djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2015 10:49:01 GMT -5
V says if there isn't sufficient physical evidence of a fight, you can't prove it was rape. Not categorically "can't" prove it. I'm claiming it eliminates one of the key pieces of corroborating evidence. again- playing devil's advocate: why not "can't"? short of a confession, what is a distinguishing characteristic of rape, legally speaking?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 3, 2015 10:57:07 GMT -5
One can be restrained/overpowered enough that fighting back leads to little more than extra cuts and bruises (or worse) and still being raped.
Just because you would want to fight to the death doesn't mean someone else can't impede your fight enough to get what they want without killing you.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 3, 2015 11:28:23 GMT -5
V- I equate your suggestion that a woman has to fight hard enough to prove rape, with blaming the victim. I know you do, and it's an irrational equation. It's only a slight variation of the same irrational equation used in the Subway thread: Virgil strongly advocates behaviour X (1), hence women have an implied responsibility to practice X in Virgil's view (2), hence Virgil imputes responsibility for the crime to the victim if she fails in her implied responsibility (3), hence Virgil is blaming the victim (4). In the Subway thread, implication 2 → 3 failed to hold. In this thread, both 1 → 2 and 2 → 3 fail to hold. Jumping from 1 to 4 is simply bad logic. And the article's case is all but nonexistent. Ms. Lees preemptively kills off her own argument by trivially dismissing all the major contentions of "do fight back". Easily 80% of the rest is hammering the statistic that 88% of rapists are known by their victims. So... you shouldn't fight back if you know the guy? Apparently not. Her only actual argument comes in the form of "[Resistance] can be successful but it can also be life-threatening." Thanks for pointing that out, Ms. Lees. I'd never thought of it unless you'd mentioned it. The reason she wrote the article is precisely the paragraph you honed in on. She's starting with the same jump from 1 to 4 and scraping together a pretext to present her conclusion. She even gets in the quintessentially useless "It is surely time men stopped writing books about how women can resist rape and concentrated on how to stop rape." How, Ms. Lees? Give us some suggestions. Throw out reasonable doubt in rape cases? March topless down main street carrying signs saying "Still not asking for it."? Distribute free copies of your book on university campuses?
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,310
|
Post by swamp on Sept 3, 2015 11:33:39 GMT -5
So you think we should go with the Shira law that says a woman isn't really raped unless two witnesses saw the act? I agree with Richard insofar as nobody should be convicted of rape based on nothing more than victim testimony. Having said that, I resent the fact that (to the best of my knowledge) the courts can't "pool" multiple rape allegations into a single case for prosecution. If two or more victims from separate rapes by the same perpetrator came forward, even years apart, I would welcome treating both instances as a single crime and putting both testimonies simultaneously before a judge. So long as the testimony had no glaring inconsistencies, the judge would do well to convict on that basis. swamp: Would something like the above be possible under any circumstances in our system? First, a judge doesn't convict, the jury does.
And no, you cannot pool unconnected crimes together unless a special application is made to tie them some how, like a common scheme, plan, or specific identifying factor. The person is on trial for a crime, not whether they are an asshole. And trying unconnected stuff is too prejudicial, it's like saying, well, they did this more than once so it's likely they did these crimes.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 3, 2015 11:41:48 GMT -5
Not categorically "can't" prove it. I'm claiming it eliminates one of the key pieces of corroborating evidence. again- playing devil's advocate: why not "can't"? short of a confession, what is a distinguishing characteristic of rape, legally speaking? Other witnesses testifying to the incapacitated or near-incapacitated state of the victim just prior to the crime. Toxicology, if traceable drugs were used. But generally speaking, your point is sound. Evidence of a struggle is going to be the make or break piece of evidence as to whether sex was consensual or not. At least, it's the only thing I can think of.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 3, 2015 11:42:40 GMT -5
I agree with Richard insofar as nobody should be convicted of rape based on nothing more than victim testimony. Having said that, I resent the fact that (to the best of my knowledge) the courts can't "pool" multiple rape allegations into a single case for prosecution. If two or more victims from separate rapes by the same perpetrator came forward, even years apart, I would welcome treating both instances as a single crime and putting both testimonies simultaneously before a judge. So long as the testimony had no glaring inconsistencies, the judge would do well to convict on that basis. swamp: Would something like the above be possible under any circumstances in our system? First, a judge doesn't convict, the jury does.
