regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (05/22/85)
Re all the discussion over shooting (or not shooting) a person who is
assaulting a woman:
This is one of the great double-binds thoughtfully provided by our
double-standard system and the ever present questions of perception.
Chances are, if a woman carried a handgun, and used it in an assault
("Did you try sufficiently hard to resist?") she'll be hauled into
court on an illegal weapons charge. If she killed her attacker, you
can bet she'll see a plethora of lawsuits because she deprived some
other person of "support" (if the attacker was married) or the court
will rule that she was meeting force with an UNequal amount of retalia-
tion ("Can you prove he intended to kill you?" "No, yer honor. I must
admit, I did not wait until he slit my throat with his knife.")
If she only maims her attacker, he can sue her for loss of wages (since
his attack and her retaliation have rendered him unable to make a
living). And this is always presupposing that the court decides the
attack was really, honest to goodness, an attack, rather than her own
fevered imagination.
And then, (stop me when I get _too_ cynical) some genius of a defense
attorney will dream up the old rape-isn't-a-crime-of-sex-it-is-a-crime-
of-power defense that (rather than wearing "provokative clothing")
carrying a weapon is "provoking" to this poor attacker who has a power
hangup and therefore she ASKED FOR IT.
I *love* this stuff. It makes *SO* much sense.geoff@burl.UUCP (geoff) (05/28/85)
> This is one of the great double-binds thoughtfully provided by our > double-standard system and the ever present questions of perception. > > Chances are, if a woman carried a handgun, and used it in an assault > ("Did you try sufficiently hard to resist?") she'll be hauled into > court on an illegal weapons charge. If she killed her attacker, you > can bet she'll see a plethora of lawsuits because she deprived some > other person of "support" (if the attacker was married) or the court > will rule that she was meeting force with an UNequal amount of retalia- > tion ("Can you prove he intended to kill you?" "No, yer honor. I must > admit, I did not wait until he slit my throat with his knife.") > If she only maims her attacker, he can sue her for loss of wages (since > his attack and her retaliation have rendered him unable to make a > living). And this is always presupposing that the court decides the > attack was really, honest to goodness, an attack, rather than her own > fevered imagination. I don't think this is limited to women. If I were attacked and did the same thing, I would run into the same legal problems. I really don't have an answer for it -- I don't want to live in a society dominated by vigilante-ism (how do you spell that?), on the other hand you sure as hell ought to be able to protect yourself. I did like the quote I read a few days ago -- 'I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.' Since you can obviously go to far with it (he looked mean, so I shot him), I don't see any way around an inquiry any time this sort of thing happens. Some of the judges' rulings make me wonder what kind of drugs the judges were on, though. geoff sherwood