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

[Splarnst]

EDIT: Wrong thread, oops.

 

[ckww]

If I had a gun...which I do...and a man was threatening me with rape, or breaking into my house.....I hope I'd be able to shoot him dead. My problem is I need more practice with the gun. In a situation like that...brain freeze can happen. There are a few steps to getting that gun to fire...like loading, cocking, aiming....

The reason I would shoot to kill is because to waver and miss would mean I would be dead. I either do it or don't.

 

[beenie]

How much to you think a woman is going to have her wits about her to "subdue" her attacker while she is in the midst of a rape? It's strike out and hope for the best. If that means firing off a few rounds with eyes closed in hopes that at least one bullet does the job, then that's how it will go.

yes she should.
especially considering it is not uncommon for rapists to kill their victim once they are finished with them. A woman has the right to protect herself from harm.

Absolutely agree. In addition, if I saw life-threatening danger to my daughters, I'd give it all I got too. Like others said, I may not *want* to kill, but if it happens, I won't feel terribly guilty.

 

[Sunstone]

Women should submit to their rapists while singing "Kumbaya". If that does not reform the rapist on the spot, then I suggest they give him three head of cattle and marry him.

 

[Me Myself]

The only thing I disagree with the statement is that it shouldn´t only be women.

If a man is going to be raped by a man or a really ugly woman... welll he should also have the right to kill

 

[beenie]

Women should submit to their rapists while singing "Kumbaya". If that does not reform the rapist on the spot, then I suggest they give him three head of cattle and marry him.

Hmmm do I sense a bit of sarcasm in this post?

In all seriousness, I'm wondering why there would even be a question here. A person who rapes should expect to be killed, whether accidentally or otherwise. The damage rape does slowly kills the victim...

I'd rather the victim off the rapist in self defense than house him and let the state kill him (if he doesn't die from old age first).

 

[Father Heathen]

Women should submit to their rapists while singing "Kumbaya". If that does not reform the rapist on the spot, then I suggest they give him three head of cattle and marry him.

This is essentially what was suggested in another thread. It was also suggested that anyone who thinks otherwise is a nazi. Strange stuff.

 

[beenie]

This is essentially what was suggested in another thread. It was also suggested that anyone who thinks otherwise is a nazi. Strange stuff.

Really? Where?

 

[Draka]

Really? Where?

I want to know which thread as well. Curiosity is piqued now.

 

[Father Heathen]

Really? Where?

I want to know which thread as well. Curiosity is piqued now.

In the Gun Rights: "The government screwd up; Gun owners pay." Thread.

 

[Archer]

So everyone can catch up

First quote is victim effect which I have seen and sex crimes leave people dead inside. Many serial killers, molesters and sex offenders were victims themselves. This in no way excuses then and the face that a person knows they have a problem is the solution to the problem.

I know many women who were the victims of sexual abuse as children and some men as well.most turn out ok but the rest sink into drugs, alcohol, alternate lifestyles (I am not speaking of the homosexual alternate lifestyle though some of these males have such a low self esteem and feel such embarrassment about it that they feel they do not deserve a woman and just become submissive gays.) that separate them from the mainstream.

I agree. I know rape victims and molestation victims. Those who commit the crime death because that is what they deal. Many women die inside from these things.

Mental Health Impact of Rape

Who are the Victims? | RAINN | Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network

Rapists are killers and should be dealt with harshly. I sincerely wish all of the bleeding hearts out there knew what it was like for these women. If they know or think they know then perhaps they have some sort of mental block.

Of course I'm not. What I'm saying is that I don't support assassination.



Sure, rape has it's long-term harms. But I think the harms of the rapist which you have killed are a bit longer, don't you agree?

It's still death penalty, which I am against of.



A lot of rapist are people with mental disorders. Let's not be so nazi, shall we?



Then you don't need a gun. There's other tools that can protect you without endanger the life of the atacker.

Actualy the point of discusion is ridiculous. If this were allowed, a lot of women would kill a bunch of persons and say "he tried to rape me". What a nonsense are you supporting?

Death of the attacker is never necessary. You can defend yourself, call the police, shout, or kill the atacker "accidentally" when defending yourself, hitting him with something etc. But I wouldn't say shooting him with a gun is "accidentally".



No comment



Not in Europe. If you kill someone when defending yourself, you can go to jail a few years. If you kill him with a gun, well, you are in VERY BIG trouble.



