Reply #49: there we have it

[iverglas]

What none of these does... is prevent future the attacks on other women.

Guess what?

The purpose of SELF-defence -- which is what "these" were all about -- IS NOT to prevent future anything.

When you talk about a victim of crime preventing future attacks, you aren't talking about self-defence. You are talking about VIGILANTE JUSTICE. You are talking about DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.

One or two encounters where the victim attempts any of those suggestions is not going to deter a would be rapist from committing violence again

Guess what?

SELF-defence ISN'T MEANT TO deter anything.

A woman armed and properly trained with a handgun not only lessens the chance of becoming a victim herself, but can also help those less capable or unwilling of defending themselves so they won't be victimized in the future.

And a woman armed with a handgun, or anything else, or nothing, who causes any harm to anyone that is beyond what is reasonable and reasonably necessary in SELF-defence IS COMMITTING A VIOLENT CRIME. She is also acting contrary to some of the most fundamental tenets of our society, like those ones about innocent until proved guilty, fair trials, and that sort of thing.


And so once again, we have the same stinking exploitation of women's victimization in the service of someone's agenda we always have, and we have a surprising </sarcasm> disregard for things like the constitutions that said exploiters claim to hold so dear.

Amendment V to the US Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Ditto:

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
(Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982)

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

I just don't understand it. How can anybody fixate on one article in that US Bill of Rights and advocate such gross violations of another??

A government that permitted victims of crime to execute their assailants, and that permitted its police authorities to advise victims of crime to do so, would be a government in violation of that amendment.

And a person who advocated such a violation would not be what I consider to be a liberal, or a democrat, let alone progressive.