I never said she should shoot every approaching male on the assumption he is a rapist. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 08/09/2012 12:54:05 PM
I suppose I'd manage to feel much more sorry for her if she just shot him in self defense, didn't cut his fucking head off and would stop rambling about honor. Makes me sick.
Meh, like I said, he was already dead (and she claims she only fired the fatal shot when she saw him reaching for his own gun) so decapitation was no more than desecrating a corpse. I would think/hope that covered by a Turkish analogue to "heat of passion" or "temporary insanity if he had really been raping her for months.
IF her claims are true (which may difficult to prove at this stage,) I must agree with her lawyer: A woman should have every legal right to shoot someone she sees approaching her home to rape her at gunpoint (yet again.) Likewise, if he reaches for his own gun after she does so, she should have every legal right to finish him off before he draws it. At worst I could not justify charging her with anything more than desecrating her rapists corpse. As to whether she should be able to abort her rapists baby at five months, perhaps the less I say the better. One this is certain though: If capital punishment is any deterrent at all, news of a rapist being shot, then shot in the crotch and killed, then decapitated and left in the city square ought to make rape far less common in Turkey for a while.
A woman should be trialed for self defense and get away rather easily in such a case. But she should not "have every legal right to shoot someone she sees approaching her"! What is this, the middle ages?
Yes in this case, he did it over and over again for months and there was the point where she struck back. Understandable and forgivable, but her right? No. What if she shot him just before his first attack? "Yes, officer, I know he was about to rape me". Or maybe he wasn't. Where do you draw the line? You're talking about everyone taking punishment in their own hands and according to what they think will happen.
And you should know better than think that his horrible death is any deterrent for any other rapists out there. Do you honestly think they watch the news and go "Oh boy, I don't want that to happen to me, I better fight my urges, then..." Those people are sick, no deterrent will ever stop them. They have to get trialed and locked away for as long as they are a threat, no more, no less.
Makes me sick how often vigilante actions get applause lately.
I hope the woman gets a fair trial, a fitting punishment and stops ranting about honor, as if such a thing existed or mattered in such a case. I don't blame her for checking into the possibility of the abortion, though.
You, um, kind of cut off the critical final part of my sentence, which significantly qualified the rest: "A woman should have every legal right to shoot someone she sees approaching her home to rape her at gunpoint (yet again.)" Not whomever walks up to her on the street, but someone entering her home after he had done so and raped her at gunpoint, not just once, but repeatedly, for half a year. If (and it is impossible to be sure at this point,) the facts are as she states, it is hard to dispute she was within her rights to shoot him, and fatally shoot him when she saw him reaching for his own gun. If his corpse has a gun with his fingerprints on it, I would be inclined to believe her account of events. That makes it self defense, not vigilantism; the former (which I wholly support) precludes the latter (which I wholly condemn.)
Incidentally, that covers castle doctrine as well; it is not some vigilante death penalty for trespassing. As I said to Cannoli, even if I conceded the validity of a duty to retreat, anyone in their home has already retreated as far as they have any obligation to retreat and, far more importantly, as far as they reasonably can. When a stranger forcibly enters a home uninvited, it is reasonable to think they are not just dropping by for tea, and probably brought a means to deal with the great likelihood the home is occupied by someone inclined to resist them. Consequently, resisting with lethal force is no more than self defense, again not vigilantism. I can understand the expectation someone who gets the drop on an intruder will simply order them to leave, but if that opportunity does not exist, or if the intruder takes a threatening act, shooting them is entirely legitimate.
Think of it this way: If her being raped is plausible enough to justify her killing the fetus (even though most people would agree a fetus is almost certainly a baby at five months,) surely it is at least plausible enough to justify killing her rapist in self defense. Had he "merely" raped her once, with no stated intent to do it again, and she went to his house and killed him, THAT would be vigilantism. She claims he had repeatedly raped her, threatening to shoot HER if she told anyone, and was coming back for more; that makes shooting him self defense. If he were only coming by for a cup of tea he would not need to climb a wall while carrying a gun.