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

[Bismillah]

It's rather obvious when someone is being targeted.

You think so? Like I said "Because a rapist always predates rape with "Surprise!" right?".

if you pull a gun on someone and tell them to stop

And if they are innocent? Isn't that a felony?

 

[.lava]

Ok maybe I am misunderstanding the issue you're having if you don't mind, can you please state again?

hey i was trying to understand. i still am. what kind of physical exchange do you expect to see before you put yourself in action to defend yourself?

.

 

[Karl R]

What are you going to do pull a gun on every man who walks past you in a "threatening manner"?

Walking past someone isn't generally seen as being threatening. Moving directly towards them often is. Blocking or cornering them usually is.

If you're walking past someone, give them some room. They'll feel significantly less threatened. At night, I prefer to give people at least 6'. If I'm stopping them to ask them a question, I'll give them 12' or more. They can hear me just fine, and they're unlikely to mistake it for a threat.

Doesn't help my question Read "violently assaulted", you are maintaining that it is the imperative to take action prior to this. How does one anticipate the actions of another and with such a great consequence that weighs on the decision?

Legal self-defense varies greatly from one jurisdiction to another. I live in Texas, where "self-defense" is defined extremely broadly. Here are a couple examples of killings that were determined to be legal.

1. A Japanese college student was going to a party one evening in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He approached the wrong house by mistake. The homeowner, seeing that the student was acting strangely, drew a handgun and warned the Japanese student to leave his property. The student got upset and charged at the homeowner. The homeowner shot and killed the (unarmed) student.

2. Two Scottish men were going home late at night after spending the night out drinking in Houston, Texas. They mistakenly ended up at the wrong house, went into the backyard, and began pounding on the back door (a large, plate-glass door) to be let in. The homeowner, seeing drunk men beating on his glass door in the middle of the night, shot and killed one of the men.

Both cases ended up as acquittals. They were tragic accidents, but the homeowners felt they had reason to fear for their lives based upon the actions of the men who died.

Breaking into someone's home is considered a threat. Charging at them is considered a threat. Blocking their ability to escape is considered a threat. Making intimidating statements is considered a threat. In this jurisdiction, waiting for an attack to begin is unnecessary.

 

[Bismillah]

At night, I prefer to give people at least 6'. If I'm stopping them to ask them a question, I'll give them 12' or more. They can hear me just fine, and they're unlikely to mistake it for a threat.

If you don't do this it's ok to pull a gun out?

Your examples won't do charging someone or pounding on doors provides for a (seemingly) clear cut scenario. Life isn't always like that.

 

[Barcode]

Guys please look up the law codes in your respective locations. It is one thing to protect yourself from someone trying to give you bodily harm it is another to use deadly force if you "think" you'll be harmed. This kind of mindset would open up the legal flood gates for those with PTSD because they were raped and used deadly force even when there was no evidence that a threat or threatening behavior occured.

Let us use an example:

Person A makes out with Person B. Person A asks Person B to stop. Person B stops to inquire why (whilebstill being in close proximity to Person A). Person B proceeds to kiss Person A on the neck, but Person A shoves Person B away pulls out a gun and shoots Person B. Person B dies, end of story.

Now, the tricky part is to decide whether Person A was raped, and that use of deadly force is authorized. Now, laws on use of deadly force especially while not on property may vary from state to state. In California, you can carry an exposed firearm because its your constitutional right, but it must be registered, exposed, and not loaded while in movement (e.g. in a vehicle or on foot). Now, the exception to this rule is if you're license to carry an exposed LOADED weapon which most security guards and armored personnel have.

But in the above scenario, and if this were to occur in California she most likely would be charged with manslaughter. Because like any prosecutor would do, in the case of any rape case, did any actual rape occur? Let us assume Person B's continuing of kissing Person A was considered rape, just by the fact that she pushed him away and assuming that push gave enough space to run away if she pulls out a gun and shoots him and kills him its still manslaughter and illegal discharge of a firearm. In California you cannot discharge your weapon outside your property even in self-defenze. So again, the legality of use of lethal force may vary so I guess ivan speaking on the laws here in California. Perhaps the issue here with you guys is the legality of what I am saying and not how I am saying it.

