Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
The man tried to rob her. He was the attacker, she was the intended victim.
...decided first to rob her.
The guy was a robber, and he planned to use his assumed superiority against an assumed weak girl.
...motivate him never to try to rob a woman again.
...learned a precious lesson.
|
A. I have a problem with vigilantism. Legal systems are established for a reason. Self defense is one thing, vigilantism is a completely separate story.
B. Yes, he tried to rob the salon. Rape is not an acceptable response to attempted robbery. Two wrongs do not make a right.
C. If the genders had been switched, this thread would be completely different. If a man kidnapped and raped a woman, repeatedly, for three days, there would be no question on the morality. The woman was the rapist in this situation, and the fact that he tried to rob her in no way excuses the rape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
BTW, there are countries in the Western world where the woman would have had the right to shoot him to death in self-defence.
|
Self defense, yes. If he attacks her, shoot him in self defense. Handcuffing him, drugging him, and raping him is
not self defense. Beating him unconcious? Self defense. Non-consensual sex acts? Not self defense. There is no possible way she could say "I feared that he might hurt me while he was chained to the radiator, so I had to rape him to keep myself safe."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
That's what it comes down to for me - after having been the target of intended street robbery myself three times and having driven them away every time, and having been attacked by a junkey with a knife and seriously injuring him and taking him out of action rather hard after he cut me.
|
Are you claiming that you had the right to kidnap the robbers and rape them after you had already removed the threat?