Saturday: Cry Rape - CBS 48 Hours

[dArKeR]

Anyone who knows Laura Neuman, 38, knows how much she enjoys her life in Annapolis, Md. A hard-charging businesswoman, she works hard and plays hard.

But life hasn’t always been such smooth sailing. In fact, Laura says she spent two decades living in fear as a victim of rape. Correspondent Susan Spencer reports.
“It’s really devastating. I mean, it’s something that just completely overshadows your life. And it’s not something that you ever recover from fully,” says Laura.

It’s been almost 20 years since that horrible night when she was attacked. Laura, then 18, had just moved out of her parent’s home in Baltimore. With dreams of college and a career, she was ready to take on the world.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/16/48hours/main573602.shtml

[Brucey]

1. Abuse of women is epidemic in US,

has anyone seen video: Tough Guise? Strong stuff.

[jody]

2. Way to go gun-grabbers, the rapists love you.

According to a DoJ report, in one year 174,100 victims of Rape/sexual assault reported that they used self-protective measures. Of those, 59.9% said their efforts helped the situation and only 9.8% said it hurt the situation. Most likely, self-protective measures did not include firearms because of the gun-grabbers continual efforts to deny potential victims effective-efficient arms to exercise their inalienable right to defend themselves against rapists.

If the victims had been properly armed, perhaps the number reporting their efforts helped the situation would have increased substantially.

Way to go gun-grabbers, rapists love you and don't reply with your crap about calling 911. Victims of rape know their enemies and it's rapists and you.

[LoZoccolo]

3. I'm not very anti-gun but...

...you don't suppose pepper spray is a decent compromise?

[RoeBear]

4. Why would you compromise...

...with a rapist?

[iverglas]

9. why would you suggest ...

... that the compromise proposed was "with a rapist"?

Is it really that difficult for you to grasp the point of what other people say? Or just that difficult to refrain from misrepresenting it?

.

[RoeBear]

16. Have you recognized the ridiculousness of your comment yet?

The thread title is about rape.
The message that is being responded to is about rape.
Why would my question surprise you?

"Is it really that difficult for you to grasp the point of what other people say? Or just that difficult to refrain from misrepresenting it?"

Can I expect an apology?

[Spentastic]

17. Foul Ref!

Jody - "According to a DoJ report, in one year 174,100 victims of Rape/sexual assault reported that they used self-protective measures. Of those, 59.9% said their efforts helped the situation and only 9.8% said it hurt the situation. Most likely, self-protective measures did not include firearms because of the gun-grabbers continual efforts to deny potential victims effective-efficient arms to exercise their inalienable right to defend themselves against rapists.

If the victims had been properly armed, perhaps the number reporting their efforts helped the situation would have increased substantially.

Way to go gun-grabbers, rapists love you and don't reply with your crap about calling 911. Victims of rape know their enemies and it's rapists and you."

Someone else.- I'm not very anti-gun but you don't suppose pepper spray is a decent compromise?

You. Why would you compromise...
...with a rapist?

Iverglass why would you suggest that the compromise proposed was "with a rapist"?

Is it really that difficult for you to grasp the point of what other people say? Or just that difficult to refrain from misrepresenting it?


Surely it would be disingenous to move the conversation from a method of self defence to the perpertrator of agressive act causing self defence?

for example

"The Russians are going to kill us all we must defend ourselves by taking them out before they get us!"

"Wouldn't diplomacy be a good compromise?"

"Why would you compromise with the Russians?"

The compromise is with method not with action.

I don't reckon your apology is coming.

[iverglas]

18. actually

It's probably more straightforward than that. ;)

The compromise suggested was among the parties involved in setting public policy, i.e. the public: a compromise position between (let's make them up) "ban all guns" and "let women carry whatever weapons they, in their absolute discretion, deem to be in their interests".

The sexual assailant doesn't come into it at all, and never did except possibly, although we'll never know, in the mind of the person who asked that question. The question raised was a matter of public policy, not of private negotiation with anyone.

There isn't even any possible, remotely reasonable way that the "compromise" suggested could be seen as involving the assailant.

What, somebody might actually have been suggesting waiting for the next one to come along, and saying "Dear Sir, can we compromise here? I won't shoot you if you'll let me pepper-spray you." ??

