Deadly force self-defense against rape---ok?

[Shanty Oilish]

Let's make it simple. Assailant is a stranger in a city alley, victim is a lawfully armed female with one bullet. Is it moral to shoot the widest section of him?

ps check this thread for another self-defense theme that could stand some replies:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=8135&mesg_id=8135

[Muddleoftheroad]

1. A moral obligation

To do so, not just moral. Better than rapists deserve.

[NNN0LHI]

14. I agree it is a more a duty to shoot to kill in this instance

Because if you don't his next victim(s) may not be able to protect their self. Shoot to kill too. No leg wounds or none of that crap here. Wait until he gets real close and then gut shot the SOB. Its messy, but its the right thing to do.

Don

[The Backlash Cometh]

40. Aim low

If I could be sure I could hit them with one shot, I'd just aim low and let them live out their lives in misery.

[Northwind]

45. Oh, yes

Because the thing you want to do is take an angry man acting out power fantasies through sexual assault and REALLY piss him off.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. You are right

You don't aim to wound, you shoot to kill. As many times as it takes to make sure you are safe.

[HawkerHurricane]

49. You don't shoot to kill

You shoot to hit your target, and end the threat. State that you shot to kill in the courtroom, and you'll find yourself charged with homocide (which you'll then get to justify)(yes, I think it's justified in this case). Always aim for the center of mass.

And if you're a really good shot, go for a gut shot and be slow calling for the ambulance.

[The Backlash Cometh]

52. Deadly force is certainly acceptable,

but I disagree with your assessment that incidental casteration has no merit, if that is indeed what you're alluding to.

[DoNotRefill]

75. It's kind of hard to be effectively pissed off....

while sporting a sucking chest wound. That's been known to cool the ardor of even the largest lethario....

[bicentennial_baby]

2. I would'nt hesitate

Let's put it this way, if I'm about to get raped, how am I to know whether this is a rapist or a rapist/murderer? If I have a lethal weapon and am able to use it to my benefit in this situation, I most certainly would. Strong self-preservation instinct here.

On edit: My firearms safety instructor said something once that made sense, when applied to hypothetical situations such as this:

"Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six."

[HawkerHurricane]

50. heh heh

Navy version:
Better jugded by 3 than carried by 6...(courtmartial has 3 judges)

[ConservativeDemocrat]

3. The legal answer...

First threaten. Then shoot. Never threaten if you're going to hesitate shooting.

- C.D.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. The rational answer

If someone is trying to rape you, shoot him first, warn him after he is dead.

[NNN0LHI]

17. You are right again. Warn him, and chances are they will take the gun...

...from you and then shoot you. Screw the legal answer in this case. That makes two things you and I have agreed on here. Whats up?

Don

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Look at the thread

We're all pretty much agreeing. This seems an easier answer than most. Of course the real problem is most women don't have the gun to defend themselves and THAT is another debate.

[Shanty Oilish]

24. Not so muddled, are ya?

"...the real problem is most women don't have the gun..."

That was my trajectory here. I don't usually, but I was over in Justice forum, marveling at the gun control arguments. I'm a weeny female. A male predator would have an overwhelming advantage and near 100% chance of prevailing against an unarmed me.
So I thought I'd double check---is it morally appropriate to defend oneself with deadly force if you have it? A good many women don't have it because they don't have guns. Mostly that's a choice, but in some places---and in some gun-control opinions---they don't have a choice or they shouldn't. If it's so clear that the use of deadly force is appropriate when a woman is threatened with assault, and all its potential consequences---why should she not have the choice to arm herself with the means?

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. No disagreement here

It IS an equalizer. What surprises me is that more women don't make the same argument you now make.

[HawkerHurricane]

51. Ever hear this quote:

"God created Man, Colonel Colt made them equal"?

[oldcoot]

21. That is the safest bet

If the potential victim only warns her would-be assailant, he might try to get her to let down her guard so he can take the gun away. He might try to convince that it is all just some terrible misunderstanding or that he is sorry and then might try to take the gun away. Once he starts talking, the potential victim may find it harder to use deadly force. If he starts talking about his kids (real or imaginary), she might start seeing him as a human being and not as a threat. This might make it harder for her to kill him and allow him the opportunity to try to disarm her. The best bet for the potential victim to shoot first.

