Which is better?

[John Dibble]

This question was inspired by the following:

If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of raping you, and you shot them, that would be considered excessive use of force in self-defense by most civilised societies. Not murder, but still a felony. However, views will differ from country to country.

[Q]uite frankly, I don't see how shooting someone who intends to rape you should be a felony or a crime of ANY sort - that's like saying you'd rather have a woman be raped than to have a rapist shot dead.

There's (usually, not always) lots of options to prevent both. Such as, threatening to shoot, shoot in the leg, etc. But yes, OF COURSE I'd rather have a person be raped than to have a person shot dead. That's why murder carries stiffer penalties than rape, you know.

I of course prefer the rapist be shot dead, as I would think any sensible person would. The well-being of innocents takes priority over the well-being of criminals who would do those innocents harm.

[minionofmidas]

"No one is innocent".

[Inverted Things]

Depends who the woman and man in question are.

[minionofmidas]

Depends who the woman and man in question are.

LOL!

[Giant Saguaro]

Provided there is the time and space, the woman is justified in using anything she has or can get a hold of to neutralize the assailant. If it's a gun and he dies, he asked for it. If it's a club and he wakes up with a big bump on the head, he had it coming. If she does manage to kill him in self defense, that's another one of those kind we don't have to worry about anymore.

[Frodo]

Option 2, obviously.  It galls me to no end how law-abiding citizens are charged by police when they shoot a would-be murderer, thief, or rapist on their own property in self-defense.  And worse, that there would be those who believe that these citizens should be held accountable for their actions on behalf of the criminal in question.   

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Neither

[KillerPollo]

Option 2, obviously.  It galls me to no end how law-abiding citizens are charged by police when they shoot a would-be murderer, thief, or rapist on their own property in self-defense.  And worse, that there would be those who believe that these citizens should be held accountable for their actions on behalf of the criminal in question.   

That is why I say Option 1

[minionofmidas]

Provided there is the time and space, the woman is justified in using anything she has or can get a hold of to neutralize the assailant. If it's a gun and he dies, he asked for it. If it's a club and he wakes up with a big bump on the head, he had it coming. If she does manage to kill him in self defense, that's another one of those kind we don't have to worry about anymore.

She's justified in injuring him, no doubt. But that's something else entirely.

[Frodo]

Option 2, obviously.  It galls me to no end how law-abiding citizens are charged by police when they shoot a would-be murderer, thief, or rapist on their own property in self-defense.  And worse, that there would be those who believe that these citizens should be held accountable for their actions on behalf of the criminal in question.   

That is why I say Option 1

Could you elaborate?

[Jake]

I'd rather the criminal get shot, or if he can taken alive, tortured.

[A18]

#2

Torture is a better punishment for theft.

[Everett]

Well, I'm sure that if you were the woman, you would want to do anything possible to avoid getting raped - personally, if someone ever had the gall and stupidity to attack me in such a horrible way, I would have no qualms about shooting the bastard. In fact, I would have absolutely no qualms about shooting him in a very special area to him that would likely cause him extreme agony upon being shot. Whether he lives or dies would certainly not be the first thing on my mind - if he dies, then there will be one less idiot out there.

The only problem is that people will work around self-defence laws (what if the woman was not in fact being raped, but faked it because she wanted to shoot the man, or what if the would-be rapist was intoxicated and very clearly out of his mind), but in this hypothetical "perfect" situation (not "perfect" as in a good situation; I mean with no prevarication on the part of the woman), I would have no problems whatsoever with the woman shooting the would-be rapist. It is high time that people stop being terrorised by criminals because they are too afraid of the law coming after them - what has been accomplished by a gun-owning woman allowing a man to rape her so that she won't get charged for manslaughter and then reporting the crime to the police and going through endless red tape? Getting raped is never a good thing, and if you try to rape someone, you are asking for trouble.

[John Dibble]

Neither

I'm asking which is the lesser of two evils(though personally I don't consider the latter evil in the least), not whether you actually liked the options.

[Max Power]

Option 2, obviously.  It galls me to no end how law-abiding citizens are charged by police when they shoot a would-be murderer, thief, or rapist on their own property in self-defense.  And worse, that there would be those who believe that these citizens should be held accountable for their actions on behalf of the criminal in question.   

^^^^^
Frodo hit the nail on the head.

[dazzleman]

I have no problem with the would-be rapist being shot, as long as it is determined that he really was trying to rape the woman.  I would have some concern in a case like this that self-defense laws could be used falsely to initiate violence, with a false excuse of self-defense then being used to justify it.

[The Dowager Mod]

There have been some truly disgusting viewpoints in this thread.
The reason i carry a .32 everywhere i go is for the very reason that i will not let myself be raped again without a fight.
A rapist feels no pity or remorse towards the victim and i would not hesitate to put a .32 hollow point into some scumbags skull.

[KillerPollo]

There have been some truly disgusting viewpoints in this thread.
The reason i carry a .32 everywhere i go is for the very reason that i will not let myself be raped again without a fight.
A rapist feels no pity or remorse towards the victim and i would not hesitate to put a .32 hollow point into some scumbags skull.

OMG We've got a violent one 'ere!

[Everett]

There have been some truly disgusting viewpoints in this thread.
The reason i carry a .32 everywhere i go is for the very reason that i will not let myself be raped again without a fight.
A rapist feels no pity or remorse towards the victim and i would not hesitate to put a .32 hollow point into some scumbags skull.

OMG We've got a violent one 'ere!

Shut the f*** up already. You treat rape as if it's funny or non-serious.

[KillerPollo]

Shut the f*** up already. You treat rape as if it's funny or non-serious.

WHAT!? WHERE did I ever say that? Please show me oh smart-assed one!

I posted that comment you quoted, cause I shun firearms. BUT I defent to the death your right to own one.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Neither

I'm asking which is the lesser of two evils(though personally I don't consider the latter evil in the least), not whether you actually liked the options.

Yes, I know that. The act of rape is certainly far, far worse than shooting someone who intends to commit rape against you, but the effects of both are about as bad as each other.
Having said that, the first is clearly a criminal offense and should be (IMO) treated the same as murder, while it's clearly not in the public interest to prosecute someone who shoots someone who was about to rape them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Florida's self defense laws are a joke. You can legally kill someone even if you could have safely escaped. Some Democrat should find a way to use that to legally kill all of the Republicans who passed that bill.

[dazzleman]

Neither

I'm asking which is the lesser of two evils(though personally I don't consider the latter evil in the least), not whether you actually liked the options.

Yes, I know that. The act of rape is certainly far, far worse than shooting someone who intends to commit rape against you, but the effects of both are about as bad as each other.
Having said that, the first is clearly a criminal offense and should be (IMO) treated the same as murder, while it's clearly not in the public interest to prosecute someone who shoots someone who was about to rape them.

I don't see killing a violent predator as having a bad effect.  Getting rid of people like that has a good effect.  Homicide in self defense is not murder, and in most cases, not even a criminal offense, nor should it be.  The important thing would be to determine that it really was self defense, and not a setup to murder somebody without a legitimate reason.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't see killing a violent predator as having a bad effect.

Still a life, no matter how bad that person was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but it's better to have the locked away. Much better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, although the problem comes with determining what a legitimate level of self defense is. I don't think that's an issue with rape; certainly shouldn't be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That can be a problem, yes...

[dazzleman]

I don't see killing a violent predator as having a bad effect.

Still a life, no matter how bad that person was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but it's better to have the locked away. Much better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True, although the problem comes with determining what a legitimate level of self defense is. I don't think that's an issue with rape; certainly shouldn't be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That can be a problem, yes...

I am a lot less upset about the loss of a bad life than damaging a good one.

Sure, in a perfect world, it's better to lock a person up than kill him (for crimes less than capital murder).  But if there's nobody around to protect you from an attacker, better to kill or seriously injure him than allow that to happen to yourself. 

Keep in mind that in such a situation, there is no guarantee that the perpetrator will not kill you.  A person who has been abducted and is about to be raped doesn't know that the rapist won't kill her when he's done.  It happens quite a bit.  In that situation, I wouldn't waste a minute worrying about the rapist losing his life, and I wouldn't consider it a loss to society if he does.