Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
New Anti-Rape device - RapeAxe
Comments
-
-
NO it's too harsh a punishment.OutlawPete wrote: »No I haven't.
I have consistently said "appropriate" and "proportionate" response is fine, that does NOT take away anybody's rights.
But you are stating what the appropriate and proportionate response rape victims should have, how can you possibly be qualified to do that?
0 -
Are those Irish or South African statistics?
Neither, they were taken from three different articles based on worldwide statistics. One said lower, the other slightly higher.Ickle Magoo wrote: »How many armed robberies end in bloodshed? Do you think the people the robber are pointing the gun at aren't in fear of their lives?
Eh, they have a gun, they would need sectioning if they weren't scared.Ickle Magoo wrote: »"MURDER" is not the same thing as clobbering the guy as he rapes or walloping him directly afterwards.
I never said it did, that sounds fine to me.Ickle Magoo wrote: »I can't get my head around the whole expecting someone who's being or just been raped to think of an "acceptable" reaction to that violation, for the sake of their poor attacker. Baffling.
So, where do we draw the line.
If I walk up the shops and two guys jump out, get me in a headlock, punch me in head, kick me in the balls .. is it okay for me to whip out a gun or a knife and kill them?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Ickle Magoo wrote: »But you are stating what the appropriate and proportionate response rape victims should have, how can you possibly be qualified to do that?
I am a human being with an opinion.
Many people gave their opinions that murdering someone as they forced themselves sexually on another person was an appropriate response.
Where are their qualifications? where are yours?
What a ludicrous question.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
It wasn't me! wrote: »Those various laws, statutory and case, which concern the reasonable application of force in response to physical assault.
Ah, so you were waffling
Reasonable force is what I have been saying along.
How would "reasonable application of force" be murdering someone.0 -
It wasn't me! wrote: »Oh sweet, zombie Jesus! And you continue to miss the point! You said it's a tool of vengeance. It's not. It's designed in order to enable an escape. It is therefore not a retributive device, but a defensive one. This is not a complicated thing to follow!Some people sound very trigger happy on here, imagine if we had armed gardai with the mentality of some people on here. As for the sadist who came up with that device, does it really do anything to prevent rape, the victim is still going to be assaulted, be put at risk of STIs, possibly put themselves at more risk of violence from the rapist, all it does is support violence and is perhaps a crude method of contraception.
I only see it putting the victim in more danger, it doesn't prevent the attack. I think it wasn't designed as an aid to escape, the maker conjured it up in response to this comment; "If only had teeth down there!", does that not scream of a vengeful woman to you? She even speaks about it in terms of "empowering women" 0 -
-
OutlawPete wrote: »Ah, so you were waffling
Reasonable force is what I have been saying along.
How would "reasonable application of force" be murdering someone.
For the last time (hopefully) it's not murder. It never has been murder. It never will be murder. Nobody on this thread is concerned with murder. It's self-defence.
You think that if the victim isn't in immediate tangible danger of being killed, then she has no right to use lethal force to defend herself because her being raped, in your eyes, is a lesser evil than her attacker dying.
I don't believe anyone else here thinks so. That is quite twisted.0 -
NO it's too harsh a punishment.I only see it putting the victim in more danger, it doesn't prevent the attack. I think it wasn't designed as an aid to escape, the maker conjured it up in response to this comment; "If only had teeth down there!", does that not scream of a vengeful woman to you? She even speaks about it in terms of "empowering women"
wtf? no, it doesn't, it sounds like a desperate woman that would like a way to defend her vagina ffs.0 -
I only see it putting the victim in more danger, it doesn't prevent the attack. I think it wasn't designed as an aid to escape, the maker conjured it up in response to this comment; "If only had teeth down there!", does that not scream of a vengeful woman to you? She even speaks about it in terms of "empowering women"
From what I can see, this would function in a similar way to lo-jack. The newer Freakonomics book did a good job of showing how lo-jack, an invisible security device was more effective than the large visible steering wheel locks at deterring theft.
Why? Because, like rape, car theft is most often a crime of opportunity. The wheel lock actually increased break ins to other cars because the thief looked for an easier target. With the lo-jack, however, crime dropped significantly. Without even being able to see the security device, the car thieves became so paranoid of unknowingly stealing a car with lo-jack, that they decided it wasn't worth the risk to try.
It would likely be a similar outcome with this device. Would-be rapists would err on the side of caution for fear of destroying their willies.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
OutlawPete wrote: »Ah, so you were waffling
Reasonable force is what I have been saying along.
How would "reasonable application of force" be murdering someone.
Self defense is not murder, despite your continual use of the word. Reasonable application of force, depending on the situation, could easily lead to the death of an attacker.
As far as I'm aware (and someone more versed in law can correct me on this) there's no single definition of reasonable force in law - it is different for every situation. In theory it should be proportional to the threat faced. But the law does recognise that it's not easy for someone, particular when being attacked, to work out what exactly constitutes "reasonable."
It also recognises that people react on a primal, instinctive level when they are in danger. For example, picking up something sharp and stabbing an attacker could easily be self defense - following up as they lie on the ground would most likely not be. Personally I've very little idea of exactly how to disable someone without endangering their life, and if attacked, I doubt very much I'd be analysing what response was proportional.
"If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."
I would doubt very much if a judge or jury would consider a person fighting off a rapist using any means at their disposal as exceeding reasonable force.0 -
-
-
-
Self defense is not murder ..
Okay, how would "reasonable force" be killing someone that is raping you?As far as I'm aware (and someone more versed in law can correct me on this) there's no single definition of reasonable force in law - it is different for every situation.
LOL
You do love to be dramatic.
You don't need somone more versed in the law, it is common knowledge that there is no single definition, how could there be, not all rapes, assalults, robberies etc etc are the same
In theory it should be proportional to the threat faced.
Precisely, so what was all the waffle about the law not agreeing with me, it's quite clear that they do.
This is all a pointless argument anyway as it such a rare occurrence that someone is murdered while attempting to rape someone.
I guess the victims must feel as I do, that it would be an inappropriate response, otherwise there would be thousands of such cases.
Considering the number of rapes worldwide each year.0 -
-
OutlawPete wrote: »Okay, how would "reasonable force" be killing someone that is raping you?
Depending on the exact situation and context, force that ends in the death of an attacker could be judged reasonable.OutlawPete wrote: »You do love to be dramatic.
Oh look, a petty sneering remark. What a shock. I'll point out I'm not the one who referred to rape as only a bit of "sticking a dick in and out".OutlawPete wrote: »You don't need somone more versed in the law, it is common knowledge that there is no single definition, how could there be, not all rapes, assalults, robberies etc etc are the same
Right. So depending on the situation, force that ends in the death of an attacker could be judged reasonable.OutlawPete wrote: »Precisely, so what was all the waffle about the law not agreeing with me, it's quite clear that they do.
But it doesn't. It's not simple and clear cut, there may be cases where reasonable force results in death, there may be cases where it doesn't.OutlawPete wrote: »This is all a pointless argument anyway as it such a rare occurrence that someone is murdered while attempting to rape someone.
I guess the victims must feel as I do, that it would be an inappropriate response, otherwise there would be thousands of such cases.
Considering the number of rapes worldwide each year.
Or the victims aren't able to fight back.
Anyway, I'm through wasting time trying to treat this as a serious conversation. Feel free to lol and smiley face all you want in response.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement