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

[MoonWater]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to bow out of this thread early. It has been reawakening old fears in me that are getting increasingly more difficult to deal with. Last night I was actually having trouble concentrating while at work because of the fear in my chest over something like this happening while going out to my car at 9 O'clock at night. I'm trying to deal with this fear in a healthier and more productive manner but being apart of this thread isn't helping me.

Acim, for what it's worth I'm sorry I mocked you and I'm sorry for the way others have treated you in this thread. Regardless of anyone's stance no one should ever hope another person get's raped to prove a point, or for any reason for that matter. To say something like that is just as bad as blaming the victim. So I'm sorry, I overreacted and wasn't thinking my words through. Even though I gave my honest interpretation I can see how throwing in mocking language would make it seem otherwise. I know your only doing the best you can with what you have and what you believe, as are all of us, and in a way I do admire and respect your assertiveness and willingness to stand up for yourself without resorting to insults and threats as so many others do. I may still disagree with most of what you have said but I do understand and even agree with parts of what you have said. I guess in the end I hope we can simply agree to disagree.
Live well and blessed be Acim

I'll see the rest of you in the other forums but for now I need to stay away from this thread. So see you around.

 

[Ozzie]

We seem to have a member or two here that think it is better to be killed inside by allowing yourself to be raped than to use a gun in defense because it could kill the rapist.

I say the victim should use any means at their disposal to defend them selves up to and including killing the attacker.

What say you?

Let's not "allow" anyone to do anything deadly.

 

[Nerthus]

Justified force is acceptable in my opinion. If someone comes on too strong, potential rape or not - doing something that could kill him is not justifiable to me.

 

[ChristineES]

and where did I say violence is always the best answer. Nonviolent solutions are always preferable, however when faced with a violent attacker one will not have time to try and consider or way their options to try and find such. You literally have seconds, if that, to break free and get out of there. I will agree that nonviolent solutions are preferable, however they are not always practical, especially if one hopes to get out of a violent situation alive.

I don't think anyone has said that violence is the best answer, what we all have said (including you)is that a woman should use any means she can to protect herself. And if it violence, so be it- rape is a violent act itself.

 

[Oneatatime]

We seem to have a member or two here that think it is better to be killed inside by allowing yourself to be raped than to use a gun in defense because it could kill the rapist.

I say the victim should use any means at their disposal to defend them selves up to and including killing the attacker.

What say you?

I think it's reasonable to use lethal force to prevent a person from commiting rape. I've very little sympathy for those who expert mercy or kindness when they aren't prepared to offer any to their victims.

There is however a problem of determing after the events whether or not the suspected rapist was actually intending to rape the alledged victim. In the absence of sufficient evidence to support the alledged victims claim they could find themselves being charged for murder. A suspected rapist might actually be complete innocent and the alledged victim who killed them could have just been exploiting the law to their ends.

These are significant hurdles in countries that don't generally support the use of lethal force that would likely stop any definite legal protection being offered to alledged victims. Instead discretion is likely to be the prefered tool.

 

[waitasec]

As a theist, I do ultimately think an appeal to God / Inner Spirit is something to at least consider if that situation ought to present itself.

what the hell are you talking about?

 

[Reverend Rick]

I don't know what the law says everywhere, but in my state, you don't have to actually be threatened, you just have to believe you are in danger to use deadly force.

It's all about reasonable perception of a threat. A five foot one hundred pound woman is not going to be in control of a situation very long against a seven foot 300 pound man.

 

[Alceste]

I don't know what the law says everywhere, but in my state, you don't have to actually be threatened, you just have to believe you are in danger to use deadly force.

It's all about reasonable perception of a threat. A five foot one hundred pound woman is not going to be in control of a situation very long against a seven foot 300 pound man.

 

[Otherright]

Let's not "allow" anyone to do anything deadly.

And how do you propose we pull that off?

 

[waitasec]

alceste,
is that for real?

 

[Alceste]

alceste,
is that for real?

No, it's been photoshopped. This is the original:

 

[Acim]

what the hell are you talking about?

What the hell is your question?

 

[Barcode]

Let me be clear: If 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.

With all of the crime and rape out there even the potential that every victim is armed is a deterrent.

Your title was a bit misleading...for me at least.

a "potential rapist" isn't a rapist first off.

If someone backs you in a corner you have a right to defend yourself to restrain or subdue the person but killing them especially if they're incapacitated is excessive force. Also, being backed into a corner isn't [necessarily] rape because for various other reasons a person could be trying to rob you. So this is why you must be as specific as possible for me because there are a plathera of reasons NOT to kill a so-called "potential rapist."

 

[Acim]

Good reply Q.

 

[work in progress]

I don't know what the law says everywhere, but in my state, you don't have to actually be threatened, you just have to believe you are in danger to use deadly force.

It's all about reasonable perception of a threat. A five foot one hundred pound woman is not going to be in control of a situation very long against a seven foot 300 pound man.

If a woman has had the right kind of martial arts training, and practices regularly, and is willing to use deadly force in such a situation, she could kill that 7' 300 lb man.

If you don't believe me, let me give you one possible scenario: the 300 lb man has surprised and overpowered the tiny woman, and is on top of her and is about to rape her. His considerable weight is pressing down on her chest, so she is trapped underneath him while he is pulling down her pants, her shorts...whatever she's wearing so that he can have forcible intercourse with her. At this stage, what do you think the odds are that he is even thinking about, let alone making any attempt to secure her hands? Likely ZERO! So, the tiny woman who is trapped under this big guy is able to raise her hands free, and then drive her thumbs straight into her attacker's eye sockets with as much force as she can manage! If she is willing to use full force, he's a dead man in a matter of minutes, if not seconds!

So, would anyone here argue that deadly force was wrong to use in such a physical attack that was obviously leading to rape?

 

[Archer]

Your title was a bit misleading...for me at least.

a "potential rapist" isn't a rapist first off.

If someone backs you in a corner you have a right to defend yourself to restrain or subdue the person but killing them especially if they're incapacitated is excessive force. Also, being backed into a corner isn't [necessarily] rape because for various other reasons a person could be trying to rob you. So this is why you must be as specific as possible for me because there are a plathera of reasons NOT to kill a so-called "potential rapist."

I think we (someone) covered that but it is worth saying again.

You are correct; there is more than one reason to attack a person but rape was the reason I started the thread.

 

[Alceste]

If a woman has had the right kind of martial arts training, and practices regularly, and is willing to use deadly force in such a situation, she could kill that 7' 300 lb man.

If you don't believe me, let me give you one possible scenario: the 300 lb man has surprised and overpowered the tiny woman, and is on top of her and is about to rape her. His considerable weight is pressing down on her chest, so she is trapped underneath him while he is pulling down her pants, her shorts...whatever she's wearing so that he can have forcible intercourse with her. At this stage, what do you think the odds are that he is even thinking about, let alone making any attempt to secure her hands? Likely ZERO! So, the tiny woman who is trapped under this big guy is able to raise her hands free, and then drive her thumbs straight into her attacker's eye sockets with as much force as she can manage! If she is willing to use full force, he's a dead man in a matter of minutes, if not seconds!

So, would anyone here argue that deadly force was wrong to use in such a physical attack that was obviously leading to rape?

And what are his hands doing while she's doing that? And his weapon? I wouldn't argue that it's "wrong", only that she might assume under the circumstances that escalating the violence is the wrong thing to do, and she might be right.

Moot point though, really, since a woman who has trained extensively in martial arts and is willing to use it does not fit the typical victim profile for violent offenders.

From all the close calls I've heard about, it seems that in that situation the most effective strategy is to break free of the attacker's control and run like hell. I have not heard any success stories about women avoiding a rape by using deadly force.

 

[Father Heathen]

I am talking about what is by far the most common occurrence, statistically speaking, which is rape by a person the victim has some kind of relationship with. The odds that she is going to perceive her husband, grandfather, brother, boyfriend, study buddy or date as a worthless lowlife scumbag who deserves to die at the moment when such a perception would make the difference between rape and not-rape are zero. I am not "downplaying" the trauma of rape, I am trying to inject a small dose of realism into a thread where people are getting swept away by melodramatic fantasies of rape and retribution.

I'm also trying to discourage "blame the victim" thinking in all its forms.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would have any empathy left for someone who has so thoughtlessly, heartlessly and heinously brutalized them. I can only chock it up to being unfortunate cases of Stockholm syndrome.

 

[Alceste]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would have any empathy left for someone who has so thoughtlessly, heartlessly and heinously brutalized them. I can only chock it up to being unfortunate cases of Stockholm syndrome.

Abusive men and women are not to my taste either, but I can still do my best to understand and empathize with the complex feelings of their partners.

 

[MissAlice]

I haven't been following this thread but here is my response to the subject in question.

Yes but only if she has made it clear and the man in question is not allowing her to go. Also what Pegg said is important. Some of these rapists will kill their victims as they can be eyewitnesses. It's just one of those things where you risk your life either way imo. I had a childhood friend who committed suicide a few years ago. She claimed her dad was molesting her. Nobody charged as there was no evidence and her mom kicked her out of the house. Now I'm not saying he's responsible for her death but she was very damaged and turns out she was speaking the truth. After her mother divorced him, he was married again. This time he was arrested not only for sexual molestation of his wife's two children but collecting child porn. Now I don't know if this falls exactly into the rape category since a child doesn't know what to do, but I think actions speak louder than words. A man who rapes a woman/child is probably more likely to commit it against another human being. If people do not think there is anything wrong with rape or care how it affects a human being's psychic then I think this debate is moot at this point.