And no, you cannot pool unconnected crimes together unless a special application is made to tie them some how, like a common scheme, plan, or specific identifying factor. The person is on trial for a crime, not whether they are an asshole. And trying unconnected stuff is too prejudicial, it's like saying, well, they did this more than once so it's likely they did these crimes. That's what I thought. Thanks.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,886
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 3, 2015 12:26:33 GMT -5
And the article's case is all but nonexistent. Ms. Lees preemptively kills off her own argument by trivially dismissing all the major contentions of "do fight back". Easily 80% of the rest is hammering the statistic that 88% of rapists are known by their victims. So... you shouldn't fight back if you know the guy? Apparently not. Her only actual argument comes in the form of "[Resistance] can be successful but it can also be life-threatening." Thanks for pointing that out, Ms. Lees. I'd never thought of it unless you'd mentioned it. The reason she wrote the article is precisely the paragraph you honed in on. She's starting with the same jump from 1 to 4 and scraping together a pretext to present her conclusion. She even gets in the quintessentially useless "It is surely time men stopped writing books about how women can resist rape and concentrated on how to stop rape." How, Ms. Lees? Give us some suggestions. Throw out reasonable doubt in rape cases? March topless down main street carrying signs saying "Still not asking for it."? Distribute free copies of your book on university campuses? The woman interviewed a bunch of rape and assault victims to evaluate whether fighting or being passive was the best approach and came up with the answer 'it depends.' I put more faith in an actual study someone did with crime victims than with your highly biased assessment that all women MUST fight their attackers, which you derived from reading books and thinking a lot. Why are you angry with the author for failing to solve the age old question of how to stop men from assaulting and raping women? If that was easy to do wouldn't we have fixed it by now? She's simply making the point that we should stop telling women what they should have done or not done in order to avoid being raped, because that makes them responsible for what happened to them, instead of placing the blame on the criminals. Kind of like lecturing a victim of a mugging that he should have fought back, unless he did and was shot, and then you announce that he should NOT have fought back - obviously. But if he didn't fight back and there was no one to see the guy steal his wallet, then because there was no evidence of a beating, he can't file a claim against the mugger - so once again, he's to blame for allowing himself to be mugged wrong. Maybe instead of telling women the right and wrong way to be victims of rape, we figure out what we can do to stop predatory men.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,886
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 3, 2015 12:30:53 GMT -5
V says if there isn't sufficient physical evidence of a fight, you can't prove it was rape. Not categorically "can't" prove it. I'm claiming it eliminates one of the key pieces of corroborating evidence. Because everyone knows how much fun women have, going to the police station to make a statement, submitting to an invasive rape kit procedure, getting intimate parts of her body photographed, getting tested for STDs, submitting to invasive questions about her sex life and sex partners, etc etc. It's so much fun I would run down to the police station and file a false rape report daily, if I didn't have to work. No wonder we have such an astronomical number of false rape reports.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2015 12:45:08 GMT -5
again- playing devil's advocate: why not "can't"? short of a confession, what is a distinguishing characteristic of rape, legally speaking? Other witnesses testifying to the incapacitated or near-incapacitated state of the victim just prior to the crime. Toxicology, if traceable drugs were used. But generally speaking, your point is sound. Evidence of a struggle is going to be the make or break piece of evidence as to whether sex was consensual or not. At least, it's the only thing I can think of. i wasn't making a point. i was just asking a question. here is another one: what distinguishes between S&M and rape- AGAIN, from a LEGAL standpoint?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2015 12:46:28 GMT -5
But it's probably true. It's like the Cosby thing. When a single woman come forward and describes being invited to his place, drugged, and waking up thinking she was raped. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. When 5 women all describe the exact same MO, the same patterns, the same behaviors, it's much more likely that he actually is a rapist. It's the boy who cried wolf in reverse. As more and more victims come forward making accusations it becomes less and less likely that they're lying. so, i get this. this is the "preponderance of evidence". but how would a SINGLE INDEPENDENT case of rape work?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2015 12:49:08 GMT -5
And the article's case is all but nonexistent. Ms. Lees preemptively kills off her own argument by trivially dismissing all the major contentions of "do fight back". Easily 80% of the rest is hammering the statistic that 88% of rapists are known by their victims. So... you shouldn't fight back if you know the guy? Apparently not. Her only actual argument comes in the form of "[Resistance] can be successful but it can also be life-threatening." Thanks for pointing that out, Ms. Lees. I'd never thought of it unless you'd mentioned it. The reason she wrote the article is precisely the paragraph you honed in on. She's starting with the same jump from 1 to 4 and scraping together a pretext to present her conclusion. She even gets in the quintessentially useless "It is surely time men stopped writing books about how women can resist rape and concentrated on how to stop rape." How, Ms. Lees? Give us some suggestions. Throw out reasonable doubt in rape cases? March topless down main street carrying signs saying "Still not asking for it."? Distribute free copies of your book on university campuses? The woman interviewed a bunch of rape and assault victims to evaluate whether fighting or being passive was the best approach and came up with the answer 'it depends.' I put more faith in an actual study someone did with crime victims than with your highly biased assessment that all women MUST fight their attackers, which you derived from reading books and thinking a lot. Why are you angry with the author for failing to solve the age old question of how to stop men from assaulting and raping women? If that was easy to do wouldn't we have fixed it by now? She's simply making the point that we should stop telling women what they should have done or not done in order to avoid being raped, because that makes them responsible for what happened to them, instead of placing the blame on the criminals. Kind of like lecturing a victim of a mugging that he should have fought back, unless he did and was shot, and then you announce that he should NOT have fought back - obviously. But if he didn't fight back and there was no one to see the guy steal his wallet, then because there was no evidence of a beating, he can't file a claim against the mugger - so once again, he's to blame for allowing himself to be mugged wrong. Maybe instead of telling women the right and wrong way to be victims of rape, we figure out what we can do to stop predatory men. i am starting to think it is actually a LEGAL PROBLEM. in other words, i think our "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard works AGAINST rape victims. it makes it nearly impossible to convict. the next question becomes: how do we fix that?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 3, 2015 13:00:52 GMT -5
It's damn near impossible when it all boils down to consent. Yes there's often evidence of force, but really it boils down to whether the victim consented or not.
There often aren't witnesses so it's essential victim vs attacker. Which is most likely how a lot of the victim blaming started. If it's my word against hers I'm going to make her sound like an easy slut who has sex all the time so it's a no brainer that the slut said yes this time. It's really the perfect (disgusting, horrible) defense, especially back in times where purity and sex were viewed much more black and white.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2015 13:02:41 GMT -5
It's damn near impossible when it all boils down to consent. Yes there's often evidence of force, but really it boils down to whether the victim consented or not. There often aren't witnesses so it's essential victim vs attacker. Which is most likely how a lot of the victim blaming started. If it's my word against hers I'm going to make her sound like an easy slut who has sex all the time so it's a no brainer that the slut said yes this time. It's really the perfect (disgusting, horrible) defense, especially back in times where purity and sex were viewed much more black and white. this is precisely it. if HE says "she said yes", and there are no witnesses- it is OVER. OVER. right? if i am not right- please explain how i am wrong. i REALLY WANT TO BE WRONG.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 3, 2015 13:07:14 GMT -5
Assuming there's also no evidence of force then it's probably one of the many that never make it to trial.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2015 13:17:22 GMT -5
Assuming there's also no evidence of force then it's probably one of the many that never make it to trial. thank you. the reason i am asking this is that it helps explain the graphic posted earlier, right? all a man REALLY has to do is gain enough trust in the person to get them alone, THEN claim that the woman CONSENTED. the woman, knowing that she has no case, just shuts up. if that does not constitute the VAST majority of cases, i can't imagine why not. i really can't. and this is, of course, a terrible thing. do you have any ideas about how to fix it? edit: this also goes a long way to explaining the Ashley Madison website, as well as how difficult the dating scene is.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 3, 2015 13:27:06 GMT -5
Honestly? I don't think much will change unless the vast majority of men realize and truly understand that 1) most rapes are not horrifically violent, in the cuts and broken bones sense, acts done by strangers and 2) consent is an active thing to get.
However, if those to things are achieved I think it would not only improve the odds of justice for reported rapes I think it would decrease the number of rapes from the start.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2015 14:13:04 GMT -5
Honestly? I don't think much will change unless the vast majority of men realize and truly understand that 1) most rapes are not horrifically violent, in the cuts and broken bones sense, acts done by strangers and 2) consent is an active thing to get. However, if those to things are achieved I think it would not only improve the odds of justice for reported rapes I think it would decrease the number of rapes from the start. what about a separate "sex court"? something that was done more like a civil trial- where the defendant, the victim, and a judge would meet to resolve issues? any chance that would work? different standard of evidence, different setting (way more private), etc.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Sept 3, 2015 14:40:21 GMT -5
To what potential end? Jail time, a fine, an apology?
If you're going to take away someone's liberty, there's really no way to get rid of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard without fundamentally changing the Constitution. And as much as I hate the way sex crime victims can be treated by the court system (and public), I can't advocate for that.
To answer the question posed earlier, people can be convicted of rape with no corroborating evidence other than the victim's statement. It's not common, but it is legally possible. The defendant can argue consent and the jury decides who was more credible.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 3, 2015 14:44:34 GMT -5
If I was raped I'd want him named for what he is and punished. Which can only happen in a criminal court. Anything a lesser court could give me wouldn't be worth having to see his face again. Ok, maybe if you get to kick him in the family jewels until you're tired is one of the options I might be ok with it, but I think that'd fall under cruel and unusual punishment.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2015 14:53:58 GMT -5
To what potential end? Jail time, a fine, an apology? RSO list, fine, counseling, permanent restraining order, whatever......If you're going to take away someone's liberty, there's really no way to get rid of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard without fundamentally changing the Constitution. And as much as I hate the way sex crime victims can be treated by the court system (and public), I can't advocate for that. To answer the question posed earlier, people can be convicted of rape with no corroborating evidence other than the victim's statement. It's not common, but it is legally possible. The defendant can argue consent and the jury decides who was more credible. agreed, but what person would assume that risk? seriously. and the cost of making a public display of it is HIGH for women.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2015 14:54:43 GMT -5
If I was raped I'd want him named for what he is and punished. Which can only happen in a criminal court. Anything a lesser court could give me wouldn't be worth having to see his face again. not sure that is true. i had not assumed it was.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 3, 2015 16:09:42 GMT -5
If I was raped I'd want him named for what he is and punished. Which can only happen in a criminal court. Anything a lesser court could give me wouldn't be worth having to see his face again. not sure that is true. i had not assumed it was. ?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2015 16:32:01 GMT -5
not sure that is true. i had not assumed it was. ? i am not sure that a "sex offender court" would be a handslap. i don't know what it would be. i would HOPE that it would result in MORE convictions, or there is no real point in it. how many nasty teeth it had would be up to the court. but i would presume that something would be taken OFF the table to entice perps to use it- maybe jail time? maybe could only be used for first time, non multiple offendors? dunno.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 3, 2015 17:03:29 GMT -5
i am not sure that a "sex offender court" would be a handslap. i don't know what it would be. i would HOPE that it would result in MORE convictions, or there is no real point in it. how many nasty teeth it had would be up to the court. but i would presume that something would be taken OFF the table to entice perps to use it- maybe jail time? maybe could only be used for first time, non multiple offendors? dunno. It'd have to be jail time. Though I guess technically if they waived their right to a jury it could still be a full trial, but I don't know why they would.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 3, 2015 17:12:40 GMT -5
Of course it depends. The point is that we can't guarantee a universally effective strategy a priori, there's no way of making a reasoned judgment call in the heat of the moment (or if there is, Ms. Lees certainly isn't going to tell us what it is), and we have to settle on a one-size-fits all strategy. The overwhelming evidence, which Ms. Lees flippantly dismisses in the space of a paragraph, is that "fight back" is the optimum one-size strategy. This fact doesn't change simply because "just let it happen" may occasionally prove to be a better strategy in retrospect. Seeking shelter underground in a tornado might prove fatal in some circumstances, but that doesn't suddenly make "don't seek shelter" an equally effective strategy. If the crux of some academic's article was "seek shelter or don't seek shelter during a tornado; retrospectively 'it depends'", you'd laugh it straight into the garbage bin. "Hiding in a basement during a tornado could potentially prove fatal." You think, Ms. Lees? I guess it's out in the cow field for me then. Fight back. Especially if you want any hope of convicting the bastard, fight back. That's a great suggestion. And instead of telling car crash victims to buckle up and install car seats correctly, we figure out what we can do to stop cars from crashing into each other. Instead of telling people to never pet strange dogs, we figure out what we can do to stop strange dogs from biting. Instead of telling people to have up-to-date wills, we figure out what we can do to stop people from dying unexpectedly. So what actionable policies should we put into place? Suppose a rape case boils down to "he says, she says" vis a vis consent. There's no evidence of a struggle. No witnesses. The victim has been with multiple sexual partners in her lifetime. She claims he raped her. He claims they had consensual sex, she wanted a relationship, he told her she was a whore, another notch on his bedpost, and she swore she'd make him pay. Do you convict to lock him up for a minor lifetime in prison or not? How about if a woman rapes a man? Again, no evidence or witnesses. He claims he was passed out drunk and she later showed him a video of her rubbing her genitals against his face on an old mobile phone she no longer has. She claims he's fabricating the allegations because she refused to have sex with him. Do you convict to lock her up for a minor lifetime in prison or not? That would be telling women the right and wrong way to be victims of rape. the next question becomes: how do we fix that? It's obvious nobody has a blessed clue, which is why working the problem from the would-be victims' end is so critical.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 11:29:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 17:19:31 GMT -5
I have never put anyone ignore before. But life is too short to read you Virgil. Goodbye.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,104
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2015 18:09:50 GMT -5
i am not sure that a "sex offender court" would be a handslap. i don't know what it would be. i would HOPE that it would result in MORE convictions, or there is no real point in it. how many nasty teeth it had would be up to the court. but i would presume that something would be taken OFF the table to entice perps to use it- maybe jail time? maybe could only be used for first time, non multiple offendors? dunno. It'd have to be jail time. Though I guess technically if they waived their right to a jury it could still be a full trial, but I don't know why they would. why? what does that actually fix?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 3, 2015 19:25:02 GMT -5
I have never put anyone ignore before. But life is too short to read you Virgil. Goodbye.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 11:29:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 20:32:35 GMT -5
Sure there is. If she has a gun to her head for instance, resistance will probably mean instant death. Not a good option.
Take you and the 300 lb thug. If he wants your wallet, and has a gun to your head, will you give it to him, or fight? if he wanted MY wallet, I'd fight... but that's just me. (if he wanted my employers money ONLY {say, I was doing a "night drop", for example... or it was a "stick-up" while at work, and he wanted me to clean out the register...}... that's insured... he can have that.)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 3, 2015 21:04:24 GMT -5
Sure there is. If she has a gun to her head for instance, resistance will probably mean instant death. Not a good option.
Take you and the 300 lb thug. If he wants your wallet, and has a gun to your head, will you give it to him, or fight? if he wanted MY wallet, I'd fight... but that's just me. (if he wanted my employers money ONLY {say, I was doing a "night drop", for example... or it was a "stick-up" while at work, and he wanted me to clean out the register...}... that's insured... he can have that.) With a gun to your head? Wow. Rape is one thing, but no way am I risking my life for the contents of my wallet. If the guy needs it badly enough that he's willing to kill me to get it, he can have it. Likewise, if an armed guy breaks into my home and I can get myself and everyone else out safely, that's my top priority. He's not getting into the safe, and he can have whatever is lying around if he thinks he can carry it out before the police show up. I wouldn't confront an armed attacker unless I was armed, I wouldn't arm myself unless I intended to kill or seriously injure the robber, and I wouldn't kill or seriously injure a robber over a few thousand dollars in material goods. If I can't get away or my wife is at risk, the game changes, but otherwise discretion is the greater part of valour.
|
|