The kind of dumbassery I've had to deal with this weekend both IRL and online. Someone kill me please.
The kind of dumbassery I've had to deal with this weekend both IRL and online. Someone kill me please.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
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.
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.
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?