leadcounsel
member
yep
Is rape = great bodily harm
- Thread starter GVMan
- Start date
- Status
DWARREN123
Member
YES!
XLMiguel
Member
Hmmmm. I spent some time in casual barracks after AIT while awaiting orders, along with some gay boys who were being discharged for, well, being gay boys. I had no particular problem with them but for one, who allowed as how he liked 'big men' and how I'd best not be sleeping on my stomach if he didn't get lucky that night. Trash talk, fersure, but he was also a druggie, so one never knows . . .
Now, I was 6'3" (still am), 210# (now 255), in great shape; he was a pretty little queenie-boy at 145, maybe 5'8". Though I wasn't even worried, I was insulted. I showed him the bunk converter (18" length of steel pipe used for stacking bunks) I had under my pillow (we also bunked with a bunch of junkies, also on their way out), and told him that I'd shove it where the sun don't shine after I pounded him to a pulp. Kinda killed the conversation.
Point is, I'da considered that sort of assault a potential grave bodily injury ('cause the only way it'd happen was by threat of deadly force), and I'da reasponded accordingly. How you dowin'?
XavierBreath
Member
Some states will specify rape as a justification for lethal force. Other states understand that the threat of grave injury or death is inherent in a rape, otherwise the victim would never submit. Lethal force is justified due to the threat of grave injury or death. Louisiana, for example, does not include rape specifically.
Louisiana's law:
Justifiable homicide
A homicide is justifiable:
(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.
(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.
(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person does not retreat from the encounter.
(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person committing the homicide does not retreat from the encounter.
(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.
Louisiana's law:
Justifiable homicide
A homicide is justifiable:
(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.
(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.
(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person does not retreat from the encounter.
(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle. The homicide shall be justifiable even though the person committing the homicide does not retreat from the encounter.
(b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.
Careful... As I read it, it includes "kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat". Kidnapping compelled by force or threat is normally called AGGRAVATED kidnapping.
Offhand, I don't know of any place that allows the use of deadly force to prevent a SIMPLE kidnapping--that is a kidnapping not compelled by force or threat. For the very good reason that most simple kidnappings involve a custody fight, not a violent crime.
Worth noting that the "compelled by force or threat" modifier also applies to sexual intercourse meaning that STATUTORY rape is not grounds for use of deadly force. Should go without saying, I guess.
Yeah, I know that's picky, but I've found that things that should go without saying often shouldn't.
Well Coach Bobby Knight did not think so.....
My wife served on a jury in which a woman was accused of murder for running over a guy who was found dead with her shirt in his hands. He had walked up to the car and asked for directions then grabbed her breast and was trying to pull her from the car saying he knew she would like it...She attempted to drive off but discovered her way out was a dead end and decided to just back up at full speed no matter what was behind her. Fortunately he was standing there watching and when she came backwards at highspeed and hit him it was deemed by the CA to be an avoidable homicide. Jury deliberated about 7 minutes, of which 6.45 was just writing down names and selecting the secretary. Every woman there 8 of 12 said once he ripped her shirt grabbing her, he was fair game. I would agree.
My wife served on a jury in which a woman was accused of murder for running over a guy who was found dead with her shirt in his hands. He had walked up to the car and asked for directions then grabbed her breast and was trying to pull her from the car saying he knew she would like it...She attempted to drive off but discovered her way out was a dead end and decided to just back up at full speed no matter what was behind her. Fortunately he was standing there watching and when she came backwards at highspeed and hit him it was deemed by the CA to be an avoidable homicide. Jury deliberated about 7 minutes, of which 6.45 was just writing down names and selecting the secretary. Every woman there 8 of 12 said once he ripped her shirt grabbing her, he was fair game. I would agree.
My post was mostly about the semantics. The exact phrasing is "deadly force will only be used to prevent the immediate use of force that could cause death or great bodily harm to yourself or another."
Rape does not always involve great bodily harm. And rape, through threat of deadly force (express or implied), is not the equivalent of immediate use of such force. If rape is not included under that general banner (and going by what is written and absolutely nothing but, it is not), then shooting a criminal to prevent a rape is exactly the same as shooting someone to prevent a robbery or home invasion, regardless of other circumstances, which is precisely what the new rule is supposed to prevent discussion of.
If you're going to argue that rape always involves the threat of deadly force (instead of the angle that rape = great harm, though not necessarily bodily), then that same argument can be used for almost any other crime. Robbery uses express or implied force too, otherwise how's the robber going to get anything from anyone? Same for other crimes.
So rape should be mentioned in the rule. Just removing the word "bodily" would be enough.
