Are you certain about that? According to my lay reading, you may indeed use deadly force to prevent the act. Can you shoot after the crime has been committed for the purpose of what would in effect constitute punishing the perpetrator? Better check into that. Maybe there has been precedent...
How to deal with a forcible rape?
- Thread starter Old Guy
- Start date
- Status
Are you certain about that? According to my lay reading, you may indeed use deadly force to prevent the act. Can you shoot after the crime has been committed for the purpose of what would in effect constitute punishing the perpetrator? Better check into that. Maybe there has been precedent...
DRZinn
Member
Maybe I'm sure that if he doesn't stop what he's doing, I will be justified in shooting him. So I draw. Then he stops what he's doing. Then I don't shoot him. See how that works?
mljdeckard
Member
No. You need to eliminate the if BEFORE you draw. Again, you will be the guy standing there like a fool trying to make decisions about who is the bad guy with a gun in your hand.
I am also not sure about deadly force against statutory rape in any state. I don't think I would want to be the one to test it.
I am also not sure about deadly force against statutory rape in any state. I don't think I would want to be the one to test it.
Hostile Amish
member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 522
Draw, don't shoot. If someone is actively raping somebody else, he's not really prepared to defend himself. Speak loudly so that anyone in the vicinity knows what's going on.
DRZinn
Member
Not at all. I draw, he keeps going, I shoot him --> justified shoot. I draw, he stops, I don't shoot him --> crime prevented and goblin captured.
Th3_M4d_1r1shm4n
Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 20
"Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander."
For those of you advocating doing nothing, or just walking away, consider those words. For my part, I know it's fairly easy to determine the difference between rape and "normal" adult play (I put "normal" in quotes because some people get...creative). I know some people like to get frisky in public, and that some role-players like to enact the whole "rape" scenario...but if they want to do that, they should probably not do it outside in a state that permits concealed carry. Very poor life decision - nothing kills the love-making mood like having a lanky guy in a Utilikilt with an XD intervene
As an earlier poster mentioned, a simple "What the h*%&?" in a loud voice from 20 feet off is normally sufficient to assess the situation. If the purported victim is crying and screaming for help and for the aggressor to stop...they're not engaging in a tickling match. Not that I'd simply shoot the aggressor, either. The gun comes out because, by posing a threat to another individual, the supposed rapist has demonstrated a willingness and potential towards violence...towards others and me as well. But the finger stays off the trigger unless I am directly attacked. The cell phone comes out while the aggressor is covered, the boys in black and white get a phone call, and ideally the situation gets resolved. If it was a rape, it's taken care of. If the parties involved were simply "having fun"...well, like I said before, they should've kept it inside.
Go well.
For those of you advocating doing nothing, or just walking away, consider those words. For my part, I know it's fairly easy to determine the difference between rape and "normal" adult play (I put "normal" in quotes because some people get...creative). I know some people like to get frisky in public, and that some role-players like to enact the whole "rape" scenario...but if they want to do that, they should probably not do it outside in a state that permits concealed carry. Very poor life decision - nothing kills the love-making mood like having a lanky guy in a Utilikilt with an XD intervene
As an earlier poster mentioned, a simple "What the h*%&?" in a loud voice from 20 feet off is normally sufficient to assess the situation. If the purported victim is crying and screaming for help and for the aggressor to stop...they're not engaging in a tickling match. Not that I'd simply shoot the aggressor, either. The gun comes out because, by posing a threat to another individual, the supposed rapist has demonstrated a willingness and potential towards violence...towards others and me as well. But the finger stays off the trigger unless I am directly attacked. The cell phone comes out while the aggressor is covered, the boys in black and white get a phone call, and ideally the situation gets resolved. If it was a rape, it's taken care of. If the parties involved were simply "having fun"...well, like I said before, they should've kept it inside.
Go well.
The thing that MLJ is talking about here is legality. I am not an expert on all of the states, but I can tell you for a fact that in a significant number of western states if you tell the cops something to the tune of, "well I pulled out my gun thinking he would see it and let her go..." you will most likely be meeting the judge for a court date of your own and you may well find yourself with one or more of the following, A)A fine, B) No gun C) A police record D)Prison time.
When that gun comes out IT IS NOT A NEGOTIATION TOOL. It is the fresh can of nuclear whoop[] that once opened cannot be resealed. If you find yourself in most of the situations described here rest assured there will be witnesses, and when they tell the cops their side and it goes something like, "he was pointing the gun and yelled BACK OFF!" in many states you will get a ticket and more along with the 'thank-you for doing your civic duty'.
Yes the goblin will be captured, but you will pay a hefty price.
Now if you pull FULLY INTENDING to shoot [him] and he suddenly runs, or backs off screaming, "DON'T SHOOT ME!" then we get into the hypothetical of: you keep a bead on him as he's running away until he's gone, or the cops show up, or he rushes you or whatever. But you don't pull counting on that being the outcome. You have to believe there was no other option than deadly force. before the gun comes out you keep a little distance and you yell stop.
