You do realize I said "by itself". Cornering someone is what would be more likely be considered a threatening act.
An important premise that sustains our society is that words to not equate to violence. While it hamstrings the law in instances (like stalkers) where a real threat is present but has not escalated into a physical, tangible issue, it is also what prevents the tough guys doing what they like. As I have said in nearly every single post in this discussion; it's not how these laws would help that one wo/man who is in actual duress, but how it would affect society as a whole. bang on! Things that should be banned because a minority find them threatening: Skateboards Snowboards Surfboards Hoodies Flat brimmed caps baggy jeans Walking in certain ways Black cars Bottles of alcohol many breeds of dog tattoos facial piercings heavy metal hip-hop punk rock studded apparel make-up shaved heads leather jackets motorcycles beards sun glasses BMX's trucks
Well, you might end up cornered even if the aggressor does nothing but speaks to you if you're, e.g. in a corner (be it in the back of a moving bus, a phone booth, where they still exist, a public bathroom, or you're in a situation where you can't run away, like you're changing a busted tire and your kid is in your car). Then again, if someone is fairly close and tells you he's gonna kill you, for example, the pre-emptive attack would still be legal in some countries/areas. "Cornered" might also be the case if you got a broken leg or some other reason why you couldn't ensure your safety by simply leaving. So in that sense, the other guy might put you in a situation where a pre-emptive attack would be justified even if the aggressor does nothing else but talks to you, i.e. verbal harassment by itself.
Sure. That way more obnoxious people can end up dead. And all the killer has to claim is that they felt threatened. Sure will be a lesson that people should keep their mouths shut - and stay out of neighborhoods they don't "belong" in, or not go into stores if they aren't dressed just right, or get a little rowdy after the football game - and heaven forbid a man of the wrong color look at a woman. Yeah, I can see all kinds of neat scenarios - a lot of them already in the news. bolding mine This is what I've been saying all along - it's not the words, it's the situation that creates a threat. And a pre-emptive attack still has to be justified based on what a 'reasonable person' would consider an imminent threat.
Is it possible to have a discussion without getting snarky? Thanks. The rowdy people after a football game. This actually happens in a story of ours. Guys get rowdy and drunk, start harassing and following a young woman (18yo, I think I'd still call her a girl) who's passing them by, they corner her, one starts to throw lewd remarks and suggestions, all these big guys around him, he's saying she should suck him off, unzips his pants, the young woman is scared -- is she gonna be gang-raped? These guys are big, athelete-big -- so she pulls her unregistered gun (purchased after she was physically attacked earlier) and shoots the first guy. Everyone panics, she manages to flee. Later on turns out he died. Based on the laws of Finland, because she stood her ground, she'd be thrown to prison for manslaughter, so for the remainder of the story she has to run from law, aided by a person whose boyfriend she unknowingly killed and who doesn't know this young woman killed him. Did the young woman overreact? Should she go to jail? What should she have done? Certainly she didn't attack that young man because she wanted to ban booze, football games, and rowdy nights out! I think Stand Your Ground -type of laws can have their time and place, while I do understand the controversy and how people could exploit it -- just like us humans can go and exploit anything. Of course it's a tragedy to lose a human life. We can't see into the future, so if one shoots (and even kills) a person pre-emptively, there's no way of telling how things would've turned out if s/he hadn't. Perhaps the potential assailant would've gotten bored and left. Perhaps s/he would've raped and killed. I understand laws can't be changed to serve that one (I daresay it's more than one) wo/man, that they have to consider the needs of the society, but it does feel wrong if and when someone goes to jail for defending themselves.
That wasn't snark - those were examples of how it can be and has been exploited with a bit of sarcasm thrown in. Because I really, really, really hate Stand Your Ground laws. They're excuses to lethally react out of anger/fear/panic instead of using retreat and common sense. Sigh. And again - this is the situation, the physical threat - not the words.
Fair enough, you call it what you want - your words. But we clearly live in very different worlds/cultures. Guess that's life. But words can contain a physical threat... that can lead to a non-verbal reaction... that sometimes seems justified. I'm sensing a quite pointless argument coming concerning semantics. I mean, it's obvious words can't bruise a person. Unless in some other dimension an utterance can take a solid, preferably brick-heavy form and smack the interlocutor in the head. By the way, I think in another thread you advocated punishment for words (the one about teachers spying middle schoolers' FB accounts). I do understand people opposing lethal punishment/reaction against verbal threads... words... utterances... I just think that sometimes situations arise when it feels wrong that a person who ends up hurting a verbal abuser would be sentenced, not the abuser(s), that's all.
