How to deal with a forcible rape?

[Thernlund]

Anywhere is pretty big. Is Colorado included in anywhere? I ask because I find this:

(1) Any actor who knowingly subjects another not his or her spouse to any sexual contact commits sexual assault on a child if the victim is less than fifteen years of age and the actor is at least four years older than the victim.

in the Colorado Revised Statutes.
I believe that some states allow closeness in age to be used as a defense in court, and some have an actual exemption written into the law.

The statute you cite defines assault, which is a more egregious breech of the law than contact and has harsher penalties. Sexual contact with a minor, no matter the age of the perpetrator, is still illegal.

See the section before the one you cite. 18-3-404. Unlawful sexual contact, item 1.5.


-T.

EDIT: I have two teenage daughters (one of which is now 18). Believe me, I've scoured the books for a way I could legally shoot their boyfriends. Of course, I wouldn't do that. But it's good to let them (the boyfriends) know that I at least think I'll be in the clear if I do. All the better if I can point to a law that says so.

 

[ScottyT]

In Utah it is perfectly legal to use deadly force to stop a forcible felony, like rape, but you have to act based on the specific situation. I would at the very least draw and order the perp to stop and get on the ground, holding him at gunpoint until the cops show up. If they are just rough exhibitionists they also need to have a visit from LEO, but maybe not a .45 in the chest.

Obviously if the girl is bloodied and her husband is lying dead on the ground next to her, you would want to put the bastard down the second you can get a safe shot off.

In my CCW class I was the armed citizen in a role playing scenario where, as I came out of work at night, my female coworker was being attacked in the pitch black parking lot (the instructor actually turned out all the lights). I drew and moved closer, which was stupid! I learned how fast someone with a knife can cover those 7 yards! I got a knife in my gut (not really, of course) and failed the training exercise, but I learned a valuable lesson. Maintain distance, keep weapon at ready, gain control of the situation....

 

[Tim Burke]

See ... item 1.5

Item 1.5 seems to require a third person.

 

[Thernlund]

Item 1.5 seems to require a third person.

I would argue that if it did, it would say "a third party". But that would be a matter for court, eh?


-T.

 

[another okie]

I didn't know what Oklahoma's law was, so I looked it up.

Oklahoma has a weird statutory rape law that gives 16 as the age, but then says that if the victim is at least 14 and the aggressor is under 18, it's not rape. So that's sort of a four year provision.

I might be reading it wrong, so you're welcome to check it yourself, it's Oklahoma statutes 21, sections 1112 and 1114 (you have to read both sections to figure out how they work together.)

 

[Thernlund]

As far a the definition of rape, you may be right. But I've never seen anything in any state that made any sexual conduct with a minor legal under any circumstances outside of marriage.

It occurs to me that this is straying way off topic. Behh.


-T.

 

[Tim Burke]

It lists 3 parties, the child, the other person, and the actor:

Any person who knowingly, with or without sexual contact, induces or coerces a child by any of the means set forth in section 18-3-402 to expose intimate parts or to engage in any sexual contact, intrusion, or penetration with another person, for the purpose of the actor's own sexual gratification, commits unlawful sexual contact.

Clearly this law is intended to cover pedophiles that restrict their activities to watching. This is not the law which covers statutory rape.

 

[Thernlund]

Sorry I brought it up.


-T.

 

[SomeKid]

First, is she special to you (related for example)?

Do you know without a shadow of a doubt she did not say yes, then change her mind after they got going?

If either of the above is no, then you should walk away, and maybe call the police if you feel so inclined. Women lobbied for equality, so let them have it. I don't step in when two guys are fighting, I don't step in when women fight. They have their equality, let them protect themselves.

 

[mekender]

Is that her 19 year old boyfriend or her 19 boyfriends. If the latter, you need an extra mag?

17+1... leaves one left alive to tell the tale :-D

Well, if any of you see my girlfriend raping me, PLEASE don't shoot her.

i will cheer her on for ya... might even take some pictures


me, if i came across something like this, i would be really hesitant to shoot firs and ask questions later... i would say that the best course would be to ensure that the situation really was a crime in progress before acting...

 

[Tim Burke]

To get back to the original subject, I seem to recall hearing that in some states, while the law allows you to use deadly force in the defense of others, the standard that is used in such circumstances is not the same as in self-defense. In self-defense, the standard usually used is the reasonable man standard, defined as what a reasonable man would do in the same circumstances, knowing what the defender knew at the time of the incident. Allegedly, in some states, if you use deadly force in the defense of a third party, you will be judged on the basis of the actual circumstances. Thus, shooting the robber armed with an airsoft gun is easily defended if you are the one threatened, but if you are defending someone else, you may find yourself in hot water.
Anybody else remember hearing that, or have a cite?

