ArchangelMadzz said:
Usually in those cases it's because the threat was already subdued, it becomes assault when you attack with no immediate danger.
All the time though?, 100% of the time?.
I'm pretty sure the word 'usually' doesn't mean 100% of the time.
No its not, it's saying of someone attacks you subdue them with the force they used on you, so if they didn't use a weapon you can't start beating them up with a weapon. Or if someone punches you you can't stab them with a knife unless you thought they were going to kill you.
The whole equal force thing is asking for equal fighting in real combat, which of course when it comes tow ar and actual survival doesn't always take effect nor matter much of the time until it's over and names are taken. WHat about the elderly who have no strength to hand to hand someone stronger than them but use a weapon (that may as well cover practically anything in a home) to subdue them or drive them out?. What about generally weak people or thise who are disabled?. There are already flaws with this already.
Then it's not equal or equivalent force in that case. If a large human is attacking a small human in order to adequately defend himself he can use a weapon to damage him if it fends him off. But if that small human then beats him to death with the weapon he'd have to prove his life was in danger to not be charged with second degree murder.
Now you're talking about the prison system so that's not really anything to do with the self defence laws, when it comes to punishment vs rehabilitation, rehabilitation always had the lower re offending rate. Look at Scandinavian prisons for example.
The prison system, ie; punishments come into any sort of crime as ot before it's even committed, think about it if you are about to knock someone off, do you even once think for a second of any sort of outcome, even after you've done the action?. Some wouldn't think that but most tend to, some even ignore what could happen but there are enough out there who fear so much as a few months in jail to not commit a crime, fear is what can drive some to not doing anything bad, if someone ignores said fear and keeps going at it well then you need to break them until they learn the general lesson. Scan prisons are one example but we're talking the other billions on this rock.
And if all those other billions had simliar prison systems the re-offending rate would be down. Humans don't learn from punishment. The murder rate isn't really any different in states that have the death penalty. They don't care. If you actually teach them how to be human beings and live in society they are less likely to turn back to a life of crime because they know how to live.
No I don't imply any such thing, I'm stating what the law is and why they would punish someone for tieing up and torturing someone who broke into their house.
Yet you don't wish to challenge it in any sort of way let alone point out inconsistencies, why is this?, do you think the law is perfect, if not then why not challenge it at nearly every turn to actually bring about improvements?.
The Self Defence laws work rather well usually. This thread isn't that issue, pepper spray being illigal to carry is ridiculous. That needs to be changed. If she's the weaker person the only way to equal the force is the use pepper spray. And again if she then stabbed the guy to death after being pepper sprayed and running away then it's another story. (I'm not saying she wouldn't be justified in doing so) But the law doesn't have to reflect personal feelings. eg. I'm against the death penalty but will kill someone if they killed/sexually assaulted family or friends.
|
