Should a potential rape wictim be allowed to use deadly force?

[Alceste]

OK, I understand what you're saying here, but IMO a rapist is a rapist is a rapist. If a boyfriend restrains his girlfriend and tries to force sex on her, and in defending herself, he's either maimed or dead...well it begs the question: why was he restraining her and raping her to begin with?

...and I'm sorry, but rape IS torture.

Um... it is usually because he wants to have sex and she does not want to have sex.

 

[Watchmen]

The potential victim's self-defense should be in reasonable proportion to the potential rape and, therefore, deadly force may be necessary in certain scenarios.

 

[Alceste]

The potential victim's self-defense should be in reasonable proportion to the potential rape and, therefore, deadly force may be necessary in certain scenarios.

I can get behind that.

 

[Acim]

Two wrongs always make a right. But takes first wrong to realize it could possibly be right thing to do. Depends on who's enacting the wrong.

I say we rape the rapists. C'mon, it'll be fun.

 

[Father Heathen]

Personally, I'd rather kill a rapist than get raped

Exactly, and I think it sick that anyone would expect you to do otherwise.

 

[Draka]

I say we rape the rapists. C'mon, it'll be fun.

They often already do while in prison. Especially those who rape or molest children. As soon as others find out what they are in for they tend to become someone's ***** rather quick. Just saying.

 

[beenie]

Um... it is usually because he wants to have sex and she does not want to have sex.

Um, thanks for pointing out the obvious...my question was rhetorical.

 

[work in progress]

OK, I understand what you're saying here, but IMO a rapist is a rapist is a rapist. If a boyfriend restrains his girlfriend and tries to force sex on her, and in defending herself, he's either maimed or dead...well it begs the question: why was he restraining her and raping her to begin with?

...and I'm sorry, but rape IS torture.

Let's not forget, there are often or usually even, threats of harm including death threats and blackmail accompanying a date rape or a rape committed by someone else familiar like an ex-husband or boyfriend, because the attacker will start thinking about consequences afterwards. So, the attack should be considered in the same light as if it was a random stalker attack, and just because her assailant is someone familiar, she may have justifiable reason to feel that her life is in danger.

 

[Maureen]

Simply put, yes.

 

[beenie]

Let's not forget, there are often or usually even, threats of harm including death threats and blackmail accompanying a date rape or a rape committed by someone else familiar like an ex-husband or boyfriend, because the attacker will start thinking about consequences afterwards. So, the attack should be considered in the same light as if it was a random stalker attack, and just because her assailant is someone familiar, she may have justifiable reason to feel that her life is in danger.

Exactly, and sometimes even more since "passion" is involved.

 

[Father Heathen]

My question is how could a person do one of the worst things you could possibly do to someone, to someone they love?

 

[work in progress]

Hahaha I'm not so much ruthless as I am determined to survive. You have to understand, my Father was an Army Ranger, my Uncle a Marine and my Father's best friend Eric a Navy Seal. I was taught from a VERY young age, how to take care of myself.

I was a pretty good wrestler in school, and had quite a bit of sparring practice with an older brother, who was an amateur boxer, but decided against turning pro....so, I did not have a lot of problems with bullying or being the target of an attack in my youth.

My point on the eye gouge or eye strikes, was that when my Wing Chun instructor wanted me to practice this technique, along with the finger jab to throat, I was pulling back a bit or flinching, even though I was hitting strike pads next to his head. If I'm asked to imagine I'm going for the eyes or the throat, I can't follow through with the same commitment as a punch or a kick, so he agreed it was probably not worth my time to be practicing these moves.

Wing Chun is actually a very nice style. I've practiced it a little bit myself. I'm also more than willing to discuss martial arts, though this thread isn't the place to do it.

Right! What I like about Wing Chun is first of all, it's simplicity - there are three blocking techniques that all of the strike-defense moves are based from. So by drilling repeatedly using those basic techniques, you have a good basic defense from a surprise attack.

My instructor had spent more than 10 years in Aikido, and pretty much left that martial art because he found it too stylized and impractical in real life situations. For example, the blocks that set up grabs and throws, are done with the hands, unlike Wing Chun, which tends to start with a forearm block (requiring much less accuracy) and turning the wrist (fuk sau) so that there is a good chance to find the wrist and grab hold.

In close range, pressure points are actually more available. There are MANY pressure points on the body, my point in previous replies stand that there are many better ways of getting someone off of you. I have personally gone for the eyes, but I'm much bigger than the hypothetical woman you mentioned. Therefor techniques used would indeed be much different.

The central point remains: 1. Lethal force is a last resort and a regrettable action to be forced into taking.
2. It's actually much harder to kill someone with bare hands than you think.
3. Many people, as you mentioned, will learn techniques that could be used to kill. But how many of those people will use it? You'd be surprised what goes through your mind in a confrontation.

Either way, we seem to be in agreement overall. In the RARE events of a rape as portrayed on the TV, I don't think anyone would blame a woman if her attacker was killed while she tried to escape.
However, as I said before, there's a difference. If the woman gets away and does only what was needed to do so before calling the cops, no problem. If the woman could get away and instead decides to kill the guy before calling the cops? Well... that's NOT ok as she was no longer in danger at that point, but continued to harm the attacker.

Yes, I pretty much agree. This all started out of answering a hypothetical question, not that it was a high probability of being successful.

 

[Archer]

My question is how could a person do one of the worst things you could possibly do to someone, to someone they love?

They do not really love then.

 

[.lava]

My question is how could a person do one of the worst things you could possibly do to someone, to someone they love?

it is sadistic and selfish. IMO it could not be love

.

 

[Father Heathen]

Um... it is usually because he wants to have sex and she does not want to have sex.

Wrong, it's usually because he wants to exert power and dominance.

 

[Draka]

Wrong, it's usually because he wants to exert power and dominance.

Exactly. In fact, I have a friend whose ex-husband once decided to attack her while she was in bed, home from work, sick. He came in, dropped his pants, and pinned her down and started pulling her clothes off. She gave up struggling quickly enough as she was sick and weak, and he got up, pulled up his pants, and told her that he just wanted to show her that she didn't have a choice. He didn't actually rape her, but he just wanted to show his "power" and let her know he was "in control".

Most of the time it isn't actually about sex at all.

 

[no-body]

If someone is acting violent towards you, you defend yourself to whatever degree that seems fit towards the situation regardless of whether you are a man, woman, child whatever or your attackers genitals are exposed or not.

Questions like these are like "if you could go back in time would you kill Hitler to stop millions from being killed? where does your non violent philosophy fit in now?" totally based on emotion and unrealistic.

 

[Karl R]

One can be trained to use a firearm so as to injure / subdue the attacking person rather than to kill.

If one has been trained to use a firearm, then they have been trained to aim at "center mass" (the middle of the chest) and fire. That's because it's the largest target and has a high likelihood of stopping them.

Some trainers teach a method which is a "double-tap" (two rapid shots) to the chest followed by a more carefully aimed shot to the head.

When you're faced with a crisis, you will fall back on your training. The U.S. military recognizes this, and trains extensively to get reliable results out of their soldiers.

So while someone can be trained to use a firearm to injure/subdue an attacker, I'm not aware of any civilian firearms instructor who does train to do that.

 

[Barcode]

Again a potential rape victim is not a rape victim therefore prior to the action the perp must be subdued.....simple

 

[Father Heathen]

Again a potential rape victim is not a rape victim therefore prior to the action the perp must be subdued.....simple

That requires extra risk and effort that a panicked and possibly outmatched/outnumbered victim shouldn't feel obligated to take. The most sensible action is to neutralize the threat the quickest, easiest, safest way possible. The victim owes nothing to those who would attempt to commit acts of violence upon them.