 

[Father Heathen]

You think so? Like I said "Because a rapist always predates rape with "Surprise!" right?".

As I've already explained, there are blatant indicators of someones attempts and intentions. If you really want the details, why don't you ask some rape victims about the moments that lead up to their assault? This topic is obviously beyond you so perhaps you should stop participating in the discussion.

And if they are innocent? Isn't that a felony?

What innocent person would continue to approach someone aiming a gun at them and telling them to stop? Try to invest a little more thought into your posts.

 

[Barcode]

Father Heathen please address my post above yours

 

[Bismillah]

As I've already explained, there are blatant indicators of someones attempts and intentions. If you really want the details, why don't you ask some rape victims about the moments that lead up to their assault? This topic is obviously beyond you so perhaps you should stop participating in the discussion.

Yes obviously it is beyond me to try and think for a moment that all rapists blatantly charge at their victims all the while sexually taunting. There can't be a single case where a seemingly unconcerned person attacked a victim. That is ludicrous, all rapists have an honor code so that their victims can pull of a sporting show of resistance.

What innocent person would continue to approach someone aiming a gun at them and telling them to stop? Try to invest a little more thought into your posts.

Remind me where I said they continue forward. I asked if it is a felony to draw an armed weapon on a innocent bystander.

 

[Reverend Rick]

The rules of engagement are different from place to place. Where I live there does not have to be a real threat to use deadly force, you just have to reasonably believe there is a real and eminent threat.

In many places you have to exhaust all other options and use deadly force as a last resort, not so in my state.

 

[Karl R]

It is one thing to protect yourself from someone trying to give you bodily harm it is another to use deadly force if you "think" you'll be harmed. This kind of mindset would open up the legal flood gates for those with PTSD because they were raped and used deadly force even when there was no evidence that a threat or threatening behavior occured.

The standard (in both Texas and California) is what a reasonable person would believe.

If the person believed that they were in imminent danger, but a reasonable person would disagree, it's manslaughter. However, a significant number of exceptions have been made for battered women (where PTSD was taken into account).

Person A makes out with Person B. Person A asks Person B to stop. Person B stops to inquire why (whilebstill being in close proximity to Person A). Person B proceeds to kiss Person A on the neck, but Person A shoves Person B away pulls out a gun and shoots Person B. Person B dies, end of story. Now, the tricky part is to decide whether Person A was raped, and that use of deadly force is authorized.

Whether she was in imminent danger of being sexual assaulted (Texas law) or grievous bodily harm (California law, which includes sexual assault based on the precedent of prior case law).

There's a discrepancy in your example. Did he stop to inquire why, or did he proceed to kiss her? For the sake of your example, I'll assume that he stopped long enough to ask the question, but proceeded without waiting for an answer.

She told him to stop. Despite a clear signal, he proceeded to continue (kissing her, perhaps more) against her wishes.

I'd say that qualifies as threatening behavior. Innocent men don't proceed after being told to stop.

Now, laws on use of deadly force especially while not on property may vary from state to state.

Texas has a concealed carry law. If she's licensed to carry, she hasn't broken the law. She is allowed to use that gun to defend herself anyplace.

Let's assume your example occurred without witnesses (a reasonable assumption in a rape/self-defense case).

Reputation is going to go a long way. If Person A is an upstanding citizen and Person B is not (criminal record, registered sex offender), the district attorney won't even bother to press charges. If she wasn't legally allowed to carry the gun (no license), she'll be charged with the appropriate weapons violation, not murder.

But reputation bites the other way too. If Person B has the upstanding reputation and Person A doesn't, the jury won't let her get away with shooting an "innocent victim." They simply won't believe her version of the story.

in the above scenario, and if this were to occur in California she most likely would be charged with manslaughter. Because like any prosecutor would do, in the case of any rape case, did any actual rape occur?

