|
| Thread: Legal question |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 23, 2013 07:56 PM |
|
|
Legal question
Imagine the following situation:
You are a woman. You carry a gun in your bag for self defense, because you live in a very shadowy neighborhood. You work into the night and come home in the dark. One of those nights you are assaulted by two men, intending to rape you.
a) you manage to pull your gun, and shoot them both. Both die. The dead men have a history of molesting women.
b) they manage to ovwrwhelm you; they both rape you, but never check your handbag. When they are finished they leave you behind, seemingly stunned, and leave the scene. You manage to open your handbag pull your gun and shoot the fraggers.
Consequences for you?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 08:03 PM |
|
|
|
Number one would be considered self-defense since you can't know if they will let you live or not. In number two, it is not self-defense since they are on their way now and your life is certainly not in danger anymore. But I imagine most lawyers will base their defenses on temporary insanity in such a situation and most judges won't make a problem of accepting that defense.
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 08:25 PM |
|
|
Artu is correct.
____________
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 08:29 PM |
|
|
|
Depends if USA or the real world.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 08:48 PM |
|
|
|
What about the moral aspects of the occurence?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 08:52 PM |
|
|
|
the 2 guys reaped what they sowed
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 09:06 PM |
|
|
|
On moral grounds, personally, I wouldn't justify the second act and consider it a deserved response. But I wouldn't feel too sorry for the rapers either. Of course, it also partially depends on the alternative, what happens if she doesn't shoot them, are they identified, will they go to jail, what is the punishment for the crime in that country, etc etc...
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 09:17 PM |
|
|
|
Yes, legally it's not self-defense but usually what happens is that the individuals involved in the case help the defendant shape her testimony to make it appear as if it was.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 09:53 PM |
|
|
I'd definitely get a charge of murder and a very likely conviction in option a, since the force which I the lady feared (rape) wasn't equal to the force which I resisted with (kill). I may get magically acquitted if I manage to get jury empathy, but the law is: if I believed myself to be in mortal danger and the evidence supports this, then I can rely on the defence of self defence, if not then I am guilty. Oh and the history of molesting women will be unknown to you and the jury, they won't be told till after the verdict has been made, I'm guessing the reasoning behind it is that it is not part of the facts of the case.
For the second option I'd get a murder charge as well, but I can likely raise a defence of loss of control (however this defence cannot be raised if the defendant acted out of vengeance). I would likely succeed with a loss of control defence which reduces the charge of murder to manslaughter, since the courts are unlikely to punish a rape victim with a murder conviction.
This is my take on it by applying some English law, the gun despite being illegal and possession carrying a heavy prison sentence it still wouldn't necessarily be damning evidence since I'm not being charged with that so minimal focus will be placed on it. (and you won't be held to account in a separate case which is most odd) unless the prosecution try to argue that she had an intention to get into trouble, or something like that.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 10:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
since the force which the lady feared (rape) wasn't equal to the force which you resisted with (kill).
But she can't know they will only rape her. If two strangers attack you at night, you have reasonable doubt to fear for your life.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 10:03 PM |
|
|
It depends on her mens rea, as I said, if she feared for her life and had necessary reason to do so (question for the jury) then she can plead self defence. But you did not mention that she/me feared for her life, the victims (yes the would-be rapists would be the victims) did not even produce a weapon to help them with the crime (or at least you did not mention any) so the jury will likely convict. (i.e she overreacted)
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 10:06 PM |
|
|
Yeah, the laws create the pussy-men like. Once an individual plans and tries to harm another, he should be exposed to any degree of retaliation without charging the defender. Any.
This should include even the insignificant criminal acts: today in France we read that one women was pushed on metro rails because she tried to defend against a "young" robbing her phone. The metro killed her, thus we can see little robbery can have lethal issue because self control issues.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 23, 2013 11:18 PM |
|
|
The first case is clear - shooting them was justified, the woman is innocent, two scumbags are dead, all is well, except the woman may be traumatized.
The second case is more interesting. It's not self-defense at this point, unless you think that they're likely to rape you again. At least, it's not self-defense in a strict sense, though the threat of that happening can serve as deterrence.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 24, 2013 08:40 AM |
|
|
Ok, so far case a) everyone seems to agree that in order to PREVENT what may well be a harmful attack deadly force is justified both morally and legally under the broad roof of "self-defence"
Now, for b) the main thing seems to be, ok, damage WAS done, albeit not deadly, so reacting with deadly force would not be justified, neither by the law nor morally, albeit understandable and could (and would) probably be "adjusted" in order to save the victim/killer from a murder charge.
Let's somehow alter the situation somewhat. This time you are assaulted in your house. Same situation:
a) You shoot the two fraggers invading your house intending to God knows what;
b) they rape you, then they take everything of value, don't finding the gun you hide. When they leave you quickly get your gun, shoot them and take your possessions back. Any difference here?
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted December 24, 2013 01:49 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
The first case is clear - shooting them was justified, the woman is innocent, two scumbags are dead, all is well, except the woman may be traumatized.
Justified by your moral sense maybe, but not legally.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 24, 2013 04:43 PM |
|
|
I'm pretty sure (though Omega is free to correct me if I'm wrong) that no court in the US would convict someone in the first situation.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 25, 2013 06:36 AM |
|
|
The woman would be guilty of illegal carry of weapons but because the rapists had a larger crime, she would not get charged. In case A.
B she'd get charged for both illegal carry of weapons and second degree murder but depending on the time passed between the rape and the shooting, that might still be judged as self-defence. Then she'd get illegal carry of weapons and excessive self-defence charges.
If they're still in your house, you can still legally shoot them in the states. In case 2.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2013 08:11 AM |
|
|
JoonasTo said:
The woman would be guilty of illegal carry of weapons but because the rapists had a larger crime, she would not get charged
Unless she had a concealed carry license, or lived in a state where she didn't need one. link
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 25, 2013 08:15 AM |
|
|
Asked our opinions, I base mine on my home, not the states, unless explicitly stated.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 25, 2013 08:26 AM |
|
|
|
I think the question's more like how do you think it should be rather than how would it go in the real legal system in your country anyway. For a real-life guess there should have been much more detail.
|
|
|
|
