is it ok to use lethal force to prevent rape?

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

Does a woman have the right to use lethal force to prevent rape?

imho, it is a no brainer, of course she does. period.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

a woman has the absolute right to protect her body, it follows therefore that she has the right to use lethal force against anyone attempting to force her to do something she does not want to do.

also, women in America have 2nd amendment rights to both keep and bear arms (they have the right not to have these rights infringed by the federal govt)

the only potential problem is the burden of proof, say a woman shoots a guy dead, how do the courts know that it was self-defence? would this allow women to kill men with impunity? difficult, but I am happy enough to dodge the issue and say we let the courts decide

 

[ForteKitty]

Women should take self defense classes and shooting lessons, and remember to always aim between the legs.

 

[chris-uk04]

Is this stemming from a real case or is it hypothetical?

 

[moremoremore]

Actually, I believe that some states permit the use of deadly force to defend against a rape.
Some state permit it only when the victim feels her life is in danger- but I would assume, god forbid, that it could be "easily" argued that the woman thought her life was in danger. Dunno. Thank god.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

Is this stemming from a real case or is it hypothetical?

it is hypothetical

 

[Jennifer5973]

Is this even a question? If I kill an intruder in my home, it is not murder. What would I do, ask, "Excuse me, Mr. Burglar man, do you just want my ering or are you going to kill us? Oh--you are going to kill us--okay --BAM."?????? I am a very defensive person given the times we live in. I have a kill-or-be-killed attitude. if someone wants to hurt me in any way, how can I presume what his full intent is? I cannot, so i will go for the quickest down to protect myself. If the person is killed, so be it--he should have thought of that before trying to violate me in any way.

How many of us have been victimized like this or know someone who has? it''s the most horrific thing you can imagine and NOTHING takes the pain out of your life. No--it wasn''t me but a close friend. Just watching her and her suffering was enough to imagine how bad it must be. I think there should be capital punishment for rapists but that''ll never happen.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

jenn, here (UK) if you kill a burglar, it may very well be classed as murder, or manslaughter. our criminal justice system is one very expensive joke

 

[strmrdr]

She should get a restraining order and yell real loud.
Yep that will work wonders

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/3926976/detail.html

 

[strmrdr]

call 911?

http://www.local6.com/news/3618760/detail.html

note: read the links before you turn up the flamethrowers.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

when the Leftists talk of ''limiting the numbers of guns on the streets,'' and ''ending gun violence'' remember what this means. women defenceless to attacks by rapists. your 2nd amendment rights are the guarantor of all the others.

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/staysafe.html a site that stands behind a womens right to defend herself



I just wanna know where are all the liberals??? don''t they want to explain why the govt should deny women the right to defend themselves against rapists???

 

[Jennifer5973]

In our state, the law says that in defense of our home to an intruder, if you kill him (or her, I guess

), it''s not a crime. This is a succint summary of what my husband explained to me (he is an attorney and former ADA for 5 years).

Geezer, I don''t know much about English laws, but I find the info you posted ironic given that the US constitution and legal system are based on English principles (Magna Carta, anyone?

).

Fight the good fight.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/20/2004 11:17:51 PM
Author: Jennifer5973
In our state, the law says that in defense of our home to an intruder, if you kill him (or her, I guess

), it''s not a crime. This is a succint summary of what my husband explained to me (he is an attorney and former ADA for 5 years).


Geezer, I don''t know much about English laws, but I find the info you posted ironic given that the US constitution and legal system are based on English principles (Magna Carta, anyone?

).


Fight the good fight.

It is ironic that the laws allowing one to defend your home and not retreat are right out of the British common law and is the law in 47 states.
Its called "the your home is your castle doctrine."
The other 3 states require that you try and retreat first and there must be a disparity of force.
IE: weapon, man vs woman, young vs old, more than 1 invader.

In 10+ or so states you can still legaly shoot trespassers that are outside your house.
Others are like IL where if they are outside and not an immediate threat or are not committing arson to an occupied building you arent justified in using lethal force on those outside your home.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

Geezer, I don''t know much about English laws, but I find the info you posted ironic given that the US constitution and legal system are based on English principles (Magna Carta, anyone?

).

Fight the good fight.

The Magna Carta remains the core document of English law, yet it is routinely ignored by the Commissars in government and the courts. that is liberal ''progress'' for you

please don''t let them wreck the US the way they have England. what they have done to our country is truly tragic. they will destroy your liberty as surely as they have ours.

 

[mightyred]

You speak for yourself on that one Diamondgeezer. I happen to disagree (I''m also from the UK) but respect you have an opinion.

Your posts of late have been a tirade of ''liberal'' bashing and to quote someone on another post I am not sure where you get your source of information but it smacks of far right wing bias. JMHO and no need to comment since I am popping back to the diamond forums!

On a happier note - I love the promise ring you chose for your girlfriend. Very, very pretty.

 

[psuheather]

Date: 11/21/2004 9:32

4 AM
Author: diamondgeezer

Geezer, I don''t know much about English laws, but I find the info you posted ironic given that the US constitution and legal system are based on English principles (Magna Carta, anyone?

).

Fight the good fight.

The Magna Carta remains the core document of English law, yet it is routinely ignored by the Commissars in government and the courts. that is liberal ''progress'' for you

please don''t let them wreck the US the way they have England. what they have done to our country is truly tragic. they will destroy your liberty as surely as they have ours.

I agree with mightyred...not so sure why you feel the need to so viciously bash liberals and liberal beliefs. BTW...just thought I''d list a couple of synonyms of the word "liberal" that I found in my thesauras:
open-minded, broadminded, moderate, freethinking, tolerant
Maybe it''s just me, but I can''t see how people that share these characterisitics could have destroyed your liberty. I would find it a great compliment for someone to use any one of these words to describe me

 

[Sparkster]

Date: 11/19/2004 2:58:29 PM
Author: ForteKitty
Women should take self defense classes and shooting lessons, and remember to always aim between the legs.

Right there with you. Most victims of rape aren''t the result of being attacked by a stranger in a dark alley or by a stranger in their own home. In fact, most victims know their attacker, be it boyfriend, friend, acquaintance, employee, neighbour......

It''s best if you keep the fact that you take self defence classes to yourself. If these monsters know that you can defend yourself, this won''t stop them attacking you, it will just make them take more precautions and better prepare themselves for the attack. If they don''t now you can defend yourself, the best thing you have going for you is the element of surprise.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

BTW...just thought I''d list a couple of synonyms of the word ''liberal'' that I found in my thesauras:
open-minded, broadminded, moderate, freethinking, tolerant
Maybe it''s just me, but I can''t see how people that share these characterisitics could have destroyed your liberty. I would find it a great compliment for someone to use any one of these words to describe me

the modern day "liberal" is to all intents and purposes an inversion of the true meaning of this word, I will explain more later, I have to go to work

 

[chris-uk04]

In the UK, their gun control crimes have done nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals or to stop murders. It certainly proves the point of “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” A guy a few months ago got 8 years in prision, because he was defending his home. Four men broke into his house, one had a gun. He stabbed one of them with a sword, and he died. So they sent the innocent to jail. This the UK.

However, most people don’t really consider the possibility of ownership of guns. It’s been entrained in their minds that if ordinary people are allowed to own guns (or even cops), then crime will skyrocket and people will be constantly accidentally shooting themselves. Even the conservative newspapers miss the fact that gun ownership can prevent crime. Back in September a woman was killed by her deranged ex-husband. She heard him breaking into the house, locked herself in a room, and had the police on the phone for several minutes. However, before the police could get there, she was killed. The questions people asked afterwards, were all along the lines of “why didn’t the police get there sooner.” However, no one wondered how this tragedy could have been avoided if she only owned a handgun?

 

[fire&ice]

it could be ''easily'' argued that the woman thought her life was in danger. Dunno. Thank god.

Yes, as a women, it''s not a leap of faith to think your life *indeed* was in danger.

I don''t know; but, last time I looked English law heavily favors women. A women can get an court order to evict her husband w/o much effort.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

liberals are destroying our liberty by

1. selling the nation to Europe
2. bring us under European law, which is different from Anglo-Saxon concepts of the law
3. they are using 9-11 and the threat of terror to curtail freedoms (even more so than the US patriot act)
4. they are constantly trying to limit trial by jury, again they are now using 9-11
5. they are trying to bring in national id cards
6. they banned hunting with hounds (an activity I find most distasteful, but there are many reasons against a ban. it is about their class hatred of toffs, nothing more)
7. they are trying their best to ban smoking (again, an activity I find distasteful, but who is the govt to tell someone they can''t light up in a pub?)
8. they are sticking their noses into people''s diet and excercise regimen
9. they are drafting now, far-reaching, far, far reaching emergency powers - and they not too dissimilar the powers Hitler used to seize total control of Germany
10. they have undermined the House of Lords and filled it with cronies. say what you like about it being undemocratic (they have not made it more so) but the Lords has always been the guarantor of liberty in this country
11. they are forcing political correctness onto society with ''hate'' crime legislation, locking people up not for the crimes they commit but for their motives - crimethink by any other name
12. (this happened in Sweden) a Preacher was JAILED for quoting from the Bible against homosexuality.
13. Christianity is fair-game, but if you criticise islam or hinduism, you are a racist etc.
14. they took the book, "The Three Little Pigs" out of nursery schools in case it offended muslims
15. they abolished (or tried to) the centuries old position of Lord Chancellor in a press conference, without any colsutation
16. just the other day, a govt minister launched into an attack upon Prince Charles, this is simply unheard of. the elected govt does not do this. it is one of our constitutional traditions.
17. trying to abolish the £ (who controls the currency controls the country)
18. they are going to try to force through the EU constitution
19. now, 60% of our laws are being made in Brussels
20. 66 insidious new taxes rises since 1997
21. gypsies can, under "human rights law" flout planning regulations with impunity (doesn''t affect me, I live in a town, but it affects villagers and others in the countryside)
22. they are illegally bringing people into this country from abroad, then they sack the civil servant who exposed it
23. they blocked (Italian) Rocco Buttiglione''s appointment to the EU commission because he is a Catholic (though to give him due, Peter Mandelson did support him)
24. they allow under-age (below 16, in a high-profile case the girl was 14) girls to have abortions without parental consent
25. they have allowed inflation to massively increase the numbers who pay inheritance tax (again, not something I will ever have to worry about paying, but it matters to liberty)
26. draconian ASBO''s (anti-social behaviour orders) - again not something they will ever put on me, but they remain an affront to liberty
27. anti-patriotism as govt policy
28. bogus "anti-terror" raids on innocent muslims to get bad news for the govt off the front page (cynical, moi?)
29. trying to sell out Gibralter to the Spanish
30. banning firearms

that is just some that I thought of pretty much on the spot, in no particular order. I think that most of them are pretty fair... some are not directly related to liberty, some refer to constitutional practices, but our liberty and our constitutional practices are intertwined. some refer to hyper-political correctness beyond the point of reason which I believe is injurious to liberty, obviously where it becomes law, and even where it creates a climate of fear.

in truth, it is wrong to characterise these people as ''liberals'' given the dictionary definition of the word ''liberal''

and you are right, I have been ranting a bit recently...

sorry

it is good to vent once in a while

I will be good from now on

I promise

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

I don't know; but, last time I looked English law heavily favors women. A women can get an court order to evict her husband w/o much effort.

I am not sure if it was made law, but they certainly proposed that a man accused and CLEARED of domestic violence could still be put under a restraining order... that is criminal. I want nothing but the strictest punishments for men convicted of domestic violence, but to treat an innocent (before the law at least) man as a criminal, is an affront to liberty. Add that to my list


ok, in the spirit of not ranting, I will give them the benefit of the doubt, sometimes men are cleared of crimes that they commit due to technicalities etc, and it is a very important issue. the protection of the woman and child should take precedence. but it still poses great problems for concepts of liberty and our anglo-saxon legal tradition.

it also portrays all men as potential wife-beaters and rapists which is clearly not the case (however I have an extraordinarily low opinion of most men, and I am not sure that this is far wide of the mark, it really is very depressing)

 

[chantal990]

Sorry to reactivate this old tread but of course ANYONE should be able to use ANY kind of force to prevent rape. Unfortunately women aren''t the only victims. I do think however that it is a good idea for all girls to do self defense of some kind.

