I don't get it

Where to buy? Where can I find? How do I? Getting started.
User avatar
rinso
Posts: 3722
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:22 pm

Re: I don't get it

Post by rinso » Sun Dec 25, 2016 1:13 pm

Let's drop the scenarios where the woman might have had some previous entanglements and consider just plain, out-right rape attempt. Is not she able to use a weapon? And please note that the use of a weapon CAN kill - whether it was the intention to kill or not
- If she don't has a weapon on her, she has to get one. Best option then is to keep on running.
- If she had a weapon she brought it with the intend to use it (illegal in itself). But at least she could bring a non lethal one like pepper-spray.



Re: I don't get it

Sponsor:

Finland Forum Ad-O-Matic
 

Honest
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:28 pm

Re: I don't get it

Post by Honest » Sun Dec 25, 2016 6:17 pm

She could have run away, just threatened him with the knife, stabbed him once, stabbed in the leg, shouted at him and thrown any object to him. There are many things she could do. The guy was not aggressive to her, didn't prevent her from trying to arrange a ride so it obviously means that at least he didn't plan in advance to rape her.

The guy most probably was also drunk enough to not being able to defend himself.

Then the girl had enough time and senses to bring a knife to kill him and then walked away from the scene but didn't bother to call the police.

Too fishy to believe her story.


harryc
Posts: 1112
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:09 pm
Location: Espoo-Helsinki

Re: I don't get it

Post by harryc » Sun Dec 25, 2016 11:48 pm

I was trying to go past this particular case - and look at the more general situation.

From the answers above - I have to disagree very much with the idea that a woman being attacked couldn't do whatever she liked with a knife - one can hardly expect her to start strategizing in the middle of a physical attack - what she could do to disable the attacker. Kitchen and sport knives are all over the place in this world.

And - as I say - hundreds and hundreds of USA policemen are found innocent every year with even fatally shooting someone - when a shot in the leg or arm would have sufficed to stop the crime. How can we expect an amateur in the midst of a struggle to start de-constructing the situation?

Again - please go PAST this particular case.


Honest
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:28 pm

Re: I don't get it

Post by Honest » Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:36 am

you are missing the point. If her story would be compelling, nobody would have any objection.

But it sounds more like a murder case and she is using the female (rape) card to avoid the consequences


User avatar
rinso
Posts: 3722
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:22 pm

Re: I don't get it

Post by rinso » Mon Dec 26, 2016 9:09 am

Like Honest said, in this case there were plenty of options.
In Harry's hypothetical case there might be less. But you still have to try the least aggressive ones first.
If at a certain moment you use lethal force you take your chances if the court will see it as inevitable or not.
The problem is that you have to make the decision under stress in a split second while the court has three judges who can take weeks or months to study the case and think of alternative solutions. And when they decide you used excessive force you"ll get the standard penalty (5 years).


harryc
Posts: 1112
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:09 pm
Location: Espoo-Helsinki

Re: I don't get it

Post by harryc » Mon Dec 26, 2016 11:06 am

Nobody has really made 'workable' suggestions as to what a usual woman can do to fend off a usual male intent on rape - and already be physically attacking.

If a knife is available, I can't see where stabbing in whatever direction is not 'allowed.'

I picked up the idea here that one is obligated to have a medical degree to start to assess what will be fatal, etc. The idea of running away is ludicrous when someone is already subduing you. Screaming would just attract the public to come and 'enjoy' the show.

I'm afraid that there is some kind of idea here that the perp is just trying to rape you and you should be very careful that you not kill him - after all, rape is not fatal (though to a number of women it is - suicide, life-long trauma, etc.)

There might have been extenuating circumstances in THIS case, but I hope the publicity from this case doesn't have a side-effect of having women think they can't fight off attacks to the best of their ability and resources.


betelgeuse
Posts: 2749
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:24 am

Re: I don't get it

Post by betelgeuse » Mon Dec 26, 2016 1:48 pm

harryc wrote:If a knife is available, I can't see where stabbing in whatever direction is not 'allowed.
This is a pro victim stand. I consider the Finnish legislation on the topic quite balanced.
Section 4 – Self-defence (515/2003)
(1) An act that is necessary to defend against an ongoing or imminent unlawful attack is lawful as self-defence, unless the act manifestly exceeds what in an overall assessment is to be deemed justifiable, taking into account the nature and strength of the attack, the identity of the defender and the attacker and the other circumstances.
(2) However, if the defence exceeds the limits of self-defence (excessive self- defence), the perpetrator is exempt from criminal liability if the circumstances were such that the perpetrator could not reasonably have been expected to have acted otherwise, taking into account the dangerousness and sudden nature of the attack and the situation also otherwise.
http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset ... 890039.pdf

I have no problem leaving the details to the judges.

For the example case it should be noted that the woman also agreed that she should get some kind of punishment.
harryc wrote: I picked up the idea here that one is obligated to have a medical degree to start to assess what will be fatal, etc. The idea of running away is ludicrous when someone is already subduing you. Screaming would just attract the public to come and 'enjoy' the show.

