Originally Posted by Doc3402
Shoot him if he even attempts it. Deadly force is now permitted... and this is the important part...by law. Not by emotion, by law. The key part is, by her own admission there was no attempt at rape. None. No threat of great bodily harm or forceable felony? No deadly force or threat of deadly force.
And once he's within 21 feet of her (he already was), how do you expect her to get to her firearm once he's overpowered her and begins shoving his penis forcibly into orifices where they don't belong, and right in front of her child? Not trying to be vulgar here, but that is what the act of rape entails. Tell me, if someone has pounced on you, and shoved a penis into your rectum, even if you manage to fight them off, how damaging is that to you and your child, who is watching the whole thing?
What if he were to jump on the kid? Sure, your in a much better position to fight someone off of a child than to fight them off of yourself, but how will that affect him 10 years from now? 10 seconds from now?
Now what are you gonna do? Someone shoving their genitals down your child's throat or between their legs or up their rectum by force of overpowering strength?
You already ****ed up if you haven't taken steps to negate the threat and they are within 1 second's distance of laying hands on you. No, he didn't try to rape her, but she's not a mind reader and neither are you. Someone who would think it's okay to make a woman and her child watch them masturbate are obviously deranged and cannot be counted on to act rationally, decently, or morally (freaking duh), and it can not even be speculated on what they may or may not do.
Chainfire and Doc, I would like to know where you got your degree on criminal psychology, and how you expect everyone else to have the same education in the matter. It does say in the article, that he "approached her aggressively".
At that point, he was showing aggression, which can be seen as equal to hostile intent, especially in conjunction with committing a lewd act. You can talk about laws and emotion all you want, but one very key argument in the justification of the use of deadly force is "fear for one's life or permanent or severe bodily injury". There's all the emotion and law that one needs in most states these days to justify it.
Oh, wait, I decided to take a break and look up the law...
So, unless you, or anyone else, can PROVE
that the pervert had no intention of rape,and that the woman likely knew, or should have reasonably known he had no intention of rape
I would think a jury of peers could very likely find that a person could reasonably "apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished"
From this situation. A woman. Alone with a child. Aggressively approached. By a man. Masturbating.
Will they? Who the hell knows, our legal system is so ****ed up there's never any telling. But, by state law, any lawyer worth his/her salt should be able to have her home for dinner as a free woman.
You can talk all you want about what a "weenie wagger" would or wouldn't do, but unless you are the weenie wagger in question (judging by y'all's reaction, it make's me wonder what y'all do for fun), then you CANNOT say what a person would or wouldn't do, but the victim very easily could "apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished"
which automatically makes your liberal logic in defense of the pervert a moot point, and makes it a matter to be decided by a jury of peers.
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.
[2011 c 336 § 354; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]
Edited to add source. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?Cite=9A.16.050
Edit to add: words in royal blue.