[DoNotRefill]

31. Not quite...

The majority rule is that threats are not required if facing serious injury or death from an assailant. Rape would certainly qualify as a potentially serious injury.

[Valerie5555]

5. How about a DEADLY KARATE CHOP if you were someone like MISS PIGGY

who knew KARATE or some other MARTIAL ART??????????????????? "HIY- YAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

On edit sorry to bring up Muppets in this message but I am sure no one would even think of messing with Miss Piggy.

On double edit maybe there should have been some MARTIAL ARTISTS on board those 4 highjacked flights Sept 11 2001 for had they known what the highjackers REALLY HAD IN MIND, the TWIN TOWERS probably STILL WOULD HAVE been PROUDLY STANDING TODAY.

[depakid]

6. Kind of a silly question

Maybe a better one would be- is it immoral for her to pull out a sharp knife and emasculate him. Seems to me more befitting of the crime.

[Valerie5555]

16. LOL or COL

Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give the bastard the JOHNNY BOBBIT treatment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HawkerHurricane]

53. While the punishment might fit the crime...

for the safety of the victim, it would be best just to kill/disable in the quickest way possible.
Punishment is for the trial; and we aren't talking about the trial.
Stab in the gut. Panic and forget to call ambulance. Laugh as guy screams in pain. Claim hysteria to police.

[AP]

7. Rape is such a violent crime, I'd think it would be impossible...

to know, in almost every case whether the rapist was going to stop short of killing you or was going to cross that line. Obviously, with stranger rape, it would seem wise to use deadly force to defend yourself 100% of the time.

However, I can imagine a spousal rape scenario in which the spouse who kills the rapist might be getting close to that line of not being justified or be seen as not killing in self-defense (but having some kind of intent, especially if the spouse had raped the other spouse in the past without having any intent to kill, and if there' some very unusual piece of evidence suggesting the rapist spouse wanted the victim spouse to be alive). It would clearly depend on the circumstances, but it's got to be the one in a million case in which it wouldn't be considered appropriate to used deadly force to defend yourself. And I can't imagine many juries willing to convict a person of this sort of thing even in a close call like that. Who in the world is going to say you couldn't kill someone in this situation?

[Booberdawg]

8. Answer seems pretty simple to me

A stranger attacks me in an alley. He is or is attempting to rape me. I've got a gun, I don't care if I'm licensed to carry one or not, I'm going to shoot him. And I think it's justified. I'll save any second guessing for later.

I would just shoot him, I wouldn't think about whether it would kill him or not.

[lpbk2713]

9. Unqualified Yes

This "stranger" could be an AIDS carrier or could have any other highly infectious disease. Or he could have made up his mind beforehand that he doesn't want any live witnesses. You would be protecting your life in more ways than one. You owe it to yourself not to be a victim.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. It doesn't matter

He means to do you harm. You are right preventing that. Even if it costs him his life.

[ScreamingMeemie]

10. You bet.

eom

[Pastiche423]

11. Yes

[Skittles]

13. IT IS QUITE APPARENT

that a person can be in fear of their LIFE from a rapist. YES INDEED; I would blow their balls CLEAN OFF right before the head shot.

[tkmorris]

15. Damned skippy it is

[ButterflyBlood]

18. yes

the world's better off without someone as low as a rapist anyway.

[starroute]

20. What does rape have to do with it?

If I'm assaulted by somebody who looks capable of doing me damage, I'm going to defend myself with whatever I have in hand -- and their motive isn't really relevant.

On the other hand, I'd be awfully stupid to be wandering around in an isolated alleyway carrying a gun with a single bullet. Who makes up these questions, anyway.

[DoNotRefill]

32. There are lots of derringers out there....

many only have one shot.

Would I pick a derringer as a personal defense weapon? Depends on what my options are. If I had a choice between a glock or a derringer, I'd take the glock. If my choice was a derringer or a beer bottle, I'd take the derringer.

