Should a potential rape wictim be allowed to use deadly force?

[Archer]

We seem to have a member or two here that think it is better to be killed inside by allowing yourself to be raped than to use a gun in defense because it could kill the rapist.

I say the victim should use any means at their disposal to defend them selves up to and including killing the attacker.

What say you?

 

[Many Sages One Truth]

We seem to have a member or two here that think it is better to be killed inside by allowing yourself to be raped than to use a gun in defense because it could kill the rapist.

I say the victim should use any means at their disposal to defend them selves up to and including killing the attacker.

What say you?

I think the fact that you said potential rapist, sort of makes killing a little bit of jumping the gun, so I didn't vote. Now if the rapist was in the process of raping, yes by all means, the woman should.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I wanted to put yes, because he does deserve to pay, but taking measures that would most likely kill the person for an attempted offense? Knock unconscious, break ribs, blind sure, shoot to harm, but not kill.

 

[Splarnst]

If it's necessary to kill the assailant, then yes. If it's not necessary, then no. But frankly, I don't think a prosecutor should bring such a case anyway. Who's going to convict a person defending themselves from rape? I can't see it happening in the US anyway.

 

[Archer]

Let me be clear: If a man is making threatening advances on a woman and is asked to stop and still continues to approach and you can escape it is one thing but being in a corner with no escape is another.

With all of the crime and rape out there even the potential that every victim is armed is a deterrent.

 

[TheKnight]

Force is a part of life. A person who goes to the extent of raping another human should be fought with necessary violence and vigor.

 

[Acim]

Let me be clear: If a man is making threatening advances on a woman and is asked to stop and still continues to approach and you can escape it is one thing but being in a corner with no escape is another.

With all of the crime and rape out there even the potential that every victim is armed is a deterrent.

One can be trained to use a firearm so as to injure / subdue the attacking person rather than to kill.

If person in your hypothetical was shot 18 times, would you have absolutely no issue with this? And call it 'reasonable self defense?'

 

[Draka]

Considering that there are many instances of a woman not only being raped, but killed by her rapist, I would consider doing anything to get away from her attacker, including use of deadly force, warranted. She doesn't know how far the guy will go. She doesn't know that the rape might not be the end of it. All that should matter is that she is being attacked with the possibilities ranging from great harm to potential death. she should be able to defend herself by whatever means available to her. If that means a knife to the chest of the guy or a bullethole...so be it.

 

[Draka]

One can be trained to use a firearm so as to injure / subdue the attacking person rather than to kill.

If person in your hypothetical was shot 18 times, would you have absolutely no issue with this? And call it 'reasonable self defense?'

How much to you think a woman is going to have her wits about her to "subdue" her attacker while she is in the midst of a rape? It's strike out and hope for the best. If that means firing off a few rounds with eyes closed in hopes that at least one bullet does the job, then that's how it will go.

 

[Pegg]

yes she should.

especially considering it is not uncommon for rapists to kill their victim once they are finished with them. A woman has the right to protect herself from harm.

 

[Marble]

Considering that there are many instances of a woman not only being raped, but killed by her rapist, I would consider doing anything to get away from her attacker, including use of deadly force, warranted. She doesn't know how far the guy will go. She doesn't know that the rape might not be the end of it.

Ans she doesn't know if she will be his only victim or if his success would instill him with appetite for more victims.

How much to you think a woman is going to have her wits about her to "subdue" her attacker while she is in the midst of a rape? It's strike out and hope for the best. If that means firing off a few rounds with eyes closed in hopes that at least one bullet does the job, then that's how it will go.

If I were attacked, I were all panic.
I weren't able to think rational, to think at all.

 

[Archer]

You shoot a gun pointing at center of mass. You do not have time to aim at the hip because at the ranges we are talking about if you miss you lose.

Take it from those who have had plenty of training and experience. You aim at close range you are fing up.

Point and shoot.

 

[MoonWater]

yes definitely. While it is always preferable to simply subdue your attacker and escape so that proper charges can be brought against him, I would definitely say that a woman(or man in some rare instances) is fully justified in using lethal force to protect herself from a rapist. After all, as others have pointed out, there is no guarantee that the guy won't kill her when he's done or horribly injure her in the process.

I think where the debate would really come up is if you were certain there was no threat to your life from the rapist and still killed them. As for me I would personally say that if someone is trying to rape you then, even if there is no chance of your attacker killing you(and you are aware of this) you are still justified in using lethal force to defend yourself. It's what I would do(at least I'd like to think so).

I feel with rape or attempted rape one shouldn't pull any punches in order to defend oneself. You really don't have the time to stop and think about how to best subdue someone without killing them. All you can do is yell, kick, scream, punch, bite, and use any object available to you as a weapon to wail on him with until you can break free and run for help. If in the process you wind up killing him, then hey, one less sexist jerk in the world.(in truth I would like to use some more colorful words to describe such a guy who would rape a woman but if I did that I'd have so many that I would probably break the rf profanity filter.)

 

[MoonWater]

You shoot a gun pointing at center of mass. You do not have time to aim at the hip because at the ranges we are talking about if you miss you lose.

Take it from those who have had plenty of training and experience. You aim at close range you are fing up.

Point and shoot.

yeah, I've taken gun safety classes before and, while it is possible to shoot to subdue rather than kill, the first thing you are always taught is that you never aim the gun at a living thing unless you want that living thing to die. This is because even the best marksman can be off his mark. Maybe the guy moves at the last second or your hands are shaking a bit, or something hits you, whatever. If your aiming the gun at someone you had better be prepared to face the fact that the person will likely end up dead once that gun is fired. Otherwise you have no business holding the gun in the first place, because you would most likely hesitate, thus giving your attacker an opportunity to take the gun from you and use it against you. That's why the second rule of gun safety is to always remember that any weapon you have can be turned against you, which means you need to be prepared to use it first chance you get, because otherwise you may not get another.

 

[Riverwolf]

In the heat of battle, death is sometimes unavoidable. Killing the rapist should be avoided, but there's no shame in the woman defending herself even to the point of killing him.

 

[Otherright]

Yes, she already has the right to.

 

[Madhuri]

We seem to have a member or two here that think it is better to be killed inside by allowing yourself to be raped than to use a gun in defense because it could kill the rapist.

I say the victim should use any means at their disposal to defend them selves up to and including killing the attacker.

What say you?

I imagine that in the situation, I'd not hesitate to kill someone who wishes to harm me to that extent. And keep in mind, a rape victim doesn't know if the rapist will keep her/him alive after the act. I wouldn't take the chance.

I do think that there are exceptions to the rule. For example, if it were someone I knew reasonably well who was really drunk but usually a nice person, I'd probably just knock him out (assuming I could!).

 

[pwfaith]

I'm in agreement with Draka, if someone were trying to harm me or my children, they'd get whatever I've got. I wouldn't want to kill but if it happened in the process of self-defense or defense of my children, so be it. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/members/draka-1870.html

 

[Darkness]

If any man tried to rape one of my loved ones, I'd probably crucify him, if I was given the chance. So I voted yes.

 

[Draka]

I'm in agreement with Draka, if someone were trying to harm me or my children, they'd get whatever I've got. I wouldn't want to kill but if it happened in the process of self-defense or defense of my children, so be it.

Exactly :yes: Come for me and mine, I'll throw everything including the kitchen sink at you. How you fair is all up to chance. Fair warning.