Bystander Dies Intervening in Rape

M

MisterCrabby

New member
Basically an older man tried to stop a younger guy from sexually assaulting a woman and was beaten to death for his trouble.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loc...84311d27129_story.html?utm_term=.061dca371aea

Several years ago the Michigan legislature amended the lethal force statute to include defense of self or other from sexual assault.

I’m not making a political statement, just wondering what other states have this or not, whether the exclusion would influence your response if you were in this situation. What would you do as an armed citizen if your state doesn’t explicitly have this in print?
 
Yes, AZ has something similar.

No, it wouldn't change my response if I were in this situation. Rapists are monsters, worse than rabid dogs. And we all know what the cure is for a rabid dog.

I'd do whatever was necessary to stop the POS from continuing his rape attack. Not going to sit there and let someone get raped in front of me just because of some omission in my state's legislation. Just from an ethical/moral standpoint that'd be reprehensible in the extreme. That doesn't mean I'd shoot the SOB in every situation. But I wouldn't rule it out.
 
In almost every state in the union, force can be justifiably used to stop a forcible rape. If the rapist then turns attention to fighting the defender, and the defender must resort to deadly force in self defense, then that equally should be relatively safe in almost every state so long as the deadly force was justified by self defense. I'm sure there are wonky exceptions, it wouldn't surprise me if California would have a knee jerk reaction against it because of the perception of "it'll turn into the wild west where everyone can just get trigger happy."

Almost every state will allow you to defend yourself or another. The issue is deadly force may or may not be automatically used in case of rape, depending on jurisdiction, state law, etc. You will have to use reasonable force, and then escalate as the attacker escalates.
 
Some years ago, in an unnamed county in NV, four Hispanic men saw a young white guy (~18 as I recall) follow a young girl into the ladies room. Thinking it was suspicious, they also entered the ladies room and found the guy assaulting the girl. They released the girl, one of them went to call the Sheriff's Department and the other three "detained" the would-be rapist, who then required medical treatment. Deputies arrived and arrested the guy.

Never occurred to anyone to arrest or charge the men for assault and battery on the would-be rapist. Might not be legal, but . . .
 
We've discussed TX laws on the use of lethal force to protect property. They are very specific and constrained. Please look them up. A shopkeeper cannot shoot a 7 year old stealing an Almond Joy.


Suggesting going beyond the amount of force needed to deal with an event - let's skip that.
 
I'm not alawyer,and you do not want legal advice from me.
From lecture in my CCW class (No,I can't pull the document) it was suggested that arsonists and rapists place themselves ....in a vulnerable position.

Which,IMO,is all beside the point I take away from this story.

Sure,if we are packing we can all get pumped up over being the hero and whacking the scumbag rapist.This has nothing to do with guns.Nothing to do with anything that can be bought.

This was an Old Man,he did not have a gun. I'm guessing he was scared squeakless. He said "Its a Good Day to Die" and faced his last battle for a Woman he may have never met.
He stood up. Talk is cheap. That Old Man,Mr Salazar, stood up.He died a Warrior. Rest in Peace
 
I agree with HiBC about the old man, but what is the lesson here? A previous post suggests "reasonable force and then escalate as the attacker escalates". Why? Why not shoot or stab or a boot to the back of the head with no warning; either deadly force is justified or it's not. If you're not all-in, the attacker my turn the tables on you.

But you better be damn sure it is a forceable rape, armed robbery, kidnapping, etc, (and not some stupid people shooting a movie, or the person you think is the attacker is really the victim and got the upper hand) and what the state law says about what you think is happening.
 
Some states view defense of others under a stricter standard than defense of one's self. In my state (Kentucky), the use of deadly force to protect one's self from serious physical injury or death is justified if a person believes it is necessary. However, a person may still be found guilty of a homicide. For example, if that belief is formed recklessly, then the person defending himself is guilty of reckless homicide.

Defense of another person begins with a subjective belief the other person is going to be seriously injured or killed, but also requires that this other person actually be justified in using deadly force:
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when:

(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person against imminent death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055; and

(b) Under the circumstances as they actually exist, the person whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.
Click to expand...
Ky.Rev.Stat. Sec. 503.070(2).

I'll re-emphasize that laws differ state-by-state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top