See my statements about in-house rules. It's a matter of appropriate reaction. If my son had hit a kid for calling him a name, he would've been punished. It's not an appropriate response. I think adults should have at least the same control as a child.
If she didn't, I would say she is guilty of manslaughter. Fear is no excuse to start shooting people.
Because the guys were so close to her (there were around ten of them, I think), close enough to touch her if they reached for her, that if she had pulled the gun and pointed it at one of them (which would've basically stuffed it against his chest), they would have grabbed the gun and disarmed her before she finished saying "stop," not to mention "or I'll shoot." These situations can change awfully quick. At which point do you think she should've taken off the safety? Aren't laws the in-house rules of a country/area? And it's not about losing control. If a guy comes up to me and tells me he's gonna kill me and rape my wife, I would choose to drop him pre-emptively. Btw, I've seen a lot of kids who've ended up with lots of mental problems/great difficulties dealing with social situations after they were bullied for years and years in school. All of those kids were the kind who just sat there quietly, taking the verbal abuse (when they couldn't leave the situation, e.g. if it happened during class). More than once I saw the bullies follow one of those kids after school, continuing the verbal harassment. Now, I'm not saying violence is always the answer, but I believe there is a limit to what a person should take (meaning verbal abuse). It could be milder abuse spanning a long time, or a single incident of more threatening (verbal) harassment. I was bullied until I put a stop to it. It didn't require cutting off heads or spilling guts. A couple of small bruises and a swollen cheek did the trick. That ended three years of bullying. Of course those guys were pissy about it for a while, but they never bullied me again, and after a year or so, we even became friends (not good ones, but still). Over the years I've met quite a few guys who've gone through a similar experience as I did, with similar results once they took action. Teachers never did anything. Not anything that produced results anyway, since teachers have been stripped of any real power to protect kids from other kids. Parents never did anything useful either, and what kind of a kid would want to hide behind their mother anyway? Those whose parents did come to the school and make a big deal about putting an end to the teasing, did more harm than good. Once the parents and teachers were gone, the bullies retaliated. One kid (one of those who just took all the abuse in silence) eventually changed schools, was bullied there too, and at 14, quit school altogether because of a mental breakdown caused by the constant bullying everyone knew about. But I guess he did the right thing, and I'm the embodiment of evil for answering physically to verbal harassment. That's the kind of reality I've lived in. Maybe you live in a gentler environment or have been lucky enough to fly under the bullies' radar? Regardless, I believe words can contain a threat of physical violence, even if the antagonist does nothing else but speaks the words. Then again, the recipient of those words can't be expected to be a mind-reader... or? So how is, say, a lone woman/girl/female supposed to guess whether the guy is going to rape her or if he's just having a laugh at her expense? Sometimes a guy can say he's just joking and use that to mentally disarm his victim before he grabs her and rapes her. Sometimes he can mean it and is really just messing around with her. So, in a situation like that, where the threat of physical violence is expressed with just words (perhaps even only vaguely), how should the intended victim guess if the guy is going to act on those words? Should she wait to find out? Should she let the guy rape her just so the next time she knows that specific guy will act on his words? And if another guy harasses her verbally, she has to again find out first-hand if he's being serious or not? Or should she take pre-emptive action in case he is going to act? Perhaps she should visit Russia and ask their intelligence agencies for some psychic 101 lessons?
No. In-house rules are set by private institutions on their own property. Laws are set for the entire country, and can do more than simply expelling you.
Sorry, I worded my question badly. I was wondering if laws couldn't be seen as a large scale version of in-house rules, everything is just bigger and more complex than, say, a school's rules, but the basic principle is the same: there's a limited area (the country/state/area vs. a school/a business), a limited group of people (the citizens vs. students/employees), those who govern the area and peole (the government vs. teachers and the princple and his/her office workers/the owner of the business, the bosses), and those who enforce the rules (law enforcement/the military vs. again, teachers etc). From that standpoint, laws could be seen as something akin to in-house rules, and I was wondering is it really so different when considered in the context of this discussion.
