Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Setting aside the TM case, you think everyone should be treated the same if they kill someone? So if a woman is being raped and she kills her attacker, she should then be tried in a court as well?
That's why you can't treat everyone the same. A victim shouldn't have to go through the expense and emotional distress of a trial when they were truly protecting themselves.
Unless she can prove that her attacker was on the verge of killing her, she has no right to kill. Someone penatrating your sex organs without your consent with no intent to kill does not give you a right to kill them.
I agree that women shouldn't get prefential treatment.
Let's try another example. Someone breaks into your home with weapons. You shoot them to protect your family. In your mind, you should then be arrested?
I think people should be able to protect themselves without being worried about being arrested. I have 3 children in my house. If someone breaks in, I don't think I should have to wait to see if they are just planning to rob us or turn us into the Petit family in CT (mom and 11 year old girl raped, both daughters tied to beds and burned alive.)
There is no way to know what horrible things someone is planning to do until it is too late.
Same with the couple in Knoxville. That started as a carjacking. If they had killed one of the perps then, I'm sure some people would have wanted them prosectuted because "it was just a car-jacking." But it turned it horrible torture for both of them.
As for verge of being killed, at that point, it's often too late. The Knoxville couple and the Petits were both alive for hours after the initial break-in/car jacking, although I imagine they all wish they had been killed instantly.
And I completely disagree about the "sex organs" comments. If a woman is being raped, she has every right to kill her attacker to protect herself.
I agree that women shouldn't get prefential treatment.
Let's try another example. Someone breaks into your home with weapons. You shoot them to protect your family. In your mind, you should then be arrested?
I think people should be able to protect themselves without being worried about being arrested. I have 3 children in my house. If someone breaks in, I don't think I should have to wait to see if they are just planning to rob us or turn us into the Petit family in CT (mom and 11 year old girl raped, both daughters tied to beds and burned alive.)
There is no way to know what horrible things someone is planning to do until it is too late.
Same with the couple in Knoxville. That started as a carjacking. If they had killed one of the perps then, I'm sure some people would have wanted them prosectuted because "it was just a car-jacking." But it turned it horrible torture for both of them.
As for verge of being killed, at that point, it's often too late. The Knoxville couple and the Petits were both alive for hours after the initial break-in/car jacking, although I imagine they all wish they had been killed instantly.
And I completely disagree about the "sex organs" comments. If a woman is being raped, she has every right to kill her attacker to protect herself.
Of course you disagree; you're a female. However, don't be surprised if a woman ends up behind bars similiar to how that Oklahoma pharmacist killed the armed robber, but is now doing life for 1st degree murder.
Whenever you kill someone, you're taking a major risk even if you think it's justified. That said, you better be sure you can prove the attacker was on the verge of killing and that your life (not just your sex organs) was in grave danger.
If you're a black guy and want to shoot a white guy armed with a Yellow Lab, you are free to do so in Phoenix. And unlike Treyvon, this man hadn't assaulted anyone. He was not pounding anyone's head into the cement. He had not broken anyone's nose or blackened their eyes. Oh, and the police won't even release your name. Can't have anyone calling the murderer bad names now, can we?
If a non-black is assaulted by a black, any attempt to fight back, let alone use deadly force to protect your own life, is labeled racist. In today's azz-backwards PC world, Zimmerman was supposed to just lay there and let Treyvon kill him, rather than fighting back.
Unless she can prove that her attacker was on the verge of killing her, she has no right to kill. Someone penatrating your sex organs without your consent with no intent to kill does not give you a right to kill them.
that's ****ing disgusting. i feel sorry for any women in your life.
@OP you can't compare something like the Christian-Newsom murders to TM. In the former, they were tortured and raped and killed. In the latter, there is a reasonable question of whether it was justifiable homicide.
I agree that women shouldn't get prefential treatment.
Let's try another example. Someone breaks into your home with weapons. You shoot them to protect your family. In your mind, you should then be arrested?
I think people should be able to protect themselves without being worried about being arrested. I have 3 children in my house. If someone breaks in, I don't think I should have to wait to see if they are just planning to rob us or turn us into the Petit family in CT (mom and 11 year old girl raped, both daughters tied to beds and burned alive.)
There is no way to know what horrible things someone is planning to do until it is too late.
Same with the couple in Knoxville. That started as a carjacking. If they had killed one of the perps then, I'm sure some people would have wanted them prosectuted because "it was just a car-jacking." But it turned it horrible torture for both of them.
As for verge of being killed, at that point, it's often too late. The Knoxville couple and the Petits were both alive for hours after the initial break-in/car jacking, although I imagine they all wish they had been killed instantly.
And I completely disagree about the "sex organs" comments. If a woman is being raped, she has every right to kill her attacker to protect herself.
This is why I always say it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Unfortunately there are certain factions in this country that prefer living on their knees, subservient to every criminal element in this country. Constantly pandering to them, saying it's not the criminal's fault, coddling and nurturing them.
This is why I always say it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Unfortunately there are certain factions in this country that prefer living on their knees, subservient to every criminal element in this country. Constantly pandering to them, saying it's not the criminal's fault, coddling and nurturing them.
In those states, they get what they deserve or they can move to a gun-friendly state. Vote out the imbeciles who won't let you defend yourself.
Unless she can prove that her attacker was on the verge of killing her, she has no right to kill. Someone penatrating your sex organs without your consent with no intent to kill does not give you a right to kill them.
Tell me you agree with this, and I'll consider you severely deranged, along with anyone else that agrees with you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