I really don't think so, and I really don't think that the comment made could be interpreted as meaning any such thing by a sane person speaking in good faith in a month of Sundays.

Ridiculous noise. Well, it would have been merely ridiculous if it were not designed to make the person who made the comment look evil.

No one suggested "compromising" with "a rapist".

Someone suggested a public policy compromise that would involve those who wanted access to weapons to protect themselves (as they seem to think that they could do if they had weapons) getting access to weapons that those who believe firearms to be inappropriate and unnecessary for the purpose could accept.

Pretty bloody obvious.

Apology?? I snort.

And I'll wait for the apology owed to the person who made the original "compromise" comment by the person who so misconstrued/mischaracterized (who knows?) its meaning. Accidental or intentional or negligent ... normal people apologize in all cases.

.

[Spentastic]

19. Yeah I hadn't though that through

Compromising with rapists would seem to be somewhat problematic.

[RoeBear]

20. What were you snorting?

Because you obviously have no clue.

[iverglas]

21. tell ya what

Give us some insight into your magnificent clues.

What the christ DID you mean by that comment of yours?

WHAT "COMPROMISE WITH A RAPIST", exactly, were you talking about?

Really, shouldn't this be an easy question?

You ARE the one who said it, after all ...

.

[RoeBear]

25. Instead of seasoning the guy with some pepper spray...

...I would prefer the no compromise method of shooting him between the eyes. Clear enough?

[jody]

5. Pepper spray is a start, but there's nothing that deters a criminal more

than staring into the muzzle of a firearm pointed at them by their intended victim. No need to fire, just point it at the criminal and let them worry about whether their victim has the guts to fire.

The DoJ report "Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting to Police and Medical Attention, 1992-2000" estimates the average annual number of rapes was 366,460 but estimates only 116,350 (32%) were reported to law enforcement.

I'm in favor of rape victims rights including the right to defend themselves against rapist.

[DoNotRefill]

6. No Effing Way.

Pepper spray fails frequently, ESPECIALLY when dealing with people who have been abusing drugs or who are on major adrenaline rushes.

[Shanty Oilish]

12. No compromise

And if the rapist got you pregnant you could compromise with the pro-lifers by carrying to term and giving the child up for adoption.
If anyone wants to make such compromises---they can't, of course, unless they have choices---that's fine with me. I'm not asking any individual to carry a firearm for her protection. What troubles me is when a law deprives her of the choice to do so; when her right to life is qualified by the so-called rights of others, eg the "right" to be safe from non-criminal gun possession.

[Hrumph]

46. Heheheh

Inferior grip, but I agree with the sentiment.

[Hrumph]

45. I am a proponent of

les/non lethal alternatives. I believe that even those who carry a firearm for self-defense should also carry a good pepper spray. Still, it is not a viable alternative in all instances. If your attacker is armed then I would reomcend the 'victim' go imediately to their handgun.

[iverglas]

8. somebody tell jody to speak for herself

"Victims of rape know their enemies and it's rapists and you."

I am a victim of rape, and I know who my enemies are. And some of them are the viciously self-interested weasels south of my border whose pursuit of their own interests, at any and anyone's expense, facilitates the smuggling of firearms into my country where they are used to kill, injure and commit crimes against the people of my country.

I am a victim of rape, and I regard anyone who is so offensively presumptuous as to appoint herself my spokesperson, when she is in fact speaking only in her own self-interest, to be so far beyond the pale of decent behaviour as to render this reader nigh speechless.

There is no doubt in my mind that opponents of effective firearms control in the US, as culpable collaborators in the violence done with firearms in Canada, are my enemy.

I am a victim of rape, and I am not my enemy. And I will not be exploited by those who are my enemy and who seek their own advantage at my expense.

.

[demsrule4life]

14. I do have a question

A month or two back you stated that you liked to live a bit on the wild side in your younger years and placed yourself in a position to be attacked, at the time werent you a bit of an enemy of yourself?

[demsrule4life]

15. And before you go on one of your long triades against

me I think all rapists should have their "privates" cut off then shot.

[RoeBear]

22. Hey everyone let's blame the United states!

At least we all now know why a Canadian is so interested in posting here about disarming us.

[iverglas]

23. and now we know

At least we all now know why a Canadian is so interested in posting here ...

We know who the ones who are reeeaal slow on the uptake seem to be ... or the ones who don't have the common courtesy to pay attention to the actual people they're yammering at.

Anybody who'd been paying the least attention knew all that already.

But in any event, no, you're all wet, and apparently dreadfully paranoid, with your silly:

... about disarming us.

I have no such delusions of grandeur, I assure you. I happen to find you and your chums morbidly fascinating, just as I long found the anti-choice brigade on the internet. And I find you all just as despicable in just about as many and the same ways, but realize that there is as little hope of my doing anything about it as there is of pigs flying. That lightbulb's just gotta really *want* to change. In the meantime, the rest of us out here in the outer darkness will just perish for your amusement.

Checked into Plan Colombia lately? Ever bothered to give the slightest thought to the millions of desperate, ordinary, decent human beings around the world whose lives are destroyed by those phallus-toys of yours, the weapons of death that you and your President and all the nasty things scurrying in the dark corners behind him insist you have a RIGHT to inflict on the rest of us?

Do the issues of racism and oppression come to your mind only when you think about YOURSELF? Is your skin colour really just a handy hook to be exploited for your own self-interest, and not for the real benefit of anyone else at all? Since I hear so much nothing about the suffering of the poor and the people of colour in the rest of the world under the weight of the firearms - from your country and other white, western places - pressing them and their societies into the blood-soaked dirt, I gotta say that this is exactly how all your carrying on about the downtrodden black man of the US strikes me.

People out for themselves and nobody else, at the expense of others, is all I see when I look at opponents of the kind of protection that could so easily be afforded to those people if there weren't so many profits to be made by selling what kills them instead, and if there weren't so many willing accomplices in their deaths in the form of all the self-serving *MY* RIGHTS ÜBER ALLES bellowers I see in places like here.

But anyhow, more than just my morbid fascination, I find the human/constitutional rights questions that arise in respect of this issue intellectually fascinating. Again, much like the issue of abortion policy. I do happen to be a constitutional scholar, as in being very formally learnèd in the ways of my constitution and constitutional courts, and engaged in professional endeavours in that field. Of course, it's mainly *my* constitution, so I quite realize how puny and irrelevant I am in your world, your world being the world, as we all know.

And on a slightly lower plane than that, I am offended and irked by intellectual dishonesty and remediable stupidity, and have great stamina for the battle against it.

Of course, it helps that at the same time as thinking really fast, I type really really really fast. I'm always bemused when someone seems to think I've spent half my life composing an opus just especially for him/her so that s/he can pretend not to notice, when actually, apart from the fun time I had looking stuff up on the internet for the purpose, I really just tossed it off and went on with life. (Tip of the day: avoiding wasting one's time composing reams of pointless little non-sequitur, straw-person, red-herring, unilluminating and unilluminated posts saves time, too.) Hope nobody's disappointed!

.

[RoeBear]

24. Like I said before you are so full of yourself...

...and a waste of bandwidth.

FYI- I didn't bother reading your useless diatribe

[RoeBear]

26. Would it have been in your self-interest if...

...a previous victim of your rapist had done whatever was necessary to stop the SOB? Did you do anything to make sure there were no more victims of this rapist?

[iverglas]

27. no, I'm a vicious idiot too

"Would it have been in your self-interest if...
...a previous victim of your rapist had done whatever was necessary to stop the SOB? Did you do anything to make sure there were no more victims of this rapist?"

It would have been in my interest, and in the interests of anyone else whom he might have victimized before or after.

The fact that you ask the second question means that you think you have reason to believe that I would have done nothing -- else you wouldn't ask such a thing, or at least phrase the question as you did. (You didn't ask "what did you do ...?", you chose to ask "did you do anything ...?") How bizarre.

There were previous victims. One situation amounted only to an attempt: a group of three teenaged girls he abducted but released when one threatened him with a hairbrush from the back seat, the day before. In the other, he had succeeded: two teenaged sisters he abducted, two days before; each was afraid to try to escape and leave the other there. They had made complaints to the police. (Whether there were any others prior, I have no way of knowing, but it seems that this was a sudden and isolated behaviour on his part.) The police were looking for him when he found me. I was particularly grateful to the two sisters, who were recent arrivals from South Africa and were of mixed race, and had been apprehensive about going to police.

I escaped from him at the moment he let me out of the car with no interior handles to take me for "a walk in the woods" ... and turned his back for an instant to wait for me to put my shoes back on as he'd told me to do -- I ran instead, faster than I'd ever run before. I went immediately to the farmhouse I could vaguely make out down the road. I'd lost my glasses as I scrambled barefoot up a steep gravel road, expecting to be run down or cornered by him (he panicked and sped off), and could barely see anything.

I banged on the door until someone opened it, and said "I have just been raped, can I use your phone to call the police?" I said this because I was quite aware that Cdn law at the time, like most other places, required corroboration of a rape complainant's report, and "recent complaint" was corroboration (there were of course no eye-witnesses). Otherwise, I might have just asked to call police without bothering to give an explanation to total strangers. They took me in, and gave me coffee and sat with me while we waited for the police.

And I spent the next 12 hours in the police's company, being questioned, being medically examined, writing statements, and assisting them in locating the places he had taken me. The first thing that I told them was that I was a law student who was employed by the <senior govt. agency> and was currently examining the sentencing of dangerous sexual offenders, and assured the cop who asked that no, this was not research.

I took a week out in the middle of my second-year law school exams -- postponed one, but should have postponed all of them, had I had any idea of the real stress involved in the process and the effect it would have on my test-taking skills -- and travelling 300 miles to testify at the trial on the first two charges as a similar-fact witness. That involved hanging out in a little room for 3 days, feeding the prosecuting and defence counsel cigarettes on their breaks and, bizarrely, having lunch with defence counsel. I then testifyied both in the absence and in the presence of the jury while, in the former situation, defence counsel took a stab at impeaching my credibility. He in fact managed, whether because of skill on his part or just free-floating liberal guilt on my part, to leave me internally questioning my own judgment on the issue of "consent" ... maybe, after the man had held me captive for 2 hours and choked me into submission and I had assessed the odds of dying as high, and I had then tried to reassure him that I'd just been a little confused when I tried to put my foot through his windshield, he'd thought I was "cosenting" ...

Several months later, I travelled back again, to a different town, to attend the sentencing on a negotiated plea to the charge relating to me, that I had been fully consulted on and agreed to. My situation was the opposite of what many women experience -- the prosecution told me that they would not agree to what was really a shorter sentence than might have been appropriate, if I did not concur. Being somewhat "expert" in sentencing, and the sentencing of sexual offenders in particular, I felt too pressured by my own knowledge and beliefs to agree to what I knew and believed to be objectively appropriate. That's the court's job, and victims should really not be asked to do it (or insist on doing it, of course). I didn't want, and shouldn't have been given, the responsibility for either accepting or rejecting a sentencing proposal. Prosecution counsel had simply gone a little overboard on being "sensitive" to the victim.

So there you are, the answer to your question. So glad you asked; maybe you actually cared about the answer. But maybe you'll just announce that you found it not worth reading. No skin off my nose.

.

[RoeBear]

28. I did read it...

...and it was an appropriate use of bandwidth.

But I have to ask why did you feel it was necessary to mention the race of the victims?

" I was particularly grateful to the two sisters, who were recent arrivals from South Africa and were of mixed race, and had been apprehensive about going to police."

[iverglas]

29. I thought it obvious ... but maybe not

I was particularly grateful to the two sisters, who were recent arrivals from South Africa and were of mixed race, and had been apprehensive about going to police.

"But I have to ask why did you feel it was necessary to mention the race of the victims?"

Their race and their national origin, both of which I mentioned, were the reasons (or perhaps more accurately, they were jointly "the reason") why they were "apprehensive about going to police".

The incidents took place in the early 1970s; they were young women of mixed (black and white) race who had recently moved to Canada from South Africa. They had grown up "coloured" under apartheid. Although their family was, I gathered, pretty middle-class (in terms of income, occupation and education, e.g.), they were still coming from a background in which the police were not their friends. They had "reason" to believe, from their own experience, that they would be treated badly by police. And they were very young -- 17 and 18. They had initially refused to report to the police, which I found entirely understandable in those circumstances, and I was indeed grateful that they had set aside their own very justified apprehension about doing it, essentially in my interests -- to get the criminal off the streets and stop him from hurting other people -- even though they didn't know I existed.