There is a fundamental difference between what an individual has the right to prohibit on their property and what the government can prohibit regardless of property. For instance, you may think gum is bad and disgusting. When you start your own health-spa, you can put up a rule that says: "DON'T CHEW GUM!" A government could never make such a law. Laws, unlike in-house rules, are not meant to make a moral or healthy populace; they are meant to punish (notice I didn't say stop) immoral behaviour. The scales are entirely different. A nice private school might make rules to enforce courtesy, including prohibiting rude catcalling, but a government shouldn't do anything of the sort (I am offended by charitiable deductions).
In-house rules, rules within institutions, can go further than laws of a country, but are still restricted by the laws of the country. If an institution has an in-house rule that says teachers, for example, can beat a child for backtalk, the law of the country will say they can't. It's not appropriate. If the in-house rules say the teacher can put the kid in detention, the law of the country will say they can. That is appropriate. As to bullying - again, that's not one instance of bad behavior. Bullying is continual harassment on a personal level. It is not some kid saying "You stink!" as they pass on the playground. It's that kid following another, saying nasty things over and over, possibly making physical contact - yeah, been there, done that. Same with my son. Totally different things. I can only go back to the road rage example. Someone cuts you off, makes you worry that it could have caused an accident, that you could have been hurt if that had happened - does that give you the right to shoot them? To race after them and force them off the road, then beat the crap out of them? No. Adults are expected to react in proportion to the threat presented. Words, by themselves, do not present a threat. Given the surroundings, the situation, any words can be threatening. But it depends entirely on the context.
I'm puzzled here. I thought that 'stand your ground' laws were laws that said that you didn't have a duty to retreat. But you say that this woman was cornered, so she didn't have the _opportunity_ to retreat. Is this really a stand your ground situation? I realize that that may not be particularly relevant to the debate anyway, I'm just puzzled. I think that this could be an overreaction, or it could be a perfectly straightforward self-defense situation. I lean toward the second. But it's certainly not, IMO, a "just words" situation. It's absolutely action, not expression, that she's responding to.
The law of self defense is country-specific. The laws in the US differ from the laws of other common law countries and very much so from civil law countries. So, when we are describing what the law is, just be clear on which jurisdiction we are talking about. My own country's law for example requires imminent threat (words wont suffice), subjectively assessed, and with a requirement of proportionality. As to the the purpose of law. It is to ensure that society operates as a society - i.e. to avoid anarchy. People's views on how far into the moral realm that extends will differ; in the US for instance, most people believe the government has no (or very limited) place telling people how to morally live. Other cultures (Europe, for instance) are not as hard lined. Life is one big grey area, its no wonder that law is too.
Sorry, this still all sounds ivory tower to me. First off, what sort of girl in a situation like that could maintain the composure to withdraw her gun and shoot a person right in the chest, presumably never having done so before? This is not a realistic person (this applies to males as well). If the person was trained to do this, then one would hope she would have had the foresight to avoid having ten big guys get close enough to her, where her only option would be to shoot the closest guy without warning. The whole argument smells of idealistic thinking. Let's look at this practically. If a woman were allowed to defend herself as previously suggested, what's more likely to happen, the scenario described above, which require Sigourney Weaver, or.... A nervous girl, most likely a 5 or less, deluded into thinking every other guy is hitting on her, in an attempt to shield herself from the reality that no guy is into her, is walking home one night from the library, and some big hapless jock happens to walk too close to her, probably because he doesn't even notice her. The girl, seeing someone big behind her, and being oblivious to social norms and slightly unstable and or sexually frustrated, decides to turn around and tase or shoot him, because its legal? I think we all know girls who are like the latter (at least in U.S) . I certainly do. Now, philosophically speaking, I think your original question has merit. I'm not going to commit to any answer, but I definitely agree it is very possible that the girl in your practically impossible situation could be considered morally correct. I
I assume that this "I want people to see me as a desirable target for crime" theory applies to other crimes, too? A nervous guy, probably minimum wage, deluded into thinking that everyone wants his money, in order to shield himself from the reality that he has none, is walking home one night from the McDonald's. Some big hapless panhandler happens to walk too close to him, probably because he doesn't even notice him. The guy, seeing someone behind him, and being obvlivious to social norms and slightly unstable and or frustrated because no one ever begs him for money, decides to turn around and tase or shoot him, because it's legal? No. Just no, to both your scenario and mine.
I get those differences between in-house vs. laws. What I was getting at is, that there already are some laws in quite a few countries that do match some of the most common in-house rules. That being said, introducing a law similar to some other common in-house rule, would have precedent. Of course no law ever prevents anything, but I was just wondering if it would be a good idea to decriminalize certain things in order to give people more liberties when it comes to self-defense. Many people (such as yourself, I would imagine) would likely feel such a change would bring more bad than good whereas I (and many people) think the good would outweigh the bad. But I suppose we've arrived to an "agree to disagree"-standstill. My point about bullying is that sometimes some words can cause more long-term problems than some forms of physical violence, and that sometimes some forms of physical violence can prevent a much bigger problem, you know, choosing the lesser evil based on an educated guess, if you will. As for the roadrage example, I don't think it's suitable here, because following someone/chasing them in order to force a stop to beat them up is much closer to revenge than self-defense because the threat has passed long since you'd get to beat up the other guy. In the examples I've given, the threat of physical violence was still current. Yeah, she is a realistic person. To quote you: "Hey, I've met people like the girl I described. What do you want me to say?" One woman shot a guy who harassed her at the parking lot of her work place (it was deemed a justified shooting by the court), one girl stabbed two guys on two separate occasions (one was pre-emptive self-defense, the other self-defense from a rape attempt, both deemed justified). And I know a bunch of guys who've used physical violence (some lethal) in such situations (some justified, some not). So yeah, I'd argue she's a realistic person. And no, you don't need years of spec ops training in a secret government facility or even regular training, just the attitude that you'd rather hurt someone else before you allowed them to hurt you. As I've already said a few times in this thread, I know self-defense laws that give more leeway to the defender could and would be abused. I just believe the good would still outweigh the bad.
I'm guessing that they didn't actually shoot anyone? You seem to be assuming that an unattractive woman is unlikely to be sexually harassed or raped. It doesn't work that way. Sure, I'm sure that there are people who think that they're being harassed when they're not. I'm sure that there are people who think that someone's trying to steal from them when they're not. And people who think that that dog that's napping pleasantly in the sun is about to attack them. Delusional people exist. Misunderstandings exist. Cops have fired on people who were reaching for something that turned out not to be a gun. But a woman who's being followed too closely by a man in an isolated area after dark does have every reason to be concerned. That doesn't give her the right to fire a gun without clearer evidence of threat, any more than a man being followed by a man that he thinks is a mugger has the right to fire. But it is a piece of evidence to weigh into her evaluation of the threat potential of the situation, and whether she's attractive or not is _not_ evidence of any substance, because, again, that has little to nothing to do with her risk of being raped.
Wait a minute, I'm talking about someone who will straight out shoot with no warning, no questions asked at a person who has not attacked him/her. Did the woman at the parking lot give a warning, first? What about the knifer? Obviously the rape occasion is something else.
Bullying in any form can cause long-term problems. But I was pointing out the difference between the occasional spat between people and actual bullying. Catcalls fall into the former - an occasional thing that isn't directed at one person in paritcular (ie, it's not personal). Bullying would be if that group of people watched for the one person every day - and in that case, I believe there are remedies available other than direct confrontation - like contacting the business owners. I do think this whole idea of self-defense is missing one major point - just because one can doesn't mean one will prevail. Weapons can be turned against us; the offender can be more skilled in fighting. Responding to catcalls could put one in actual danger.
It's been a few years since I talked about the incidents with them (try almost 10), but if my memory serves me right, the first knifing (not the rape attempt) happened when the guy approached the girl outside her uni campus at night while verbally harassing her (words had sexual content). The shooting incident was a bit different: she spotted the guy making a beeline towards her in the parking lot, he was wearing a hood so a part of his face was hidden, and he didn't respond to her question about what he wanted or some such. One factor that possibly played a part in the situation was that she had been raped not long before and at the time there was another rapist prowling the area. I can't remember the exact details that led to the shooting being deemed justified. So yeah, I've met people who'd shoot/knife someone who harassed them without even touching them. Obviously none of them would've shot some random bypasser just for shits and giggles; they did have their reasons (some legally justified, some not). EDIT: That's why it's a bad idea to carry a weapon unless you train its use and prepare yourself for self-defense scenarios mentally and physically so that when the situation does arise, you're ready, and the other guy should be a ninja to be able to disarm you.