Of course, I'm not the type of person that would carry a knife to a gunfight...but since I don't go to gunfights any more... ;-)

[bearfartinthewoods]

38. to be clear

many of those one shot derringers are .22 caliber. one shot of a 22 is not likely to kill or even stop a determined attacker before he kills the shooter.

[DoNotRefill]

76. The last derringer I saw...

was a .45LC/.410 single shot.

That will cause unpleasant results in even a 350 pound 8 foot tall person.

Oh, and BTW, .22lrs kill the most people in the US of all calibers. It's all about shot placement.

[liberalmuse]

22. I believe it is...

If someone's going to try to savagely penetrate your body, and god knows what else, then I think they should expect the same thing with a bullet or knife. I don't know what I'd do. You never know if your adrenaline is going to work for or against you in situations like these.

[mitchum]

23. shoot him

[TheYellowDog]

25. Yes, if her life is in danger

it is certainly moral.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Not just life

She is in danger, even if she doubts she will be killed, the rape is enough.

[wuushew]

29. So in the case of date rape

The rape victim is authorized to carry out the death penalty?

[DoNotRefill]

33. That's not the scenario offered, and you know it.

Date rape is a different ball of wax.

[oldcoot]

35. Why not?

Date and acquaintance rape can be just as violent as stranger rape. Why shouldn't a woman have the same right to protect herself from some jackass who pretends to be her friend/boyfriend and then attacks her as she does as a complete stranger? Rape is rape, no matter who the perpetrator is.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. Well said

Rape has been rationalized enough in our society.

[Skittles]

63. honestly, I WOULD

I'd kill the SOB.

[slackmaster]

70. You are mixing up two very different legal concepts

Only a court of law can legally administer punishments like the death penalty.

Shooting someone in self-defense is not administration of punishment. The purpose of shooting (or stabbing, or whatever) is to make the assailant stop. If they should happen to die as a result, that's just too bad. It would be nice to have less lethal weapons available that are as effective as guns, but the technology is not there yet.

If your frame of mind is that you are administering a punishment rather than protecting yourself from harm, you are taking the law into your own hands and committing a very serious crime - Murder if the person dies.

[Skittles]

64. NO IFS

guy tries to rape me, I'LL F***ING KILL HIM. Understand???

[TacticalPeek]

28. My God! Are there NO wimpy, chablis&brie liberals at DU?

Guess not. I'm with ya'll: better luck next life.

[acerbic]

36. You don't know the context...

This thread is overflow from the Gun Dungeon where it's a usual theme of the "pro-RKBA" crowd to claim that anyone who supports any kind of gun control, e.g. making selling guns to criminals illegal in all cases, is "denying everyone the right to self defense". :eyes:

[proud patriot]

30. As my daddy said

if your life is in danger and someone wants to rape/kill you
pick up the biggest thing you can find knock em out with it
and run like hell .

[44wax]

34. Yes, in order to protect yourself and others

Cap the motherfucker.

[dsc]

37. obviously yes

but that doesn't mean that we have to let the denizens of the local insane asylums and prisons carry guns. I really don't think it is too much to ask that people get a licence, insurance, register the gun, and if they are going to carry it carry it where it can be seen. Sorry, that seems like reasonable regulation. None of that would stop the right to self defense that you are askinga about here.

[DoNotRefill]

74. Here's the problem with that...

"get a license"

That's historically been used as a method of denying people that the police don't "like" (think racial profiling) access to legal firearms.

"insurance"

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, issues CCW insurance. If they did, it would be cost-prohibitive, meaning that only the rich could have guns.

"register the gun"

Again, another classic ploy used to disenfranchise minorities.

"carry it where it can be seen"

ensuring that the police will be called, and the carrier will be harassed unmercifully by the police and other folks. (The old "you can't carry that in here, it'll upset everybody")

"None of that would stop the right to self defense"

Sure, for really rich people who have enough political pull to jump through the hoops. Of course, to avoid being hassled, they'll just hire off-duty cops as security. If you're poor, or your skin is the wrong color, it surely would interfere with your right to self-defense. Where I live, a CCW permit used to have a $500 annual fee. Guess how many poor people could afford that?

Hell, while we're at it, why not bring back the Poll Tax?

