Is rape = great bodily harm

Status
Not open for further replies.
Take your pick, Mr. Rapist

HIV AIDS is a death sentence, how much greater bodily harm
can there be?

The emotional and psychological scars of rape never heal
and are more damaging than any physical damage.

There is physical damage from rape, too, which makes the
aftermath of rape distinctly different from voluntary sex.
Rape is about power and hurt and inflicting harm.

Back in the old days, when there were only seven felonies,
rape was one of them, right up there with murder, treason,
piracy, highway robbery. And they were capital offenses.

There are enough rape-murders where the witness--
the victim--is killed after offering no resistence, to say that
rape should always be considered an imminent threat of death
or bodily harm.

Rape = threat of death or greivous bodily harm. period.
+1 for Carl N. Brown - you have got it absolutely right, sir!

As for me, I would offer a rapist - either in the act or preparing to rape - his choice of destinations: Central booking or the morgue, expedited transportation provided by the city or county to the location of his choice.
 
It's a Simple Decision

As a Christian, I believe that when God blessed me with a wife, and subsequently with a daughter, that He also blessed with with a duty to protect them, with my very life if need be. I personally fear explaining myself to God more than I fear explaining myself to any potential jury. The implications for degree of, and length of punishment simply to not stack up equally.

Furthermore, in simple worldly terms, I'd rather risk a life sentence, than risk explaining for life (to my spouse or daughter), why I didn't shoot the person(s) who tried to rape her. Get it? Besides, in MI, it is legal to defend with lethal force against rape.

Directly related to this post, is anyone aware of what happened to the discussion in Michigan regarding the altering of castle doctrine into explicit law and changing the requirement to retreat? Did that ever come to vote? It was floating about during (I think) May of this year.

Doc2005
 
Rape: The Wichita Massacre

The Wichita Massacre: If this story does not cause you to be armed and ready, nothing will. The antigun bigots love to say, "Leave crime prevention to the experts." Where were the police when these people needed to be protected?
Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1908
The Wichita Massacre
By Stephen Webster
American Renaissance | July 16, 2002
This article is taken from the August, 2002, issue of American Renaissance.



On September 9, Reginald Carr and his brother Jonathan go on trial for what has become known as the Wichita Massacre. The two black men are accused of a week-long crime spree that culminated in the quadruple homicide of four young whites in a snowy soccer field in Wichita, Kansas. In all, the Carr brothers robbed, raped or murdered seven people. They face 58 counts each, ranging from first-degree murder, rape, and robbery to animal cruelty. Prosecutors will seek the death penalty.

The only survivor of the massacre is a woman whose identity has been protected, and who is known as H.G. In statements to police and in testimony at an April 2001 preliminary hearing, the 25-year-old school teacher offered horrible details of what happened on the night of Dec. 14, 2000. That evening, a Thursday, H.G. went to spend the night at the home of her boyfriend, Jason Befort. Mr. Befort, 26, a science teacher and coach at Augusta High School, lived in a triplex condo with two college friends: Bradley Heyka, 27, a financial analyst, and Aaron Sander, 29, who had recently decided to study for the priesthood.

When H.G. arrived with her pet schnauzer Nikki around 8:30 p.m., her boyfriend Mr. Befort was not there, but the two roommates were. A short time later, Mr. Sander's former girlfriend, Heather Muller, a 25-year-old graduate student at Wichita State University who worked as a church preschool teacher, joined them. At about 9 p.m., H.G. went to her boyfriend's ground-floor bedroom to grade papers and watch television. Mr. Befort came home from coaching a basketball practice around 9:15, and at 10:00, H.G. decided to go to bed. Before joining H.G in bed, Mr. Befort made sure all the lights in the house were turned off and all the doors were locked. Mr. Sander was sleeping on a couch in the living room while his former girlfriend slept in the second ground-floor bedroom. Mr. Heyka slept in a room in the basement.

Shortly after 11 p.m., the porch light came back on, to the surprise of Mr. Befort, who was still awake. H.G. says that seconds later she heard voices, then shouting. Her boyfriend cried out in surprise as someone forced open the door to the bedroom. H.G saw "a tall black male standing in the doorway." She didn't know how the man got into the house, and police investigators have not said how they think the Carrs got in. She says the man, whom she later identified as Jonathan Carr, ripped the covers off the bed. Soon, another black man brought Aaron Sander in from the living room at gunpoint and threw him onto the bed. H.G. saw that both men were armed. She said they wanted to know who else was in house, and the terrified whites told them about Mr. Heyka in the basement and Miss Muller in the other ground-floor bedroom. The intruders brought them into Mr. Befort's bedroom.

"We were told to take off all of our clothes," says H.G. in her testimony. "They asked if we had any money. We said: 'Take our money . . . Take whatever you want.' We didn't have any (money)."

The Carrs, however, were not at that point interested in money. They made the victims get into a bedroom closet, and for the next hour brought them out to a hall by a wet bar, singly or in pairs for sex. In the closet-perhaps 12 feet away from the wet-bar area-the victims were under orders not to talk. H.G. says that when the Carrs heard whispering they would wave their guns and shout "Shut the **** up."

The Carrs first brought out the two women, H.G and Heather Muller, and made them have oral sex and penetrate each other digitally. They then forced Mr. Heyka to have intercourse with H.G. Then they made Mr. Befort have intercourse with H.G, but ordered him to stop when they realized he was her boyfriend. Next, they ordered Mr. Sander to have intercourse with H.G. When the divinity student refused, they hit him on the back of the head with a pistol butt. They sent H.G. back to the bedroom closet and brought out Miss Muller, Mr. Sander's old girlfriend. H.G. testified she could hear what was going on out by the wet bar, and when Mr. Sander was unable to get an erection one of the Carrs beat him with a golf club. Then, she says, the Carr brothers "told [Aaron] that he had until 11:54 to get hard and they counted down from 11:52 to 11:53 to 11:54." The deadline appears to have brought no further punishment, and Mr. Sanders was returned to the closet. The Carrs then forced Mr. Befort to have intercourse with Heather Muller, and then ordered Mr. Heyka to have sex with her. H.G. says she could hear Miss Muller moaning with pain.

The Carrs asked if the victims had ATM cards. Reginald Carr then took the victims one at a time to ATM machines in Mr. Befort's pickup truck, starting with Mr. Heyka. While Reginald Carr was away with Mr. Heyka, Jonathan Carr brought H.G. out of the closet to the wet bar, raped her, and sent her back to the closet. Reginald Carr returned with Mr. Heyka, and ordered Mr. Befort to go with him. Mr. Heyka was put back in the closet but said nothing about his trip to the ATM machine. Mr. Sander asked Mr. Heyka if they should try to resist, assuming they would be killed anyway, but Mr. Heyka did not reply. While Reginald Carr was away with Mr. Befort at the cash machine, Jonathan Carr ordered Heather Muller out of the closet and raped her.

When Reginald Carr returned with Mr. Befort, H.G. volunteered to go next. Mr. Carr let her put on a sweater, but nothing else, and said he liked seeing her with no underwear. He ordered her to drive the truck to a bank, and told her not to look at him as he crouched in the back seat. "I asked him if he was going to hurt us and he said, 'No,' " she says. "I said, 'Do you promise you're not going to kill us?' and he said, 'Yes.' "

H.G. got money from the cash machine and adds, "On the way back, he said he wished we could've met under different circumstances. He said I was cute, and we probably would've hit it off." When the two got back to the house, Reginald Carr raped H.G. and ejaculated in her mouth. Jonathan Carr raped Miss Muller again, and then he raped H.G. one more time. Afterwards, the intruders ransacked the house looking for money. They found a coffee can containing an engagement ring Jason Befort had bought for his girlfriend. "That's for you," he told H.G., "I was going to ask you to marry me." That is how H.G. learned her boyfriend planned to propose to her the following Friday, Dec. 22.

At one point, says H.G., Reginald Carr "said something that scared me. He said 'Relax. I'm not going to kill you yet.' "

The Final Ride

The Carrs led the victims outside into the freezing night. At midnight it had been 17.6 degrees, and there was snow on the ground. The Carrs let the women wear a sweater or sweatshirt, but they were barefoot, and naked from the waist down. The men were marched into the snow completely naked. The Carrs tried to force all the victims into the trunk of Aaron Sander's Honda Accord, but realized five people would not fit, and made only the men get into the trunk. Reginald Carr ordered H.G. to join him in Mr. Befort's truck, and Jonathan Carr drove the Accord with the three men in the trunk and Miss Muller inside. As Mr. Carr drove her off, H.G. noted the time: It was 2:07 a.m., three hours since the ordeal began.

After a short drive, both vehicles stopped in an empty field. Reginald Carr ordered H.G. to go sit with Miss Muller in Mr. Sander's car. A moment later, she saw the men line up in front of the Honda. In her testimony H.G. said, "I turned to Heather and said, 'They're going to shoot us.' "

The Carr brothers ordered H.G. and Miss Muller out of the car. Miss Muller stood next to Mr. Sander, her former boyfriend, while H.G. stood beside her boyfriend, Mr. Befort. The Carrs ordered them to turn away and kneel in the snow. "As I was kneeling, a gun shot went off," says H.G. "[Then] I heard Aaron [Sander]. . . . I could distinguish Aaron's voice. He said, 'Please, no sir, please.' The gun went off."

H.G. heard three shots before she was hit: "I felt the bullet hit the back of my head. It went kind of gray with white like stars. I wasn't knocked unconscious. I didn't fall forward. Then someone kicked me, and I had fallen forward. I was playing dead. I didn't move. I didn't want them to shoot me again."

As H.G. lay in the snow, the Carrs drove off in Jason Befort's pickup, running over the victims as they left. H.G. says she felt the truck hit her body, too.

"I waited until I couldn't hear any more," she says. "Then I turned my head and saw lights going. I looked at everyone. Everyone was face down. Jason [Befort] was next to me. I rolled him over. There was blood squirting everywhere, so I took my sweater off and tied it around his head to try and stop it. He had blood coming out of his eyes."

In the distance, H.G. saw Christmas lights. Barefoot and naked, with a bullet wound in the head, she managed to walk more than a mile in the freezing cold, through snow, across a field and construction site, around a pond, and through the brush, until she reached the house with the lights. She pounded frantically on the door and rang the doorbell until the young married couple who lived there woke up. "Help me, help me, help me," she pleaded. "We've all been shot. Three of my friends are dead." (At the time, H.G. thought her boyfriend was still alive.)

The couple wrapped H.G. in blankets, and reached for the phone to dial 911, but she would not let them call. She was afraid she would die, and wanted to tell what had happened. She described the attackers and what they did, as the couple listened in amazement at her courage and determination. Only when she was sure they knew her story did she let them call the police. Still thinking she would die, she asked them to call her mother-"Tell her I love her"-and her boyfriend's parents. She was worried about the children she teaches, and kept wondering "Who's going to take care of the kids in school?"

When the police arrived they questioned H.G. briefly before paramedics took her to the hospital. From her description of Mr. Befort's truck, they were able to get the license plate number from the vehicle's registration records, and put out an alert. As dawn broke, radio and television stations were broadcasting the plate number. H.G. did not know that after the Carrs shot her friends they drove back to the triplex and loaded Mr. Befort's truck with everything of value they could find. They also committed their final killing. The police found H.G.'s pet schnauzer Nikki lying in a pool of blood on a bed, probably shot.

By 7:30 a.m., police had a report that the missing truck was outside a downtown apartment building, and that a black man had been carrying a television set up to one of the apartments. The police moved in to seal off the area. Two officers knocked on the door of the apartment, and after several minutes a white woman named Stephanie Donly opened the door. She was Reginald Carr's girlfriend, and shared her apartment with him. Police caught Mr. Carr as he tried to slip out a window.

The police learned from Miss Donly that Reginald's brother Jonathan was driving a late model Plymouth Fury. Shortly after 12:00 p.m. they found the car parked outside a house in a black part of town. Jonathan Carr was there with his girlfriend of a few days, Tronda Green. He bolted when he saw the police, but was caught after a short chase. Fewer than 12 hours after the murders, Reginald and Jonathan Carr were both in custody.

Other Victims

That night's quadruple murder was only the most gruesome of a series of Carr brother attacks. Late on the night of Dec. 7, 2000-just one week earlier-Andrew Schreiber, a 23-year-old white man, stopped at a Kum and Go convenience store in East Wichita. Reginald and Jonathan Carr forced themselves into his car at gunpoint and made Mr. Schreiber drive to various ATM machines and withdraw money. "I was just hoping if I did what they said, they'd let me live," he says. The two split up, and one followed in another car as they made him drive to a field northeast of town. There they pistol-whipped him, dumped him out of the car, and fled in the other vehicle after shooting out Mr. Schreiber's tires.

Four days later, the Carrs tried to hijack 55-year-old Linda Walenta's SUV while she sat in it in the driveway of her suburban East Wichita home. The Carrs were looking for an SUV in which to drive people at gunpoint to ATMs. They thought they could keep their victims out of sight in a large vehicle as they drove through town. One of the brothers approached Mrs. Walenta, apparently asking for help of some kind. She was suspicious because she thought a car had been following her, and rolled her window down just a little to hear what he was saying. He stuck a gun sideways into the opening, and shot her several times as she tried to drive away. Mrs. Walenta, a cellist in the Wichita Symphony Orchestra, survived the shooting but was paralyzed from the waist down. She was able to help police in their investigation, but died of her wounds three weeks later, on January 2, 2001.

Wichita police confirmed the Carr link to all the crimes when a highway worker found a black .380 caliber Lorcin semi-automatic handgun along Route 96, a highway near the soccer field where the massacre took place. The Kansas state crime lab confirmed that it was the weapon used to kill Mrs. Walenta and H.G.'s friends, and to shoot out the tires of Andrew Schreiber's car. No one knows what other crimes the brothers may have committed, but they certainly appeared guilty of these.

The Carr trial is scheduled to start on Sept. 9, but has been delayed by defense maneuvering. On June 13, Judge Paul Clark denied a motion to move the trial out of Sedgwick County. The defense cited a poll showing 74 percent of Sedgwick County residents thought the Carrs were either "definitely guilty" or "probably guilty," and argued the brothers could not get a fair trial in Wichita. However, no trial has been moved from Sedgwick County in more than 40 years, and this one will stay.

The defense wanted separate trials because the lawyers for each brother will try to blame the crimes on the other. The lawyers argued they will both be trying to help convict the other brother, so it will be like having two prosecutors for each defendant. Prosecutor Nola Foulston pointed out that many people accused of committing crimes together are tried together, and since the trial is expected to last a month and involve 70 witnesses, two trials would be too much expense and inconvenience.

Jonathan Carr's lawyers also tried to get him declared unfit to stand trial, but on April 8, 2002, Judge Clark reviewed the reports of two mental health experts, and ruled him competent. The reports are under seal, so the grounds for the motion are not known.

If the Carr brothers' lawyers do try to blame each other's client, the jury will learn that both have long criminal records. Jonathan Carr's appears to be under seal but at least parts of his brother's are public. In 1995, Reginald Carr was sentenced to 13 months in prison for theft. He was also ordered to serve six months each for aggravated assault and subverting the legal process. In 1996, he was sentenced to 28 months on a drug charge. He was paroled on March 28, 2000, but that November was booked for drunk driving. A few days later he was back before a judge, charged with forgery and parole violation. Police mistakenly let him out six months early on Dec. 5, 2000, just two days before he robbed and beat Andrew Schrei-ber, and started his week of crime. Had police followed correct procedures Jason Befort, Bradley Heyka, Aaron Sander, Heather Muller and Ann Wal-enta would probably still be alive.
Part 2 follows...
 
The Wichita Massacre, part 2

"Has No Bearing"

Although the perpetrators are black and all their victims white, the Wichita police have dismissed race as a motive. Prosecutor Foulston says the Carr brothers chose their victims at random, not because they were white, and that the motive was robbery. "It reasonably appears that these were isolated incidents where individuals . . .were chosen at random . . . a random act of violence," she says. "The fact that the defendants and victims happen to be of different races has no bearing. Let's just look at the underlying crimes." The Wichita media consistently downplayed the racial angle.

However, as news of the crimes spread across the Internet, many people began to wonder if the Carrs would be charged with hate crimes. In fact, it does not appear that Mrs. Foulston or police investigators even looked for a possible racial motive. According to the testimony of the April 2001 preliminary hearing, in which prosecutors determined whether they had enough evidence to support charges, Mrs. Foulston never asked H.G. or Andrew Schreiber if the brothers used racial slurs, or expressed hatred of whites.
It is true that Reginald Carr had a white girlfriend, and it may be that the race of the victims was unimportant to him. At the same time, Jonathan Carr wore a FUBU sweatshirt, a brand popular with black rappers that is said to stand for "For Us, By Us." Some blacks wear FUBU clothing as a statement of black solidarity if not outright rejection of whites.

Louis Calabro of the European American Issues Forum (EAIF) and a former San Francisco police lieutenant, has written to Mrs. Foulston describing the FBI's guidelines for suspecting a hate crime when perpetrator and victim are of different races. Among them are excessive violence, a pattern of similar attacks, and the cold-bloodedness of an execution-style killing. Combined with the torture of forcing people naked into a freezing night, and the degradation the Carrs put their victims through, there is ample reason at least to suspect a racial motivation.

Of one thing we can be certain: If whites had done something this horrible to blacks, it would be universally assumed the crime was motivated by racial hatred. From the outset, police and prosecutors would have investigated the friends, habits, reading matter, and life history of each defendant. If either had ever uttered the word "******," had a drink with a Klansman, or owned a copy of American Renaissance, this would be discovered and brandished as proof of racial hatred. In the Carr case, there appears to have been no investigation at all. Instead of searching for possible racial animus, the authorities have simply declared there was none.

Mrs. Foulston dodges the racial question by pointing out that Kansas does not have a hate crime statute, but the state does specify harsher penalties for bias crimes. Given that the Carr brothers face the death penalty, this is a moot point, but Mrs. Foulston has made no attempt to apply these provisions.
Mrs. Foulston knows some whites are pushing for a hate crimes investigation, and wants to keep the proceedings secret. She moved to close the court for the preliminary hearings, saying "we'd have to let the Aryan Nations come in here if they decided they had an interest." At one hearing, reporters heard one of Mrs. Foulston's aides tell the judge that the press are "interlopers," and the public has no "substantial interest" in the case. Fortunately, Judge Clark recognizes the public's right to observe the proceedings, and opened them to the public. He did, however, agree to Mrs. Foulston's motion for a gag order on all lawyers, investigators and witnesses. The order also prevents release of many records that normally would be public, including the EMS records, the reports on Jonathan Carr's mental competence, and records of police interviews. Mrs. Foulston says secrecy is necessary to ensure the Carrs get a fair trial, but what is in notes of police interviews, for example, that is so inflammatory it could prejudice the public? Evidence of racial hatred, perhaps?

Mrs. Foulston did not ask for a gag order in the case of another quadruple homicide in Wichita just eight days before the Carr brothers' massacre. The DA's office says that case, in which murderers and victims were black, did not generate nearly as many requests for public records, but in an open society, the more interest the public shows in information the more available it should be. Mrs. Foulston's secrecy has led critics to accuse her of covering up evidence of racial animus. EAIF's Mr. Calabro believes the assaults and murders "were racially motivated crimes that the DA and city of Wichita have no interest in pursuing." Del Riley, a white Wichita resident who has followed the case, says of his reaction to the DA's secrecy, "I wouldn't call it outrage, but I'd call it suspicion. This gag order upsets me."

Once again, we can be certain that if the racial cast of characters were reversed, there would be no attempt to close the court, and the media coverage-virtually absent in this case-would be deafening. A white-on-black crime of this kind would be front-page news for days, and would probably prompt official condemnation from the President and Attorney General on down. As we know from the reaction to the murder of James Byrd, dragged to death behind a truck, a crime of this sort committed by whites against blacks would put the nation into an official state of near hysteria.

What if the cast had been all-white? It would still have been national news. In 1959, drifters Dick Hickock and Perry Smith murdered the Clutter family in Holcomb, Kansas. Like the Wichita case, it was a home invasion, apparently motivated by robbery. Even without spectacular sexual cruelty, the Clutter killings were front-page news and the story was immortalized in Truman Capote's novel, In Cold Blood. Had the Wichita case involved whites only, the heroics of H.G. alone would have ensured wide coverage. She would have become a national hero, part of the folklore of strong womanhood.

What if perpetrators and victims had all been black? Some in the media would have promoted the heroism of the woman who lived to tell of the crime, but others would have stayed away from the story because such savagery reflects badly on blacks.

When blacks commit outrages against whites, media executives not only downplay black misbehavior but believe they must protect whites from "negative stereotypes" about blacks. If they must report such crimes, they are likely to link them to editorials calling for tolerance, and pointing out that the criminals were individuals, not a race. When whites commit outrages against blacks there are no such cautions; white society at large is to blame.

The Carr brothers' crimes were treated to a virtual media blackout. The Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times appear to be the only major non-Kansas dailies ever to mention the story. Their articles briefly described the facts of the case, and then focused on Internet discussions among whites who thought the Carr brothers were hate criminals. The Associated Press ran stories on the crimes, but they do not appear to have been picked up outside of Kansas. Within the state, the media dutifully promoted Mrs. Foulston's categorization of the crimes as "random." The networks, of course, were silent.
Were it not for the Internet, the Wichita story would have disappeared. It was only in chat-rooms and on web pages that the crimes had a national audience. Several sites, such as www.NewNation.org and www.JeffsArchive.com, have posted newspaper articles about the crimes. The main paper that covered the case, the Wichita Eagle, stores older articles in a fee-charging archive, so these sites are virtually the only way the public can learn about the massacre.

It will be surprising if the trial itself gets national coverage. Kansas permits television in courtrooms, but so far, the Court TV cable channel shows little interest in the case despite e-mail requests to its website at www.CourtTV.com. The Wichita Eagle will probably offer restrained coverage.The police and media reactions to these crimes-a refusal to think about race, draw larger conclusions, or even express outrage-are typical of today's whites, and in stark contrast to the sustained fury we could expect from blacks if the races were reversed.

This kind of brutality and savagery is why I carry a 1911 in .45ACP every day.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1908
 
IIRC, the law in Texas includes, in the list of things you can use deadly force to defend against, anything that could reasonably be expected to permanently alter your outlook on life, and anything that could reasonably cause great psychological damage. Rape would include both of those.

And let's not forget that rape happens to men, too. I don't know that ANY of you men would hesitate to use deadly force to prevent it happening to you...and neither would I (I'm female.)
 
Maybe but not always.

Unless the laws of this land have been changed, a Man cannot be raped.
In the opinion of some very seasoned people, it is not ALWAYS violent either.

Robert Traver, (the author of "Anatomy of a Murder") was a Michigan State Supreme court judge. He also wrote "The Jealous Mistress", which was an informative and enjoyable analysis of several key legal concepts, how they had come to be, and how they worked.

His chapter on "Rape" was particularly educational.

The classical definition coming to us from England and used in most states is "Rape is Carnal Knowledge of a woman without consent".

He covered the fact that "Knowledge of woman" does not include "Man" -- that the various laws of Assault, Battery, Aggravated assault" and the like protect men from being abused.

His coverage of the subject included the notion there are two fundamentally different kinds of rapists --- the brutal and the dimwitted.
One is a predator and needs to be put down.

The other merely fantasizes --- the poor slob has convinced himself he is irresistable, that she wants him, and his dreams are coming true.
This one will become confused and break down bawling at the slightest resistance. He needs to be pitied and sent to a doctor.

I have seen this second case. His "weapon" was a spray can of ether. She resisted, so he went home, and surrendered meekly when the police came. He spent a couple years in a mental hospital and has lived a normal life since.

This 2nd concept Mr. Traver holds seems to have gotten lost in the last 40 years. I don't know why.

You asked "does rape = Great Bodily Harm".
It certainly can be.
It can also be less of an INVASION that the full body search that frequently takes place upon being arrested. I think you can see that.

Does it equal "deadly peril" and justify lethal response?
Depends upon how the threat is offered and what happens when when the lady --- errr -- indicates --- lack of consent.

Life isn't black and white -- sorry.

Fud.

P.S. Just to complete the tale, Mr. Traver also covered the fact that a Man cannot be found guilty (directly) of raping his wife, seeing as Marriage is a contract in which consent is given.
(He cited cases where the husband sold her services to his friends and they all got convicted. In that instance, he was an accomplice.)

This book was published in 1969.
Less than 5 years after that, a man was convicted in Oregon of raping his wife because she said "no" ---- evidently somebody had been updating marriage laws from what they had been for a few thousand years.

Fud
 
Not that the OP was referring to the new skewed definition of rape, but I'd like to play the devil's advocate:

what happens to the grave bodily harm if you looked at the neo feminist (I forget her name at the moment. a Univ. of Michigan scholar in Ann Arbor) who define rape as "anytime a man and a woman have sex."

That is _out there_. A nutcase even. But it had its followers for a while at least. As far away from the stranger brute in the dark of night with terrible hygene kind of rape as a breathing person can.

Still, taking the perilous and confusing example of domestic disturbance, is the rough sex between a fighting couple (as seen in hollywood) close to grave bodily harm? I'm hesitant to conclude that such marginal cases fit either "forcible sexual assault" or "implied threat of violence", yet it has many if not all of the elements of rape for a prosecutor to go after the husband.
 
And let's not forget that rape happens to men, too. I don't know that ANY of you men would hesitate to use deadly force to prevent it happening to you
You got that right - I'll tear a hole through someone's chest with my teeth before going through that again.

Unless the laws of this land have been changed, a Man cannot be raped.
In the opinion of some very seasoned people, it is not ALWAYS violent either.
I remember my Dickens - "The law is an ass" would seem to fit perfectly here. I'm here to tell you that a male can be raped; that the law of this country refuses to recognise that fact is so irrelevant as to make it useless. Further, your "seasoned people" are full of cr*p; do pardon my bluntness, but unless any of them have themselves been raped they do not qualify as any sort of expert on the subject any more than a desk-bound historian can claim to have been on the beach on D-Day.
 
terms of art

The phrases "great bodily harm" or in Texas "serious bodily injury" are terms of art. When used in a legal context, whether in a state penal code or in case law, the terms have very specific legal meanings which go beyond what we would commonly think of in day-to-day communications. Most state penal codes have very specific definitions for "great bodily harm" or "serious bodily injury" that include a list of essential elements and/or particular actions.

So the answer is "yes," in every state that I know of, rape, more commonly referred to as sexual assault, specifically falls within the legal definition of "great bodily harm" or "serious bodily injury." As others have repeatedly stated, sexual assault or attempted sexual assault is justification for the use of force, including deadly force in certain instances.

"Carnal knowledge of a woman" is old language based on English common law. The definition of sexual assault has been changed in almost all states to include various specific acts with the body "of another," which eliminates the gender issue entirely. Laws governing sexual assault have come an amazingly long way in the last 20+ years, especially beginning in the 1980s.
 
LEO with a question...How does a reasonable person (this is what most NY laws state is necessary) know a rape is going to occur unless the bad guy is in the act? Then how do you use "deadly force" (and I assume that most people here are referring to using your handgun) without putting the innocent victim in severe danger of death or severy physical injury? In NY I wouldn't try doing anything about a rape (in so far as deadly physical force) as NY law contains the "duty of a common person to retreat". By all means break up the act as long as you are sure the actor is sans weaponry and engage with physical force. Ous laws state physical force may be used to stop the commission of Murder 1st, Rape 1st, Burg 1st, Arson 1st, robbery 1st, and Escape 1st. Only physical unless the "Reasonable Person" believes deadly force is imminent.
 
(5) 'Felony' means a crime punishable by death, by imprisonment for life, or by imprisonment for more than 12 months.
(6) 'Forcible felony' means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person.


Georgia Criminal Code Title 16

You can use force to prevent a forcible felony in Georgia. See definition above.
 
Common sense has still not been repealed by the law.

This is a repetitive type posting like when can you legally shoot and kill someone, what can you do in defense of others or yourself, and so forth.


Let's turn the question around.

You do what you feel you WANT to do.

1. Do you hang around to file a police report?
2. Do you give interviews to the press?
3. Do you make a statement to the police?

So, I am down in court with a mother. She is complaining that her son is in state prison for shaking his child to death. I have only two simple questions. 1. Was there any one else present. 2. Did he tell the police "the truth".

One day I am in court on a Monday morning. Over 100 arraignments. 6 arrested defendants are released and the records wiped clean with a "stipulation for probable cause". The other 100 and more defendants were "innocent" and would "tell the truth".

In the real world, few people have the time or inclination to consciously guide their own conduct. They just do what they want to do. . When there is an emergency, they don't have time deliberate whether they will shoot someone or where. A guy is walking out of a dojo with two LAPD. They run into a gang initiation with the gangsters having the drop on them. All three open fire, including the civilian who is illegally carrying. The bad guys end up with problems - terminal for one of them. The civilian doesn't make a statement without his lawyer - he walks.
 
In the real world, few people have the time or inclination to consciously guide their own conduct. They just do what they want to do. . When there is an emergency, they don't have time deliberate whether they will shoot someone or where.
Well, that's why it's so very, very, very important to consider all this stuff in advance. (See this link for more about that.) You won't have time, inclination, nor maybe even ability to do a lot of considered reasoning when faced with a deadly threat. But if you think about the principles in advance, and decide what you are willing or able to live with doing, when confronted with a deadly threat you will simply react as you have trained yourself to do. If thought is required, it will be the sort of quick, basic thinking you can do under stress, rather than the kinds of complex reasoning best left for quiet moments of contemplation.

Failing to consider such stuff in advance vastly increases the risk that you'll do the wrong thing when the crisis comes. Without such prior consideration, you might do the right thing and even manage to stay within the bounds of the laws as they are written ... but if you do, it'll only be because of dumb luck, not the conscious and responsible choice of a reasoning human.

pax

In life, as in chess, forethought wins. -- Charles Buxton
 
According to Marc MacYoung, nearly 80 percent of women who are seriously harmed by rapists are hurt after the actual sexual assault.

And according to a number of studies, when women resisted sexual assault the most serious injury happened before resistance began. In other words they didn't resist and get hurt, they got kick-started by being hurt.

Someone else mentioned that rape and self defense juries will include women. That's true, but it's not as much of an advantage as you might think. According to a number of prosecutors I've talked to women tend to be more judgemental and less sympathetic to the victim, possibly out of fear. "I don't want it to happen to me, so if it happened to her it's because she did something I would never do." The hardest jurors on the rapists are men with daughters.

When I took Mr. Ayoob's LFI-1 he said that, being conservative, rape and forcible sodomy were pretty safe grounds for deadly force (keeping reasonableness and the rest in mind) in pretty much all of the countries whose law is based on English Common Law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top