Seriously people, if you were to yell loudly at a rapist who was 'inflagrante-dilecto'(if I may) they will do something. They will not ignore you. Depending on what they do will answer the question if you draw or not.... but if you do draw... it is ONLY to shoot. Otherwise (depending on particular state law) pray that cops with a heap of discretion show up cause in some states they technically now have to book you too.
Last edited by a moderator:
Is that it? He's doing something, but there has been no crime, unless of course he "keeps going", and you are then justified in shooting for the purpose of preventing a crime? If, however, he stops, a crime has been prevented? And if a crime has been prevented, there is nonetheless a "goblin"?
DR, ya' probably oughta confine your gun handling to the range until you have consulted a knowledgeable criminal trial attorney. Otherwise prepare for the likelihood of severe consequences.
Another possibiliy...is to conspicuously lay a 25 Cent piece down right next to them, where he sees you set it there, and, as one does in Pool Halls, say to him, making sure of good, easy-going-enough Eye contact, a simple non-chelant, mundane, "I'm next..." then just stand close-enough to the side, appearing just a little bored and resigned, and waiting...
Might be just the spell-breaker needed to ruin the mood...
I've found certainly, that many mis-demeanors, are a sort of mood or 'spell' in which the perpetraitor is pro-tem bound or captivated or energized...and, if one can introduce non-threatening words or gestures which break the 'spell', or ruin the 'mood', the 'energy' or focus of the deed-in-progress is lost, or the 'reason' is lost, and the perp will settle for a way out, and or, a change of direction or egress.
Or, similarly, approaching or acting or re-acting toward anyone, with resentment, invites a contest of resentment to occur, in which, whoever is best at harnessing or inventing resentment, will probably win.
Many of those who behave in destrucive ways toward others, find energy to enourage them, in seeing or feeling another's resentment, and they have ways of feeling empowered by it...so...approaching such people in a way which is free of resentment, eliminates one variable anyway, on which they usually rely, or, find empowerment from.
I works...if one can do it well.
And can allow a peaeful resolution or desist, instead of a violent or contestation-based out-come.
Just a thought...a sidelight...
Might be just the spell-breaker needed to ruin the mood...
I've found certainly, that many mis-demeanors, are a sort of mood or 'spell' in which the perpetraitor is pro-tem bound or captivated or energized...and, if one can introduce non-threatening words or gestures which break the 'spell', or ruin the 'mood', the 'energy' or focus of the deed-in-progress is lost, or the 'reason' is lost, and the perp will settle for a way out, and or, a change of direction or egress.
Or, similarly, approaching or acting or re-acting toward anyone, with resentment, invites a contest of resentment to occur, in which, whoever is best at harnessing or inventing resentment, will probably win.
Many of those who behave in destrucive ways toward others, find energy to enourage them, in seeing or feeling another's resentment, and they have ways of feeling empowered by it...so...approaching such people in a way which is free of resentment, eliminates one variable anyway, on which they usually rely, or, find empowerment from.
I works...if one can do it well.
And can allow a peaeful resolution or desist, instead of a violent or contestation-based out-come.
Just a thought...a sidelight...
DRZinn
Member
That's some pretty muddled thinking there. Let's look at it another way: If I am justified in shooting, and I draw, and he ceases the activity, I am no longer justified in shooting, so I don't. Is that clearer? At what point did I say anything about shooting to prevent a crime? It's to stop a violent sexual assault in progress. And yes, if he stops he's still a rapist.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Is anyone here considering the fact that there would be an innocent party- the victim- in close proximity to the perpetrator so many seem to be eager to point a loaded weapon at/take under fire?
lpl
lpl
DRZinn
Member
Of course. The scenario seems to be one of very close range.
In Post 102, in your response to may question to Thernlund, who is from AZ. I asked whether he were sure that he could lawfully shoot after the crime had been committed, when the Arizona statute specifies that one use deadly force to prevent a crime of the sort in question.
The law in the OP's state of Florida says the same thing.
I do not know the case law in either state, and I therefore don't really know the answer to my question.
Does that mean that a crime had already occurred and that your action was therefore not to prevent it? Is it lawful to shoot after the fact in Hot Water?
Thernlund was referring to statutory rape, which in the case of his daughter would be known. The original post was about forcible rape. Shoot--or draw upon and possibly assault--someone in an apparent instance of forcible rape, and one's record, employment, fortune, future gun rights, and personal freedom might well be dependent entirely upon the testimony of the apparent victim. That's a very dangerous situation to find oneself in.
And even in the case of statutory rape, problems with forensic evidence could well make it a case of your word against hers. And of course his, if you haven't killed him.
Not for me, thanks.
DRZinn
Member
Seems like we're using words differently. I thought you meant "prevent" as in not allow the crime to happen in the first case. I meant "stop" as in the crime is already happening and a shoot is justified to end it.
And I didn't mean statutory rape, which doesn't justify a shoot anyway if it's also consensual.
