Spicy nuanced take: the definition of rape has become a spectrum, encompassing violent, overwhelming force to nonviolent deception and everything in between. So the quoted statement can be correct in some scenarios, but wrong in others.
If you’re the victim of a violent assailant, you can and should be able to use any amount of force necessary, up to including deadly force, to escape. But turning up and wasting some dude because he stealthed you last week is unquestionably murder.
Self defense is a legal defense. That means the person claiming that they were acting in self defense is going to be doing that, at trial, in front of a jury. That means they have been charged with murder and the jury has to decide whether the defendant was acting reasonably when they killed them. What that means specifically, depends on jurisdiction.
They could also be guilty of a lesser crime than first degree murder. There are knowing, reckless, and acting under extreme duress versions of homicide in most places. All of which still carry jail time.
Having argued self defense in front of a jury, I think it should always be an option for them so long as it makes some kind of sense for the facts.
You are not in danger from the community at large because one person committed a crime. That’s asinine logic. You’re speaking from intense paranoia to justify hunting down someone that wronged you. Like the cop pigs that idolize the Punisher, you don’t care about justice, just assuaging your own violent tendencies with a more socially acceptable target.
Also in civilized countries, self defense is only valid if you’ve exhausted every possible opportunity to retreat.The idea of “stand your ground” laws in the US is widely to considered to contribute to a violent society rather than deter.
For example in Florida in an instance of road rage a man fired a gun at another vehicle. Since the victim has no obligation to retreat, and even had his own weapon, he simply returned fire. So there’s a shootout in the middle of the street in broad daylight with innocent people around.
FWIW, self defense is typical a valid claim only when you are in direct and immediate danger, and that danger has to be death or grievous bodily harm. Danger or a potential harm at some nebulous time in the future–or danger at a period in the past–is not generally considered a valid reason for using lethal force. That’s why women that murder their abusers often end up in prison; they typically kill their abuser when their abuser is asleep or otherwise incapacitated, rather than in the moment of being threatened or attacked. (Yes, I think that the law is wrong in that instance, given the dynamics of abusive relationships.)
Consult a lawyer for your state or province, because this shit varies from place to place.
That’s why women that murder their abusers often end up in prison; they typically kill their abuser when their abuser is asleep or otherwise incapacitated, rather than in the moment of being threatened or attacked. (Yes, I think that the law is wrong in that instance, given the dynamics of abusive relationships.)
Just… no. If you have the opportunity to kill someone while they’re defenseless, you have the opportunity to leave.
But have you ever met someone that escaped from an abusive relationship? It’s just not that easy. Abused people often aren’t allowed to have access to money, transportation, or outside support networks. Shelters have limited space, and you can’t stay there for a year while you try to get on your feet, certainly not if you have kids. You can be homeless, I guess?
If you’re actually suggesting that someone should be able to go out and exact vigilante justice without consequence, I’m not the one who’s insane and immoral here.
Jesus christ, you’re really not getting it. I neither said or implied any of those things.
Violent assailant holding you down = rape
Stealthing = rape
Rape can cover everything down to refusing consent to a particular sexual position or activity, despite consenting to everything but. We’re not disagreeing here.
Where you seem to be getting hung up is the idea that the slightest consensual breach somehow justifies homicide, even after the fact.
There exists a concept known as proportionality. A proportional response to being forcibly held against your will is all the violence you can muster. A proportional response to disagreeing with a particular act is pushing away and (assuming they relent afterwards) and leaving. Are you getting this now?
And you are ignoring that murdering rapists (or anyone who tries to seriously harm you) is a natural human right people are born with, and that right transcends the law of any country. It is part of your heritage as a living being on this earth and you need to learn to respect it.
There is no such as a natural human right, and since “murder” is purely a legal concept, your statement is nonsensical.
We are thin skinned apes with less hair who evolved to develop language, technology, and civilization. Rights are privileges established by civilization. The same civilization that decided that, maybe, it’s better to also establish a set of rules so that people can’t just go around raping and killing each other willy nilly.
You sound like you’d rather live in an anarchist hellscape. Good luck with that.
Ironic that you mentioned comics since you’re the one living in a world with imaginary things that don’t exist.
I’m done trying to reason with someone who thinks woo woo spirit universe whatever the fuck impulsive whims should be the guiding principle of humanity.
Spicy nuanced take: the definition of rape has become a spectrum, encompassing violent, overwhelming force to nonviolent deception and everything in between. So the quoted statement can be correct in some scenarios, but wrong in others.