I'm afraid that there is some kind of idea here that the perp is just trying to rape you and you should be very careful that you not kill him - after all, rape is not fatal (though to a number of women it is - suicide, life-long trauma, etc.)
I did not draw the same conclusion from the comments by others.


harryc
Posts: 1112
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:09 pm
Location: Espoo-Helsinki

Re: I don't get it

Post by harryc » Mon Dec 26, 2016 5:09 pm

I still have seen no suggestions as to how someone can defend herself 'legitimately' and EFFECTIVELY - in PRACTICAL terms
I did not draw the same conclusion from the comments by others.
That's why there are thousands of horse races every day.


User avatar
rinso
Posts: 3722
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:22 pm

Re: I don't get it

Post by rinso » Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:04 pm

harryc wrote:I still have seen no suggestions as to how someone can defend herself 'legitimately' and EFFECTIVELY - in PRACTICAL terms
I have the impression that you feel that potential lethal force is the only option in most cases.
If it indeed is, you can get away with it. But it is for the court to asses the situation and decide about the legitimacy. There is no description of acceptable violence for every (or any) situation. It's always a judgment after the facts.


harryc
Posts: 1112
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:09 pm
Location: Espoo-Helsinki

Re: I don't get it

Post by harryc » Mon Dec 26, 2016 8:35 pm

Still cannot believe why we don't hear about any real suggestions (even one) as to what a woman could do assuming the physical attack has begun. No one is assuming killing the perp but I can't see why some weapon wouldn't be needed and there is every possibility a DEATH could result - as the USA proves many times every day.

So what method would be suggested for these women under attack? Running would no longer be possible - and screaming in present 'society' would be futile.


Honest
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:28 pm

Re: I don't get it

Post by Honest » Mon Dec 26, 2016 9:40 pm

Under violent attack 》》》 kill the attacker if can't think of any other option

But you have to prove later that situation was so dire that there was no other viable option or there was no time to think. (You can't just kill a person then don't call the ambulance/police and spend all your energies in hiding the weapon and the crime)

I hope now you can "get it".

The lady failed to prove the force was appropriate under the given circumstances. I'm not a lawyer but my common sense doesn't have any problem in understanding why this lady is sentenced to some years in jail.


007
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:01 pm

Re: I don't get it

Post by 007 » Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:05 pm

harryc wrote:Still cannot believe why we don't hear about any real suggestions (even one) as to what a woman could do assuming the physical attack has begun.
So what method would be suggested for these women under attack? Running would no longer be possible - and screaming in present 'society' would be futile.
Well, there are quite a few things e.g. self-defense techniques, gas or pepper spray and, turns out to my surprise, even use of weapons can be considered legitimate. However, law is such that it's the court that makes ultimate judgment on whether force used is within limits. So, no one can really tell what kind of action is allowed as a means of self-defense before the attack has taken place. [Off-topic: A few ago, court released a surveillance video where a neo-nazi dude kicked a guy. The guy fell down knocking his head on the ground. He died a week later. A kick, which otherwise wouldn't have made such headlines had the guy not died but he died so...the case is being handled at court for involuntary homicide. Point is: One cannot really tell what kind of force is reasonable until its effects are known]

Once again, the pertinent law on the issue,
Section 4 – Self-defence (515/2003)
(1) An act that is necessary to defend against an ongoing or imminent unlawful attack is lawful as self-defence, unless the act manifestly exceeds what in an overall assessment is to be deemed justifiable, taking into account the nature and strength of the attack, the identity of the defender and the attacker and the other circumstances.
(2) However, if the defence exceeds the limits of self-defence (excessive self- defence), the perpetrator is exempt from criminal liability if the circumstances were such that the perpetrator could not reasonably have been expected to have acted otherwise, taking into account the dangerousness and sudden nature of the attack and the situation also otherwise.
“Go where you are celebrated – not tolerated."
"Aina, kun opit uuden sanan, opettele samalla sen monikko!"


007
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:01 pm

Re: I don't get it

Post by 007 » Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:12 pm

“Go where you are celebrated – not tolerated."
"Aina, kun opit uuden sanan, opettele samalla sen monikko!"


harryc
Posts: 1112
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 6:09 pm
Location: Espoo-Helsinki

Re: I don't get it

Post by harryc » Mon Dec 26, 2016 11:27 pm

I hope now you can "get it".
I used the phrase as a general term for discussion - you seem bent on trying to use it to mock with your idea of someone's ability of perception and analysis.

I took the comments to be quite cavalier without trying to realize a person being attacked is not about to act as if they knew how things were going to end.

It can be very likely that a court would view the scenario appropriately - but there also might be a court with appointees chosen by Drumpf-types and then god knows what the results might be.


Oho
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: I don't get it

Post by Oho » Wed Jan 04, 2017 5:17 pm

.


Post Reply