The recent talk about strong women reminded me of this amazing woman.

Cape Girardeau woman shoots, kills would-be rapist at her home

A Cape Girardeau woman shot and fatally wounded Ronnie W. Preyer, 47, a registered sex offender who had broken into her home early this morning with the intention of raping her a second time, Cape Girardeau Prosecuting Attorney Morley Swingle said today.

Swingle said he will not be charging the victim, an older woman who positively identified Preyer this morning as the man who raped her on Saturday.


http://on-murders.blogspot.com/2008/10/mo-cape-girardeau-woman-shoots-kills.html


This was one of the only links I could find to the full story, please do not take the site where the story is found to be of any significance.

She chose to defend her body with lethal force. Undoubtedly some here will question that choice.

Do you support a woman's right to defend her body with lethal force?

"Defend her body" is a bit vague, but yes, I support people using lethal force against would be rapists, kidnappers, etc.

People who would use force to take from you, your posessions, or pleasure of some sort, or whatever purpose, have lost the benefit of the doubt that they will not also take your life.

All humans have an inherent right to self defense. Men, women, makes no difference. There is some concern for people not employing a disproportionate level of force in self defense, but as a basic question, yes a woman has the right to employ lethal force to defend her body.

I actually do know: out of each other's bums. But I'd still like to know your version.


People who would use force to take from you, your posessions, or pleasure of some sort, or whatever purpose, have lost the benefit of the doubt that they will not also take your life.

What the fuck IS that? Blank verse?

It isn't statute law, it isn't common law, it isn't something written by a recognizable expert in anything relevant at all, it isn't even folk wisdom. It's pure, unadulterated shit.

We could take a vote if you would like.

Why you want to pretend you didn't, so you can look like you're in some sort of dissociative state and are unaware of your surroundings, I wouldn't know.

Otherwise, I might think I'm losing my mind.

Atheist Crusader said:
"People who would use force to take from you, your posessions, or pleasure of some sort, or whatever purpose, have lost the benefit of the doubt that they will not also take your life."

You said:
"I don't have any doubt that violent felons are capable of murder."

And now you say those are THE SAME THING.

What planet am I on? How did I get here??? I really have to leave now before I get stuck.

People who would use force to take from you, your posessions, or pleasure of some sort, or whatever purpose=Violent felons

have lost the benefit of the doubt that they will not also take your life=are capable of murder.


If you can't understand that then you probably should take a break.

David

If someone holds you at say, knifepoint, and demands your wallet or purse, what motivation do you have to trust them?

Such a person is inherently untrustworthy. Would you hand over your purse or wallet, in hopes the person who has just threatened you with physical harm will honor the 'deal' they have offered you?

Not I. The demand doesn't even factor into my response. It's flight or fight. 'wallet' becomes a non-entity, unworthy of consideration, when faced with a weapon and the intent to use it.

When I quote something, something very specific, said by a poster, and the next thing in my post is a question, is it not rather obvious that the question is ABOUT what I just quoted??

You said, and I quoted, THIS:

People who would use force to take from you, your posessions, or pleasure of some sort, or whatever purpose, have lost the benefit of the doubt that they will not also take your life.

That is a very specific statement, presumably intended to convey some message. You are the one who chose to word the message the way you did.

The words you used were: HAVE LOST THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT ... .

The clear implication is that there is (you say) some "benefit of the doubt" that the people you are talking about enjoy.

This is abject nonsense. "Benefit of the doubt" has absolutely nothing to do with the formal rules for when force may be used against another person, or even with whatever rules someone chooses to make up for him/herself.


Such a person is inherently untrustworthy. Would you hand over your purse or wallet, in hopes the person who has just threatened you with physical harm will honor the 'deal' they have offered you?

No.

I would do that if I reasonably believed that it was a reasonable alternative to using force, as a method of avoiding serious injury or death.

If I reasonably believed that it was NOT a reasonable alternative to using force, as a method of avoiding serious injury or death, and if there did not appear to be any other reasonable alternative, then I would undoubtedly choose to use force, if that did appear to offer the best chance of avoiding serious injury or death.

I don't give anybody any "benefit of the doubt" that s/he is not going to harm me, for the simple reason that that's nonsense. (Also, of course, because it would be kinda paranoid.)

But it certainly does seem to reflect a particular mindset.

Everybody in the world may be just on the verge of harming me, but I'll give everybody "the benefit of the doubt" and assume that they're not, unless and until there is some reason to think otherwise. -- You are the one who said that certain people "lose" that benefit of doubt, you will note, so presumably you are the one who does adopt that mindset.

I actually think that most people go about the world with the assumption that nobody is out to harm them, and only consider that possibility when something occurs to indicate that someone might intend to harm them.

But then, if people keep thinking that way, the gun militant agenda might not fare well.

May she know peace and happiness for the rest of her life.

How could this woman not have gotten the news that sexual assault victims always know their attackers and will freeze up and refuse to shoot them in the face of violence? Surely with a response time of only 45 seconds she should have just called the police and squeezed her legs tight for a minute or two until they pulled the rapist off of her? Clearly there was no need for deadly force and it would have been much more preferable if the career rapist had lived and she had just submitted to a few beat-downs and penis-insertions while waiting for the police to arrive. What a yahoo with a false sense of courage.

Can you guess who I am?

It seems like she just about got the worst of everything. She has to live with killing somebody. It is probably still tough even though totally justified. AND she got raped first.

I hope she is strong enough emotionally to come around on this. How awful.

At least the perp won't be raping anybody else.

She wouldn't be alive now if she hadn't killed him.

David

I got away with it the first time, now I'm gonna get some more -- from the same victim.

This is the kind of crap that motivates violent criminals.