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.
If I was in court for killing a rapist, what makes you think I would care about going to jail at that point? The system would still be wrong for doing it regardless.
Did you know that legal does not equal moral, just or true?
Because no one is talking about purposefully putting oneself back in danger. That’s logically impossible because the rapist put you in a situation where you are always in danger, not just from them but the community at large.
Burdening rape victims with the responsibility of avoiding their rapist over something done to them inherently puts their life in danger.
It’s not always possible to avoid the rapist. Most rapists are people you know. What do you do when you have to interact with them at work? At school? At home?
What happens when you run into them at the store?
Because that’s the nightmare those rape apologist bitches are asking for. Entrenching the rights of rapists to act without consequences by shouldering responsibility for the situation on the victim.
Like what all evil people do.
And I will NOT support it. Ever. Rape victims have a unilateral right to kill their rapists and no one with any shred of humanity or decency will deny that. Deny it, and you’re a bad person. Period.
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?
No, that’s terrible. Also stealthing is by definition rape in many countries.
You’re talking about forcibly (deception is force) impregnating women against their will, easily one of the most vile things you can do to somebody, as flippantly as you would selling a blender on Ebay. That 100% justifies murder
Rapists always pose an immediate grave threat to their victims. It’s part and parcel of being raped.
They also always are an immediate and grave threat to the community as they can, will and do rape dozens of people in their lifetime. IIRC the average is about 100 over their lifespan.
So yes, we can morally do so. The law is archaic, outdated, sexist, anti-victim and therefore needs to be ignored or repealed so social and moral progress can continue.
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.
If you’re actually defending rape and rape apologia by appealing to 90’s revenge movie cliches, you clearly are the one who is insane and immoral.
You’re literally the dumb fuck in the meme insinuating that rape victims should tolerate being raped – and the presence of their rapists – simply to make yourself feel better.
You are insinuating rapists should be able to go out and plunder human lives without consequence.
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.
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.
No, you’re not getting it: your position naturally extends to those conclusions because that is where your mindset is rooted in: absolutist nonviolence allows, enables, and requires the most blatant of cruelties because it is by is own nature illogical and self-defeating, and to get around its endless broken logic loops, sacrifices are made, and those sacrifices are victims who can’t fight back.
This is why we reject such nonsense, and why we support a rape victim’s inherent natural right to use violence to protect themselves, especially after the fact when rapists can and do taunt their victims or harm them again or others, and it’s why we live under principles based on natural rights and not on your authoritarian garbage.
Let me guess: you learned about morality from DC comics and not from actually reading or thinking about it, or experiencing any of this (though I am sure you will just lie and say you did in your next response so you can win the argument).
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.
Okay, I’ll take a shot at this: I assert that you can and that the laws should be updated to account for that fact.
You go ahead a assert that all you want in a courtroom, see how far you get.
If I was in court for killing a rapist, what makes you think I would care about going to jail at that point? The system would still be wrong for doing it regardless.
Did you know that legal does not equal moral, just or true?
So if you successfully flee from danger, and then put yourself back in danger for the explicit purpose of killing someone, that’s okay?
If you successfully build a strawman, will it come alive and sing and dance?
How is what they said a strawman? You said laws should be updated to allow retribution.
Because no one is talking about purposefully putting oneself back in danger. That’s logically impossible because the rapist put you in a situation where you are always in danger, not just from them but the community at large.
Burdening rape victims with the responsibility of avoiding their rapist over something done to them inherently puts their life in danger.
It’s not always possible to avoid the rapist. Most rapists are people you know. What do you do when you have to interact with them at work? At school? At home?
What happens when you run into them at the store?
Because that’s the nightmare those rape apologist bitches are asking for. Entrenching the rights of rapists to act without consequences by shouldering responsibility for the situation on the victim.
Like what all evil people do.
And I will NOT support it. Ever. Rape victims have a unilateral right to kill their rapists and no one with any shred of humanity or decency will deny that. Deny it, and you’re a bad person. Period.
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.
Holy fuck, you’re naive. Naive to the point of being a danger to the human beings around you.
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.
So you managed to condemn and subjugate both rape and domestic violence victims in one post. I don’t know if I should be horrified or impressed.
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?
No, that’s terrible. Also stealthing is by definition rape in many countries.
You’re talking about forcibly (deception is force) impregnating women against their will, easily one of the most vile things you can do to somebody, as flippantly as you would selling a blender on Ebay. That 100% justifies murder
To insinuate otherwise is insane and immoral.
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.
Rapists always pose an immediate grave threat to their victims. It’s part and parcel of being raped.
They also always are an immediate and grave threat to the community as they can, will and do rape dozens of people in their lifetime. IIRC the average is about 100 over their lifespan.
So yes, we can morally do so. The law is archaic, outdated, sexist, anti-victim and therefore needs to be ignored or repealed so social and moral progress can continue.
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.
If you’re actually defending rape and rape apologia by appealing to 90’s revenge movie cliches, you clearly are the one who is insane and immoral.
You’re literally the dumb fuck in the meme insinuating that rape victims should tolerate being raped – and the presence of their rapists – simply to make yourself feel better.
You are insinuating rapists should be able to go out and plunder human lives without consequence.
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.
Honestly. 🤦
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.
No, you’re not getting it: your position naturally extends to those conclusions because that is where your mindset is rooted in: absolutist nonviolence allows, enables, and requires the most blatant of cruelties because it is by is own nature illogical and self-defeating, and to get around its endless broken logic loops, sacrifices are made, and those sacrifices are victims who can’t fight back.
This is why we reject such nonsense, and why we support a rape victim’s inherent natural right to use violence to protect themselves, especially after the fact when rapists can and do taunt their victims or harm them again or others, and it’s why we live under principles based on natural rights and not on your authoritarian garbage.
Let me guess: you learned about morality from DC comics and not from actually reading or thinking about it, or experiencing any of this (though I am sure you will just lie and say you did in your next response so you can win the argument).
🤣🤣🤣
Yep, called it. Authoritarian garbage.
See yourself out that way --> 🗑️
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.