• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Assult and Rape, does it justify deadly force?

If assault and rape can be proven is deadily force:


  • Total voters
    48
Assault and rape may be met with deadly force.
 
See thats my thought process Digs, I dont really know if a lot of rape victims are killed its actually probably low since there are so many rapes BUT if a person is mentally unstable enough to assault and rape how could the victim EVER assume she wasnt in danger of being killed by a nut case like that?

As a woman, that would exactly describe my mindset were I in that position. There is no way of knowing if the rapist wouldn't murder. I think any woman would fight for her life and if that meant killing the rapist to make it stop, so be it.
 
Many rapes and assualts end in the death of the victim. I can't begin to know the end intention of my attacker, but if I have a reason to fear for my life, I'm justified in using deadly force to end the threat.

Exactly what I was about to say. You don't know the intentions of your attacker, but considering they're attacking you it's reasonable to assume the worst. Deadly force is perfectly justified in the face of such vicious aggression. Then again, I have no problem with using deadly force against any home invader either.
 
Correct me if I am wrong?? But in order to justify deadly force, you must only feel that your life is in danger or fear for your life.. Since the rape victim or assult victim have no clue as to whether or not they will also be killed.. If they fear for their lives, they are justified to use deadly force to protect themselves..
 
Correct me if I am wrong?? But in order to justify deadly force, you must only feel that your life is in danger or fear for your life.. Since the rape victim or assult victim have no clue as to whether or not they will also be killed.. If they fear for their lives, they are justified to use deadly force to protect themselves..

IN most US jurisidictions, if you are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm, or a forcible felony committed on your person, you may use lethal force if you are unable to retreat from the situation.
 
IIrc, it's already such that if you have a reasonable fear that your life is in danger then you can commit homicide to save yourself.

hom·i·cide/ˈhäməˌsīd/Noun


1. The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.


It's not unlawful if it's justified.
 
Legally, "homicide" is any death of another person caused by one's actions. It includes "negligent homicide" which is not intentional and "justifiable homicide" which is not illegal.
 
That's the trouble with using dictionaries to find legal definitions of words.
 
Its not like an assailant negotiates a contract with you and you know to what level you are about to be assaulted. If someone sets out to cause me bodily harm of any nature, in the words of Marian Cobretti...Im going to "use everything I have" to bring about a quick fast and in a hurry resolution in my favor. If my family or a woman or children is at risk? Forget about it. Lethal force would be the least of the assailants concern. And no...thats not meant to sound all 'internet tough guy' like. Im just sayin...
 
Deadly force is justified any time you find your life in a condition of immediate, clear, and present, danger.
Rape? Only a true moron would argue that it isn't such a condition.
 
See thats my thought process Digs, I dont really know if a lot of rape victims are killed its actually probably low since there are so many rapes BUT if a person is mentally unstable enough to assault and rape how could the victim EVER assume she wasnt in danger of being killed by a nut case like that?

You are entitled to use deadly force if you're being raped, legally speaking, or if you about to be raped. /discussion.
 
There was a discussion about assault and rape and the use of deadly force and a poster stated something along the lines of:

"Thats ridiculous. You wouldnt get away with that in a court of law and if you did, it be wrong and you shouldn't be able to. Rape alone does not cause grave bodily harm its just minor bruising and tearing. Injuries like those will heal completely within a few days. Only if you are being attacked with a deadly weapon or in the middle of be strangled to death can you use deadly force otherwise it is completely illegal and completely immoral"

also then compared it to a bar fight and how he would be able to just "full the guy full of lead"

Now I know this is just opinion and not matter what happens the law has to do its job, I could shoot a guy standing over me with an axe and I still have to face the law so im not asking that question. Nobody is above the law but what I want to know is if you are on a jury and a women was being beat and raped and managed to pull a gun or knive or hell even nail file and killed the scum would you sentence her to any type of murder and feel her response was unjust because its "only some minor bruising and tearing?"

My stance is, if the assault and rape can be proved she walks and deadly force is definitely justified.

