Violence Against Women and Stand Your Ground

[Gospel]

Legal consequences don't stop murder... even in Texas. Abuse is already against the law. One can't make it more against the law than against the law.

Thanks for reiterating that point. So, let me rephrase mine: current legal consequences primarily support victims when law enforcement steps in. But what legal framework exists for victims who are forced to defend themselves against their abusers? Self-defense laws? Do you really believe our self-defense laws adequately protect those who, due to their circumstances, are unable to defend themselves? Or wouldn’t it make more sense to have legal protections specifically for women who can’t simply ‘throw up their dukes’ and fight back like men? What the legal system defines as self-defense doesn’t cover actions like pouring a bubbling pot of oil on the face of a sleeping abuser, to be blunt. In fact, the current legal framework often punishes abuse victims for the limited actions they can realistically take to protect themselves—actions that most men wouldn't need to resort to in self-defense scenarios.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What you seem to be ignoring in my posts is that the goal is to intercede before the abused becomes the abused. Abuse will still happen, but create avenues to end it instead of trying to come up with legal gimmicks to provide cover for abuse victims the ability to commit certain acts when all that was needed was a prosecutor with a soul.

 

[Gospel]

What you're proposing—creating avenues to end abuse before it starts—absolutely has merit, but it shouldn't replace the need for robust self-defense protections, especially in a legal system that already favors men in these cases. For many women, the circumstances of abuse leave them with few options, and self-defense laws, as they stand, don’t account for the different ways in which victims might need to protect themselves. You might as well call current self-defense laws a gimmick if the only solution is relying on a prosecutor with a conscience.

 

[Tigers!]

- If you’re a cop, you can shoot anyone dead at any time and it is self defense because they might intiate an attack at any moment, using a car, a knife, a phone or their hands. Just shoot them dead, it’s self defense. You’re frightened for you life.

You keep acting as if there was some large number of improper shootings.

Looking on from afar (viz. Aust.) there does seem to be an awful lot of improper shootings in the USA.

 

[bilby]

- If you’re a cop, you can shoot anyone dead at any time and it is self defense because they might intiate an attack at any moment, using a car, a knife, a phone or their hands. Just shoot them dead, it’s self defense. You’re frightened for you life.

You keep acting as if there was some large number of improper shootings.

Looking on from afar (viz. Aust.) there does seem to be an awful lot of improper shootings in the USA.

...and this coming from a Victorian.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And where do we have an example of this? Zimmerman followed. He did not confront.

Trayvon was talking on the phone with his girlfriend when he was attacked by Zimmerman.

s/attacked by/attacking/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Women whose lives are in danger should be able to invoke Stand Your Ground defense.
It still has to go through courts like anyone else, but acknowledging that someone who faces serious injury or death, and cannot just walk away due to extortion or hostages or threats of pursuit is indeed able to Stand Their Ground and use lethal self defense.

I believe stand your ground is only applicable when faced with imminent danger.

The abused are generally in imminent danger, the fear is constant, the abuse is TBD. by the abuser. I think what you meant to say is 'in the process of or just about to be beaten'. Only if the abused were all in such a good state to be properly armed when getting abused. Of course, if they were properly armed, then some might ask why was she armed in the first place, and isn't this just premeditated murder?

No--the cases that we are talking about do not involve imminent danger. The problem is the cases where they actually can just walk away but the fear that they will be hunted down causes them to kill their abusers. The rules of self defense require imminent danger and being hunted down in the future isn't an imminent threat.

As it says in the OP:
imagine a hostage situation. You are held hostage, and you are not ~at that moment~ in danger, but you will be, and everyone knows it. Yes, you can plot to kill your kidnapper when they aren’t looking so you can escape alive.

Once you are free from being a hostage, I don’t think the law allows you to return a week later with an accomplice and execute your tormentor and get a slap on the wrist. I’m sure if you killed the kidnapper in the process of escaping that would be viewed differently. For both male and female.

I suppose the question comes down to whether the abused felt their life was still in danger. That'd be a case by case basis thing, not a 'this is my opinion based on an article and having almost no detailed information about the case... and even less empathy for the abused.'

No. Their assessment is normally correct that they are in danger--but they are not in imminent danger and that's what the law requires for self defense.

It doesn't help matters that she's presenting a case that clearly isn't valid self defense.

 

[Gospel]

Proposed Law Title: "Protection for Victims of Prolonged Domestic Abuse Act"

Section 1:​

This Act establishes protections equivalent to self-defense laws for individuals in prolonged abusive relationships who face imminent or ongoing danger but may not be able to meet the traditional legal standards of self-defense due to the nature of abuse and coercion.

Section 2:​

1. Prolonged Domestic Abuse: A pattern of continuous physical, emotional, or psychological harm inflicted by a spouse, intimate partner, or household member over an extended period.
2. Imminent Danger: A reasonable belief by the victim that they are at risk of severe bodily harm or death, even if the threat is not immediate or direct at the time of action, due to the prolonged nature of the abuse.
3. Reasonable Action: Action taken by the victim in response to a perceived threat based on the totality of the circumstances, including the history of abuse, the victim's physical and mental state, and any past attempts to escape or seek protection.

Section 3:​

1. An individual who has been subjected to prolonged domestic abuse may use force, including lethal force, if:
   • They have a reasonable belief that continued abuse presents a threat of severe bodily harm or death.
   • The abuse has created a condition in which the victim perceives no safe alternatives other than to act preemptively to protect their life.
   • Law enforcement or legal avenues have proven ineffective or unavailable in stopping the abuse.
     
2. The act of defending oneself under these circumstances shall be considered justifiable even if:
   • The immediate threat of harm was not present at the exact moment the defensive action was taken.
   • The victim did not retreat or seek further help due to coercive control or fear of retaliation.

Section 4:​

In any criminal proceeding where the defendant claims protection under this Act, the following factors shall be considered as part of an affirmative defense:

• Documented history of abuse, including police reports, medical records, or witness testimonies.
• Efforts by the victim to seek help or escape, including evidence of threats, manipulation, or isolation by the abuser.
• Expert testimony on the psychological effects of prolonged abuse, such as battered woman syndrome or coercive control.

Section 5:​

The provisions of this Act apply prospectively and do not extend to cases where a final judgment has been rendered, except where relief may be granted under separate clemency provisions.

Section 6:​

This law does not apply if:

• The action taken was solely for financial gain, vengeance, or any motivation not directly tied to protecting one's life from further abuse.
• The defendant was the primary aggressor in the relationship.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

However, this is precisely why the law needs to evolve. While legal consequences are a factor, what's often missing is a legal framework that actually empowers abuse victims—especially women—by giving them the means to protect themselves before it’s too late. Right now, abusers can manipulate the system, making it difficult for victims to seek protection or escape. Creating laws that recognize the unique, ongoing danger these victims face would offer stronger deterrents and better support mechanisms, helping prevent violence before it escalates to fatal levels.

Yes, the world is often structured to protect abusers, but that’s why we need to change the laws to tip the balance in favor of victims. It’s not about fear of punishment for the abuser alone—it’s about giving victims the tools, legal backing, and protection to defend themselves against ongoing abuse.

You talk of abusers manipulating the system but that is merely a symptom of a larger problem of the system being too easy to manipulate. Look at what is happening with the cases against The Felon. Same problem.

What I would like to see is substantial limits on keeping bringing arguments similar to those that have previously failed. You can still bring them but they in no way impede what is going on. And the other side gets two bites at the apple in addressing them--they can present a very simple response and then go back and make a proper response if the simple one isn't enough.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you seem to be ignoring in my posts is that the goal is to intercede before the abused becomes the abused. Abuse will still happen, but create avenues to end it instead of trying to come up with legal gimmicks to provide cover for abuse victims the ability to commit certain acts when all that was needed was a prosecutor with a soul.

The problem is how in the world would you accomplish this?

And these cases should go to trial. The prosecutor shouldn't simply believe a tale of woe.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

- If you’re a cop, you can shoot anyone dead at any time and it is self defense because they might intiate an attack at any moment, using a car, a knife, a phone or their hands. Just shoot them dead, it’s self defense. You’re frightened for you life.

You keep acting as if there was some large number of improper shootings.

Looking on from afar (viz. Aust.) there does seem to be an awful lot of improper shootings in the USA.

People make a lot of noise about them but there are few that are not proper.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What you seem to be ignoring in my posts is that the goal is to intercede before the abused becomes the abused. Abuse will still happen, but create avenues to end it instead of trying to come up with legal gimmicks to provide cover for abuse victims the ability to commit certain acts when all that was needed was a prosecutor with a soul.

The problem is how in the world would you accomplish this?

Housing, child care, security, temporary financial support, legal support. And generally giving a fuck. Not exactly easy to provide these services in a day and age where people want the world for $5.99 a month, but it isn't quite unsolvable, but the first thing we need is the whole "giving a fuck" thing to create resolve to help provide avenues of hope for escape.

And these cases should go to trial. The prosecutor shouldn't simply believe a tale of woe.

A prosecutor shouldn't interview a person and then call it a day. That is why The Police exist. They have detectives that can dive into the case and determine the veracity of the accusations. They have the capacity to ask judges for permission to get to the truth. And it doesn't have to go to trial if there are no charges pressed. And charges don't need to be pressed is the Police determine that an desperate and abused woman did something terribly desperate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Women whose lives are in danger should be able to invoke Stand Your Ground defense.
It still has to go through courts like anyone else, but acknowledging that someone who faces serious injury or death, and cannot just walk away due to extortion or hostages or threats of pursuit is indeed able to Stand Their Ground and use lethal self defense.

I believe stand your ground is only applicable when faced with imminent danger.

The abused are generally in imminent danger, the fear is constant, the abuse is TBD. by the abuser. I think what you meant to say is 'in the process of or just about to be beaten'. Only if the abused were all in such a good state to be properly armed when getting abused. Of course, if they were properly armed, then some might ask why was she armed in the first place, and isn't this just premeditated murder?

No--the cases that we are talking about do not involve imminent danger. The problem is the cases where they actually can just walk away but the fear that they will be hunted down causes them to kill their abusers. The rules of self defense require imminent danger and being hunted down in the future isn't an imminent threat.

But being abused and under the fear of one's life or the life of the child(ren) creates a particular mindset where they are acting in such a way to ensure self preservation. You are hanging your hat on the word "imminent" while having no appreciation of the fear that is ever present. You want to say "imminent" only counts if the woman is currently being attacked.

Sure, we could add laws that say a partner can legally kill an abusive partner. Good luck with codifying that though.

It doesn't help matters that she's presenting a case that clearly isn't valid self defense.

She shouldn't need to in the first place if a Police investigation comes up with information that verifies her fear. Honestly, I prefer my "give a fuck" idea and work to provide partners with ways out before it ever got to that point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Proposed Law Title: "Protection for Victims of Prolonged Domestic Abuse Act"

The concept is good, you've got some serious implementation flaws.

Section 2:​

1. 
   
2. Imminent Danger: A reasonable belief by the victim that they are at risk of severe bodily harm or death, even if the threat is not immediate or direct at the time of action, due to the prolonged nature of the abuse.

This would get it yeeted by the courts--you're saying that !x is x.

These cases unquestionably do not involve imminent danger. The problem is cases where the victim believes there is no true escape short of killing their abuser.

Section 5:​

The provisions of this Act apply prospectively and do not extend to cases where a final judgment has been rendered, except where relief may be granted under separate clemency provisions.

Why exclude them?

Section 6:​

This law does not apply if:

• The action taken was solely for financial gain, vengeance, or any motivation not directly tied to protecting one's life from further abuse.
• The defendant was the primary aggressor in the relationship.

Big problem here. "Solely" isn't relevant. If their motivation involved anything other than escape it's not justified. And I disagree on "primary". I disagree with it if there is any aspect of mutuality to it. If you sometimes go after them you clearly you don't consider them an inescapable threat.

And I'm not even sure you're coming at it from the right direction. As I see it, the law assumes that you can escape a non-imminent threat and that is not always a valid assumption.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

FFS!

 

[Toni]

It’s good to read men writing about needing to change laws in order to protect women—or rather to help women protect themselves. I am not specifically talking about physically using violence to stop attacks—there will likely always be those who lash out physically when they cannot manage their emotions—and those who are the victims of such and whose safety is in jeopardy.

I specifically want to address the emotional component of why people get stuck in relationships that are unhealthy and even dangerous. Yes, there is economic and societal and even legal pressure to stay in relationships

But there is also a lot of emotional pressure, often emotional abuse that so undermines the confidence of the victim that they feel unable to take whatever escape routes might be available to them—and sometimes those escape routes are so ephemeral as to be non-existent.

It is important to also address the emotional component of abuse —with regards to the victim and also the abuser. And to also note that the abuser is also sometimes the victim and that the victim can also engage in abuse. And to recognize that we all—every last one of us—carry some past trauma and past patterns of behavior that we witnessed from our earliest years and throughout our lives. That does not make any of us powerless but it does explain our responses to stress and even to good things.

Up to this point, I have carefully used gender neutral terms because it is absolutely a fact that males can be the victims of physical, emotional and economic abuse. Also, these issues exist in non-heterosexual relationships as well as inter generationally and within all types of family structures.

I started to respond to this thread with the observation that the reason that economic, legal and societal pressures exist to keep women in abusive relationships is because, for the most part, it has been men who enacted the laws, took leadership in societies, who enforce—or fail to enforce laws. I think this is quite true. Whether there was a conscious intention to build society with a male in charge dynamic or not, it exists. In addition to the weaknesses of that model on its face, there exists a rather obvious lack of empathy that allows whoever is in charge—literally, formally, casually to ignore the needs— physical, economic social and emotional needs of those we see as ‘other.’

We need to acknowledge that in order to make progress.

I don’t know how it feels to them when boys or men fight each other. I do know that having had to fight off attackers myself, there was zero satisfaction in successfully escaping, even as I recognized how much worse things would have been if I had not prevailed. There was still trauma to me, and I only used my fists and some physical leverage as my attackers were all at a minimum of 50% bigger than I was, and sometimes a great deal more. I was and still am grateful I did not have a weapon on me. But here’s the thing: none of those guys ‘ learned their lesson.’ They all went on to abuse other women. The best that I accomplished was that I personally escaped. And btw, the degree of bullshit I was willing to tolerate before resorting to physically enforcing my NO decreased greatly with each instance. I’m glad I did no permanent damage to any of them. I wish that I believed—then or now— that explicitly going to whatever authority there was in the situation would have changed anything for the better but it would not have. Women are still not believed. When they are and male attackers are tried and found guilty and sent to prison, prison does not stop them. It makes them angrier and perhaps more careful. But not less dangerous.

 

[Gospel]

This would get it yeeted by the courts--you're saying that !x is x.

These cases unquestionably do not involve imminent danger. The problem is cases where the victim believes there is no true escape short of killing their abuser

Perhaps the wording needs to be adjusted to reflect that the law would cover situations where the abuse creates a psychological environment of inescapability—where the victim is under continuous threat, even if the specific moment of action doesn’t involve an immediate, direct attack. I think this could help courts recognize the unique circumstances of long-term abuse survivors and offer them the protections they need.

Why exclude them?

Loren, that’s a great question. Personally, I wouldn’t exclude them. I’m glad you're paying attention.

Big problem here. "Solely" isn't relevant. If their motivation involved anything other than escape it's not justified. And I disagree on "primary". I disagree with it if there is any aspect of mutuality to it. If you sometimes go after them you clearly you don't consider them an inescapable threat.

And I'm not even sure you're coming at it from the right direction. As I see it, the law assumes that you can escape a non-imminent threat and that is not always a valid assumption.

You make some excellent points. I agree that the term "solely" might be too narrow and could create unintended loopholes. It would make more sense to tighten the language so that any motivation beyond self-preservation or escaping harm is not considered justified.

However, it's important to recognize that victims of abuse would naturally benefit financially from escaping their situation, as it allows them to regain control of their lives, careers, and finances. Financial stability or the ability to rebuild their lives is a natural consequence of ending the abuse, not a motive for the act itself. Therefore, using the term "solely" could give the courts an opportunity to weigh these incidental benefits appropriately, without disqualifying a victim’s claim for self-defense. Additionally, a clause should be included to address any attempts by criminals to exploit this law.

I'll address the 'primary aggressor' issue in more detail later, as I have a lot of work to catch up on right now.

 

[bilby]

A prosecutor shouldn't interview a person and then call it a day. That is why The Police exist.

That may be why the police exist. The reason The Police exist is

Show

On 25 September 1976, while on tour with the British progressive rock band Curved Air in Newcastle upon Tyne, in the northeast of England, the band's American drummer, Stewart Copeland, met and exchanged phone numbers with ambitious singer-bassist Gordon Sumner, a.k.a. Sting, who at the time was playing in a jazz-rock fusion band called Last Exit. On 12 January 1977, Sting relocated to London, and on the day of his arrival, sought out Copeland for a jam session.

 

[Toni]

This would get it yeeted by the courts--you're saying that !x is x.

These cases unquestionably do not involve imminent danger. The problem is cases where the victim believes there is no true escape short of killing their abuser

Perhaps the wording needs to be adjusted to reflect that the law would cover situations where the abuse creates a psychological environment of inescapability—where the victim is under continuous threat, even if the specific moment of action doesn’t involve an immediate, direct attack. I think this could help courts recognize the unique circumstances of long-term abuse survivors and offer them the protections they need.

Why exclude them?

Loren, that’s a great question. Personally, I wouldn’t exclude them. I’m glad you're paying attention.

Big problem here. "Solely" isn't relevant. If their motivation involved anything other than escape it's not justified. And I disagree on "primary". I disagree with it if there is any aspect of mutuality to it. If you sometimes go after them you clearly you don't consider them an inescapable threat.

And I'm not even sure you're coming at it from the right direction. As I see it, the law assumes that you can escape a non-imminent threat and that is not always a valid assumption.

You make some excellent points. I agree that the term "solely" might be too narrow and could create unintended loopholes. It would make more sense to tighten the language so that any motivation beyond self-preservation or escaping harm is not considered justified.

However, it's important to recognize that victims of abuse would naturally benefit financially from escaping their situation, as it allows them to regain control of their lives, careers, and finances. Financial stability or the ability to rebuild their lives is a natural consequence of ending the abuse, not a motive for the act itself. Therefore, using the term "solely" could give the courts an opportunity to weigh these incidental benefits appropriately, without disqualifying a victim’s claim for self-defense. Additionally, a clause should be included to address any attempts by criminals to exploit this law.

I'll address the 'primary aggressor' issue in more detail later, as I have a lot of work to catch up on right now.

Actually, it is fairly common for victims to also retaliate. That does not mean that they are not still primarily a victim or that they do not fear for their own safety or for the safety of others, very often children. It is not uncommon in abusive families for one person to be the primary scapegoat or for one individual to provoke an attack on themselves to deflect violence against the person they see as more vulnerable.

Escaping an abusive situation is an important first step but it seems like some are quite naive in understanding just how huge a hurdle economic security is. I’ve known abused women who stayed in the marriage because they greatly—and rightly feared that not just themselves but their children could be in dire straits if they left the relationship. It is not always the case that the abuse victim is believed and gets full custody of minor children and adequate support until the victim can establish themselves financially. The abuser can maneuver things so that they are entirely in control over all finances, monitor the spending of the victim or even deny them the right to make purchases for themselves. I know of one instance where the wife was preparing to leave and planned to force the sale of the family home so that her half of the proceeds could help her get back on her feet and provide for her children. Then she found that the husband, who had a gambling problem, had forged her signature on papers that took out a second mortgage on the home. Line a great many people, virtually all of the family wealth was tied up in that very modest family home. So she was stuck in the relationship. Her siblings were not in a financial position to help her. Her own parents were elderly and in declining health. The best she could do was to send her oldest child from a previous relationship to spend as much time as possible with her parents/the child’s grandparents, and occasionally her younger children as well. And to try to hide the small support her parents could afford: tickets to go with them to see a local performance, a new pair of shoes or outfit for school—which was tricky because if the grandparents got something for the oldest without spending to the last cent the same amount in his biological children, there was hell to pay—mostly by the child. That oldest child was the result of her mother’s previous abusive relationship. The mom was grateful that the bio dad had zero interest because he would not have been a safe person to be around her child—worse than the current husband, by a lot. At least the current husband never sent her to the ER.

There is a serious lack of shelters and transitional housing for abuse victims, especially if there are children—or pets! And as ridiculous as it seems, sometimes the calculated decision is made to keep the kids in an economically secure home rather than risk being out on the streets. There is a lot of abuse that goes on in homes at every socioeconomic strata. Sometimes victims simply think that they can put up with the abuse, deflect it away from their kids and at least keep the kids safe. This is not always true. It is rare that the kids are not explicitly aware of the abuse that is going on, and where it is not explicit, it is subconsciously known. Which is how the cycle gets repeated. People often repeat dysfunctional patterns of their families of origin. The emotional toll that abuse takes is insidious and can greatly impair the thinking of the victim, leaving them effectively unable to see how to improve their situation

 

[Gospel]

Thank you, Toni. Your contributions are always incredibly valuable to me, and they mean even more than you know.