Are you saying that she can't defend herself against rape until the rape actually occurs? That's like saying I can't claim self-defense against murder until after I've been killed.

The California penal code does not support your interpretation. Can you refer us to some case law which does?

just by the fact that she pushed him away and assuming that push gave enough space to run away

Have you ever tried to run in high heels? Have you ever tried to run in flip-flops? Have you ever looked at what women wear on their feet?

How far are you assuming she can push him? The average man has 20-30 pounds on the average woman.

In California you cannot discharge your weapon outside your property even in self-defenze. [...] if she pulls out a gun and shoots him and kills him its still manslaughter and illegal discharge of a firearm.

Assuming for a moment that she was in imminent danger of being harmed, where in the California penal code does it indicate that this is manslaughter?

Most people are willing to accept the "illegal discharge" punishment in order to protect themselves from being raped or killed.

If you don't [give a person plenty of space] it's ok to pull a gun out?

That's going to depend on the circumstances. But pulling a gun out (inappropriately) in self-defense is a misdemeanor (at worst). The penalty is less severe than being the actual victim of a rape or homicide.

Your examples [...] Life isn't always like that.

My examples were real-life examples. They were examples where an armed individual legally shot and killed an unarmed individual who did not actually intend them harm.

 

[Bismillah]

That's going to depend on the circumstances. But pulling a gun out (inappropriately) in self-defense is a misdemeanor (at worst). The penalty is less severe than being the actual victim of a rape or homicide.

I thought taking out a gun unproved is a felony could you get me a source?

They were examples where an armed individual legally shot and killed an unarmed individual who did not actually intend them harm.

They are also very unlikely, that is the reason these trials were given such publicity. Like I said real life is hardly as black and white and to identify a "threat" is almost impossible unless (as in your examples) someone starts charging you or the like.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I thought taking out a gun unproved is a felony could you get me a source? They are also very unlikely, that is the reason these trials were given such publicity. Like I said real life is hardly as black and white and to identify a "threat" is almost impossible unless (as in your examples) someone starts charging you or the like.

It is how they respond to your reaction that makes things more clear to me. If you feel threatened and tell them to back off and they continue, that would in my opinion be a good time to draw your weapon if you have not already.

Winter time is much easier, I just put my hand in my coat pocket if I feel the need to.

 

[Bismillah]

Ok I'm only asking this because on campus we normally have people walking alone at night. I personally am not to worried about it but wonder what would happen if a person were to draw a gun on me for simply sharing a sidewalk.

 

[Karl R]

I thought taking out a gun unproved is a felony could you get me a source?

Texas Penal Code covering justifiable use of force and deadly force.

Essentially, if another person would reasonably feel in danger in their shoes, then use of a threat as a deterrent is considered a legal use of force. Furthermore, it's significantly easier to justify than the use of deadly force.

If you really want an eye-opener, read Section 9.42 (use of deadly force in defense of property). Under that provision, you can legally kill someone who is fleeing (with your property).

They are also very unlikely, that is the reason these trials were given such publicity.

The cases got publicity because foreign nationals died (elevating them to diplomatic incidents).

Ok I'm only asking this because on campus we normally have people walking alone at night. I [...] wonder what would happen if a person were to draw a gun on me for simply sharing a sidewalk.

If a person pulls a gun on you for that reason, retreat. Regardless of whether that person's action is legal, you want to appear non-threatening so she/he doesn't pull the trigger.

However, speaking to the legal aftermath of her/his action:
You normally have people walking alone at night on campus. Which means you normally have people sharing a sidewalk. Therefore, a reasonable person would not assume that the mere act of "simply sharing a sidewalk" was threatening.

Furthermore, a school campus is a special exception. There are several locations (in Texas) where it's a felony to carry a firearm (courthouse, bar, school campus), even if you have a concealed carry license (unless you have a Just Needs Permit or similar exemption). Producing the weapon won't get you charged with a felony. Having the weapon on campus will.