Impunity? Never said such a thing. A criminal doesn't deserve death. We all can make mistakes sometimes.



You sound like the texas people of the movies. Go back to the ranch with your shotgun until you rest in peace.

I'm not the one that started the personal comments, you said that I had to be slapped in the face for the first time.

Anyway, just to put it clear, you yankees are the protagonists of most european jokes so please don't be even more ridiculous.

Hitler taking over us had nothing to do with our culture. Anyway, if you want to play that game, then now I understand why muslims sent Twin Towers to Hell instead of Tour Eiffel.

 

[Acim]

Hmm, I am sensing disagreement with many in this thread, so I'll continue to ask a few more questions.

1 - Does your position change at all if it is woman raping a man?

2 - Let's say it was woman raping a man (or allegedly raping a man) and man killed the woman, but there was say just a slight cut on his forearm. His story is, he clearly said no 5 times, she came at him with sense of force, they struggled, him grabbing her forearms, and he decided, forget this, I'm shooting her. Fully justified in your opinion?

3 - Let's say woman is allegedly threatened with rape, but has nothing physical to show she was attacked. Again, if we go with hypothetical situation of post #5, here is the scenario:

a man is making threatening advances on a woman and is asked to stop and still continues to approach and you can escape it is one thing but being in a corner with no escape is another.

The underlined parts leave a bit to be understood clearly. In this thread, I think pre-conceived notion is if it is man on woman rape, the woman would know when it is time to pull trigger, and shoot (to kill). But if it were female on man (and let's just assume man is thinking he is physically stronger, but instead is going with what majority of this thread is suggesting), would it be okay if man shot woman who 'continues to approach him' in aggressive way for sex?

4 - Do you think there would ever be situation where person who kills alleged rapist, would be held accountable in way that amounts to involuntary manslaughter of something along those charges? Think of situation where woman (or man) has no physical marks on her (or his) body to show attack, but the story is one that says it was necessary to shoot this person. Would you say any charges ought to be brought against the person who did the killing, or in most, if not all cases, absolutely no charges?

5 - On reread, I guess I overlooked idea of homosexual rape as well. An aggressive woman going after another woman, or man against another man. So think of questions 1 thru 4 in that vein and let me know what, if anything, might change for you?

 

[Archer]

Hmm, I am sensing disagreement with many in this thread, so I'll continue to ask a few more questions.

1 - Does your position change at all if it is woman raping a man?

2 - Let's say it was woman raping a man (or allegedly raping a man) and man killed the woman, but there was say just a slight cut on his forearm. His story is, he clearly said no 5 times, she came at him with sense of force, they struggled, him grabbing her forearms, and he decided, forget this, I'm shooting her. Fully justified in your opinion?

3 - Let's say woman is allegedly threatened with rape, but has nothing physical to show she was attacked. Again, if we go with hypothetical situation of post #5, here is the scenario:



The underlined parts leave a bit to be understood clearly. In this thread, I think pre-conceived notion is if it is man on woman rape, the woman would know when it is time to pull trigger, and shoot (to kill). But if it were female on man (and let's just assume man is thinking he is physically stronger, but instead is going with what majority of this thread is suggesting), would it be okay if man shot woman who 'continues to approach him' in aggressive way for sex?

4 - Do you think there would ever be situation where person who kills alleged rapist, would be held accountable in way that amounts to involuntary manslaughter of something along those charges? Think of situation where woman (or man) has no physical marks on her (or his) body to show attack, but the story is one that says it was necessary to shoot this person. Would you say any charges ought to be brought against the person who did the killing, or in most, if not all cases, absolutely no charges?

5 - On reread, I guess I overlooked idea of homosexual rape as well. An aggressive woman going after another woman, or man against another man. So think of questions 1 thru 4 in that vein and let me know what, if anything, might change for you?

Well this is kind of like the abortion issue where it is all one way and the man has no say in the end; here is where I am going with this.

For a woman to rape a man in such a way that his penis penetrates her is almost impossible. Now I have heard of women sexually abusing and the link below is definitely sexual assault.

[youtube]AeadI7jieDY[/youtube]
Young Girls Attack/Strip 11-Year-Old Boy - YouTube

Now I say in a situation like this deadly force would be allowable. Some may say it is not worth the death penalty but that child will be dead inside for a long time and will possibly go on to sexually assault those weaker than himself.