 

[hirundo82]

Yep, but you better be damn sure. There have been incidents of good citizens intervening in what they thought was a forcible rape, but it was really two people consensually role-playing in a park.

At least here in Texas it would be a good shoot, although of course it would be wise to get more information on the situation if possible.

According to the Texas Penal Code:

§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified
in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

and

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

I apparently could use deadly force to stop statutory rape as well since sexual assault and aggavated sexual assault include any sexual contact with a person under 17 regardless of consent.

There was a case here in Texas recently that put the reasonable belief clause to the test. A man came home and found his wife in flagrante with another man. She cried rape, the other man tried to drive off, and the husband shot and killed him. The husband was not charged, but the wife was charged with and convicted of manslaughter.

 

[marshall3]

Chattanooga high school situation

This can be a real problem in high school class rooms...

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_126354.asp

A teacher stumbling over the scene would think a rape was in progress. Yet it was all consensual, just for fun.

 

[doc2rn]

As long as your state does not have a duty to retreat clause you should be fine.

 

[lanternlad1]

When my (now Federal Judge) uncle was just a young lawyer (1958), he was walking home from work in Lafayette Indiana when he heard the screams of a woman in distress. He instinctively ran toward the sound of her voice and saw a woman about to be raped by two guys. Not having a weapon on him and no cop in sight, he did the only thing he could think of. He yelled to the woman "You're under arrest." Then strode up and grabbed her and pulled her away from the thugs all the while berating her and reading her her rights. The thugs were so astonished they did nothing, and slipped out of there figuring they just missed getting pinched. My uncle walked her to the local police station, and brought her in to the front desk and told the sergeant on duty the whole story. My uncle remembers the Sergeant saying "Ray, you're an officer of the court, but you can't make arrests." To which my uncle replied "I can make a citizen's arrest." "What's the charge?" Uncle Ray thought for a moment and said "Failure to Yield."

Sounds like a joke, but its a true story. It really happened, its in the records of the police of Lafayette Indiana. The police let the poor woman go of course, and Uncle Ray had recognized one of the thugs, so they were rounded up and charged with attempted robbery (since rape hadn't actually occurred yet) and jailed.

Just goes to prove that the only weapon you really need is your mind. But guns help.

 

[rogerxd45]

well in that situation i would first call the cops and then try to get his attention on me and then if he attacks you then you can argue self defence

 

[CAS700850]

lanternlad1, that is a great story, and a fine example of how the mind truly is the greatest weapon we can possess. The dirtbags were so shocked by what they were seeing happen that they couldn't react to the situation, and how they thought they'd gotten away with it.

Back to the original post, if faced with an unknown situation, aren't we all inclined to learn more before we intercede? Watching and calling for help is probably the best course of action if the situation is unknown. On the other hand, I come home and find my wife (or god forbid one of my sons) being forced to engage in any act by someone unknown to me, I'll stop pulling the trigger when it's time to reload. And, the wife will forgive me for the stains on the couch, I'm sure of it.

 

[jfountain2]

That's a common misconception. The "3 year rule" is a defense in court, and not always a successful one. There isn't a law anywhere that says 3 years. In an 18 consent state, 17 and 19 is illegal. 17 and 18 is illegal.

Simple as that.

It is 3 years in TN. I tried to have my daughters (she was 16) "boyfriend" (he was 19) arrested, the police said they couldn't charge him with anything until he turned 20. They ran away, we caught them, he's in prison now (for other crimes) she is doing much better and can't remember what she ever saw in the looser.

As for the original question, I would let them know I was there and see how they reacted, if it was a real rape, it would be stopped by any means needed.

 

[shadowalker]

Do you know without a shadow of a doubt she did not say yes, then change her mind after they got going?

It doesn't matter if she previously consented, if at any time the person revokes consent and the other person doesn't stop it becomes rape and my response will be the same.

In my state it is legal to use lethal force to stop forcible felonies including rape. Unless there was an immediate threat to the perceived victim's life I would not immediately shoot but order the person to stop and sort it out from there.

 

[Thernlund]

I think all this forcible rape vs. statutory rape vs. consentual sex vs. when can I shoot debate is ultimately up for interpretaion by a judge and/or jury. This is true on most (all?) things that involve the law.

Point being... this is going nowhere. I think the topic is spent.


-T.

 

[JWarren]

Answering the original question of FORCIBLE rape, I can tell you what I DID:

When in high school-- this was in 1987-- two men tried to rape my sister in our front lawn when she was coming home from school.