And I didn't mean statutory rape, which doesn't justify a shoot anyway if it's also consensual.
While I agree with your logic DRZinn, and I would not argue that it would be tactically superior to have the weapon drawn before the need, there are brandishing laws that exist in many states that frown on that. In Utah (for example) if you happen to expose a concealed weapon even accidentally it is by state law brandishing and it is possible you could be prosecuted for it. Now in all likelihood you wouldn't in most accidental exposure situations... but the carrier is the one responsible.
Hence if you pull and do not use... even if you are in the right... it is possible for legal repercussions to come down on your head.
I was told my by CC instructor that if I ever pulled anywhere but in my own 'residence' (Utah has castle law) and even sometimes there, I would be second guessed by a string of people. (possibly a DA, a Judge, a Jury, the Media, a Civil prosecutor if the criminal court did not fall out clearly....... you get the idea)
As sad as it is that we have to consider legal ramifications in our tactical decisions, be aware that pulling to 'stop the individual' is not (again depending on state law) the best way to look at it or phrase it verbally. You have to pull to 'shoot the individual' because 'it was the only way to stop him/her.'
I know it is nit-picky but it is how IMO we need to see it, it is what needs to be said to the police. Anything else can get you convicted of something that possibly you should not have been.
And besides we are talking about the potential to end someones life. This is something that should be weighed and considered soberly and with a great amount of respect. I think this conversation is a good thing to have though. Each of us needs to consider time and again where the line is and should be BEFORE we find ourselves in a situation.
DRZinn
Member
Well, I'm talking tactics. Legally the safest thing is probably not to be armed at all, and if you see a rape to turn around and go call the cops from somewhere.
I did.
I understood you perfectly.
It is? That was my question. The laws in Arizona and, I think, Florida, say "prevent"--not "end". My original question was about what that means in actuality. Again, I do not know. Common sense might seem to say that you are correct, but over the years I've learned to never try to rely on common sense when one does not have the requisite education and familiarity with the principles on which the laws are based. The question is, how the courts have treated the question. Is it the same in both states? How about where you live?
By the way, in Missouri, deadly force is justified if it is necessary to "protect ...against...any forcible felony".
If you are speaking from the standpoint of morality I will generally agree with you, depending on circumstances. However, if you look back at Thernlund's post, he was referring to the law as it applies to statutory rape. His comment prompted my question, though from the standpoint of the question of whether it is lawful to shoot if the crime has been committed and is still in progress, that probably does not matter.
How about the good old no gun action, you have the gun, like I do, it is concealed, like mine is.
This sexual activity is taking place in the grass close to your house she is screaming, he is fumbling with his clothing.
Need a blue print?
Step in, kick him in the head, till action ceases, call 911. If gun becomes needed, use it, if not leave it were it is.
Does all action need a gun?
This sexual activity is taking place in the grass close to your house she is screaming, he is fumbling with his clothing.
Need a blue print?
Step in, kick him in the head, till action ceases, call 911. If gun becomes needed, use it, if not leave it were it is.
Does all action need a gun?
mljdeckard
Member
If you intervene with violent, non-deadly force, BEFORE you know force is justified, you have just committed assault. If you find out AFTER the fact that you happened to be right, you are at the mercy of the D.A.
If I have a gun available, why would I possibly want to get close enough to someone who might be dangerous? That's the reason I carry, to PREVENT getting close to dangerous people.
If I have a gun available, why would I possibly want to get close enough to someone who might be dangerous? That's the reason I carry, to PREVENT getting close to dangerous people.
Do you not know that if two people are locked together, a gun might not be the best response?
A gun is so you do not have to get close to dangerous people! What crap!
The DA? I live in Florida, it is not about the New York/Massachusetts DA's (excuse me the good ones) we have real people down here.
And a kick in the head stops the rape... NOW! Not after posturing about waving a pistol.
Pistols do not stop rape, bullets do. We know THR is mostly about gun actions, but not let us forget, sometimes you have to deal with the action now, I know if that was one of my 15 year old Grand Daughters, I hope some one would intervene, based on the evidence of their eyes and ears.
"What can not speak can not lie" Trust your eyes and ears, and do not look for reasons not to do anything.
A gun is so you do not have to get close to dangerous people! What crap!
The DA? I live in Florida, it is not about the New York/Massachusetts DA's (excuse me the good ones) we have real people down here.
And a kick in the head stops the rape... NOW! Not after posturing about waving a pistol.
Pistols do not stop rape, bullets do. We know THR is mostly about gun actions, but not let us forget, sometimes you have to deal with the action now, I know if that was one of my 15 year old Grand Daughters, I hope some one would intervene, based on the evidence of their eyes and ears.
"What can not speak can not lie" Trust your eyes and ears, and do not look for reasons not to do anything.
mljdeckard
Member
So, you commit assault, and hope for the best?
rscalzo
Member
If they act is consensual, how do you plan on using this section as evidence of the need for deadly force?
- Status
