Would you use your weapon to stop a stranger from being raped?

[w_ADAM_d88]

Draw, Warn, Shoot. If he's dead he can't tell his side of the story.

 

[EdC]

THANK YOU! I know that we should consider every factor we can if the situation were ever to arise, but seriously people, this is a hypothetical with no variables.

Yes, that's the way I understood the question, that it's a foregone conclusion, a presumed fact, that indeed, the "forceable felony" of rape was occurring. Therefore, force, including deadly force, would be justifiable under the circumstances.

The question as posed by OP seems to open up the field to two types of answers. The first answer is "Shoot, because it's justifiable." The second type of answer, and where I come out is "Intervene, and be willing to shoot, if it's necessary to stop the attack."

In other words, I'm willing to use deadly force if (A) justified and (B)necessary. They're not necessarily identical, usually, but not always. It's "B" that is the variable in this hypothetical. At least that's how I see it.

 

[Delmar]

Lets say you witness a rape happening in the proverbial dark alley or parking lot. From the actions and language being used you have no doubt in your mind that a rape is being committed. There is a woman screaming for help. It is definitely not a consensual act taking place.

How do you react? (Poll is private)

What would be the legal consequences of different choices?

Maybe its not worth it to you to submit yourself to all the legal troubles you may face after this course of action?

Maybe you don't act unless you or your family are directly threatened?



I'm just trying to rationalize how up to a dozen people witnessed the 15-year-old California girl being raped and did nothing.

rambone, would you grant me permission to copy and paste this post, and the poll, to a theology forum that I am a member of? I would be interested to compare the responses of the people here to the people there. Some of them are pacifist so I know it won't be exactly the same.

 

[finity]

Draw, Warn, Shoot. If he's dead he can't tell his side of the story.

It is not necessary to warn & in fact it could be tactically unsafe.

In the recent thread on the WISH-TV report on being an armed teenager, the one who was being interviewed said that during the murder he committed he was in the middle of an armed robbery with his gun held to the chest of a woman when he heard someone say "hey". When he turned to see the gun pointed at him he turned & fired first & killed the other guy.

There is no need to warn & doing so may get you killed.

Also, implying you would kill him so that he couldn't tell his side of the story is probably tactically unsound, as well.

 

[Jack Ryan]

So says you, maybe you could open your mind up to think maybe your wrong, based on what most people would do? I'm not being smug here, I'm serious.

I don't make my decisions based on what most people would do and I sure as heck don't decide anything based on what the majority here would do. The majority electe Barack Obama ya know, funny how people forget every thing but what they and the rest of the lynch mob want to do when ever they bring up that "majority rules" so it must be the right think kind of crap.

I'm not being smug either, I'm being a serious as I've ever been. The majority has absolutely nothing to do with any determination by me of what is the right or wrong thing to do about ANY THING. Right, wrong, smart, dumb, friend, or foe, possible, impossible, risk, reward, those all things I might think about when deciding an action. Popular, what the rest of the gang might do or think, that stuff is for high school not adults carrying guns.

 

[WHAT HAPPENED]

rambone, would you grant me permission to copy and paste this post, and the poll, to a theology forum that I am a member of? I would be interested to compare the responses of the people here to the people there. Some of them are pacifist so I know it won't be exactly the same.

If he lets you YOU BETTER POST THE RESULTS OR ELSE :moon:

so to the original post

Shoot first and let GOD sort him out

 

[infidel]

I don't make my decisions based on what most people would do and I sure as heck don't decide anything based on what the majority here would do. The majority electe Barack Obama ya know, funny how people forget every thing but what they and the rest of the lynch mob want to do when ever they bring up that "majority rules" so it must be the right think kind of crap.

I'm not being smug either, I'm being a serious as I've ever been. The majority has absolutely nothing to do with any determination by me of what is the right or wrong thing to do about ANY THING. Right, wrong, smart, dumb, friend, or foe, possible, impossible, risk, reward, those all things I might think about when deciding an action. Popular, what the rest of the gang might do or think, that stuff is for high school not adults carrying guns.

Alright maybe you don't get it; this isn't about that one line about thinking what the majority thinks. This is about you not willing to stop a rape in progress. Honestly, I fail to understand the unwillingness to stop a rape happening in your presence. You have a tactical and very lethal advantage. You know whats going on. She is being raped. I could never look into her eyes while it was happening then look at her again later after "walking away and calling the cops" and tell her that I could have stopped it right then and there if I wanted to but felt like walking away instead. Guess its different for everybody?

 

[XMil]

THANK YOU! I know that we should consider every factor we can if the situation were ever to arise, but seriously people, this is a hypothetical with no variables.

Well, if we have pre-cognition and know all, why not just call the police before he even starts and avoid all the shooting.