I was already home, and ironically, I was cleaning my AR-15. It was in pieces on our porch while I was spraying down the parts.

As I saw the guys driving up, I didn't like the way they were acting (they were on motorcycles and gesturing widely). I started putting the AR back together.

By the time I was able to do anything, they were upon her, had tossed her down, and had ripped her blouse off. They still didn't see me-- since the house was about 50 yards down a driveway.

At any rate, my sister screamed when they attacked. Fortunately, I was coming through the hedge and chambering a round just as she was fighting off one guy. I leveled on him as screamed "Get away from her!" He jumped up and started to run. I told him that if he didn't stop and get on the ground NOW, I would shoot.

He did as I said. I should point out that one got away. His motorcycle was still running and he scrambled and left as soon as he heard me. I wasn't able to cover them both.

I had my sister go in and call the police while I covered the attacker outside. He laid on the ground face down and I kept a rifle aimed at him from about 15 feet away until the police arrived.

They took the guy, he was charged, and he did time. They picked up his friend soon after and he faced the same fate as the first.

When it is forcable, there is no QUESTION what I would do. He has the option to stop, comply, and go to jail, or he has the option to get shot, and put in the ground.

Once you see something like that happening to your sister, you realize that it IS just that simple.

I was 15 years old at the time, and my sister was 17.


-- John

 

[coloradokevin]

wow... this sure has strayed from topic.

Yes, in CO, deadly physical force may be used to stop a sexual assault on yourself or another. However, I'll also jump into the group that is saying that you better be darn sure that you are seeing what you think you are seeing!!! People do strange things to satisfy their fantasies, and I've seen a lot of weird stuff through my job (in other words, you might want to give a few verbal commands before plugging Joe-pretend rapist in the back of the head with a 200gr bullet).


As for CO law, it has been a bit misinterpreted in this thread. Read through the statutes yourself if you want the real story!

The statute you cite defines assault, which is a more egregious breech of the law than contact and has harsher penalties. Sexual contact with a minor, no matter the age of the perpetrator, is still illegal.

This is wrong.

First, Colorado law defines "sexual assault on a child" as contact, not sex. This varies from the statute of "Sexual Assault", which covers things like vaginal penetration. Read the statute.

18-3-405. Sexual assault on a child.

(1) Any actor who knowingly subjects another not his or her spouse to any sexual contact commits sexual assault on a child if the victim is less than fifteen years of age and the actor is at least four years older than the victim.



Also, your statement that any sexual contact with a minor is illegal regardless of the age of the othe party, is also wrong, reference the portion of the law I quoted above, and:

18-3-402 Sexual Assault:

(1) Any actor who knowingly inflicts sexual intrusion or sexual penetration on a victim commits sexual assault if:
...
(e) At the time of the commission of the act, the victim is at least fifteen years of age but less than seventeen years of age and the actor is at least ten years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim; or...


Once again, "Sexual assault on a child" is defined by contact, not by penetration. And, as such, Sexual assualt on a child (contact) is a lesser and included offense of Sexual Assault (as defined by 18-3-403). Contact is a lesser offense than penetration, and you are certainly correct about that.

Your assertion that "any sexual contact" with a minor (by any person of any age) is unlawful probably came from subsection (1)(g)(1.5) of the Unlawful Sexual Contact statute [18-3-404], which makes reference to sexual contact on a child. However, this section involves coersion and the involvement of a third party, and specifically spells out the need to cross-reference with the sexual assault statute of (18-3-402).

In short, it is not illegal for a 16 and 17 year old to shack up together. Other guidelines are spelled out in the statutes as listed.

 

[Thernlund]

wow... this sure has strayed from topic.

And yet you contribute all that. *heh*

I don't buy it. But alright. You win.

-T.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Lanternlad, you mentioned that your uncle "read her her rights," and that the year was 1958. Did Indiana have its own required declaration of rights even before the Supreme Court ruling of Miranda in 1966, or was it just a little hyperbole?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[coloradokevin]

And yet you contribute all that. *heh*

I don't buy it. But alright. You win.

Ummm, yeah. (oops)

I do like chocolate chip cookies though, so thanks. And, I can't help but stray myself sometimes. Sorry, I am often an abrassive SOB, and I like to debate things (my wife doesn't like me either)

Lanternlad, you mentioned that your uncle "read her her rights," and that the year was 1958. Did Indiana have its own required declaration of rights even before the Supreme Court ruling of Miranda in 1966, or was it just a little hyperbole?

Oh... SNAP!

I gotta admit Sans, you and I don't always see eye-to-eye around here... But, you do keep up on your history