Reply #134: you too, eh?

[iverglas]

One pretends I've stated a belief, another pretends I've made a decision ...


What I've done is acquire a rather thorough knowledge of the relevant facts. And drawn the fairly obvious conclusions from them.

I know. Foreign concept.

Much better to wallow in anecdotes and pound one's chest and weep crocodile tears.


And, unless you have some information we do not, none of the women in the NPR segment appear to be victims of domestic abuse.

(Could you pleeeease stop hitting that enter key randomly in your posts? It really is just aesthetically displeasing, all the disjointed oddly formed paragraphs ...)

None of the women in the NPR segment appear to be victims of anything, actually. One of them seems to engage in some possibly unnecessarily risky practices, and the other seems to be a rather unpleasant dolt.

If they're the poster children for why it's a good idea for women to tote gunz around, whoever hired 'em should get their money back.

On the other hand, there are real women, lots of them, who are in real jeopardy and in need of real solutions and real assistance. It's telling that you don't seem to want to talk about them.


Yes, some women do kill their abusive partners. And courts have found in some cases that they have a reasonable AND objective basis for fearing for their lives.

You don't know what you're talking about either, do you? You certainly don't know what I was talking about, anyhow.

Someone who kills another person who is sleeping does not have an objective basis for a claim of reasonable apprehension of serious injury or death of the kind that is needed to justify the use of force in most cases. The apprehended assault must be imminent, ordinarily.

Some cases are different. The reasonableness of the apprehension will be determined based on the individual's subjective appreciation of the situation, not the objective nature of the situation. An abused woman might indeed successfully claim self-defence if she kills her sleeping abusive partner.

It's called "justifiable homicide".

Perhaps. Traditionally, it's called the self-defence excuse. "Justifiable homicide" may be somebody's jargon, it just isn't mine.


Just like it was justifiable homicide when a homeowner killed a drunken, weapon-bearing neighbor who was breaking into his house late at night.

"Just like"? Because ... you say so?

Got it.

I say apples are just like steering wheels. 'K?


So, what's your standard for justifiable homicide? A 'reasonable' fear for one's life, or an 'objective' one? A combination of the two?

I'm not some silly undergraduate. You can't fool me into wasting my time to make you happy.

If you don't know the answer to that question, you must have a brain like a sieve. Not my problem if you choose to forget, or deny remembering.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=230249&mesg_id=230665

I see your name right in that thread, with today's date. Not my problem if you don't read.

And that must have been about the 20-200th time. It was a special favour for a newby. You're in luck.