MNGunTalk.com

Holland&Holland wrote:

Lumpy wrote:Sadly, women have been (figuratively) getting the shaft on self-defense shootings involving rape, with courts consistently ruling that once a rapist succeeds, shooting him is revenge not defense.

Would they prefer we cut their balls off and let them bleed out?

I would

Lumpy wrote:Sadly, women have been (figuratively) getting the shaft on self-defense shootings involving rape, with courts consistently ruling that once a rapist succeeds, shooting him is revenge not defense.

Seems reasonable to suggest that it's preemptive defense of the otherwise inevitable next victim.

Lumpy wrote:Sadly, women have been (figuratively) getting the shaft on self-defense shootings involving rape, with courts consistently ruling that once a rapist succeeds, shooting him is revenge not defense.

I've heard the argument made that rape/ sexual assault does not meet the 'death, or great bodily harm' condition to justify deadly force.

xd ED wrote:

Lumpy wrote:Sadly, women have been (figuratively) getting the shaft on self-defense shootings involving rape, with courts consistently ruling that once a rapist succeeds, shooting him is revenge not defense.

I've heard the argument made that rape/ sexual assault does not meet the 'death, or great bodily harm' condition to justify deadly force.

Whoever makes that statement should volunteer to be raped if they truly believe that.

Holland&Holland wrote:

xd ED wrote:

Lumpy wrote:Sadly, women have been (figuratively) getting the shaft on self-defense shootings involving rape, with courts consistently ruling that once a rapist succeeds, shooting him is revenge not defense.

I've heard the argument made that rape/ sexual assault does not meet the 'death, or great bodily harm' condition to justify deadly force.

Whoever makes that statement should volunteer to be raped if they truly believe that.

Agreed, but even absent that, in lots of states, it's also legal to use deadly force to stop the commission of a "forcible felony," a category which rape definitely falls into.

xd ED wrote:

Lumpy wrote:Sadly, women have been (figuratively) getting the shaft on self-defense shootings involving rape, with courts consistently ruling that once a rapist succeeds, shooting him is revenge not defense.

I've heard the argument made that rape/ sexual assault does not meet the 'death, or great bodily harm' condition to justify deadly force.

It does if I'm sitting on the jury.

andrewP wrote:
Agreed, but even absent that, in lots of states, it's also legal to use deadly force to stop the commission of a "forcible felony," a category which rape definitely falls into.

Would that include Minnesota, with regards to the actions of a private citizen, (as opposed to a LEO); using deadly force in defense of another?

As I heard it argued, in Minnesota, one of the definitions of 'great bodily harm' is a permanent injury.
Mind you this is not my argument, rather one that contains a thread of logic within.

xd ED wrote:As I heard it argued, in Minnesota, one of the definitions of 'great bodily harm' is a permanent injury.
Mind you this is not my argument, rather one that contains a thread of logic within.

Contracting AIDS meets the definition of "great bodily harm", and the standard is would a "reasonable person" perceive a threat.

jdege wrote:

xd ED wrote:As I heard it argued, in Minnesota, one of the definitions of 'great bodily harm' is a permanent injury.
Mind you this is not my argument, rather one that contains a thread of logic within.

Contracting AIDS meets the definition of "great bodily harm", and the standard is would a "reasonable person" perceive a threat.

Would it be?
When was the last time someone succumbed to AIDS in MN?
Given the odds, whatever they currently are: Is it reasonable to believe there is a great threat of contracting AIDS, and dying from it?
Further, I believe MN law has language including the word 'Immediate" , with regard to the threat.
I doubt the threat of being spit on would be considered justification for shooting someone, yet there is a possibility of contracting all manner of fatal, infectious diseases.

xd ED wrote:Would that include Minnesota, with regards to the actions of a private citizen, (as opposed to a LEO); using deadly force in defense of another?

I am not certain, which is why I did not specifically claim that was true here in MN.

xd ED wrote:Further, I believe MN law has language including the word 'Immediate" , with regard to the threat.

Immediate with regard to the threat, not with regard to the harm.

Don't get me wrong - I don't doubt that some lawyer, somewhere, might try this argument. I don't see it convincing a jury.

jdege wrote:

xd ED wrote:Further, I believe MN law has language including the word 'Immediate" , with regard to the threat.

Immediate with regard to the threat, not with regard to the harm.

Don't get me wrong - I don't doubt that some lawyer, somewhere, might try this argument. I don't see it convincing a jury.

Having finally gotten called for jury duty the first time in my life a few years ago, and spending 2 days in the same room as a bunch of potential jurors, I would never assume what a jury might conclude.

And don't get me wrong. I'm only trying to poke holes in what seems to be a potential weak part of the law.

Lumpy wrote:Sadly, women have been (figuratively) getting the shaft on self-defense shootings involving rape, with courts consistently ruling that once a rapist succeeds, shooting him is revenge not defense.

Either interpretation works for me.