(Untitled)

[novapsyche]

Homeowner: 'She says don't shoot me I am pregnant...I shot her anyway'

Nurse won't prescribe birth control, sues because she didn't get a job that requires prescribing birth control

#WomenAgainstFeminism Is Happening Now

Alabama man sues, claiming penis amputated instead of circumcised

This entry posted originally at Dreamwidth Studios. You

Comments

[gwendally]

I dislike that he shot when they were fleeing, but her assertion that she was pregnant doesn't change a thing to me.

They attacked him. The gun is the only reason they stopped.

[novapsyche]

Well, considering that they fled the man's home & he shot the woman in an alley (in the back), I am not inclined to give him any benefit of the doubt, especially after he had time to have this verbal exchange with the woman & decided against giving her any leeway whatsoever.

Once they left his abode, he had no legal protection against aggression. Surely, you & I agree upon this?

[gwendally]

If you chase after a fleeing person and shoot them in the back, that's murder.

But imagine if you have just been raped in your home. You are hurt and violated and scared they will come back. He responded while in that state of mind.

The news articles are all hooking on her purported pregnancy (I just read that the autopsy shows she was NOT pregnant) but that is totally immaterial to me.

If a man jumped me in my living room and then claimed he was the sole support of his children I would just be hearing him explain why he'd be back to do it again.

[novapsyche]

I'm not even basing my approbation upon her claim that she was pregnant. (However, if someone had said that to me, whether it was true or untrue, it would have given me pause.)

It's the fact that he left his property to pursue these folks. It's the fact that he had this exchange with the woman & had time to contemplate what he was doing. That is absolutely first-degree murder territory.

[gwendally]

Nope, sorry, it's no where near first degree territory. He had at least one broken bone from the attack. He's scared they're going to come back. He is 80 years old, attacked in his own home, and his "chase" was no more than a few seconds.

This is like the guy beating his son's rapist. Overcharge him and he walks away scott free.

Personally, I think he just bought the entire neighborhood some herd immunity from home invasions. The criminals will think twice before they try to attack and old guy - he might be armed.

There is every reason to think that they would have killed him. As it is, they put him in the hospital.

I'm so adamantly pro-choice that I do not feel it is my job to defend a fetus from her mother. If the mother is doing something ill-advised for the safety of her fetus, that's on her.

[novapsyche]

Once they left his abode, he had no legal protection against aggression. Surely, you & I agree upon this?

Apparently this is untrue.

[gwendally]

He has no legal PROTECTION, but neither did the guy beating his son's rapist. It's really similar: he opens himself up for some sort of situational-emotion-mitigated charge - third degree manslaughter or something - but it's really tough to charge him with this.

Do this. Imagine that this was two rapists breaking into your house and attacking you. They only leave because you have a gun. You have every reason to think they'll come back to get you later. You are chasing them out the door (bullets were fired in the house, too) and STEP OUTSIDE during this confrontation.

Are you okay in shooting your rapist?

No, you're not okay. But charging you with first degree murder would be a travesty.

Old people are frail and feel vulnerable. The attack in his home is exactly equivalent to being raped. He fought back and isn't dead. I'm not that sad that he killed his attacker.

Are you?

[dionysus1999]

So much for the value of human life. Funny, my mother taught me two wrongs don't make a right.

[gwendally]

"I dislike that he shot when they were fleeing"

This means that I'm not in favor of him doing this. I don't think it was right.

Overcharge him and he walks away scott free."

This means I think he deserves to be charged with some lesser charge than first degree murder. There are significant mitigating circumstances that call for mercy when an 80 year old shoots his attacker seconds after being attacked.

"Are you okay in shooting your rapist?

No, you're not okay."

It's not okay to shoot people. It is not RIGHT to shoot people. It is a CRIME to shoot people.

That said, sometimes the law conflicts with human behavior in significant ways. This is one of the times. At times like this, on the margins like this, you use mercy and judgment rather than strict reading of the rule of law.

Or do you disagree? Do you think the guy should be charged with first degree murder and incarcerated until he's dead?

[novapsyche]

Actually, many states extend the castle doctrine to include extensions to one's home (patio, deck, e&).

He was in an alleyway.

By the by, I don't see why you have to keep making this about rape. This isn't about rape. These were two burglars burgling when the homeowner came home unawares. That's when it switched over to home invasion & when the scuffle happened that broke the man's collarbone.

I don't wish a broken bone on anyone. But a broken bone does not equal deadly violence with a gun. (And it's not the equivalent of rape, either. [Even if it were, that still would not justify shooting someone to death in revenge!])

Aggravated assault & battery, breaking & entering, theft, all of these would have earned these fools some prison time but none rise to the level of capital punishment.

[gwendally]

I agree that aggravated assault should not receive the death penalty. A sober jury and wise judge would not levy that in cold blood

[novapsyche]

fighting back with deadly force when attacked is something that is a known risk of aggravated assault.

Yes, when danger is imminent. We can both agree that someone fleeing from you is no longer a danger, can we not?

The whole "they might come back" response is not applicable. After the criminals run for their lives, you pick up the phone & let the police track them down. You let the system do what it's supposed to.

As for the rape "metaphor", it's a bad one. It's not like I don't live in a home & can't get attacked while here. Let's keep the crimes commensurate.

[gwendally]

They are EXACTLY commensurate. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

Both are being physically assaulted in ways that harm you irreparably where you are uniquely vulnerable.

Have you had much interaction with octogenarian men before? I couldn't even make JOKES with my FIL anymore about his frailty. I once said, as I pushed him in a wheelchair, "don't worry, I won't push you down those stairs." His reaction astonished me. He really WAS worried I'd push him down those stairs. Not because I was evil, but because he was so vulnerable to any injury from any assailant, and they appeared to be everywhere lurking.

Point is, they are the same in terms of how they affect the victim. That's what I'm telling you. Imagine it was rape. Would you change your attitude any in that case?

[novapsyche]

They are EXACTLY commensurate. That's what I'm trying to tell you.

If that's where you're drawing the line in the sand, then I can't help you.

We all become frail. We all are vulnerable in some way. A guy could break into my house while I'm here and rape me. I'd rather the guy just come into my house & take my stuff.

The two crimes are not the same. AT ALL.

And no, I already said, neither crime rises to the level of the death penalty.

I can't believe you're being this obdurate. Old white men get a pass at murder because they broke a bone in a scuffle? No. Just no.

[novapsyche]

P.S. I deleted your duplicate comment. Nothing nefarious, just to let you know.