 

[zebov]

A few comments (hopefully not too long-winded):

First of all, every single situation is unique and one cannot apply the same blanket answer to all situations. Think about the following two scenarios: (1) You're walking down the street a block behind a woman. Suddenly a guy jumps her out of the shadows and stabs her in the arm while stripping her clothes off and begins to rape her as she screams bloody murder for help. (2) You're at a drive-in theater next to a high-school couple who are snuggling during the whole movie. The guy is drinking and toward the end of the movie you notice them starting to get a little more involved when she starts softly saying "stop" and then yells "somebody get him off me!" These two scenarios are completely different and I think would warrant completely different responses, but both fall under the same "woman obviously being raped" category. Yes, you should stop both. But one would likely require physical intervention (ie. guns a-blazing) while the other one could likely be stopped with a simple "HEY YOU!"

When I lived in Austin, TX, I heard an altercation between a man and woman just outside my apartment door. There was a lot of bumping and the woman was saying "I can't breathe! You're choking me! I can't breathe!" intermingled with cries for help. I, as many of you have agreed with, could not let this continue without me trying to stop it. I was armed with nothing but my scrawny body (mistake #1) and stepped out of my door while my wife had the phone ready to dial 911 (mistake #2). All I had to do was say, "What's going on?" and it distracted the guy long enough that the woman took off running. The guy was scared stiff (which if you've seen me is hardly even imaginable). He started making up stories about his girlfriend (who had just fled running as fast as possible with tears streaming down her face) having an asthma attack. Suffice to say, this ended without anyone being killed. The cops eventually showed up but I didn't talk with them--I wasn't the one who called them. My guess is that those two aren't dating anymore. The point of this story is that there was obviously, at least in Indiana, a legal right for me to use lethal force in this situation. A man was literally strangling a woman in front of me. However, had I used lethal force "shooting before asking questions" the end of this situation would have been much grimmer for everyone involved. Looking at this situation I realize my two mistakes were not being armed in case it was needed and not having my wife call 911 immediately, before confronting the man. I do NOT think I made a mistake by not immediately killing the guy as soon as I stepped out the door. Those that truly, honestly, believe that was a mistake are fooling yourselves and have obviously never been in the situation.

 

[jclark]

Yup....with shooting as last resort. 1911's are heavy.

 

[Delmar]

If he lets you YOU BETTER POST THE RESULTS OR ELSE :moon:

so to the original post

Shoot first and let GOD sort him out

That would be my intention.

 

[Delmar]

Having never shot anyone, it is difficult to know if reality would line up with my answer on this pole. The rapist does not deserve a warning, that I believe. I'm going to pull my pistol right away, to be sure, but I'm not going to pull the trigger until I am certain that what I think is happening, is happening. If the guy surrenders in the mean time, I guess that means he gets to go to jail.

 

[rambone]

rambone, would you grant me permission to copy and paste this post, and the poll, to a theology forum that I am a member of? I would be interested to compare the responses of the people here to the people there. Some of them are pacifist so I know it won't be exactly the same.

Delmar, permission granted. I think its a interesting situation that ought to be considered. I look forward to hearing the results from the other forum.

Some posters have brought up the issue of whether or not you could be sure if it were a rape, or if it were a date going bad. Every case should be assessed individually. When I wrote the poll I had the mental image of the California teenager being raped on school grounds, outside a school dance, surrounded by a dozen people doing nothing to stop it. This poll would mainly be directed at situations that involve certainty of the rape and blatant violence towards the woman.

 

[zstep7]

Has anybody said no? That probably would have been the better question to ask. Hopefully your thread would have been empty.

 

[Phil502]

It would not have been empty.

 

[smiley69_300]

I just dont understand how 15 people can see a rape going on and not do a thing about. Pretty sure 15 can take on 1. I feel sorry for them people cause karma can be a *****.

 

[Delmar]

Delmar, permission granted. I think its a interesting situation that ought to be considered. I look forward to hearing the results from the other forum.

Some posters have brought up the issue of whether or not you could be sure if it were a rape, or if it were a date going bad. Every case should be assessed individually. When I wrote the poll I had the mental image of the California teenager being raped on school grounds, outside a school dance, surrounded by a dozen people doing nothing to stop it. This poll would mainly be directed at situations that involve certainty of the rape and blatant violence towards the woman.

OK, I have the poll set up, and here is the link you asked for, so that people can follow along. Would you use your weapon to stop a stranger from being raped? - Page 3 - Theology Forum | Theology Online

 

[ChalupaCabras]

My first priority is my own kin.

If our legal system wasn't so quirky, maybe more people would be willing to help out.

 

[Delmar]

No, walk away.

0 0%
No, walk away and call police.

0 0%

Not necessarily, 1st try to stop the rape with words/fists. Gun is last resort

5 17.24%

Yes, draw on the rapist and order him to stop.

17 58.62%

Yes, shoot the rapist with no verbal warning, once you have a clear shot.

7 24.14%


Here is how the numbers are runing at theologyonline, so far.

 

[rambone]

Here is how the numbers are runing at theologyonline, so far.

Looks like the results are turning out to be quite similar. We're not extremists after all!