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.
Apparently this person in the post has never heard of self defense. If killing someone is the only way to escape being raped, no you shouldn't be charged with murder as rape can fuck your whole entire life just as much as being charged for murder can, just in different ways.
It makes no sense, even by the logic that killing is only justified to preserve life. The part where you die is the part where they kill you afterwards. No one is going to wait until they declare their intent to kill you before fighting back. You take whatever opportunity you have because you might not get another one.
Also there is no way to tell if you will or will not be murdered right after, so you should very much consider your life to be in danger and act accordingly.
For some reason it feels weird to type it out but, I'd say, through no experience or research done on my part, if you can identify them in any way that risk goes up drastically.
You seen the takes from Authright and AnCaps lately? Trying to get rid of single-party divorces, pro child-marriage, pro 'enforced monogamy'.
Enforced monogamy? I don't understand. Is it like making adultery a punishable offense?
They're trying to go back in time on divorce law. Never dealt with divorce law, but my understanding is almost everywhere it's considered "no fault" now. But it used to be cheating/having sex outside the marriage would get you royally screwed in the divorce proceedings. That along with single party divorces being attached means both parties have to agree to the divorce. Basically there's been a lot of movement on trying to make it harder for women to leave...
Tell me you identify more with a rapist than with their victim without actually saying that.
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.
Lmfao, let me tell you from a feminist perspective that there are absolutely men, especially from the right but sadly not exclusively, who wouldn't flinch at this, let alone wonder what the fuck.
This seems like a post for men to pat themselves on the back and pretend they can agree and sing kumbaya across party lines on this one, but the only thing you're bonding over is pretending misogyny doesn't exist (making you actively part perpetuating it).
like ngl sounds like somebody is defending future him’s right to rape and not fear for his life.
A lot of green box people say they're against the death penalty until they get mad at someone. I'm actually against it though so I agree with the tweet.
Edit: Not sure if the downvotes are coming from all the red box people ruining this platform who are pro death penalty or the green box people who think I'm against them.
Do I spy a PCM? I reccommend you post it to the official PCM community on Lemmy: [email protected] .