The Student Room Group

How to defend against rape (finnish police advice)

Scroll to see replies

Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob
What the majority thinks and what those who administer the law think are two different things. The system has far too much empathy for those who break the law and none for the victim of it.


I know but this would have to go before a jury

and Jury's are there to act as the reasonable people


But I do agree with you when you say '
The system has far too much empathy for those who break the law and none for the victim of it.'
Not all rape occurs in dark alleyways. Sexual assault often occurs via people you know.
Not necessarily.

Defending yourself from a rapist doesn't necessarily result in their death, however "kill that s.o.b wit ha handgun" necessarily does.
Original post by tazarooni89
Not necessarily.

Defending yourself from a rapist doesn't necessarily result in their death, however "kill that s.o.b wit ha handgun" necessarily does.


The point I was making is that it's likely to. If I point a handgun at the torso of a rapist and fire there is a good chance that bullet would penetrate their lungs or even their heart.
Original post by hezzlington
Not all rape occurs in dark alleyways. Sexual assault often occurs via people you know.


Statistics?
Or just cover yourself in bacon.
Defending yourself doesn't necessarily have to involve a handgun. In most courts of law I believe you would be expected to attempt to defend yourself whilst leaving them alive if you possibly can.
Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob
Can't believe people are disagreeing with you. If someone tries to rape someone they have forfeited their right to life. What the hell is wrong with justice in Northern Europe (including the UK)?


I never said I disagreed, but I do not think I am allowed to decide whether somebody has forfeited their right to life.

Angry is very religious, so I wanted to ask her is it fair that she ends the life of her rapist, because then her rapist can't then ask for forgiveness (and he/she will be forgiven if he/she asks, right?) but then I didn't want to bring religion into it sooo yeah.

But no, I posted that link to the Brazilian man who raped his own 1 year old step son and killed him. He handed him self into the police and in prison, he was gang raped and beaten by 20 men. He was taken to the hospital and had stitches in his anal area...

But what the story doesn't tell you.....is that.....well....the men did it again. They ripped all the stitches out and gang raped him numerous times. I've seen the picture. It's bad.

My point is, is that bad things happen when people take 'justice' into their own hands. Did that man deserve it? Well....It's not my place to say.

At what point do you shoot the rapist? At what point is it rape as opposed to assault? How do you distinguish between attempted rape and assault, for example, if the man/woman grabs you in the dark alleyway, do you whip out your gun and shoot then?


https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders

US stats but I'm sure somethng similar can be found for the UK
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by tazarooni89
Defending yourself doesn't necessarily have to involve a handgun. In most courts of law I believe you would be expected to attempt to defend yourself whilst leaving them alive if you possibly can.


There isn't a lot else most likely to deter a criminal other than a handgun. Criminals are more afraid of armed citizens than the police themselves according to a 1994 survey by Professors James D Wright and Peter Rossi

https://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/02/04/what-criminals-really-fear/

Nobody when they're about to get raped is going to be thinking about leaving the attacker alive or as least injured as possible. Your main concern as the victim under attack is going to be getting out of the situation alive with as least harm done to you as possible
Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob
Can't believe people are disagreeing with you. If someone tries to rape someone they have forfeited their right to life. What the hell is wrong with justice in Northern Europe (including the UK)?


Do you feel the same way about murder?
Original post by hezzlington
I never said I disagreed, but I do not think I am allowed to decide whether somebody has forfeited their right to life.

Angry is very religious, so I wanted to ask her is it fair that she ends the life of her rapist, because then her rapist can't then ask for forgiveness (and he/she will be forgiven if he/she asks, right?) but then I didn't want to bring religion into it sooo yeah.

But no, I posted that link to the Brazilian man who raped his own 1 year old step son and killed him. He handed him self into the police and in prison, he was gang raped and beaten by 20 men. He was taken to the hospital and had stitches in his anal area...

But what the story doesn't tell you.....is that.....well....the men did it again. They ripped all the stitches out and gang raped him numerous times. I've seen the picture. It's bad.

