If ** I ** were invaded....

Former Member

(Unlimited?) Aggression seems to be the order of the day if "we/my country" were invaded (as seen on a similar thread).Would you apply those same principles to the individual who is "territorially" invaded?

seeker

Former Member

seeker wrote:

(Unlimited?) Aggression seems to be the order of the day if "we/my country" were invaded (as seen on a similar thread).Would you apply those same principles to the individual who is "territorially" invaded?

seeker

Yes, and then as a test of consistency, would you apply the same principles to the Palestinians?


:eek:

Former Member

.

Former Member

girl with sharp teeth wrote:

It depends if you are meaning trespass on property or rape.

Would you not say that rape is a trespass on your most valuable property ?

seeker

Former Member

seeker wrote:

Would you not say that rape is a trespass on your most valuable property ?

seeker

Yes. But what is your point?

Former Member

Not absolutely what is emant by the question. But if you mean should women be able to defend themselves from rape (including killing the attempted rapist) then the answer is yes.

If you mean should I be able to kill someone because they are in my 'personal space' the answer is no.

Former Member

.

Former Member

girl with sharp teeth wrote:

You think it's justifiable for a woman to kill someone because she thinks she is going to be raped?

Yes - if someone is attacking her and she fears that she is going to be raped I think she's justified in using any self-defence neccessary.

Former Member

bongbudda wrote:

Yes. But what is your point?

I don't think he has one.

Former Member

seeker wrote:

(Unlimited?) Aggression seems to be the order of the day if "we/my country" were invaded (as seen on a similar thread).Would you apply those same principles to the individual who is "territorially" invaded?

seeker

Define the "territory" and I can answer...

Former Member

NQA wrote:

Yes - if someone is attacking her and she fears that she is going to be raped I think she's justified in using any self-defence neccessary.

:banghead:

When will people realise that THIS IS ALREADY THE CASE.

If you REASONABLY suspect that you will be attacked, or you are being attacked, then you can use REASONABLE force to protect yourself. You can't shoot someone who is running away from you- the whole crux of murderer martin's case- but if someone is waving a gun at you saying they will shoot you, for example, then you are entitled to do what is necessary to defend yourself.

The defence of self-defence is perfectly adequate as it is, no matter how much the right-wing try to witter on about how "the criminals" are "mollycoddled" by the justice system.

ETA: to compare rape with terms of property is highly mysognystic. Not that I'd expect anything better fro you, given the other posts you've made.

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

Define the "territory" and I can answer...

I`ll go with your property(including your most valuable property,your body)

seeker

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

:banghead:

When will people realise that THIS IS ALREADY THE CASE.

If you REASONABLY suspect that you will be attacked, or you are being attacked, then you can use REASONABLE force to protect yourself. You can't shoot someone who is running away from you- the whole crux of murderer martin's case- but if someone is waving a gun at you saying they will shoot you, for example, then you are entitled to do what is necessary to defend yourself.

The defence of self-defence is perfectly adequate as it is, no matter how much the right-wing try to witter on about how "the criminals" are "mollycoddled" by the justice system.

ETA: to compare rape with terms of property is highly mysognystic. Not that I'd expect anything better fro you, given the other posts you've made.

Not quite sure what you're on about. I know the law on self defence. I was pointing out that I feel its justified if a woman is about to be raped that she uses any force which is neccessary to stop herself being raped - up to and including killing the rapist. It doesn't mean she has to kill him or if that after kicking him in the balls she's then justified in beating him to death with a brick.

Nor was I comparing rape with crime against property. I suggest you may want to read what I wrote.

And I'm not sure how Martin got into this conversation. I think my only comments was that manslaughter was possibly fair verdict on the grounds of diminshed responsibility - not that he was justified in shooting someone in the back and leaving him to bleed to death.

Former Member

I was referring to seeker with the comments about property, should've made that clearer.

Lethal force is still valid, if it is reasonable to use it. So what's your point?

Former Member

Kermit wrote:

Lethal force is still valid, if it is reasonable to use it. So what's your point?

That lethal force is valid if its reasonable to stop yourself being raped.

Former Member

NQA wrote:

That lethal force is valid if its reasonable to stop yourself being raped.

Glad you, me and the law agree.

Though a woman can't kill unless it's happening, I don't think.

Former Member

My understanding is that she has to have a reasonable belief she is about to be raped - but it doesn't need to have started.

Someone running up behind you is not a 'reasonable' reason*, but if someone has grabbed you from behind it is reasonable. Penetration doesn't need to have started, nor does the assailant need to look like he's sexually aroused. At least that used to be the law in Northern Ireland and I assume its similar in England.

* though if you see a single woman walking in the dark I would say its politeness to cross to the other side of the road.

Former Member

seeker wrote:

I`ll go with your property(including your most valuable property,your body)

Material goods should never be put ahead of human life IMHO.

But, although my body is not a possession, retaining my life is worth killing for. Bit of a stupid question if you ask me.

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

Material goods should never be put ahead of human life IMHO.

But, although my body is not a possession, retaining my life is worth killing for. Bit of a stupid question if you ask me.

This may seem a stupid question if I ask you,but I`m going to.If your body is not a possession then would you mind if anyone/everyone utilised it as they see fit? (As long as they don`t take your life of course)

seeker

Former Member

It's not a possession in the sense that I don't own it and I can't sell it (and still retain my freedom). It is in essenence *me*. Unless you can find somehwre else for my conscience being to reside.

Oh, and some one else does use it, but only with my permission, in the sense that I work for a living.

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

It's not a possession in the sense that I don't own it and I can't sell it (and still retain my freedom). It is in essenence *me*. Unless you can find somehwre else for my conscience being to reside.

Oh, and some one else does use it, but only with my permission, in the sense that I work for a living.

What then,specifically,do you think would cause you to lose the freedom of your body?

seeker

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

Material goods should never be put ahead of human life IMHO.

But, although my body is not a possession, retaining my life is worth killing for. Bit of a stupid question if you ask me.

Man of kent,

You have made a distinction,above,between human life and material goods.This is a quote from you on the "If we were invaded" thread:

But in answer, yes I would fight. How could I ever look my children in the eyes again if I didn't defend their future?

Would you say your "country" was more human life than material goods? What about anyone else?

seeker