Rape does not always involve great bodily harm. And rape, through threat of deadly force (express or implied), is not the equivalent of immediate use of such force. If rape is not included under that general banner (and going by what is written and absolutely nothing but, it is not), then shooting a criminal to prevent a rape is exactly the same as shooting someone to prevent a robbery or home invasion, regardless of other circumstances, which is precisely what the new rule is supposed to prevent discussion of.
If you're going to argue that rape always involves the threat of deadly force (instead of the angle that rape = great harm, though not necessarily bodily), then that same argument can be used for almost any other crime. Robbery uses express or implied force too, otherwise how's the robber going to get anything from anyone? Same for other crimes.
So rape should be mentioned in the rule. Just removing the word "bodily" would be enough.
Because violent criminals do not sign contracts with their prey, there are no limits as to what an attacker would do. Even if one was to accept the twisted logic that rape in any form wasn't "great bodily harm" once someone submits to an atacker, how far things go is solely up to the attacker. Since rapists do it for the power rather than the sex, injuring others is part of the fun.
As mentioned above, just the threat of one of our modern STDs is a threat against ones life.
As mentioned above, just the threat of one of our modern STDs is a threat against ones life.
XavierBreath
Member
You make a very valid point Ryan.
Except....states that do not have rape specified often have a clause similar to this in their definition of justifiable homicide:
Coupled with Louisiana's HB 89 and HB 1097, this definition not only includes rape, but also armed robbery, kidnapping, and in fact any crime of force. So, in Louisiana, the standard would be whether force was used, not whether "great bodily harm" was the result.
I'm sure the Brady Bunch will give Louisiana an F minus next year, or maybe even a G!
Boom-stick
Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 872
The only thing worse than rape is child abuse.
My best buddy's GF was raped (they're no longer together) 9 years ago. The guy that did it was a convicted rapist that had done his 'time' and had only been released a few days. He took her at knife point from her doorstep as she was putting the key in the lock, after returning from a night outwith her girlfreinds. He took her back to the prison he'd been in and raped her on the prison grounds and gave himself up the next day. He couldn't handle being on the outside and only did it so he could be put back in.
She still has nightmares.
Around 12 years ago a female friend of my family was backpacking alone through india on a sponsered charity walk and was assulted and raped by local men on 3 separate occasions, the police failed to even turn up on the second time so on the third time, the guy had sliced his way in through the side of her tent during the night, she followed him back into the local village and stabbed him 3 times in th chest killing out-right. No-one batted an eyelid. Different countries, different laws and where women are 'owned' as it were, the men seem to think they the right to do what they want, to whom they want.
Dispite the attacks neither of them were harmed in any other way but just because you can't see scars on the body it doesn't mean they won't be scarred mentally. Rape is one crime I wish they'd bring back the death penalty for.
My best buddy's GF was raped (they're no longer together) 9 years ago. The guy that did it was a convicted rapist that had done his 'time' and had only been released a few days. He took her at knife point from her doorstep as she was putting the key in the lock, after returning from a night outwith her girlfreinds. He took her back to the prison he'd been in and raped her on the prison grounds and gave himself up the next day. He couldn't handle being on the outside and only did it so he could be put back in.
She still has nightmares.
Around 12 years ago a female friend of my family was backpacking alone through india on a sponsered charity walk and was assulted and raped by local men on 3 separate occasions, the police failed to even turn up on the second time so on the third time, the guy had sliced his way in through the side of her tent during the night, she followed him back into the local village and stabbed him 3 times in th chest killing out-right. No-one batted an eyelid. Different countries, different laws and where women are 'owned' as it were, the men seem to think they the right to do what they want, to whom they want.
Dispite the attacks neither of them were harmed in any other way but just because you can't see scars on the body it doesn't mean they won't be scarred mentally. Rape is one crime I wish they'd bring back the death penalty for.
Last edited:
armoredman
Member
AZ Title 13
Do remember that the number of incidents of MALE rape is on the rise, and Hep C and AIDS are more prevelant in prison than ever before. 97% of inmates are released, so any attempt to rape anyone should be considered a use of deadly physical force, IMHO.
thumbody
Member
Seems a bit contradictory.
As the husband of a rape survivor I can attest the emotional harm lasts for years (more like forever).While a victim may get through the experience they never get over it.
Absolutely.
Forget all the various legalese involved. Rape (or attempted rape) is just one SMALL step below murder (or attempted murder) on the spectrum of "great bodily harm". I say "attempted" because use of force (lethal force, if need be) is equally justified, in both cases, so stopping either (DURING COMMISSION OF THE CRIME) are essentially the same.
