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

[Archer]

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.

I agree.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

That's where tastes, standards and judge of character come into play.

 

[Alceste]

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.

Just so we're clear, you would support a woman murdering her husband for attempting to have sex with her against her will?

 

[Revoltingest]

Just so we're clear, you would support a woman murdering her husband for attempting to have sex with her against her will?

Tricky language you Canucks use.
"Murder" would not be the same as killing in self-defense.

 

[Alceste]

That's where tastes, standards and judge of character come into play.

In fairness, potential partners who might be inclined to force sex on us against our will have no identifying features.

 

[Alceste]

Tricky language you Canucks use.
"Murder" would not be the same as killing in self-defense.

Kicking him in the balls: that's self defense. Shooting him in the face or stabbing him to death? Murder. Self defense must be proportionate or it is not legal here.

 

[Father Heathen]

Just so we're clear, you would support a woman murdering her husband for attempting to have sex with her against her will?

I like how you worded self-defense as "murder" and took care not to use the word rape as to downplay it. Wacky tweest.

 

[Archer]

Just so we're clear, you would support a woman murdering her husband for attempting to have sex with her against her will?

That is self defense. She should fight and if it escalates then yes. It would not be murder it is homicide but again it is for the courts to decide.

Women need to stand up and fight.

 

[Father Heathen]

Kicking him in the balls: that's self defense. Shooting him in the face or stabbing him to death? Murder. Self defense must be proportionate or it is not legal here.

Okay, and how is it not proportionate? I can't see any sensible jury convicting a woman for murder in such a case.

 

[Erebus]

I've gone for yes a rape victim should be allowed to use deadly force, though I would consider its use a last resort as with any other form of assault. If you can you should restrain or incapacitate your attacker however you can (preferably in a painful manner IMO). Sometimes that just won't cut it and you may have to kill them. In a situation like that it's a simple matter of survival.

As a side note I think it's a very good idea to learn self defence and carry some form of legal weapon (rings, keys etc. Anything to help you in combat without breaking the law)

 

[Father Heathen]

I've gone for yes a rape victim should be allowed to use deadly force, though I would consider its use a last resort as with any other form of assault. If you can you should restrain or incapacitate your attacker however you can (preferably in a painful manner IMO). Sometimes that just won't cut it and you may have to kill them. In a situation like that it's a simple matter of survival.

Agreed, but in a moment of panic where time is critical it's not exactly easy to think and strategize about such things, and sometimes taking extra risk for the sake of your assailant simply isn't worth it. People should always put their own well being above that of those attempting to harm them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Kicking him in the balls: that's self defense. Shooting him in the face or stabbing him to death? Murder. Self defense must be proportionate or it is not legal here.

I advocate disproportionate defense. Tis the best way to stay uninjured & alive.
But don't confuse self-defense with murder.
Once the attacker is stopped, one ought not dispense summary justice.....but I'm personally flexible on this point.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's disturbing how it seems to be in vogue to portray victims as the criminals and criminals as the victims. That and rape apologetics.

 

[Draka]

If a man is on top of me tearing my clothes off and undoes his pants I can guarantee I'll be flailing and striking out like a 2y/o having a temper-tantrum. If I get my hands on a sharp object I'm going to thrust it anywhere I can to get him off me. If that ends up in his neck or his heart by chance, then so be it. It's not murder. It's not premeditated homicide. It's self-defense. If my attacker is killed in my attempt at self-defense then that is on him, not me. An attacker takes the chance of death by self-defense the moment the attack is made. It's just like anything else. Robbing a bank at gun-point. Attacking a police officer. Running from the law in a car chase. When you do something risky that endangers others then one of the consequences could be death. You accept that possible consequence the moment you decide to do something with no regard for the safety of others.

 

[Archer]

If a man is on top of me tearing my clothes off and undoes his pants I can guarantee I'll be flailing and striking out like a 2y/o having a temper-tantrum. If I get my hands on a sharp object I'm going to thrust it anywhere I can to get him off me. If that ends up in his neck or his heart by chance, then so be it. It's not murder. It's not premeditated homicide. It's self-defense. If my attacker is killed in my attempt at self-defense then that is on him, not me. An attacker takes the chance of death by self-defense the moment the attack is made. It's just like anything else. Robbing a bank at gun-point. Attacking a police officer. Running from the law in a car chase. When you do something risky that endangers others then one of the consequences could be death. You accept that possible consequence the moment you decide to do something with no regard for the safety of others.

Amen to the sister with mother giving birth to earth. Or is it mother earth? Irrelevant it looks nice.

 

[Revoltingest]

If a man is on top of me tearing my clothes off and undoes his pants I can guarantee I'll be flailing and striking out like a 2y/o having a temper-tantrum. If I get my hands on a sharp object I'm going to thrust it anywhere I can to get him off me. If that ends up in his neck or his heart by chance, then so be it. It's not murder. It's not premeditated homicide. It's self-defense. If my attacker is killed in my attempt at self-defense then that is on him, not me. An attacker takes the chance of death by self-defense the moment the attack is made.

But you take an unfair advantage if you grab a weapon & defend when he's preoccupied!
How dare you risk his safety with such wanton disregard. It's very unsportsman....er, unsportswomanlike of you.

 

[Erebus]

Agreed, but in a moment of panic where time is critical it's not exactly easy to think and strategize about such things, and sometimes taking extra risk for the sake of your assailant simply isn't worth it. People should always put their own well being above that of those attempting to harm them.

Completely get what you're saying there. If the victim is able to maintain focus and break an arm or nose, great. If they panic and lash out tooth and nail I would consider any damage done to the attacker to be justified. If the attacker is killed, even better IMO, I was always taught to return an attack threefold and it's ludicrous that the law doesn't tolerate this.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I can imagine situations where it would be justified, and situations where it would not be justified. I think the ordinary behavior of a woman trying to defend herself will generally not lead to the unnecessary death of a would-be rapist .... but of course, it's possible to imagine a special case (Husband: "Hey baby ..." Wife: "Not interested!" Husband: "Come on, it's our anniversar--" *BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! ... sounds of reloading ... BLAM!*)

 

[Archer]

I can imagine situations where it would be justified, and situations where it would not be justified. I think the ordinary behavior of a woman trying to defend herself will generally not lead to the unnecessary death of a would-be rapist .... but of course, it's possible to imagine a special case (Husband: "Hey baby ..." Wife: "Not interested!" Husband: "Come on, it's our anniversar--" *BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! ... sounds of reloading ... BLAM!*)

Yup and that is why we have courts. I agree but if there is no record of any violence by the husband (domestic or other), he has a clean record and there is ne evidence of physical abuse I think she will go up for murder.

I agree with what you are saying and the fact is in the US a woman has always had that right and it is nothing new. I started this thread because some teach rapist empathy round these parts and seem to think a woman should let it happen and let the courts deal with it..

 

[xkatz]

Force is a part of life. A person who goes to the extent of raping another human should be fought with necessary violence and vigor.

^This, essentially.