• 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!

RIP, Jennifer Alfonso

BWS is not a law. SYG is.

some states do not allow it I think. It still has to be an imminent threat not a general fear based on prior acts
 
It's the standard used in any self-defense case.

Not in states that don't have SYG. What SYG allows is the use of lethal force for protection if the "victim" is afraid for their lives. Before SYG, or in other states that don't have SYG, the "victim," under the law, could only use comparable force if felt threatened. So, if someone tries to punch you, it's not okay to take out a gun and blow their brains out. This blurb explains it well, and I think your state self-defense laws--before SYG--were pretty much comparable:

CBC News: If we ever fear our family is in danger in public, do we have the right to defend them, even if the threat is a perceived one?

Nichols says this is the greyest area of the law, but, “unless the person was actually taking some sort of action, or was using some kind of assaultive force, you wouldn’t be justified in doing too much.”

Cohen says if a person reasonably believes a potential threat is imminent, and a judge agrees with the reasoning, then they would likely not be penalized for their actions.

“It's more difficult for Canadians to understand because it seems more people are involved in this type of situation in the United States,” he said.

The so-called perceived threat and the level of response is part of the practical reality that surrounds the law in these situations, Cohen says.

“There’s no necessity to retreat, as depending on the circumstances, it [defending yourself] could have been the right thing to do.”

It comes down to whether the amount of force used could be considered reasonable, given the situation. Cohen says, for example, “if you were getting out of your car and some young kid came up to you and started bugging you for money, and you didn’t give it to him and he became aggressive, the law wouldn’t support you if you beat them senseless.”

CBC News: Under what circumstances in Canada is the use of lethal force allowed?

Again, Nichols says the decision is in the judge's hands, and is made on a case-by-case basis.

It all comes back to what is reasonable in the circumstance,” she says. "A judge would have to find you had no other choice.”
 
A defense can't be sex based. It's just generally called "the battered women defense" because the majority of cases involving it concerned women. The actual psychological condition it is based on is called "Battered person syndrome"

Yes, it overwhelmingly applies to women.
 
sure but it is a way for the jury to do the what would I do because there is no way to know what really goes on in people's heads thing

Yeah, but again, what frightens me could be totally different to another person.
 
Not in states that don't have SYG.

in the post I was replying to you wrote "Well that is the big can of worms that SYG creates, don't you think?" in response to someone citing the reasonable person standard.

The reasonable person standard is what is used in all self-defense cases
 
Yes, it overwhelmingly applies to women.

Yeah, I never claimed it wasn't ... Honestly, I'm still lost on what you are trying to convey. You seem like your being combative and trying to argue against a position I never took
 
Yeah, I never claimed it wasn't ... Honestly, I'm still lost on what you are trying to convey. You seem like your being combative and trying to argue against a position I never took

No you didn't. I was just trying to show that it's a self-defence stance that pertains mainly to women. The word "spouse" is misleading.
 
in the post I was replying to you wrote "Well that is the big can of worms that SYG creates, don't you think?" in response to someone citing the reasonable person standard.

The reasonable person standard is what is used in all self-defense cases

Including SYG?
 
Well that is the big can of worms that SYG creates, don't you think? How scared a person is for their life can be quite subjective, I think.

Regular old self-defense laws say the same thing.

SYG laws prevent criminal and, almost more importantly, civil courts from judging a person by, "Why didn't you run away?"
 
Regular old self-defense laws say the same thing.

Okay, if that is the case, then why the need for SYG laws??? Why did ALEC work so god-damned tirelessly hard to push this legislation???
 
Okay, if that is the case, then why the need for SYG laws??? Why did ALEC work so god-damned tirelessly hard to push this legislation???

Because it insulates the shooter (as an example) from civil suit. Ever hear of a burglar being shot by a homeowner and the homeowner being sued by the burglar? Or by the burglar's family if the burglar dies? SYG laws prevent that from happening. SYG laws prohibit the courts or the jury from saying, "Well, you didn't have to kill him (or hurt him that badly). You could have run out the back door."

Edit: SYG laws eliminate the need for retreat before people are allowed to defend themselves with deadly force.
 
"My wife was punching me and I was not going to stand anymore with the abuse" does not in any way equate that he was in fear for his life.
 
No you didn't. I was just trying to show that it's a self-defence stance that pertains mainly to women. The word "spouse" is misleading.

That was made clear in the wiki article I linked to. So yeah, you seem a tad reactive here, to say the least
 
Gee, I wish I found this as amusing as you do.

I find it hilarious. They get married, get divorced because they dont get along, get remarried.
Sorry, you just cant fix stupid sometimes.
 
"My wife was punching me and I was not going to stand anymore with the abuse" does not in any way equate that he was in fear for his life.
Sure it does, because if he had lifted a finger in defence. He would be in jail right now for spouse abuse.
Thats why at the first sign of crazy, you bail on that relationship. It will never get better.
 
Sure it does, because if he had lifted a finger in defence. He would be in jail right now for spouse abuse.
Thats why at the first sign of crazy, you bail on that relationship. It will never get better.

Bail. B*A*I*L. Not "Shoot to Kill."
 
Link? Because you saying 'knife' is the first I've heard that one.

Edited: Found it. And once again, how will we know? He killed the person who could give her side of the story.

Florida man allegedly kills wife, posts photo of her body on Facebook - CNN.com
Thats why I said "story is". But seriously, a woman with a knife? You cant shuck and jive long enough to over power her?
IF not, thats why I always give the advice of "never marry a woman that looks like they can take you in a bar fight".
 
Back
Top Bottom