User Tag List

First 678

Results 71 to 76 of 76

  1. #71
    Senior Member Into It's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    664

    Default

    I don't think causing pain is a good thing. If I did, I wouldn't be mad at him in the first place. I would try to get him into a situation where he could not do that again, like prison. They can give him cable and all the ice cream he wants - just keep him from hurting others.
    An inscription above the gate to Hell:
    "Eternal Love also created me"

  2. #72
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    My point with the BWS is that it's a similar model...killing someone (in this case, a spouse) based on what the person has done to you in the past, and what they MIGHT do in the future.

    In the OP's hypothetical scenario, the person has "done" stuff to you for 16 years. There's no guarantee that this person won't come after you again....and there are 16 years of history of abuse/torture. Same with a battered wife...how many years have they endured the beatings, etc?

    Thus, I think they're nearly identical...just that one torturer is a spouse and one is not.

    Killing a spouse while the spouse is in actual commission of an offense is, IMO, a "self-defense" case in the classic sense.
    They're not nearly identical, the entire basis of 'battered persons syndrome' is that the predator is their spouse, that means there's is all sorts of emotional attachment and emotional issues there that stop the battered person from leaving and may even cause them to defend their spouses action, battered wife syndrome is not the same as being tortured by someone who is holding you captive and is not your spouse, the closest thing I can think of to that is Stockholm Syndrome when the victims became emotionally attached to their captor.

    As for "no guarantee that this person won't come after you again", in order to use this as a defence you have to show that the victim feared for their life and was in imminent danger, the idea that there's no guarantee they won't isn't enough.

    The law is quite simple: We can't kill other people, even if they've wronged us.

    Self defence is: The use of an equal amount of force, being faced with immediate provocation, and being in imminent danger.

    Anything outside that scope isn't self defence and if the torture victim here hunts down and kills their torturer they are accountable. Being tortured may cause mental health issues that could assist a defence and/or give them sympathy from the jury or when being sentenced, but it won't clear them.

  3. #73
    Senior Member Timmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Trinity:

    I understand exactly what the law says regarding self-defense, and the various nuances of escalation of force and disparity of force. But that's not the topic of the thread.

    But, to address your point, if BWS is more akin to the Stockholm Syndrome, then there's even less of a defense unless the homicide occurs during an actual attack, as one is free to leave at any time, even if they choose not to, for whatever reason.

  4. #74
    Diabolical Kasper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    11,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Trinity:

    I understand exactly what the law says regarding self-defense, and the various nuances of escalation of force and disparity of force. But that's not the topic of the thread.
    I'm not so sure you do:

    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy
    Would not killing such a torturer be self-defense...so that she or he could never do it to anyone else, ever again?

    If not, then I opine the "battered wife syndrome" is no longer a defense.

    If you hunt someone down and kill them you are not acting in self defense. This is why I divided my original post into 3 sections: Vengeance, fear for another's life and self defense during torture. Any way you look at it, and no matter how evil the person is, you are not free to seek them out and take their life, that is not self defense.

    The thread is asking 'would you' not 'is it legal' but you were the one that suggested it would be self defense.


    But, to address your point, if BWS is more akin to the Stockholm Syndrome, then there's even less of a defense unless the homicide occurs during an actual attack, as one is free to leave at any time, even if they choose not to, for whatever reason.
    It's a syndrome that can be used as a defense, doesn't mean it's a good defense, it doesn't meet the requirements of self defense which is where it's an issue.

    And I said it was the closest thing I could think of in regards to what you're talking about, not that it was akin to Stockholm Syndrome. This situation has nothing to do with Battered Wives Syndrome.

  5. #75
    Senior Member Timmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    127

    Default

    No, I really do understand what the law says. But, to quote Gross Pointe Blank "I have a certain moral flexibility..."

    What I would actually do, versus what the consequences of what breaking the law would be, given that my innate sense of "oh shit...those are the consequences?" Heck, there are many things I don't post on forums I moderate because my mind wargames the likely responses, and I find it's not worth the coming troubles....

    But back to the topic.

    One other part of a self-defense argument is that the person doing the killing/defending must prove they were in fear for their life or great bodily injury. Actually, that's not really true....in most states (and in Arizona again, thank God!), the state has to prove you were not in fear for your life or GBI.

    In Arizona, if someone is a documented victim of domestic violence, "the state of mind of a reasonable person under sections 13-404, 13-405 and 13-406 shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person who has been a victim of those past acts of domestic violence."

    Previously, if self-defense was being used as a justification, the defendant had to essentially admit to the underlying "crime", and they say "but it was justified because...". Now, it's been switched back to "innocent until proven guilty". But I digress.....

    Part of my posts come from my proclivity to debate. What the law says about self-defense as a justification is very clear. But two points in this hypothetical situation: If DV can be used to determine how the "reasonable person" would view it, any good lawyer could use (or try at least) that same type of defense for someone who was held prisoner and tortured for 16 years...there's bound to be some element of a "relationship" that can be argued.

    There was no "relationship" as defined by our state's statutes (As far as I can tell...don't know about UT or CA), but do you believe a jury ever convict Elizabeth Smart or Jaycee Dugard if they went back and killed their captors? Would it really be all that difficult for either of them to choreograph things to create a situation in which self-defense were "legit"?

  6. #76
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whatever View Post
    I really don't know, there would be a lot of factors going into my decision and even then I don't think my mind would be made up until the very last second possible.

    Ruining his life but leaving him alive would be very tempting, though if I still had a life waiting for me outside I don't think I could choose that option, because long term revenge tends to take time and effort (as in The Count of Monte Cristo).

    I'd say that it would all depend on the moment I saw him really
    Monte! The hero of my childhood.

    Originally Monte was a simple sailor.
    He was educated by a priest. In jail, of course.
    The jailhouse is the best university.

    A moment is a thief.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-25-2014, 04:13 PM
  2. Would YOU kill the baby?
    By figsfiggyfigs in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 241
    Last Post: 03-25-2011, 01:19 PM
  3. How would you type this person?
    By liYA in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-17-2010, 11:17 PM
  4. Could you kill a person?
    By Tigerlily in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 03-07-2008, 10:13 PM
  5. [MBTItm] Ethical Question: Under what conditions would you kill someone?
    By Crabapple in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 07-30-2007, 09:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO