Violence Against Women and Stand Your Ground

[pood]

It seems so cold, so achingly heartless, to pretend that isn’t the topic.

Consider the source.

 

[TSwizzle]

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.

If you are referring to the “stand your ground law”, this law applies to everyone.

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.

Sure, the “stand your ground” law is written for specific situations. It wouldn’t make sense to try to apply that law where it isn’t applicable. That would be like trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

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.

This leads to the requirement for a new law, primarily for women. A law that if a woman kills her abuser at their convenience or when a suitable opportunity presents itself or they feel sufficiently threatened/fearful or a whole slew of circumstances that comes up and courts would be lenient. Is this what you are looking for? Because that is going to be very difficult to draw up.

 

[Arctish]

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.

If you are referring to the “stand your ground law”, this law applies to everyone.

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.

Sure, the “stand your ground” law is written for specific situations. It wouldn’t make sense to try to apply that law where it isn’t applicable. That would be like trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

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.

This leads to the requirement for a new law, primarily for women.

The law would be for everyone, just as Stand Your Ground is for everyone. It would address life threatening situations which anyone might face, but have historically been faced by women far more often than by men.

A law that if a woman kills her abuser at their convenience or when a suitable opportunity presents itself or they feel sufficiently threatened/fearful or a whole slew of circumstances that comes up and courts would be lenient. Is this what you are looking for? Because that is going to be very difficult to draw up.

At their convenience? And what, pray tell,would be a convenient time to face a life threatening situation in your own home or workplace?

I live in a state with a high rate of domestic violence. It's also a place that people seeking to escape domestic violence come to from the Lower 48. There are lists of names of people who are not allowed to fly or take ferries to certain communities because they are violent stalkers trying to track down the wives and girlfriends who have managed to slip away. Every few months there is another murder of a fleeing spouse or partner in a hotel or friend's house where they have taken shelter. And all too often the friend or family member trying to help the victim is killed, too.

We say that people have a right to defend themselves, but we don't allow victims of repeated domestic violence facing credible death threats to even fire warning shots, much less to shoot to kill if/when they try to escape their abusers. And it's taken a tremendous effort to get the courts to recognize PTSD and similar conditions that affect the ability of victims of chronic abuse to think rationally or react with composure to stressful situations.

We can do better. And we should.

 

[Gospel]

Because that is going to be very difficult to draw up.

It’s not that difficult. I didn’t even graduate high school and still came close to understanding what’s needed. I can’t imagine experienced legal professionals, like attorneys and lawmakers, doing worse than me. Just because you might not have the knowledge or skill to successfully draft legislation doesn’t mean the rest of the legal experts out there are in the same boat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

The law already allows for that. Both in charges not being pressed and jury nullification. If you think it will be simple to expand Stand Your Ground laws to include what could otherwise be premeditated cases of murder (without the abuse/trauma aspect involved), you are absolutely wrong with it being not that complicated.

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.

I'm saying that people that break the law do so because they don't think they'll be caught.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A law that if a woman kills her abuser at their convenience or when a suitable opportunity presents itself or they feel sufficiently threatened/fearful or a whole slew of circumstances that comes up and courts would be lenient. Is this what you are looking for? Because that is going to be very difficult to draw up.

At their convenience? And what, pray tell,would be a convenient time to face a life threatening situation in your own home or workplace?

I'd say TSwizzle is poorly trying to say that putting this into statute form is hard because it would require drawings line where lines aren't really drawable. What level of abuse, what type of abuse, what time length between escape (if appl.) and killing is allowed. Ultimately, this is about the state of mind of the shooter. Is it a criminal mind or a desperate mind acting out for self-preservation? And that part is almost impossible to codify.

What sucks is that Stand Your Ground laws shouldn't even be a thing, as we've seen how people can interpret a right... quite improperly and act out stupidly... and then criminally, and still be shielded. Self defense has long been a viable defense before some in Legislatures wanted to allow summary murders of people that 'deserve' it.

 

[Gospel]

The law already allows for that. Both in charges not being pressed and jury nullification. If you think it will be simple to expand Stand Your Ground laws to include what could otherwise be premeditated cases of murder (without the abuse/trauma aspect involved), you are absolutely wrong with it being not that complicated.

I want to clarify that I wasn’t suggesting drafting such a law is simple. My point was that feeling apprehensive about someone being legally allowed to kill me in my sleep under certain conditions is easy to understand. I can’t believe I even have to explain this. To be clear, I wasn’t presenting a hypothetical or abstract argument. I was making a direct statement, and its meaning should have been straightforward.

"Charges not being pressed and jury nullification" are matters of discretion. What I’m proposing is to move beyond discretionary decisions and codify a law where each case is formally reviewed and argued. Similar to "Stand Your Ground" cases, the victim would have legal support to present an argument equivalent to self-defense for situations where the threat to their life, though not always immediate, was imminent.

I’m also not suggesting an expansion of "Stand Your Ground." I’m advocating for an entirely separate law to be drafted.

I understand that you don’t agree with the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, but that doesn’t change the fact that the law exists and is currently applied in ways that often hurt victims of abuse rather than help them. While I agree that drafting laws is complicated, that observation doesn’t address the reality faced by abuse victims—particularly women—who aren’t in a position to defend themselves in the same way many men can under Stand Your Ground.

 

[Gospel]

I'm saying that people that break the law do so because they don't think they'll be caught.

What I’m saying is that there are far more people who would engage in harmful behavior if the law didn’t exist to deter them. Think of what happens when the traffic lights go out at a busy four-way intersection—chaos ensues, and without clear rules, accidents are inevitable. That’s just a glimpse of how society would function without laws in place. The law serves as a safeguard, maintaining order and keeping things in check. While some people may disregard the law, the vast majority do respect and follow it. Same effect can apply to cowards who beat the shit out of women if there was a law saying their victim can defend themselves while they're asleep.

 

[thebeave]

Has anyone even brought up the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) with regard to the OP (I just did a search on VAWA for IIDB, and the last time it popped up was in 2022)? Wasn't one of the primary purposes of it is to deal with the DV situations that are being discussed here, ie. providing resources, access to social services and shelters, legal help, etc? Has it failed in its purpose so much so that we are now talking about, basically murder as a solution to DV problems? I admit I don't know all the details of what's in VAWA, but maybe the answer is to amend it if necessary.

 

[Rhea]

? Has it failed in its purpose so much so that we are now talking about, basically murder as a solution to DV problems?

No, we are talking about self defense. The same lethal self defense that you are allowed to use when a mugger tries to take your wallet, or a stanger breaks into your house. Except in those cases you haven’t ALREADY had your bones broken multiple times and had your children threatened.

It’s interesting that self defense against violent intimate partners is so readily equated with murder, and often by the same people who thing killing an alleged suspect of a possible theft, who is actively running away from you, is not murder.


So.
Very.
Interesting.

Isn’t it.

 

[Rhea]

With every single law that is on the books, there are people who try to use it beyond its intent to get away with something. That would be the same here, and is not a valid reason to not create a needed law.

With every single law that is on the books, there are some people who will not be deterred because of it. That would be the same here, and is not a valid reason to not create a needed law.

The effort to stop an effort like this, to shut down the discussion based on exceptions and to not protect women using self defense to stay alive who have been beaten, abused, threatened and extorted because you want to argue that this law must be perfect unlike every other law on the books is… something you need to explain.

 

[TSwizzle]

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.

If you are referring to the “stand your ground law”, this law applies to everyone.

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.

Sure, the “stand your ground” law is written for specific situations. It wouldn’t make sense to try to apply that law where it isn’t applicable. That would be like trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

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.

This leads to the requirement for a new law, primarily for women.

The law would be for everyone, just as Stand Your Ground is for everyone. It would address life threatening situations which anyone might face, but have historically been faced by women far more often than by men.

Well, yes, a law primarily for women.

A law that if a woman kills her abuser at their convenience or when a suitable opportunity presents itself or they feel sufficiently threatened/fearful or a whole slew of circumstances that comes up and courts would be lenient. Is this what you are looking for? Because that is going to be very difficult to draw up.

At their convenience? And what, pray tell,would be a convenient time to face a life threatening situation in your own home or workplace?

The OP article references a case where the abused woman works with an accomplice to lure the abuser to a place and kills the abuser. Is this really self defense in a "stand your ground" scenario? I say no but others may disagree. Is it a justifiable homicide? Hmmm, maybe.

I live in a state with a high rate of domestic violence. It's also a place that people seeking to escape domestic violence come to from the Lower 48. There are lists of names of people who are not allowed to fly or take ferries to certain communities because they are violent stalkers trying to track down the wives and girlfriends who have managed to slip away. Every few months there is another murder of a fleeing spouse or partner in a hotel or friend's house where they have taken shelter. And all too often the friend or family member trying to help the victim is killed, too.

We say that people have a right to defend themselves, but we don't allow victims of repeated domestic violence facing credible death threats to even fire warning shots, much less to shoot to kill if/when they try to escape their abusers. And it's taken a tremendous effort to get the courts to recognize PTSD and similar conditions that affect the ability of victims of chronic abuse to think rationally or react with composure to stressful situations.

We can do better. And we should.

Yes we should. I am wary of allowing women to murder their (abusive) partners in the name of self defense though. Is it right that a man can repeatedly beat the shit out of a woman to within an inch of her life and then a day, a week, a month later she and a friend kills him while he sleeps? Is that a solution? Maybe that is the only way to stop habitual abusers. If on the other hand the woman leaves and the abuser tracks her down and comes at her and she kills the guy, I'm happy to let that slide.

 

[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.

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?

If you have the freedom of action to buy a firearm you have the freedom of action to escape. Fundamentally, this comes down to the same thing I identified before--the law considers any non-imminent threat to be something you take the police and does not consider the case of the person who can escape but doesn't believe they can remain free.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

If you have the freedom of action to buy a firearm you have the freedom of action to escape. Fundamentally, this comes down to the same thing I identified before--the law considers any non-imminent threat to be something you take the police and does not consider the case of the person who can escape but doesn't believe they can remain free.

Since Gospel is proposing to change "the law", your post is literally non-responsive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

The rules are a bit different for the police. They are expected to enter potentially dangerous situations and do not lose the right of self defense by doing so.

And Zimmerman didn't intend to be entering a dangerous situation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

If you are referring to the “stand your ground law”, this law applies to everyone.

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.

Sure, the “stand your ground” law is written for specific situations. It wouldn’t make sense to try to apply that law where it isn’t applicable. That would be like trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole.

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.

This leads to the requirement for a new law, primarily for women.

The law would be for everyone, just as Stand Your Ground is for everyone. It would address life threatening situations which anyone might face, but have historically been faced by women far more often than by men.

Well, yes, a law primarily for women.

A law that if a woman kills her abuser at their convenience or when a suitable opportunity presents itself or they feel sufficiently threatened/fearful or a whole slew of circumstances that comes up and courts would be lenient. Is this what you are looking for? Because that is going to be very difficult to draw up.

At their convenience? And what, pray tell,would be a convenient time to face a life threatening situation in your own home or workplace?

The OP article references a case where the abused woman works with an accomplice to lure the abuser to a place and kills the abuser. Is this really self defense in a "stand your ground" scenario? I say no but others may disagree. Is it a justifiable homicide? Hmmm, maybe.

It is justifiable if the act wasn't of a criminal mind.

I live in a state with a high rate of domestic violence. It's also a place that people seeking to escape domestic violence come to from the Lower 48. There are lists of names of people who are not allowed to fly or take ferries to certain communities because they are violent stalkers trying to track down the wives and girlfriends who have managed to slip away. Every few months there is another murder of a fleeing spouse or partner in a hotel or friend's house where they have taken shelter. And all too often the friend or family member trying to help the victim is killed, too.

We say that people have a right to defend themselves, but we don't allow victims of repeated domestic violence facing credible death threats to even fire warning shots, much less to shoot to kill if/when they try to escape their abusers. And it's taken a tremendous effort to get the courts to recognize PTSD and similar conditions that affect the ability of victims of chronic abuse to think rationally or react with composure to stressful situations.

We can do better. And we should.

Yes we should. I am wary of allowing women to murder their (abusive) partners in the name of self defense though. Is it right that a man can repeatedly beat the shit out of a woman to within an inch of her life and then a day, a week, a month later she and a friend kills him while he sleeps?

Within an inch of their life?! I'm at a loss at why you would have a hard time seeing how such a person could be in an understandable position of an imminent feeling that they could die any day, having already been beaten to an inch of their life.

You are struggling with this subject because you view abuse in the past tense, where the abused see it in the past, present, and future tense. This is also isn't about a woman collecting abuse points and getting to cash in at some point. It is about understanding their state of mind and how the abuse has or hasn't impacted it regarding any potential violent self-defense act that is taken.

Is that a solution? Maybe that is the only way to stop habitual abusers. If on the other hand the woman leaves and the abuser tracks her down and comes at her and she kills the guy, I'm happy to let that slide.

Funny, we've seen some people justify killing in situations where the killer needlessly inserted themselves in to a situation of danger, and refused to leave. But a woman needs to be actively targeted by a predator to defend themselves with deadly violence.

 

[Toni]

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.

I’m not at all certain that a change in law would make abusers think twice about abusing an intimate partner because usually, no ‘thinking’ is involved in the abuse. I know there are exceptions: individuals who do plan abuse ahead of time, but most of the time, abuse happens because the abuser is unable or unwilling to regulate their emotions. They see themselves as justified—they need to do it because ‘I told them if they did X’ or ‘they make me so mad’ or ‘ they know how I get when I.. and to stay out of my way..’

But changing laws to give broader latitude and understanding to victims who themselves resort to violence might spare the life of someone who can see no other way out—and might give them another chance at a more decent life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Why does everyone assume that a statement of reality is a desire?

I'm talking about the way the law works. And I believe there's a problem with it that goes deeper than what Gospel is addressing.

 

[Toni]

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?

The rules are a bit different for the police. They are expected to enter potentially dangerous situations and do not lose the right of self defense by doing so.

And Zimmerman didn't intend to be entering a dangerous situation.

Yeah, Zimmerman totally believed he could best a 16 year old he was stalking. And he could. And he got away with it. To our everlasting shame.

 

[Toni]

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?

If you have the freedom of action to buy a firearm you have the freedom of action to escape. Fundamentally, this comes down to the same thing I identified before--the law considers any non-imminent threat to be something you take the police and does not consider the case of the person who can escape but doesn't believe they can remain free.

Not necessarily true. Also just as likely and probably more likely to use a firearm owned or used by the abuser.