If you’re the victim of a violent assailant, you can and should be able to use any amount of force necessary, up to including deadly force, to escape. But turning up and wasting some dude because he stealthed you last week is unquestionably murder.
Self defense is a legal defense. That means the person claiming that they were acting in self defense is going to be doing that, at trial, in front of a jury. That means they have been charged with murder and the jury has to decide whether the defendant was acting reasonably when they killed them. What that means specifically, depends on jurisdiction.
They could also be guilty of a lesser crime than first degree murder. There are knowing, reckless, and acting under extreme duress versions of homicide in most places. All of which still carry jail time.
Having argued self defense in front of a jury, I think it should always be an option for them so long as it makes some kind of sense for the facts.
It’s not self defense of immediate threat has ended. You can’t take retributive action after the fact and call it self defense.
Removed by mod
You go ahead a assert that all you want in a courtroom, see how far you get.
Removed by mod
So if you successfully flee from danger, and then put yourself back in danger for the explicit purpose of killing someone, that’s okay?
Removed by mod
How is what they said a strawman? You said laws should be updated to allow retribution.
Removed by mod
You are not in danger from the community at large because one person committed a crime. That’s asinine logic. You’re speaking from intense paranoia to justify hunting down someone that wronged you. Like the cop pigs that idolize the Punisher, you don’t care about justice, just assuaging your own violent tendencies with a more socially acceptable target.
Also in civilized countries, self defense is only valid if you’ve exhausted every possible opportunity to retreat.The idea of “stand your ground” laws in the US is widely to considered to contribute to a violent society rather than deter.
For example in Florida in an instance of road rage a man fired a gun at another vehicle. Since the victim has no obligation to retreat, and even had his own weapon, he simply returned fire. So there’s a shootout in the middle of the street in broad daylight with innocent people around.
That stuff doesn’t happen in safe societies.
Removed by mod
Go have a read about self defense laws around the world.
America is the naive one here.
FWIW, self defense is typical a valid claim only when you are in direct and immediate danger, and that danger has to be death or grievous bodily harm. Danger or a potential harm at some nebulous time in the future–or danger at a period in the past–is not generally considered a valid reason for using lethal force. That’s why women that murder their abusers often end up in prison; they typically kill their abuser when their abuser is asleep or otherwise incapacitated, rather than in the moment of being threatened or attacked. (Yes, I think that the law is wrong in that instance, given the dynamics of abusive relationships.)
Consult a lawyer for your state or province, because this shit varies from place to place.
Just… no. If you have the opportunity to kill someone while they’re defenseless, you have the opportunity to leave.
Removed by mod
Well, that’s the prosecution’s claim, anyways.
But have you ever met someone that escaped from an abusive relationship? It’s just not that easy. Abused people often aren’t allowed to have access to money, transportation, or outside support networks. Shelters have limited space, and you can’t stay there for a year while you try to get on your feet, certainly not if you have kids. You can be homeless, I guess?
Removed by mod
Well… yes? I literally just said it was. And no, you cannot legally kill someone who doesn’t pose an immediate grave threat to you.
Removed by mod
If you’re actually suggesting that someone should be able to go out and exact vigilante justice without consequence, I’m not the one who’s insane and immoral here.
Removed by mod
Jesus christ, you’re really not getting it. I neither said or implied any of those things.
Violent assailant holding you down = rape
Stealthing = rape
Rape can cover everything down to refusing consent to a particular sexual position or activity, despite consenting to everything but. We’re not disagreeing here.
Where you seem to be getting hung up is the idea that the slightest consensual breach somehow justifies homicide, even after the fact.
There exists a concept known as proportionality. A proportional response to being forcibly held against your will is all the violence you can muster. A proportional response to disagreeing with a particular act is pushing away and (assuming they relent afterwards) and leaving. Are you getting this now?
There is no such as a natural human right, and since “murder” is purely a legal concept, your statement is nonsensical.
We are thin skinned apes with less hair who evolved to develop language, technology, and civilization. Rights are privileges established by civilization. The same civilization that decided that, maybe, it’s better to also establish a set of rules so that people can’t just go around raping and killing each other willy nilly.
You sound like you’d rather live in an anarchist hellscape. Good luck with that.
Removed by mod
Ironic that you mentioned comics since you’re the one living in a world with imaginary things that don’t exist.
I’m done trying to reason with someone who thinks woo woo spirit universe whatever the fuck impulsive whims should be the guiding principle of humanity.