Jesus. Are you kidding me? It only causes "minor bruising and tearing. Injuries like those will heal completely within a few days." What a clueless moron. Seriously. Rape causes life long damage, beyond what is physical. Not only that, some rape victims are severely beaten. I know I would be if some prick tried to rape me. He'd be in for the fight of his worthless life. I'd rather die than be raped. So yes, if anyone ever rapes me. I will kill them. I will spend every moment of my life until I find them. Then, they will die. And what's more, they'll be damn lucky if they don't suffer before I take end their miserable existence.

At one time in this country, rape was punishable by death. And it should be.
 
There was a discussion about assault and rape and the use of deadly force and a poster stated something along the lines of:

"Thats ridiculous. You wouldnt get away with that in a court of law and if you did, it be wrong and you shouldn't be able to. Rape alone does not cause grave bodily harm its just minor bruising and tearing. Injuries like those will heal completely within a few days. Only if you are being attacked with a deadly weapon or in the middle of be strangled to death can you use deadly force otherwise it is completely illegal and completely immoral"

also then compared it to a bar fight and how he would be able to just "full the guy full of lead"

Now I know this is just opinion and not matter what happens the law has to do its job, I could shoot a guy standing over me with an axe and I still have to face the law so im not asking that question. Nobody is above the law but what I want to know is if you are on a jury and a women was being beat and raped and managed to pull a gun or knive or hell even nail file and killed the scum would you sentence her to any type of murder and feel her response was unjust because its "only some minor bruising and tearing?"

My stance is, if the assault and rape can be proved she walks and deadly force is definitely justified.

If a person attacks me or rapes my wife or children they had better know that I will kill them or die trying to kill them. The law be damned. It is as simple as that.
 
Last edited:
Jesus. Are you kidding me? It only causes "minor bruising and tearing. Injuries like those will heal completely within a few days." What a clueless moron. Seriously. Rape causes life long damage, beyond what is physical. Not only that, some rape victims are severely beaten. I know I would be if some prick tried to rape me. He'd be in for the fight of his worthless life. I'd rather die than be raped. So yes, if anyone ever rapes me. I will kill them. I will spend every moment of my life until I find them. Then, they will die. And what's more, they'll be damn lucky if they don't suffer before I take end their miserable existence.

At one time in this country, rape was punishable by death. And it should be.

It was Demon of Light... seriously.

Rape is very serious, and I agree that it should have the Death Penalty attached to it for clear cut "Attacker Rape" or whatever you want to call it. Date rape or rape where they started and then she wants to stop and he doesn't stop, as bad as that is, no DP. Just a long prison sentence where they get to be the raped.
 
Its not like an assailant negotiates a contract with you and you know to what level you are about to be assaulted. If someone sets out to cause me bodily harm of any nature, in the words of Marian Cobretti...Im going to "use everything I have" to bring about a quick fast and in a hurry resolution in my favor. If my family or a woman or children is at risk? Forget about it. Lethal force would be the least of the assailants concern. And no...thats not meant to sound all 'internet tough guy' like. Im just sayin...

The "Victimization" of criminals in this country by the far leftist PC sympathizers is disgusting. There are tons of examples of this, and here is one:

Accused Burglar Sues Homeowner Who Shot Him
The Milwaukee Journal ^ | 10/01/06
Posted on Mon Oct 02 2006 17:28:04 GMT+1300 (New Zealand Daylight Time) by baldeagle390

MILWAUKEE -- A Janesville man who admitted breaking into a home is suing the homeowner who shot him.

Kurt Prochaska, 39, was on probation last fall when he admitted he broke in to a home and was shot by the homeowner, but that's not stopping him from going after cash through the courts.

Late last year, the Rainiero family awoke to find Prochaska in their home. Michael Rainiero, a doctor, ordered Prochaska to leave. He didn't and was shot in the back.

Nearly a year later, Rainiero's attorney said it's far from over because Prochaska is suing him from beind bars, saying the doctor didn't need to shoot him.

"What the doctor wants is this whole ordeal to be ended and done with," Rainiero's attorney said


Accused Burglar Sues Homeowner Who Shot Him - Milwaukee News Story - WISN Milwaukee

As one poster a few posts back said, you don't know what level of violence is about to happen. You only know once it happens. By then, it is too late, so any intelligent person knows that preventive measures must be taken.

If a guy jumps out of the bushes, grabs some woman by the hair, punches her and drags her into the bushes... is she supposed to wait and see what is next before shooting him with the gun she managed to get out of her bag or just shoot him dead if possible? Should she aim for the leg so as to not kill him since maybe all he wanted to do was rob her with no rape?

In the article above... the doctor did the smart thing that guaranteed his families safety. He shot the guy and it was over... he didn't have to follow the guy around the house as he took some jewelry and left. Could you imagine not being able to shoot just because the guy turned around to continue going around in your house? What if he made a break for the stairs and your little kids were up there, he gets up there and kills them all because you hesitated due to fear of being prosecuted by some idiot lawyer out to make money and a moronic judge that upholds criminals as victims.

I swear, this **** bugs me to no end.
 
Last edited:
The "Victimization" of criminals in this country by the far leftist PC sympathizers is disgusting. There are tons of examples of this, and here is one:

Accused Burglar Sues Homeowner Who Shot Him
The Milwaukee Journal ^ | 10/01/06
Posted on Mon Oct 02 2006 17:28:04 GMT+1300 (New Zealand Daylight Time) by baldeagle390

MILWAUKEE -- A Janesville man who admitted breaking into a home is suing the homeowner who shot him.

Kurt Prochaska, 39, was on probation last fall when he admitted he broke in to a home and was shot by the homeowner, but that's not stopping him from going after cash through the courts.

Late last year, the Rainiero family awoke to find Prochaska in their home. Michael Rainiero, a doctor, ordered Prochaska to leave. He didn't and was shot in the back.

Nearly a year later, Rainiero's attorney said it's far from over because Prochaska is suing him from beind bars, saying the doctor didn't need to shoot him.

"What the doctor wants is this whole ordeal to be ended and done with," Rainiero's attorney said

gawd aint that the truth. If someone breaks into my house, they will be met with deadly force. I have a family to protect, as well as stuff that is hard earned. This bleeding heart mentality is for the birds.
 
Rape alone does not cause grave bodily harm its just minor bruising and tearing. Injuries like those will heal completely within a few days. Only if you are being attacked with a deadly weapon or in the middle of be strangled to death can you use deadly force otherwise it is completely illegal and completely immoral"


Excuse my off topicness, my language and my anger, but that is a seriously ****ED up analysis of the effects of rape.

First off, minor scratching and bruising? I get my scratching a bruising playing with my boxer. Forcing a woman to submit to rape causes SERIOUS bodily harm in the struggle. Not to mention the absolutely devastating mental effects of this trauma. This asshat needs to learn a thing or two before he opens his drooling yap. I wonder if he still thinks rape is about having a raging boner and not the psychological and physical domination of another individual who is seen as less than human?

I'm not much for language analysis, but downplaying rape like this ****tard did contributes to a culture that sees women as the plaything of men, and that is simply inexcusable.

Again, I apologize for the language, I'm not big on swearing, but that was more than a little disturbing to hear someone so casually brush off rape like that.

"Oh, it's just a few scratches..." Jesus Harold tapdancing Christ on rubber crutches.

Now turning to the question at hand...

I think all women should be armed against sexual assault. As long as we live in a society where rape happens, individuals need to defend themselves. A snubnose .38 fits into a purse or a small holster, mace also works wonder and fits almost anywhere. Knives are intimidating and extremely damaging. Anything a person can use to prevent someone from assaulting and forcing them into a victim role is a-okay with me.

That being said, I don't like that dis-empowering notion of "watch where you're at and who's around." Women have the absolute right to walk anywhere she please, dressed how she wants and to be free from the threat of assault or rape. Look, I acknowledge rape as a fact, and it will never be eliminated completely, but the attitudes that men learn to become psychologically able to rape someone need to be addressed as much as women need to learn to defend themselves from serious assault with deadly force.

anti_rape_kit_tshirt-p235432815589166187qn8v_400.jpg
 
two 18 year old "utes" tried to assault me (strong arm robbery) years ago and I shot one through the gut with a 9mm. I wasn't even handcuffed and they were indicted by the grand jury. Of course the fact that I called the police, waited for them to arrive, handed them the pistol license, gave a statement without lawyering up (I was a lawyer) and given my testimony was consistent with the three witnesses who the police questioned might have had something to do with it
 
I believe people should be allowed to use lethal force to defend themselves from harsh language.

I do not believe in proportional force. If someone is attacking you, you should be allowed to do whatever it takes to make them stop.

There is gonna be a blood bath in some parts of this forum if that were true
 
two 18 year old "utes" tried to assault me (strong arm robbery) years ago and I shot one through the gut with a 9mm. I wasn't even handcuffed and they were indicted by the grand jury. Of course the fact that I called the police, waited for them to arrive, handed them the pistol license, gave a statement without lawyering up (I was a lawyer) and given my testimony was consistent with the three witnesses who the police questioned might have had something to do with it

Thank god for the notion of Castle law! I, too, have been in that situtation. Home invasion, three guys with pistol grip pumps robbed us. My roomate blasted one of them, a Mr. Cruz Garrison, with his twenty gauge, caught him once the ribs and once in the arm with bird shot. Not deadly, but damn painful. All three were convicted, the guy who held a barrel to my best friends head got forty years.

Interesting side note: at the trial, after her testimony, my best friend was actually being harassed and threatened by the family of Garrison outside the courtroom. They were actually angry that was shot while he was attempting to rob us. As if he was just walking down the street and got blasted on for no reason. Unbelievable.
 
Interesting side note: at the trial, after her testimony, my best friend was actually being harassed and threatened by the family of Garrison outside the courtroom. They were actually angry that was shot while he was attempting to rob us. As if he was just walking down the street and got blasted on for no reason. Unbelievable.

While I certianly don't condone the family in what they did I can understand it from thier perspective. That was thier child/husband (whatever it was). No family member ever wants to think of thier child as being a robber...much less shot at for it. Again, I don't condone it...just understand it to a degree.
 
No family member ever wants to think of thier [sic] child as being a robber...much less shot at for it.

True and true...but how does that translate to harassing the victims of their son's malevolent actions?

I'm sorry, I have absolutely no comprehension how a slightly reasonable person can connect the two.

Being stupid is the only answer I can think of. Stupid people blame others for mistakes. Non-stupid people lay the blame squarely where it belongs.
 
Thank god for the notion of Castle law! I, too, have been in that situtation. Home invasion, three guys with pistol grip pumps robbed us. My roomate blasted one of them, a Mr. Cruz Garrison, with his twenty gauge, caught him once the ribs and once in the arm with bird shot. Not deadly, but damn painful. All three were convicted, the guy who held a barrel to my best friends head got forty years.

Interesting side note: at the trial, after her testimony, my best friend was actually being harassed and threatened by the family of Garrison outside the courtroom. They were actually angry that was shot while he was attempting to rob us. As if he was just walking down the street and got blasted on for no reason. Unbelievable.

i was pretty much on a public right of way, not in my apartment

I keep birdshot in my mossberg-at typical home room distances a shot of olympic trap loads in the face or chest is about as sure a guaranteed fatality short of a 5 second burst from an LP-5 (flamethrower) you can get
 
True and true...but how does that translate to harassing the victims of their son's malevolent actions?

I'm sorry, I have absolutely no comprehension how a slightly reasonable person can connect the two.

Being stupid is the only answer I can think of. Stupid people blame others for mistakes. Non-stupid people lay the blame squarely where it belongs.

It doesn't have anything to do with being stupid. I has to do with just not being able to accept the facts. A shrink could probably explain it better than I.
 
Back
Top Bottom