 

[Barcode]

This is my point every state is different. Average student, or person walking in the street can't just pull out a gun if they feel threatened. In California carrying a loaded weapon especially one bullet in the chamber is a felony. This is use of deadly force within the confines of the home

http://handslegal.com/index.php/Cal...rce_Within_Residence_Against_An_Intruder.html

Gun laws that discuss prohibition of using loaded guns outside the residence

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California

Check the second link. It proves that a rape victim with a loaded weapon even concealed is a felony. Regardless whether she is a victim of a rape crime she will be charged with violations of carrying a concealed weapon and illegal discharge. The best she can hope for is to carry a blade no longer than four inches I believe.

 

[Karl R]

Check the second link. It proves that a rape victim with a loaded weapon even concealed is a felony. Regardless whether she is a victim of a rape crime she will be charged with violations of carrying a concealed weapon and illegal discharge.

Your wiki link just says that it's unlawful to carry a loaded gun. It does not distinguish whether it's a felony or misdemeanor. It also says nothing about discharging it.

Try this link, Section 12031(G). If the woman is carrying her own gun, and she's not a convict, not a member of a street gang, not commiting a felony, then she's guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in jail and/or $1,000 fine.

Where does it state that she'll be charged with illegal discharge when using it in self-defense?

 

[Barcode]

Your wiki link just says that it's unlawful to carry a loaded gun. It does not distinguish whether it's a felony or misdemeanor. It also says nothing about discharging it.

Try this link, Section 12031(G). If the woman is carrying her own gun, and she's not a convict, not a member of a street gang, not commiting a felony, then she's guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in jail and/or $1,000 fine.

Where does it state that she'll be charged with illegal discharge when using it in self-defense?

Based on the ignorant example of shooting from the purse. If you shoot through the person it'd negligence however read this link "Negligent Discharge of a Firearm" | California Penal Code 246.3 PC

 

[Karl R]

Based on the ignorant example of shooting from the purse. If you shoot through the person it'd negligence however read this link "Negligent Discharge of a Firearm" | California Penal Code 246.3 PC

Try this link. Acting in self-defense is a legal defense against negligent discharge of a firearm.

I appreciate the irony of you calling my example "ignorant."

 

[Reverend Rick]

Texas Penal Code covering justifiable use of force and deadly force.

Essentially, if another person would reasonably feel in danger in their shoes, then use of a threat as a deterrent is considered a legal use of force. Furthermore, it's significantly easier to justify than the use of deadly force.

If you really want an eye-opener, read Section 9.42 (use of deadly force in defense of property). Under that provision, you can legally kill someone who is fleeing (with your property).


The cases got publicity because foreign nationals died (elevating them to diplomatic incidents).


If a person pulls a gun on you for that reason, retreat. Regardless of whether that person's action is legal, you want to appear non-threatening so she/he doesn't pull the trigger.

However, speaking to the legal aftermath of her/his action:
You normally have people walking alone at night on campus. Which means you normally have people sharing a sidewalk. Therefore, a reasonable person would not assume that the mere act of "simply sharing a sidewalk" was threatening.

Furthermore, a school campus is a special exception. There are several locations (in Texas) where it's a felony to carry a firearm (courthouse, bar, school campus), even if you have a concealed carry license (unless you have a Just Needs Permit or similar exemption). Producing the weapon won't get you charged with a felony. Having the weapon on campus will.

In Kentucky, you will not be charged for a felony if you are found with a gun on a college campus. You will have your gun confiscated, be told to stay off campus property in the future and most likely have your carry conceal permit revoked.

My problem with this law is, if you leave your weapon in your car, you are still in violation. That means on your way to college and after you leave college, you cannot have your weapon with you even though it would be lawful.

If I visit our local college, I must park off campus to be in compliance.

These gun free zones actually give the unlawful the total advantage of being in control unchallenged. People intent on doing harm with a weapon on campus will care less about breaking the law putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage.

Strict laws only work on law abiding citizens.