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?
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.
Please tell me that political compass memes aren’t going to be invading lemmy.
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.
Welp, you’re a terrible person then
You seen the takes from Authright and AnCaps lately? Trying to get rid of single-party divorces, pro child-marriage, pro ‘enforced monogamy’.
This is true and scary. I would like to see polling to find out how people truly feel about the issue by political faction.
@WiseThat@lemmy.ca’s presentation is scary – no doubt purposefully so – but all it suggests is that some believe that contracts entered into within the purview of family law should be treated as contracts, and not be some handwavvy thing that cannot be understood or predicted upon until a court makes an arbitrary decision. I expect most see family law as something that has become a complete joke.
You don’t have to enter into contracts. Having someone hold a gun to your back wouldn’t satisfy a court’s determination that you entered into a contract willfully. These are only applicable to people who actually want to be bound by such terms. No different than any other contract situation outside of the purview of family law, such as an agreement made between business partners.
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).
There are people from all walks of life that wouldn’t. Doesn’t mean the decent people from all sides abide by it. This thread alone shows there are at least some who care, and that’s what’s vitally important for rape victims and survivors, not petty political garbage.
This thread alone shows there are at least some who care, and that’s what’s vitally important for rape victims and survivors
as a survivor - shut the fuck up, and don’t dare use rape victims you clearly don’t give a shit about (and who I guarantee never ever want to hear the phrase “not all men” or anything like it) as justification for you to feel better about excluding yourself from the problem you are obviously a part of.
This entire post and replies are nothing but a massive “not all men” circlejerk, entirely focused on making yourselves feel better via rape jokes and misogyny.
Go fuck yourself.
I am a survivor too. I’m not even male. In all likelihood, so are a lot of people upvoting the thread. Do not presume to know anything about me or my motives, especially after I’ve been in here all night shooting down rape apologists while your ass did nothing but complain about the thread’s existence. You do not help us survivors. You only hurt us acting that way.
Acknowledging that there are people from all political stripes that oppose rape apologia is in no way contributing to the slave racket, patriarchy, or rape culture. It certainly isn’t not-all-menning anything because how the fuck do I know what gender everybody is?
Your claim that this post is a not-all-men circlejerk is entirely baseless. You know a lot of rape apologists are women, right? You do know that?
There are actual rape apologists in this thread you could have invested energy arguing with but all you find worthy to complain about is the fact that some alt-right dipshits agree, giving us all common ground for once. Why. Why did I get up in the morning and check the thread? 🤦
I love how the instant a woman uses a gun they’re suddenly not pro gun anymore.
Gun control and anti death penalty types turned out to be rape apologists. Who knew?
Also pro-"life"rs, but we knew that already.
Anyone who claims to stand for the sanctity of life does the exact opposite apparently.
I’m not sure blue would disagree with that.
🤔 I wonder if anyone has ever done a survey on it
I bet there are many who would argue that only God would be allowed to take lives or something.
People like that are so fucking vile. Like how do they cope with people who have different religions or none? Wouldn’t accepting their viewpoint require governments to adopt their religion since it’s the basis for their argument?