Simply put when you take it upon yourself to attack another person in any way you must realize you are intending to do harm and therefore may lose your life.

There is no grey area if you are threatened you need to do whatever is necessary ti remove the threat. Run, fight, shoot and kill. Let a jury decide your fate if necessary because your chances are better there than in the grave or as a statistic in a government study.

 

[Draka]

For a woman to rape a man in such a way that his penis penetrates her is almost impossible. Now I have heard of women sexually abusing and the link below is definitely sexual assault.

But not entirely impossible. There are incidents of a man being slipped drugs to give him an erection. Also, it is possible to physically arouse a man even if he doesn't want to be aroused or have sex.

Hey, an attack is an attack and anyone that goes far enough to forcefully have sex with someone is sick and could do much worse. It doesn't matter the gender of the attacker or the victim, defense is warranted when attacked, plain and simple.

 

[Breathe]

But not entirely impossible. There are incidents of a man being slipped drugs to give him an erection. Also, it is possible to physically arouse a man even if he doesn't want to be aroused or have sex.

Hey, an attack is an attack and anyone that goes far enough to forcefully have sex with someone is sick and could do much worse. It doesn't matter the gender of the attacker or the victim, defense is warranted when attacked, plain and simple.

100% this.

 

[Acim]

Well this is kind of like the abortion issue where it is all one way and the man has no say in the end; here is where I am going with this.

That logic is just ignorant IMO.

For a woman to rape a man in such a way that his penis penetrates her is almost impossible. Now I have heard of women sexually abusing and the link below is definitely sexual assault.

So, what if man in your OP has every intention of not inserting his penis into her? Arguably she doesn't know, but that would right there be enough, one would think, to not kill the person.

Somehow the distinction between sexual assault and rape seems to be such a fine line that I can't believe this thread's logic would come down to that.

I say in a situation like this deadly force would be allowable. Some may say it is not worth the death penalty but that child will be dead inside for a long time and will possibly go on to sexually assault those weaker than himself.

Wow, that kind of argument is really hard to back up, and yet is basis for your logic to utilize deadly force. Who gets to decide who is dead inside (and how long that lasts)? I've had my heart broken by 'mean person I dated and who ended things abruptly.' Felt dead inside for many days. In some ways, it still has impact on me to this day. Would that have been proper to use deadly force at time of break up? If you call this ridiculous or what have you, please realize this is how I see your position.

Simply put when you take it upon yourself to attack another person in any way you must realize you are intending to do harm and therefore may lose your life.

But who decides that? Let's say 30 year old woman is in room with 11 year old boy, and HER claim is he was attacking her. She gets to end his life with no sense of accountability? For sure if it were other way around, 30 year old man, feels he was attacked by 11 year old girl, magically many here would disagree with that, saying man was way out of line. Yet, what is friggin difference between the 9 million variations we can come up with this, if the principle is, "attack me, and I have right to kill you?"

There is no grey area if you are threatened you need to do whatever is necessary ti remove the threat. Run, fight, shoot and kill. Let a jury decide your fate if necessary because your chances are better there than in the grave or as a statistic in a government study.

As long as you have "let a jury decide your fate" I can see you are at least remotely reasonable. In my understanding, there is something acutely at work in situation, along lines of higher power, that will ensure debt of attack is paid off in way that works for all. If this means 'kill your attackers' it means that for you. Jury will have influence in this life how that plays out, but we literally have all the time in the universe to play out the perpetuated issue of, 'how well is this attack thing working for us in resolving perceived conflicts?"

 

[Alceste]

FYI, in the vast majority of rapes the victim knows her attacker. Usually it is her husband or boyfriend, or a date or friend.

Carry on.

 

[Archer]

That logic is just ignorant IMO.

Ignorant? It is about perception. Men are not perceived as victims in a rape where as women are. Men have no rights or say in an abortion because their input into the pregnancy is completely null and void where the wish of the woman are concerned.

I an talking about perception.

So, what if man in your OP has every intention of not inserting his penis into her? Arguably she doesn't know, but that would right there be enough, one would think, to not kill the person.

Somehow the distinction between sexual assault and rape seems to be such a fine line that I can't believe this thread's logic would come down to that.

The final intent is what we are talking about here and it is the victims perception of that intent that leads to their reaction.

