This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Is it okay to kill your rapist?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
As I said, I won't debate. How many more times would you like me to say it? You're having an argument all to yourself.
Original post by Snufkin
What's the problem? I'm not defending rapists, but killing someone removes any possibility of redemption. I respect life and I think everyone should be given the chance to change and make up for the wrongs they do.
We have different opinions then, and we won't reach any logical conclusion. As I have stated, rape is always violent due to the nature of the act, and any disagreement with that is born of rape-apology or stupidity.
I won't debate this. Have a nice night!
Original post by Bupdeeboowah
Say it again, please.
Well, since you said please... I won't debate this.
Original post by william walker
You mean how is murdering someone unlawful?
Self defence isn't murder. That's sort of the point.
Absolutely yes. I don't understand arguments against killing someone in self defence - you would rather just die or something as a matter of principle? Makes no sense to me
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
We have different opinions then, and we won't reach any logical conclusion. As I have stated, rape is always violent due to the nature of the act, and any disagreement with that is born of rape-apology or stupidity.
I won't debate this. Have a nice night!
I won't debate this. Have a nice night!
Original post by william walker
You mean how is murdering someone unlawful?
It wouldn't be murder from the information we have as it does not seem to be premeditated.
Original post by Bupdeeboowah
No, the onus is on you to show that killing a rapist is always justified, rather than merely calling the person who questions your position a stupid rape-apologist.
May I ask if you can please quote where I said killing a rapist is always justified?
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
We have different opinions then, and we won't reach any logical conclusion. As I have stated, rape is always violent due to the nature of the act, and any disagreement with that is born of rape-apology or stupidity.
I won't debate this. Have a nice night!
I won't debate this. Have a nice night!
You must know there is a wide spectrum of rape cases. I'm not diminishing the seriousness of any, but clearly some are more violent than others. Why quote me if you're not prepared to debate this?
It is an act of self defence - I would argue that it is both morally and lawfully correct to behave in such a way when placed in that situation. Many of us here are making wild accusations, but we haven't ever been raped either. As observers we can assume that it is disgusting, vile and excruciatingly painful experience, one that merits the act of self-defence even if it leads to the death of the rapist. If it was a case where the rape occurred previously and the woman committed pre-meditated murder then it would be a different case - it wouldn't be lawfully correct, but in some cases it wouldn't be wrong to say it's morally correct either.
I can't imagine any jury not finding that that was reasonable force used in self defence.
Original post by Snufkin
You must know there is a wide spectrum of rape cases. I'm not diminishing the seriousness of any, but clearly some are more violent than others. Why quote me if you're not prepared to debate this?
I merely wished to express my opinion. I feel no desire to debate, as there will be no leniency on either side, therefore there is no point. Understand?
There is no such thing as a non-violent rape.
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
We have different opinions then, and we won't reach any logical conclusion. As I have stated, rape is always violent due to the nature of the act, and any disagreement with that is born of rape-apology or stupidity.
I won't debate this. Have a nice night!
I won't debate this. Have a nice night!
That's just because you're defining 'violence' in a bizarre and unhelpful way.
If someone says that a particular rape is not violent it's quite clear what they mean.
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
I merely wished to express my opinion. I feel no desire to debate, as there will be no leniency on either side, therefore there is no point. Understand?
There is no such thing as a non-violent rape.
There is no such thing as a non-violent rape.
There is in the cases of "too drunk" to consent where both parties are too drunk to consent.
Original post by DiddyDec
It wouldn't be murder from the information we have as it does not seem to be premeditated.
I love their argument. Acting in self defence /=/ murder. Logically, no one in such a situation as rape would maintain a rational and lawful mindset. Humans are emotional creatures and we will act out of passion (hence crimes of passion). In this particular case, we have one woman being tormented and assaulted by a serial rapist, she reacted (notice, not acted) by taking the sharp object and eliminating the threat. The fact that her actions led to the death of the perpetrator is of no consequence.
I'd like to see anyone in her shoes act calmly. She should be considered a hero, as she acted both morally and lawfully right.
Original post by infairverona
Absolutely yes. I don't understand arguments against killing someone in self defence - you would rather just die or something as a matter of principle? Makes no sense to me
Compare two situations:
1. A rapes B in a manner which results in no physical injuries, because A has the mistaken belief that he has acquired B's consent to engage in sex. B pushes A away and runs away, reporting A to the police later.
B pushing A away is actually an act of assault, but this is an act of self-defence because it the act is both reasonable and necessary.
2. 1. A rapes B in a manner which results in no physical injuries, because A has the mistaken belief that he has acquired B's consent to engage in sex. B stabs A using a knife which is nearby and runs away, reporting A to the police later.
B stabbing A using a knife would likely result in a charge of GBH. B can try to use the defence of self-defence, but it is unclear whether this would succeed as it may be a stretch to say that given the circumstance of being non-(physically) violently raped by someone, stabbing someone would not be considered a proportionate and reasonably necessary act, considering that there are other ways to remove the threat/act of rape which B is faced such as in situation 1.
Original post by TimmonaPortella
That's just because you're defining 'violence' in a bizarre and unhelpful way.
If someone says that a particular rape is not violent it's quite clear what they mean.
If someone says that a particular rape is not violent it's quite clear what they mean.
I find it bizarre that someone could ever consider a rape to be non-violent. Could you explain how a rape could be non-violent, please? A peaceful rape, as it were? A gentle rape? Please, feel free to explain how rape is anything other than violent.
And no, I have absolutely no idea what they could mean by a non-violent rape.
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
We have different opinions then, and we won't reach any logical conclusion. As I have stated, rape is always violent due to the nature of the act, and any disagreement with that is born of rape-apology or stupidity.
I won't debate this. Have a nice night!
I won't debate this. Have a nice night!
As you are a law student, why aren't you able to debate this?
At least I wished you did. From your initial post, you seemed like you knew what you were saying... until the booptee guy quoted you.
lol what was she supposed to do? Just lie there and take it?
It's called self defense.
It's called self defense.
Original post by High Stakes
I love their argument. Acting in self defence /=/ murder. Logically, no one in such a situation as rape would maintain a rational and lawful mindset. Humans are emotional creatures and we will act out of passion (hence crimes of passion). In this particular case, we have one woman being tormented and assaulted by a serial rapist, she reacted (notice, not acted) by taking the sharp object and eliminating the threat. The fact that her actions led to the death of the perpetrator is of no consequence.
I'd like to see anyone in her shoes act calmly. She should be considered a hero, as she acted both morally and lawfully right.
I'd like to see anyone in her shoes act calmly. She should be considered a hero, as she acted both morally and lawfully right.
It is the case of "fight or flight". Given that flight was not an option it only leaves fight.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