My point is, is that bad things happen when people take 'justice' into their own hands. Did that man deserve it? Well....It's not my place to say.

At what point do you shoot the rapist? At what point is it rape as opposed to assault? How do you distinguish between attempted rape and assault, for example, if the man/woman grabs you in the dark alleyway, do you whip out your gun and shoot then?


https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders

US stats but I'm sure somethng similar can be found for the UK


Coming at it from a purely Christian perspective, Jesus approved the use of weapons and the concept of self defence when he instructed his apostles to go and evangelise but told them to take a sword with them when travelling.

If you extend that to include the ancient OT laws the death penalty is prescribed for rapists and you are permitted to kill a thief that entered your house during the night, presumably as their intentions would have been less clear. Therefore Christianity approves the use of violent force in self defence only. 'Turn the other cheek' is often quoted as a counter argument to this but it's clear Jesus was only talking about this when you were evangelising or preaching.

If handguns are legal and the concept of using violent force in self defence is legal then how is it taking justice into your own hands. That would imply vigilantism which is illegal
Of course, but if it is possible to escape the situation alive with minimal harm to yourself without killing the attacker, one would be expected to do so. Killing the attacker would only be acceptable if it were the only way to escape and minimise harm to yourself.

Ultimately it would have to be judged whether you intended to kill the attacker for the purpose of self defence, or whether you intended to kill him no matter what.
Original post by hezzlington
Do you feel the same way about murder?


My definition of murder constitutes unprovoked attack, if someone tries to murder me I shall kill them and I don't care for their poor suffering in the process one little damn bit. Don't want to get killed? Don't try to murder/rape me
Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob
My definition of murder constitutes unprovoked attack, if someone tries to murder me I shall kill them and I don't care for their poor suffering in the process one little damn bit. Don't want to get killed? Don't try to murder/rape me


So if you're at a bar on a night out for exmaple, and somebody attacks you for no reason (lets just say with their fists) by your definition they're trying to murder you, and thus, your response is to kill them before that happens?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by hezzlington
So if you're at a bar on a night out, and somebody attacks you for no reason, they're trying to murder you, and thus, your response is to kill them before that happens?


Yes that is correct.
Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob
Yes that is correct.


I'm not suggesting they ARE in fact trying to kill you, I'm just saying that because the attack is unprovoked, YOUR intepretation is that they are trying to kill you?

You'd still kill that s.o.b?
Original post by Plagioclase
It sort of is your problem though since it's very possible you'd be sent to jail.


But doesn't intent come into this? Not intentional isn't your fault, tbh if he was savage though i'd probably bonk him on the head with a huge ladel to keep him down for a while so i can run ^-^
Original post by hezzlington
I'm not suggesting they ARE in fact trying to kill you, I'm just saying that because the attack is unprovoked, YOUR intepretation is that they are trying to kill you?

You'd still kill that s.o.b?


To begin with a bar fight is not rape, it is easy to distinguish between a sparing match and someone who wants to sexually exploit you.

I'd kill him if I believed myself to be in reasonable danger.

The situation would be easily defused if he learned to not attack people.
Finland Yes!
Original post by tazarooni89
Of course, but if it is possible to escape the situation alive with minimal harm to yourself without killing the attacker, one would be expected to do so. Killing the attacker would only be acceptable if it were the only way to escape and minimise harm to yourself.

Ultimately it would have to be judged whether you intended to kill the attacker for the purpose of self defence, or whether you intended to kill him no matter what.


I suppose it would depend on the specifics of the situation. If a strange man came up to you and grabbed you and shoved you against the wall how would you know his intentions aren't to murder or rape you? If likewise someone grabbed your arm and you pulled out a gun and pointed it at them and they backed off, then fair enough. But if they kept advancing towards you and tried to grab you again? You would shoot them wouldn't you?

Likewise if they stuck a knife against your throat and threatened to rape you or stab you? You would shoot them then, right?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending