New Anti-Rape device - RapeAxe

So you stab him in the leg, if it's available, and cut the femoral artery, and he dies, or you aim to stab the leg, it gets knocked into his lower abdomen, same result, or you just can't reach anywhere non-fatal. Are you obliged to accept the assault in your view in this case? What about where the assailant presents a weapon as a means of intimidation, but has no intention of using it? That's a clear threat to the safety of the victim, but the assailant doesn't intend to use it, so do they have the right to use deadly force in that case? Here's the thing: Violence, by its very nature, can kill people. If you accept that a given degree of violent response is appropriate in order to defend oneself from harm or assault, then you have to accept that there is a possibility that death will result. It's rather impossible to consider it murder, unless a weapon is specifically carried in anticipation of the event. That would be considered premeditation (and not universally, in Irish cases). The nature of responding to an event is that it cannot be premeditated, because it's a response. Since the description of murder necessitates premeditation, it's impossible to clearly murder someone in self defence (unless, as above, expressly carrying a weapon in anticipation of the possibility). So since you've held that a certain amount of violence is an appropriate response, because the important thing is to escape, and we take that as out first principle, it's inconsistent to say that if necessary, the use of deadly force is not appropriate, and that if the victim cannot escape or otherwise leave the situation without the use of deadly force, that they should be obliged to accept the rape as their safety and security, their right not to be raped, is superceded by the right to life of their attacker. If you honestly believe that, then I'm sorry, but that's the biggest pile of **** I'm likely to hear all day.

OutlawPete wrote: »

You have to quantify the force.

Some response are appropriate and some are not.

If a woman is being raped and the guy says: "Your daughters next.."

Kill him.

If your on a date and your bf get's frisky and you say no and he says yes and forces himself on you, the proportion of violence that is appropriate in each circumstance is going to be quite different.

That's ridiculously unfounded. On the one hand, you're not defending yourself in the situation where you allege it's alright to utilise deadly force; you're defending another person. That even alters the degree to which the premeditation of your actions can be considered, since your response is going to be to an event other than your own assault and rape.

In the second case, the violence of the response appropriate is exactly the amount required to bring the situation to an end. If a good headbutt and a knee in the knackers does the job, well and good. If killing the person is what is required to end this assault on you, then killing is what's necessary. The guy doesn't have some right to life which supercedes your right to safety and security (they're the same right. It's difficult to talk about them differently, hence the clumsy terms)

It wasn't me! wrote: »

A rape is a violent assault; you do have a right to defend yourself against it with all the force necessary to escape the situation. If the attacker dies in that escape, you are justified. We do have a court system, so as I've said above, since the killing would occur in response to a violent assault, and being a response, and with the qualification I've outlined, can't be considered premeditated, it would not be illegal to kill a rapist if that were what was required in order to escape the situation. Do you understand that? You're wrong.

murder is an extreme form of self defence imo. If murder ultimately results from the victim being unable to escape, that's different, but you don't owe a right to their life for the very fact that they raped you. And you certainly don't owe a right to their life for a fear of being raped as Zillah implied before.

--LOS-- wrote: »

murder is an extreme form of self defence imo. If murder ultimately results from the victim being unable to escape, that's different, but you don't owe a right to their life for the very fact that they raped you. And you certainly don't owe a right to their life for a fear of being raped as Zillah implied before.

1. It's not murder, as I've been very, very, very carefully explaining for about ten posts now.

2. You're missing the point. You're not killing the person because they raped you. You are not the instrument for the administration of justice, natural or legislative; you are killing them if that is what is required for you to escape that situation and the opportunity allows it. Obviously, if the means by which to effect your escape do not exist, then you can do nothing about it, but if they do, you are entitled to use them.

Honestly, I don't think while being raped, someone is going to lie there calculating what effect they want their weapon of choice to carry out! I certainly would not wait around to try figure out where i could stab them so that it wont kill them. I'd grab a knife (as an example) and just flail it at them in a blind attempt to get them off me!
If you are in a situation where you are being raped, your mind isnt exactly in the most relaxed and most logical state.
If they don't die, that's all well and good, but I certainly would not be going out of my way, risking my safety, just to make sure I didnt hit somewhere that would cause death to them.
And even if I had a good grasp on the situation, if I felt my life was in danger (which of course I would, whether i knew the person or not), i'd go for it, and kill them.

--LOS-- wrote: »

I aint no lawyer, let me just rephrase it as "killing".




ehh so you agree then

it wasn't me, you are one big contradiction!

No, I've been absolutely perfectly consistent. I have never once stated that killing a rapist should be a punitive measure, only a defensive one, and you won't find any differently here either.