Fair is fair after all.

[kpete]

[djean111]

1. That is correct, sir!

Anything other than submissiveness can be dealt with using lethal force.
Bonus - if she does get raped, she will be told she was "asking for it" and should have resisted.

[n2doc]

2. And, if she gets pregnant

She must have secretly wanted to be raped. Otherwise her body would have 'shut down'.

Republican thinking, it all begins to make sense now!

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Said that all through Zimmerman's trial. That it violates everything

women are taught to do to defend themselves. Florida's 'self defense' law seems to have been written for gun-toters only.

[Lizzie Poppet]

4. I think in that scenario, he'd be considered the aggressor.

If he gets out of the car and chases her, that would be the instigation of aggression.

[Hoyt]

5. If woman is white, shooter will be convicted. If Black, I'm not so sure. That's a shame.

[Nye Bevan]

6. I'm not sure the jury would believe that he was in fear of his life.

Pepper spray is not lethal, after all.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

8. ...

The Los Angeles Times reported in 1995 at least 61 deaths associated with police use of pepper spray since 1990 in the USA.[7] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) documented 27 people in police custody who died after exposure to pepper spray in California since 1993.[3][8][9] However, the ACLU report counts any death occurring within hours of exposure to pepper spray. In all 27 cases, the coroners' report listed other factors as the primary cause of death, though in some cases the use of pepper spray may have been a contributing factor.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray

That's enough for the defense to put the victim on trial.

[Nye Bevan]

10. "In all 27 cases the coroners' report listed other factors as the primary cause of death".

So it still might be hard to convince a jury that the pepper spray alone was a lethal threat.

[spin]

7. Of course not. ...

The daughter in this case is legally defending herself. She has already tried to retreat. In this situation, she would have reason to fear for her life or health and even in a state without a "stand your ground" law she should be within the law if she defends herself. If she was legally carrying a handgun, she could shoot her attacker.

Of course much would depend on the evidence. If she killed her attacker and there was no evidence that she was lying, she would probably walk free. Even if there was some evidence, the prosecution would have to convince a jury that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If she were to knee, pepper spray or trip her attacker he would not be able to use the fear of imminent injury or death as an excuse to shoot her. He was in the process of chasing her and had not broke off his attack.

On the other hand, if the pepper spray stops his attack and he tries to retreat, she has no right to chase and shoot him. The attack has ended. If she does pursue and threatens him with a gun, he may successfully argue that he was in fear for his life.

Say that you own a store in Florida and are behind the counter when a man walks in and pulls a handgun on you and demands you turn over all the money in your register. You have a handgun hidden underneath the counter and you (perhaps foolishly) decide to grab it. If you shoot the robber you will probably face no charges. If he runs out the door and you chase and shoot him, you will probably face charges. If he shoots you while you are chasing him, it is possible that he will avoid the murder charge. Once the robber ran out the door, you were no longer in reasonable fear for your life or your health.

I should note that I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV.

[Lee-Lee]

9. If your remove SYG and go to a "Duty To Retreat"...

Then the daughter in this case would be guilty of assault, because she stopped retreating when it was possible.

How is this better?