12 Sep 14
Originally posted by EladarIn the case of an intentional assault. A small woman slapping another is definitely different than a large. strong man punching another. In one case the usual result would be embarrassment, and in the other it might be death. I wouldn't call it a double standard, but rather a gradual sliding scale.
I am not talking about self defense.
I'm talking about physically attacking another person. The first person who throws the punch or slaps the other person is not defending himself or herself.
Nice attempt to changed the subject.
12 Sep 14
The post that was quoted here has been removedshe MUST have been asking for it.
joking aside, she is asking for it right now. she married him. after getting knocked out. she wanted an NFL boyfriend and she gladly accepted a punch (and who knows what else) to keep her nfl star boyfriend. and then she married him.
it is no longer abuse, it is a business arrangement.
12 Sep 14
Originally posted by normbenignand that is crap. you also should be required to prove you were in danger.
The required standard for self defense using deadly force in most States is that the defender must reasonably believe he or someone else is in danger of loss of life, or of great bodily harm. That isn't quite as simple a standard as "proportionate response". Whether a person reasonably fears death or great bodily harm is an individual evaluation of circ ...[text shortened]... o deadly force sooner than the stronger, to answer the OP directly. There is a double standard.
otherwise you're just uncle jimbo screaming "it's coming straight for us"
13 Sep 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziBelieve me, you'ld better be able to show reasonable fear, if you even show a gun, never mind if you kill someone. You are speaking out of extreme ignorance.
and that is crap. you also should be required to prove you were in danger.
otherwise you're just uncle jimbo screaming "it's coming straight for us"
13 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignI'm an Englishman so we have similar, but not identical, rules about this. I don't think your lethal force argument entirely works with these two cases however. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an international law thing, the rules are a little different, but the Israeli response to Hamas' provocation is so far from what Hamas can achieve that I think a claim of "disproportionate response" is entirely justified.
The required standard for self defense using deadly force in most States is that the defender must reasonably believe he or someone else is in danger of loss of life, or of great bodily harm. That isn't quite as simple a standard as "proportionate response". Whether a person reasonably fears death or great bodily harm is an individual evaluation of circ ...[text shortened]... o deadly force sooner than the stronger, to answer the OP directly. There is a double standard.
In the case of the football player who punched the woman who attacked him, but did not pull the punch, I think my disproportionate force argument works in both English and US law, lethal force was not an issue.
P.S. Thankyou for responding to the substance of my argument unlike Eladar.
13 Sep 14
Originally posted by normbenignso you can shoot anyone you like just because you are a twitchy coward? as long as you prove that you were scared for your life? how would one disprove it in court?
Believe me, you'ld better be able to show reasonable fear, if you even show a gun, never mind if you kill someone. You are speaking out of extreme ignorance.
wilson feared for his life when he shot brown.
zimmerman feared for his life when he shot martin, even though he was the one following him, even though the police told him not to pursue.
yep, great law.
13 Sep 14
Originally posted by normbenignThe act itself doesn't matter, it only matters if it results in actual damage.
In the case of an intentional assault. A small woman slapping another is definitely different than a large. strong man punching another. In one case the usual result would be embarrassment, and in the other it might be death. I wouldn't call it a double standard, but rather a gradual sliding scale.
Hitting isn't wrong. Hitting if you are strong enough to do actual damage is what is wrong.
Got it!