 

[windowshopper]

LIBERALS NEVER HAVE ANY EXPLANATIONS FOR ANYTHING--MAKES SIT TOO ONFUSING FOR THEM!

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

Date: 12/8/2004 12:15:41 AM
Author: Emeraldgirl
Sorry to reactivate this old tread but of course ANYONE should be able to use ANY kind of force to prevent rape. Unfortunately women aren''t the only victims. I do think however that it is a good idea for all girls to do self defense of some kind.

I am sorry, but "self defence of some kind" is not good enough, it you are 5''3" and 100 lb girl against a 6 foot 200 lb guy there is nothing you can do. which is why citizens must be able to carry a gun and know that the law is on their side if they shoot to protect themselves.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

of course there will be some exceptions to every rule, but I would still maintain that it remains true, in general, for most of the population

 

[Diamonds4Me]

I'm 5'7" and 104 lbs..my h2b is 6'1" and 192 lbs. We play fight all the time...he's very strong and says that if I tried I could probably kick his tail if I wanted. I'm pretty strong. I may have noodle arms but looks can be pretty deceptive

Edited: Plus I wear pointy, spiked heeled boots all the time..if worst came to worst I can kick pretty high and my aim ain't bad..I could put an eye out if need be.

 

[chantal990]

Date: 12/18/2004 7:55

4 AM
Author: diamondgeezer

Date: 12/8/2004 12:15:41 AM
Author: Emeraldgirl
Sorry to reactivate this old tread but of course ANYONE should be able to use ANY kind of force to prevent rape. Unfortunately women aren''t the only victims. I do think however that it is a good idea for all girls to do self defense of some kind.

I am sorry, but ''self defence of some kind'' is not good enough, it you are 5''3'' and 100 lb girl against a 6 foot 200 lb guy there is nothing you can do. which is why citizens must be able to carry a gun and know that the law is on their side if they shoot to protect themselves.

I live in a city in Australia so I cannot carry a gun there is no legal purpose for it. I have been doing martial arts since I was 15 (I am now 23) at my father''s request for when I go out to clubs pubs etc. I am sorry to say I have had to use it on occasion but I have also had to restrain my use of it and I am 5''3 and fairly lightwieght however being taught from the start that my great wepons are:

1)voice - never hesitate to call for help
2)heels - my old kickboxing instructormade all the girls come to class to learn how to keep your balance and still defend yourself in stillettos.
3) every human body has places that are easy targets aside from the obvious place on men. Most male assailments expect woment to aim for their privates so straight away you are taught where to aim to do the most damage and how to manage the situation

Panicing and shooting may work for some but for others no matter what the circumstance knowing that you have taken a human life may destroy them. Also never carry a wepon unless you know how to use it otherwise you are putting yourself in even worse danger.

 

[Diamonds4Me]

Another idea is to hold one of your keys between your index and middle finger and take an eye out if need be. My h2b told me to always light a cigarette even if you have no intention to smoke it. You can shove it in their eye. You can also shove your thumbs into their eye sockets. I guess my point is to always try to aim for the eyes.

 

[JCJD]

Is it OK to use lethal force to prevent rape?

Well, if you mean "OK" as in "acceptable", then no.

If you mean "OK" as in "understandable", then yes.


In this "filthy liberal''s" opinion, I think that using lethal force should not be accepted as "the only way out" of any and all bad situations, whatever the situation may be. But it should also be understood as "the only way out" of some bad situations.

Oh, and dg - That thing that can help a 100 lb girl with no self-defense training fight off a 200 lb guy is called adrenaline. It can also help bystanders to lift cars and buses off of people in accidents. Doesn''t work every time, but you should never underestimate the power of the human spirit!