• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

50+ year-old woman kills attacker in self-defense

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Numenorean said:
A public defender. Basically the worst possible lawyer you could have.
Click to expand...

OK.

BUTCH1 said:
Why should she have to wait and see if he rapes AND kills AND robs her, it's too late then, the whole situation was caused by the perp, he got shot, too damm bad, boo-ho-ho some complete loser gets killed, she's a hero in book and in everyone Else's too except you F-ing pussy..
Click to expand...

I've replied to this before, re-read thread.

Hayabusa Rider said:
Actually not by the criteria you set. You do not know that he was going to strike. It could have been a feint designed to put you off. Since you could not know what was about to happen you have committed an immoral act.

In essence you would do what this woman you condemn did.
Click to expand...

I thought you said "He has a knife to my wife's throat and then raises as if he is about to strike"?
 
HAL9000 said:
It was the criminal that created the situation, it was the victim that chose to kill him.



It tells me he means her harm. Or he means to threaten her into submission.
Click to expand...

She didn't choose to kill anyone. She chose to stop her attacker her given the tools she had closest to her. I guarantee you she had no intention of killing anyone all she wanted to do was survive and prevent being attacked. The desired outcome is not the man's death its her safety.
 
ahenkel said:
She didn't choose to kill anyone. She chose to stop her attacker her given the tools she had closest to her. I guarantee you she had no intention of killing anyone all she wanted to do was survive and prevent being attacked. The desired outcome is not the man's death its her safety.
Click to expand...

Then I would argue she shouldn't have had a gun in the first place, but that is an argument for another thread.
 
Almost forgot. Having an attorney- If she has a home or savings she is able to afford an attorney by getting rid of them. That constitutes ruin in the minds of rational people.
 
HAL9000 said:
I'd kill him, in a heartbeat. That being said:

1) I'm an emotionally driven person in that situation
2) It is beyond a reasonable doubt that he intends to cut her throat
3) I should be arrested afterwards, and a jury should decide if I made the right decision.
Click to expand...

By then, the time you have decided the situation warrants deadly force, it is too late as the knife is already in motion, the op stated 1/10 of a second. That is your problem, your threshold for action is simply unrealistic and would result in the death of your loved ones in this situation. If you would use deadly force as you stated, why wait until it is too late?

I can't believe I am replying, after reading the title of the thread I knew exactly how this would play out, and it has.

Carry on gentlemen, and HAL.
 
HAL9000 said:
I thought you said "He has a knife to my wife's throat and then raises as if he is about to strike"?
Click to expand...

Ahhh but I bolded the questionable part. "As if" - maybe he's not actually going to? Maybe he's just threatening? Maybe he doesn't mean anything by it at all.

See, you can NEVER be 100% certain like you insist you must be.
 
HAL9000 said:
I thought you said "He has a knife to my wife's throat and then raises as if he is about to strike"?
Click to expand...

Indeed I did. What you have so far failed to understand that the term "reasonable doubt" does not apply in this context. Reasonable doubt is the standard which must be met in order to convict in a criminal trial.

What applies is the law and whether she complied with it. Since she has there is no grounds for arresting much less continuing to a trial.

What you really mean whether or not you understand it is does her action meet the moral standard that you set for her. Since she has not committed a crime you are creating a new legal system where a person is guilty but then has to prove him or herself innocent although she has complied with the law.

Your morality is completely arbitrary but should be enforced by the police. In that case I can say that you do not know for sure that he was going to strike, therefore you took a life without being able to say for sure that harm would have resulted. My judgement trumps yours making you immoral.

Shall we call the cops and see if you complied with my judgement?
 
HAL9000 said:
These are facts are they?
Click to expand...

You are not in the US so most of our issues do not apply to you, nor would I expect you to understand.

We have 10/20/life (first offense, 10 years no parole; second, 20 years; third, life) laws in most places. Do a crime with a weapon and most of the time you are facing serious charges. It's better to kill the victim and take the chances you don't get caught...if you do you can argue you just screwed up and were scared you'd be sentenced.

long story short mental institution, some prison time and then parole.

You seriously saying you'd let yourself get raped and just take it rather than kill the attacker?

I don't know if you are just a capital punishment antagonist, but in general when the victim delivers it it's pretty damn accepted here in the states as it should be for anything physically harming.

I think you are just purposely trolling these issues though.
 
So your main issue Hal is that she didn't stand trial and not that she killed the dude?

Who pays for that and while you are saying you are in agreement that it was justified, are you saying this victim should have to relive this obvious event for a year or two while she defends her defense?
 
HAL, just one question: Does the idea of putting aside your convictions (in the context of this thread) to save a loved one from being raped and possibly killed mean anything to you? In other words, would you be willing to live with the "guilt" of shooting a would be rapist so that a loved one would not have to live with the horror of being raped?

Have you thought about this from that perspective?

I think it is incredibly selfish to standby your convictions to the point you would let someone be raped, all so you can say that you did not compromise your principles.
 
davmat787 said:
HAL, just one question: Does the idea of putting aside your convictions (in the context of this thread) to save a loved one from being raped and possibly killed mean anything to you? In other words, would you be willing to live with the "guilt" of shooting a would be rapist so that a loved one would not have to live with the horror of being raped?

Have you thought about this from that perspective?

I think it is incredibly selfish to standby your convictions to the point you would let someone be raped, all so you can say that you did not compromise your principles.
Click to expand...

I have thought about it, and I would absolutely live with that, I'd kill the guy in a second to save a family member from pain, but I'm an emotionally driven person, I also believe I should be arrested for it.

Check my new thread, I'm interested to know what you all think.
 
Wow, rapist shot dead...kewl.

I'm glad he had a chance to belly crawl while dying. A chance to reflect upon his life.
 
I've read through all of the forum guideline stickies, and I've come to the conclusion that this is a gray area.......so someone stop me if this isn't kosher.....but...

I will fellate Perk to have a free "ban someone for 90 days."


Just throwin' that out there....
 
OCGuy said:
I've read through all of the forum guideline stickies, and I've come to the conclusion that this is a gray area.......so someone stop me if this isn't kosher.....but...

I will fellate Perk to have a free "ban someone for 90 days."


Just throwin' that out there....
Click to expand...

I applaud your offer good sir:thumbsup:
 
FallenHero said:
after being raped of course. Because well, Rape isn't that bad according to him.
Click to expand...

Raped and murdered.

You have to wait until your throat is cut before you can possible think of pulling the trigger of your 0.22 target gun.

How dare you defend yourself, you horrible bitch!
 
HAL9000 said:
I know it doesn't. I'm not arguing what she did is illegal, I'm arguing what she did should morally be illegal.
Click to expand...

And I thank the good Lord God Almighty on His throne in Heaven that you have absofuckinglutely ZERO! say in Amerca's self defense laws.

Your morality is repulsive to me. It leaves a stain on my soul. I wish you would go away and take it with you.
 
caddlad said:
Wow, rapist shot dead...kewl.

I'm glad he had a chance to belly crawl while dying. A chance to reflect upon his life.
Click to expand...


Agreed. These asshats should have at least a few seconds realisation that they are about to perish. Should i feel guilty because i have such a cavalier attitude toward human life? Maybe. Does a Lion feel guilty when he kills a rival that has invaded his territory?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top