Forget all the various legalese involved. Rape (or attempted rape) is just one SMALL step below murder (or attempted murder) on the spectrum of "great bodily harm". I say "attempted" because use of force (lethal force, if need be) is equally justified, in both cases, so stopping either (DURING COMMISSION OF THE CRIME) are essentially the same.
XavierBreath
Member
I'll even go a step further and say that rape is a form of murder. It is the cessation of a person's prior life of innocence.
Yes, having known a few rape/molestation victims, it really can be "slow murder"... I only say it's slightly different because a few individuals are eventually able to recover reasonably well, and live somewhat "normal" lives. But, most will never be the same again. If it's not PTSD (which I suffer from) then its the closest thing there is. Virtually every aspect of their lives will be forever tainted.
Boom-stick
Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 872
thumbody,
Sorry about that, I posted the thread before I'd finished writing as I had appointment at work, the finished piece should make more sense now.
Dan
Working Man
Member
I agree. I also believe rape with or without the transmission of a STD still
infects its victims with various and seemingly incurable diseases. Fear,
shame, and/or guilt may remain with that person for the rest of their life.
Pending on that persons belief or outlook a key aspect of their life has been
stolen, something only to be shared with one person.
It not only affects them but the people who love them and who they come in
contact with as well. The relationships they forge and how they live their life
will in some way be forever altered by the assault.
The laws need to change and the penalties raised to remove these plague
carriers before they can infect others. Catch and release is not working.
Didn't bother reading through this whole thread but I can say that yeah, rape is in my opinion great bodily harm. Having had a very close friend (ex gf)that was the victim, yeah, I've seen first hand what the scars are. While the offence is physical in natue, it's also so very emotionals and mentally scarring. The act itself can be physically damanging as well. Maybe It's becasue of my closeness to this subject, but I would not consider the legal ramifications of my actions to intercede and prevent any such assault. 
EOTechRulesAll
member
My mother lives in a state that I absolutely hate... Illinois... I read their laws and they have declared that lethal force may not be used to stop "robbery, rape, assault, arson" (the list goes on)...
In my opinion rape is worse than murder because the woman (or in some rare cases man, yes, some men get raped by older men or perhaps women who are strong, who knows?) is made to live with the psychological trauma for her entire life.
If somebody wanted to jump me from behind and shoot me in the back or gun me down while I'm in my car stopped at a traffic light, I mean I'm dead instantly, probably anyway... If I was to be raped in a butt by another man, well I'd be wishing I was dead and so messed up in the head that I wouldn't know what to do... That's why I regard rape as not only great bodily harm, but great psychological and mental harm as well, truly a crime that is at least as bad as murder, if not worse in some regards.
In my opinion rape is worse than murder because the woman (or in some rare cases man, yes, some men get raped by older men or perhaps women who are strong, who knows?) is made to live with the psychological trauma for her entire life.
If somebody wanted to jump me from behind and shoot me in the back or gun me down while I'm in my car stopped at a traffic light, I mean I'm dead instantly, probably anyway... If I was to be raped in a butt by another man, well I'd be wishing I was dead and so messed up in the head that I wouldn't know what to do... That's why I regard rape as not only great bodily harm, but great psychological and mental harm as well, truly a crime that is at least as bad as murder, if not worse in some regards.
1911_CQB
Member
If my wife is being raped. Your right im gonna use deadly force. Thats an area I wont budge on.
Last edited by a moderator:
EOTechRulesAll said;
I don't know where you looked up Illinois laws at but you obviously looked in the wrong place. Here are the Illinois laws on use of force:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
As you can see, deadly force is most certainly permitted to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Here is the definition of forcible felony:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=4700000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
You should know that in Illinois the crime of rape is called criminal sexual assault; just in case you think that it's not included in the list of forcible felonies:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...eqEnd=23700000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
Where did you get your incorrect information? Please post a link to the laws you read. They aren't the same laws that we've had on the books for years.
Jeff
I don't know where you looked up Illinois laws at but you obviously looked in the wrong place. Here are the Illinois laws on use of force:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
As you can see, deadly force is most certainly permitted to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Here is the definition of forcible felony:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=4700000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
You should know that in Illinois the crime of rape is called criminal sexual assault; just in case you think that it's not included in the list of forcible felonies:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...eqEnd=23700000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.
Where did you get your incorrect information? Please post a link to the laws you read. They aren't the same laws that we've had on the books for years.
Jeff
thumbody
Member
Boom-stick
It does read better now.
Wearing skimpy clothes may get attention(some wanted and some unwanted) but it should be no more reason for rape than it would be ok to rob someone because you saw them place a large roll of money in their pocket.
Many times I've heard a woman say if the victim wasn't dressed like that it wouldn't have happened, but they can't explain why a rapist will also target an elderly woman who is sitting at home in an old flannel nightgown,(she sure isn't "out there flaunting it") I have heard the same said by men but not to the same extent.
It does read better now.
The amazing thing that I have witnessed is that some women seem to blame the victim more than most men ever would. While discussing the Natalie Hollaway incident with relatives my wife was told by 3 women that Natalie was the one at fault. I believe she made some foolish mistakes but find it hard to place the blame on her.
Wearing skimpy clothes may get attention(some wanted and some unwanted) but it should be no more reason for rape than it would be ok to rob someone because you saw them place a large roll of money in their pocket.
Many times I've heard a woman say if the victim wasn't dressed like that it wouldn't have happened, but they can't explain why a rapist will also target an elderly woman who is sitting at home in an old flannel nightgown,(she sure isn't "out there flaunting it") I have heard the same said by men but not to the same extent.
thumbody ~
I think I can explain it, a little bit.
1) Most women are quite aware that we are vulnerable to rape. We're told about it from the time we're very, very young. Warned about it in sex ed, warned about it in high school, warned about it in college. Our dads warn us, our moms warn us, our girlfriends warn us. Most of us know at least one person who's had to live with the aftermath of a sexual assault. The knowledge of this vulnerability affects all of us throughout our lives, and every intelligent woman has, at one time or another, decided not to do something she would have enjoyed doing -- simply because she thought it was too dangerous. This is internalized clear down to the visceral level in most cases. Because of this, nearly every (maybe every) woman recalls making choices she'd rather not have made simply in order to keep herself safe, and with that memory, so when a woman who's made these choices and lived with them sees another woman who didn't choose to do the safe thing, and who got "punished" for it ... well, there's a tiny part of her that feels vindicated in the choices she's made for herself. Not that most of us wish any harm on other women or anything like that, but there's something satisfying about it, almost an "I told you so" going on. And this shows through when women talk about other women's experiences: "I deserve a pat on the back because at least I avoided doing that."
2) The awareness of vulnerability means that women grasp at control of this issue anywhere we can. As long as we can tell ourselves that we will be safe if we only do X, Y, and Z, then we haven't ceded control of our lives over to the bad guys and bogeymen lurking in the bushes. But if there's really and literally nothing you can do to avoid it, there's no safety anywhere and no control over your own life. But as soon as we start saying, "well, the victim should probably not have walked naked into a biker bar..." then we're blaming the victim -- a bad evil no-no in these nonjudgemental times. Personally I think anything I can do to reduce my risk of sexual assault is probably a good thing, but once someone's been attacked there's not a lot of help in telling her what she did wrong. She knows it better than I ever could ...
pax
I think I can explain it, a little bit.
1) Most women are quite aware that we are vulnerable to rape. We're told about it from the time we're very, very young. Warned about it in sex ed, warned about it in high school, warned about it in college. Our dads warn us, our moms warn us, our girlfriends warn us. Most of us know at least one person who's had to live with the aftermath of a sexual assault. The knowledge of this vulnerability affects all of us throughout our lives, and every intelligent woman has, at one time or another, decided not to do something she would have enjoyed doing -- simply because she thought it was too dangerous. This is internalized clear down to the visceral level in most cases. Because of this, nearly every (maybe every) woman recalls making choices she'd rather not have made simply in order to keep herself safe, and with that memory, so when a woman who's made these choices and lived with them sees another woman who didn't choose to do the safe thing, and who got "punished" for it ... well, there's a tiny part of her that feels vindicated in the choices she's made for herself. Not that most of us wish any harm on other women or anything like that, but there's something satisfying about it, almost an "I told you so" going on. And this shows through when women talk about other women's experiences: "I deserve a pat on the back because at least I avoided doing that."
2) The awareness of vulnerability means that women grasp at control of this issue anywhere we can. As long as we can tell ourselves that we will be safe if we only do X, Y, and Z, then we haven't ceded control of our lives over to the bad guys and bogeymen lurking in the bushes. But if there's really and literally nothing you can do to avoid it, there's no safety anywhere and no control over your own life. But as soon as we start saying, "well, the victim should probably not have walked naked into a biker bar..." then we're blaming the victim -- a bad evil no-no in these nonjudgemental times. Personally I think anything I can do to reduce my risk of sexual assault is probably a good thing, but once someone's been attacked there's not a lot of help in telling her what she did wrong. She knows it better than I ever could ...
pax
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked