley.

To escape through the streets of Atlanta, Nichols engaged in several carjackings.

In one carjacking, Nichols murdered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent David Wilhelm, his fourth murder victim.

After evading a less-than-effective police dragnet, Nichols eventually arrived at the home of Ashley Smith, a 26-year-old widow and single mother. Smith, as is now well-known, spent seven hours as Nichols’ hostage, calmly reasoning with him and sharing Bible-based insight that persuaded the fugitive to surrender to the authorities.

Ashley Smith displayed astonishing strength of character of a sort rare in people of both sexes. However, this entire tragedy may have been avoided if only law enforcement officials in Atlanta had taken into account insurmountable realities about the differences between men and women where physical strength is concerned. Nichols was able to escape because a small-boned, 5′2″ female deputy (a grandmother) had been assigned o guard the 6′1″ muscular former college football player.

Television shows such as Alias and action films like Starship Troopers regularly feature scenes in which petite young females, deploying exotic martial arts techniques, beat up large, muscular men. Diverting though such sci-fi spectacles may be, the underlying delusions about sex-based differences in upper body strength and the capacity for violent aggression are literally fatal in the real world-as the Atlanta murder spree illustrates.

Why was Nichols assigned a solitary female security guard? The answer is a string of judicial decisions advancing the radical feminist notion that the physical differences between the sexes are socially inconsequential–and that making allowances for those differences is impermissable. And as commentator James Fulford points out,

“the fact that police forces are required by various laws to have women who can’t handle the physical requirements of the job is thanks in large part to the legal activities of the Souther Poverty Law Center (SPLC).”

In 1977, the SPLC supported a lawsuit filed by Dianne Rawlinson, a 5′3″ 115 lb. Alabama woman who wanted to become a “correctional employee”–that is, a prison guard. Boasts the SPLC’s summary of the case:

“At trial, the Law Center argued that the height and weight requirements had no actual relationship to the job requirements, and 33% of women would be excluded from employment as prison guards and state troopers by the statutory height requirements and 22% by the minimum weight requirements.”

The trial court sided with Rawlinson, prompting an appeal by the Alabama court of corrections. Eventually, the US Supreme Court upheld the trial’s court ruling

“agreeing that the height and weight requirements discriminated against women and bore no relationship to the job,”

recalls the SPLC.

“The landmark decision opened doors for women to be hired in law enforcement jobs that had traditionally been reserved for men”

–not to mention, setting in motion policies that led directly to the Atlanta murder spree.

I’ve been hammering on this since I was in High School. The differences between men and women are clearly spelled out in the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992, published in book form by Brassey’s in 1993) and clearly illustrates that women should not be in combat. IMO, the differences between the sexes indicate exactly why there should be jobs that men hold that women should never have.