Sexual assault is sexual assault but the penetration is the ultimate violation of a woman's (or mans) person gets into rape. The act of destroying a person and degrading them by stripping away their choice where an act of sex is concerned. Molestation is on another level completely and best talked about in another thread.

Trust me if I were in a situation where I was being chased or threatened by a group of people or just one I would do whatever was necessary to defend my person. I do not carry a gun and I consider myself somewhat attractive and desirable to the opposite sex (and the same sex as well). Unfortunately for me I have something on my record that makes it hard for me to so anything but fend off the attack as best I can even if deadly force would be considered reasonable.


{quote]Wow, that kind of argument is really hard to back up, and yet is basis for your logic to utilize deadly force. Who gets to decide who is dead inside (and how long that lasts)? I've had my heart broken by 'mean person I dated and who ended things abruptly.' Felt dead inside for many days. In some ways, it still has impact on me to this day. Would that have been proper to use deadly force at time of break up? If you call this ridiculous or what have you, please realize this is how I see your position. [/quote]

That is a good question and the answer is really simple. People already kill their ex and go to jail for it. We have a crappy justice system in many ways but it is crappy being compared to what it could be not necessarily crappy compared to other systems.

I am also going to ask you a question and do realize I am probably not going to get a truthful answer and that is fine because I do not expect one.

Have you ever been raped? I mean forced to preform sexual acts or forced to accept someone into you? Have you been forcibly sodomized? Have you been forced to preform oral sex on another person?

I am fortunate enough to have never been a victim but I know one man and three women who have been sexually violated (molested) and three women who have been raped.

Two of the four molestation victims turned out fine and two are still dealing with it decades later. One has been very promiscuous and had some major emotional issues that are directly to the violation.

The two that have been raped are opposites. One is very passive and kind but has some socialization issues and the other is strong and her strength helped her daughters who were also raped.

I have seen up close the innocence stripped from a child as well as the confidence and self esteem stripped from a woman causing her to withdraw and attempt suicide. You seem to be twisting and making light of a very real problem.

Have you been there and/or do you know the real impact? Have you felt a childs tears and seen them grow up dealing with it always feeling they have something to be ashamed of? Have you?

But who decides that? Let's say 30 year old woman is in room with 11 year old boy, and HER claim is he was attacking her. She gets to end his life with no sense of accountability? For sure if it were other way around, 30 year old man, feels he was attacked by 11 year old girl, magically many here would disagree with that, saying man was way out of line. Yet, what is friggin difference between the 9 million variations we can come up with this, if the principle is, "attack me, and I have right to kill you?"

Your arguments are completely illogical as it directly pertains to this thread and the fact is if it were that easy we would see more of it. It is already legal to defend yourself and use deadly force if necessary.

Do not make a game of this.

As long as you have "let a jury decide your fate" I can see you are at least remotely reasonable. In my understanding, there is something acutely at work in situation, along lines of higher power, that will ensure debt of attack is paid off in way that works for all. If this means 'kill your attackers' it means that for you. Jury will have influence in this life how that plays out, but we literally have all the time in the universe to play out the perpetuated issue of, 'how well is this attack thing working for us in resolving perceived conflicts?"

UHHH? I can not follow this. Could you break it into two parts?

 

[Archer]

FYI, in the vast majority of rapes the victim knows her attacker. Usually it is her husband or boyfriend, or a date or friend.

Carry on.

Very true. In the cases I mentioned all of the violations were carried out by family or supposed friends.

I do know some people who have been the victims of sexual assault though.

I think this boils down to a persons right to be in control of their own body. No matter the situation when one person attempts to physically force another to do their will and it is illegal to force a person in such a way the one doing the forcing must realize that their life may be forfeit. There is no need to dance around this and it is the was it has been since the beginning of man.

 

[pwfaith]

But not entirely impossible. There are incidents of a man being slipped drugs to give him an erection. Also, it is possible to physically arouse a man even if he doesn't want to be aroused or have sex.

Hey, an attack is an attack and anyone that goes far enough to forcefully have sex with someone is sick and could do much worse. It doesn't matter the gender of the attacker or the victim, defense is warranted when attacked, plain and simple.

Agree, does a man have to have an erect penis and penetrate for it to be a sexual attack? I don't think so. I think things can be done that are degrading and undesired by him that make it just as much of an attack.