Violence Against Women and Stand Your Ground

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I reported this post for "trying to hard" to be funny.

 

[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.

I reported this post for "trying to hard" to be funny.

I thought it was a capital idea myself.

 

[TomC]

A big problem I see is the same issue that referring to "homelessness" or"abortion" as an issue has.

The huge variety of circumstances that result in situations referred to as "domestic violence". The circumstances are so varied that individual episodes are darned near unique. There are no solutions simple enough for state legislatures to codify into law.

So instead of even trying, politicians will say and do anything more likely to get them more political support, ie wealth and power.
Tom

 

[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.

...and this coming from a Victorian.

C'mon mate you know we prefer knives.

 

[Tigers!]

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.

I reported this post for "trying to hard" to be funny.

I thought it was a capital idea myself.

Capital punishment is the phrase you were looking for.

 

[Tigers!]

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.

I reported this post for "trying to hard" to be funny.

NOT trying too hard to be funny I daresay

 

[Gospel]

On a side note, I can’t imagine ever abusing another person, but if I somehow became that kind of person, I’d be far less inclined to continue if I knew the law gave my victim every right to kill me in my sleep because of the abuse.

 

[Rhea]

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.
[…]
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.

Yet again, Loren finally stumbles upon THE POINT OF THE THREAD, while arrogantly claiming that he is right by not realizing the point of the thread and talking about the background instead of the question at hand.


Heads up Loren, pay attention. Notice what others are actually saying instead of just waltzing in an pontificating ad nauseum.


The POINT OF THE THREAD is that the current law does not protect women from the kinds of ongoing, continuously threatening, death-by-installment risks that are (mostly) unique to women.

So stop lecturing us on the fact that the current law does not protect women. We fucking know that. It’s THE POINT OF THE THREAD. You are so in love with your own opinion that you can’t even detect the fucking topic. Catch up or shut up, would you?


The law needs to change in order to protect women the same way it protects men - with the ability to protect yourself from the kinds of harm you will face. It is currently written to only protect people from a certain kind of harm (unexpected imminent confrontational harm) that is the kind men face more often, with the kinds of self defense available to people who have a physically even chance. It (the current laws) fails to protect women from death and the ability to engage in the kind of self defense necessary to avoid it such as using leverage or guerilla tactics that are necessary from a more vulnerable victim in order to avoid death.

For example; it is written to protect from prosecution people who have the ability to walk around with a means of protection openly visible and then successfully deploy it when the imminent threat presents. It is not written to protect people who must scheme and hide their means of protection to avoid being killed for having it, and then must use it with added leverage such as surprise or controlled circumstances in order to successfully protect themselves and not just lose the physical encounter - again.

Recall that the data behind this is that every day, 4 more women die at the hands of intimate partners. There are hundreds of thousands of dead people who are dead because they were never in a position to even GET 10 paces and a call to draw, let alone a chance at winning it. The abusive inimate partners attack with premediation and planning and surprise all the time, but the law punishes the victim from doing the same in self defense. And indeed the data shows that trying to get away is the riskiest thing the victim can possibly do and is very likely to result in death.. But the victim is not legally protected for trying to avoid death in the only ways that would be effective to them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

On a side note, I can’t imagine ever abusing another person, but if I somehow became that kind of person, I’d be far less inclined to continue if I knew the law gave my victim every right to kill me in my sleep because of the abuse.

I am A and therefore I won't Alpha.
But if I was B, I wouldn't Alpha because of Beta.

If you aren't B, you have no idea what you'd think of Beta if you were B as you are applying A's logic to the consideration. This is the problem, get it? Abuse and rape are against the law., very against the law. People that do this have a very different mindset about actions, consequences, and entitlement.

 

[Gospel]

Jimmy, it’s really not that complicated. Existing laws already deter a significant number of people from committing crimes. It’s not unreasonable to believe that many of these cowards who abuse women would think twice if the law explicitly allowed their victims to lawfully end their cowardly lives while they sleep.

You're either pretending laws don't have this effect, or you're suggesting that even if it does, it somehow wouldn't have any impact on abusers.

 

[Gospel]

It is not written to protect people who must scheme and hide their means of protection to avoid being killed for having it, and then must use it with added leverage such as surprise or controlled circumstances in order to successfully protect themselves and not just lose the physical encounter - again.

What's really absurd is that if a victim buys a firearm knowing their intimate partner will eventually try to attack them, and then uses it to defend themselves, they could likely be charged with premeditated murder.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.
[…]
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.

Yet again, Loren finally stumbles upon THE POINT OF THE THREAD, while arrogantly claiming that he is right by not realizing the point of the thread and talking about the background instead of the question at hand.

You continue to ignore the fact that your case was mutual. They were going to take her side but then a few days later she went after him. That's why she ended up in jail.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is not written to protect people who must scheme and hide their means of protection to avoid being killed for having it, and then must use it with added leverage such as surprise or controlled circumstances in order to successfully protect themselves and not just lose the physical encounter - again.

What's really absurd is that if a victim buys a firearm knowing their intimate partner will eventually try to attack them, and then uses it to defend themselves, they could likely be charged with premeditated murder.

If you have the ability to buy a firearm against such an attack you have the ability to get yourself out of the situation.

 

[Gospel]

It is not written to protect people who must scheme and hide their means of protection to avoid being killed for having it, and then must use it with added leverage such as surprise or controlled circumstances in order to successfully protect themselves and not just lose the physical encounter - again.

What's really absurd is that if a victim buys a firearm knowing their intimate partner will eventually try to attack them, and then uses it to defend themselves, they could likely be charged with premeditated murder.

If you have the ability to buy a firearm against such an attack you have the ability to get yourself out of the situation.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but my point is focused on how the law is applied to victims of abuse, particularly women. Can you possibly translate that sweet-sounding language of yours into something that addresses that argument?

 

[bilby]

It is not written to protect people who must scheme and hide their means of protection to avoid being killed for having it, and then must use it with added leverage such as surprise or controlled circumstances in order to successfully protect themselves and not just lose the physical encounter - again.

What's really absurd is that if a victim buys a firearm knowing their intimate partner will eventually try to attack them, and then uses it to defend themselves, they could likely be charged with premeditated murder.

If you have the ability to buy a firearm against such an attack you have the ability to get yourself out of the situation.

WT actual F?

Show your working.

 

[ZiprHead]

It is not written to protect people who must scheme and hide their means of protection to avoid being killed for having it, and then must use it with added leverage such as surprise or controlled circumstances in order to successfully protect themselves and not just lose the physical encounter - again.

What's really absurd is that if a victim buys a firearm knowing their intimate partner will eventually try to attack them, and then uses it to defend themselves, they could likely be charged with premeditated murder.

If you have the ability to buy a firearm against such an attack you have the ability to get yourself out of the situation.

WT actual F?

Show your working.

I think he means leaving with only the clothes on your back instead of buying a firearm.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Really? Defining imminent danger in this context is somehow unconstitutional or against the law?

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.

It is not written to protect people who must scheme and hide their means of protection to avoid being killed for having it, and then must use it with added leverage such as surprise or controlled circumstances in order to successfully protect themselves and not just lose the physical encounter - again.

What's really absurd is that if a victim buys a firearm knowing their intimate partner will eventually try to attack them, and then uses it to defend themselves, they could likely be charged with premeditated murder.

If you have the ability to buy a firearm against such an attack you have the ability to get yourself out of the situation.

Does that work for the police as well? How about George Zimmerman?

 

[Rhea]

It is not written to protect people who must scheme and hide their means of protection to avoid being killed for having it, and then must use it with added leverage such as surprise or controlled circumstances in order to successfully protect themselves and not just lose the physical encounter - again.

What's really absurd is that if a victim buys a firearm knowing their intimate partner will eventually try to attack them, and then uses it to defend themselves, they could likely be charged with premeditated murder.

If you have the ability to buy a firearm against such an attack you have the ability to get yourself out of the situation.

WT actual F?

Show your working.

I think he means leaving with only the clothes on your back instead of buying a firearm.

He means leaving with only the clothes on your back, leaving your children to be abused by him, and looking over your shoulder for his attack and your impending death for the next year.

 

[Tigers!]

It is not written to protect people who must scheme and hide their means of protection to avoid being killed for having it, and then must use it with added leverage such as surprise or controlled circumstances in order to successfully protect themselves and not just lose the physical encounter - again.

What's really absurd is that if a victim buys a firearm knowing their intimate partner will eventually try to attack them, and then uses it to defend themselves, they could likely be charged with premeditated murder.

Unfortunately this is another of those laws of unintended consequences of having firearms at home. Guns very rarely solve any problems.

 

[Rhea]

Section 2:​

1. 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.

Really? Defining imminent danger in this context is somehow unconstitutional or against the law?

Loren wants imminent danger to be defined as the TYPE of imminent danger that men face (immediately perilous). Not the type of imminent danger that women face (continuously perilous). He thinks that not-immediate means not-imminent.

Which is, again, welcome to the conversation, Loren. Time to catch up with the topic of conversation. The law is currently written to not protect the types of danger and peril that women face. It needs to be rewritten


Immediate and imminent are not exact synonyms. Imminent contains meanings that SHOULD protect women. Immediate does not. Note that Gospel used “imminent” and not “immediate”.

Imminent:

1. About to occur; impending. "in imminent danger."
2. Threatening to occur immediately; near at hand; impending; -- said especially of misfortune or peril. Similar: impending
3. Full of danger; threatening; menacing; perilous. Similar: threatening menacing perilous

Immediate:

1. Occurring at once; happening without delay. "needed immediate treatment for the injuries."
2. Of or near the present time. "in the immediate future."
3. Of or relating to the present time and place; current.