[TahitiNut]

78. "Rights for sale."

Privacy? Buy property. Speech? Buy a media outlet. (Or a politician.) Life? File a class action suit. Liberty? Hire Johnny Cochran. Pursuit of Happiness? No trespassing. :silly:

[Jen72]

39. Rapist often murder too.

So yes, it is self- defense.
How many rape victims get stabbed or strangled?
You can't afford to wait to see if the assailant will tried and kill you after he is raped.

[Solly Mack]

41. If you're going to shoot, shoot center mass

you're more likely to hit them then
you're also more likely to kill them that way...


as to the question in general...a woman or man has the right to defend themself against rape....by any means necessary.

[comradebillyboy]

43. in my view an individual has every right

to defend herself/himself from assault by any means necessary. killing a violent criminal in self defense is a totally defensable act and morally justified action.

[buddhamama]

44. hmm

is it moral--yes absolutely.

i'm not sure that under those circumstances i'd even be thinking 'well i am going for the widest section'. most likely i'd shoot at the spot where i had the best target, if i could keep my head together enough. i'd be aiming at the head or the private area.

[Pepperbelly]

47. Damn right although ...

she should empty the f*cking magazine in his ass.

[HawkerHurricane]

48. I can see myself commenting a lot in this thread...

Back in my day as a MP, we had authorization to use 'deadly force' to protect ourselves and of others from violence...
Forcible Rape is a crime of violence, deadly force was authorized.
If it's good for the cop, it's good for the victim.
By all means, use whatever force needed to prevent the crime.

[davsand]

54. I can answer from hindsight on this one.

I got followed out of my favorite watering hole one night and got grabbed in a parking lot. The guy grabbed me and tried to drag me into a car. I broke his nose and stepped back into a defensive position and he started toward me again. Only this time he was pissed off...

One of my budies saw the guy follow me out and heard me screaming at the guy when he grabbed me. He came out just in time to see me standing back in a T-stance ready to take the guy the rest of the way out. When my buddy asked if there was a problem the guy said "no, mind your own business" or something equally dumb and my buddy told the guy it looked like he was about to get his ass kicked. It all ended shortly after that with the attacker retreating.

I was going to dojo regularly back then, and I'd been sparring regularly. I knew better, but I didn't take the guy all the way down with my first strike--that could have been a deadly mistake had my buddy not intervened when he did. By not taking the guy all the way down I'd pissed him off and I'd actually inflamed the situation.

I do not think most women should rely on a gun for personal defense unless they want to carry it out and ready to use at all times and unless they do regular training in some type of stressed firing situation. I'd love to say it will make us safer, but I just don't think it will. However, if you do chose to carry, then by all means aim for the center and and empty the clip.

In my mind women are much better served by learning to fight back immediately with the determination that the attacker will not get up and walk away when they are done. My mental mistake may well have cost me my life that night. My mental mistake was a reluctance to do an attacker serious harm. I won't repeat the mistake.


Laura

[TahitiNut]

55. Thelma and Louise?

:eyes:

[davsand]

58. I doubt my buddy would've passed as a girl...

...Let alone Susan Sarandon!!

He was about 6'6" and covered with tats. I think his looks probably scared the guy way more than me breaking his nose did...

Laura

[TahitiNut]

66. So, you're admitting you resemble ...

... Geena Davis? :silly:





Sometimes I enjoy being superficial. ;-)

[davsand]

69. Not even in my best dreams!

I have the standard "girl" equipment...

That may be about as good as it gets if I want to be compared to Geena Davis in any way.

To be honest, I think that we all tend to want a bit of levity in discussing the issue of assault and women being physically assertive. It makes us all uncomfortable. Many men are not brought up to view us that way, and most women are not taught to "fight" like men are. Many women are convinced that hitting anyone is somehow "unfeminine" or "too masculine." Some are just squeemish about hurting anybody.

Whatever the reason, that hesitation to react can get you killed-- male or female--if the situation is dire enough.

That discomfort we all share makes the topic of personal defense a very delicate one--one that needs comedic relief sometimes. Hey--we are discussing a kill or expect to be killed premise here--I'm not too surprised that we share a bit of humor to reduce the stress.

Pax to you.

Laura

[TahitiNut]

77. Yup.

My reference to "Thelma and Louise" wasn't wholly in levity. Indeed, the themes in this thread were present in that movie. I personally regard (intellectually, physically, emotionally, and politically) capable women as attractive -- sexy, even. But I like adults who're adults rather than overgrown emotional adolescents ... adults with a healthy (rather than codependent) "inner child".

I don't know that a gun is called for ... since I know how to inflict a lot of damage (deadly force) with my hands or just a baton. It's not rocket science and I'm no Charles Atlas. (That said, track is still the best personal defense training. But older, slower guys like me keep shortened broom handles handy.)

[GregW]

56. .40 cal Cor-Bon JHP into center of mass is OK by me

[uptohere]

57. if its no defense or deadly force then deadly force

but I would recommend some education and training so that you would have more options for an appropriate response to a given threat.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. Deadly force

Is ALWAYS an appropriate response to attempted rape.

[uptohere]

61. while I have no sympathy whatsoever for rapists and

and in this crime there is always the chance that it will be followed by murder, my training compels me to use and therefore recommend using the least amount of force needed to achieve the desired outcome.

But it takes a lot of training to have options and know what is appropriate.

There are situations where I would be "reprimanded" for an inappropriate response. However such a "mistake" (killing a rapist) would not draw a reprimand, more an admonishment or at least need an explination.

But I'm glad to see that you are for capital punishment !

[salin]

60. Personal not "moral" answer

Was bad enough healing from rape. Personally, unless my life was endangered (it wasn't), I would not have wanted to live with the knowledge that I had taken a life in addition to the aftermath of the rape that I had to deal with.

Would a gun have protected me from being raped? I doubt it. In my circumstances I would not have had it on me - and would have had to 'get it' (at my home, acquaintance rape situation). This guy wasn't let me go 'get' anything once the scenario was unfolding. Doubt that as a gun owner I would have been "carrying" (re: on my body) in my own home.

As I said, this doesn't answer the question in terms of what others would/should do or whether they would be justified. I don't impose my situation/beliefs on others.

But given the responses, I thought it might be insightful for some to see that not all survivors would respond the same way.

[bluestateguy]

62. Certainly

It's just one more reason why the Left should oppose gun control.

[amazona]

65. yes, of course, self defense is always moral, rape can kill

In a violent situation, I can't stand there and ponder if the guy just wants to stick it in "a little." Women (and children) have died as a result of internal injuries sustained during rape. And HIV/AIDS kills too. I should think I would have a moral obligation to prevent anyone from attacking and destroying my body. You never shoot to wound and infuriate an attacker; you must shoot to kill.

[jody]

67. Yes, aim for center of mass of the torso and make a note to buy ammo.

According to the FBI report, ”Crime in the United States, 2001”:

Law Enforcement committed 368 justifiable homicides with firearms of 370 total and 311 (84%) were with handguns. (Table 2.16)

Private Citizens committed 176 justifiable homicides with firearms of 215 total and 136 (77%) were with handguns. (Table 2.17)

Criminals committed 8,719 murders with firearms of 13,752 total and 6,790 (49%) were with handguns. (Table 2.10)

SCOTUS has consistently held that government is not obligated to defend any individual against criminals.

DoJ says "A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon." Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft

In 2001, victims defended themselves in over 4 million crimes of violence. Only 6.8% said their efforts made the situation worst. Self-protective measures employed by victims

[HEyHEY]

68. Guys can be raped too

ANd I'd have no prblem killing some 8 foot tall 350 pound rapist if he was gonna try that shit.

[Sterling]

71. Defending yourself is legal.

This thread is stupid, and a lame arguement against gun control.

[slackmaster]

72. There as many possible right answers as there are people

I think use of deadly force to prevent a person from raping you is morally OK.

Each potential victim must decide whether it would be easier to live with having (possibly) killed someone, or going through the trauma of a rape and all the possible negative consequences thereof including HIV and pregnancy.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

73. Very thoughtful answer

I appreciate the fact that although you are in the pro-gun camp ( don't mean that as a slam) you are always thoughtful in your answers.