Their father persuaded them to make the report. It made my life easier, because when I provided police with the man's licence plate number as soon as they arrived, they were able to confirm immediately that the man was already wanted for similar offences. And it made it more likely -- three convictions rather than just one -- that whatever danger this man presented to society would be apparent.

The teenager from the group of three who had successfully resisted the abductor had also initially declined to make a formal report. She telephoned the police, which, given that she herself was only 16, was a most responsible thing to do in the first place. She had intended only to anonymously report a "wacko on the loose" for the police's information, and at first refused their request to come in and speak on the record. When the police told her that he had assaulted two women the day before and tried to assault her and her friends that day, and asked who it would be tomorrow, she and her friends agreed to make the formal report.

.

[RoeBear]

30. It still wasn't...

...necessary.

[iverglas]

31. delayed response

You asked a question:

"Would it have been in your self-interest <sic> if...
...a previous victim of your rapist had done whatever was necessary to stop the SOB?

I answered your question.

I stated that I was indeed grateful -- agreeing that it WAS in my interest -- to the women who had done this for me, despite the good reasons they had for not doing so, i.e. not wishing to expose themselves to more degradation than they had already suffered.

Had I not explained what their reasons were (and the fact is that by identifying them as recent arrivals from South Africa and of mixed race, I had already explained those reasons, despite your apparent failure to grasp them), the depth of my gratitude would not have made sense. They acted IN MY INTEREST, and AGAINST THEIR OWN INTERESTS as they perceived their own interests.

You asked whether it would have been in my interest for someone else to have tried to stop him. Of course it was in my interest. And it's nothing more than decent for me to acknowledge that someone acted in my interest even when it was contrary to their own.

My reference to their national origin and race was ENTIRELY relevant to your question. And I include that information whenever I relate the incident, because I wish to acknowledge the selflessness of the two young women who tried to save me from the very unpleasant experience I had, even when they were afraid to do what they did to try to save me from it.

I'd hate to think that you were minimizing their fear and denying their experience. You may be African-American, but you ain't lived under apartheid. For you to suggest that their experience was irrelevant to my reply to your answer is to minimize and deny their experience as oppressed and terrorized black people.

You are apparently quite willing to do that for the venal purpose of discrediting me. That's disgusting.

So my response, delayed to the end here, is: piss off.

.

[RoeBear]

32. Their race was not important and...

...you are a wind bag who obviously and obliviously loves to read your own mindless prattling. My compromise with the rapists would have been if his first victims had shot him between the eyes. Thus saving you and his other victims the agony of what you went through.

Now try to respond in less than one thousand words.

[iverglas]

33. reply to what?

Nothing to see there, folks.

Go compromise with "rapists" all you like, and maybe even find someone some day who's engaged in a conversation to which your proposed compromise would be of some relevance.

I'm not the least bit interested in what you propose should be done to rapists, no one here asked you what should be done to rapists, and no one was talking about what should be done to rapists. The subject of the thread was not what should be done to rapists. The post you initially replied to by, for reasons known only to you, stating your refusal to compromise with rapists was not about compromising with rapists. I didn't offer an opinion about what should have been done to the man who assaulted me, nor did the other women he assaulted. None of us asked for your opinion, either. The justice system that dealt with him, and the society that instituted it, aren't interested in your opinion.

Your question to me was not what should have been done to him, it was whether it would have been in my "self-interest" if a previous victim had "done whatever was necessary to stop the SOB". My answer was that it was in my interest for them to report him to police, even though they did not believe it in their interests to do so, for the reasons I stated, and that I was grateful that they did it anyway. Had you asked whether it would have been in my interest for them to kill him, which now that I think about it is probably what you were asking -- it just didn't enter my mind since I don't think in such uncivilized ways -- I would have said no. It is not in my interest for anyone to go around carrying out extra-judicial executions. If you'd stated your question plainly, I would have told you what you wanted to know. You didn't, I didn't have a clue what you wanted to know, and now you're giving me the opinion of yours that I didn't ask for and am not interested in.

So all in all in all: damned if I can figure out why you keep telling me your opinion about what should be done to rapists in general or the man who assaulted me in particular.

Talk about somebody talking so he can hear himself speak ...

.

[RoeBear]

34. extra-judicial executions?

Are you suggesting that shooting a rapist is a legally unwarranted execution? I think not, at least not in the United States. A person is totally within their rights to use deadly force to stop a sexual assault. Is it different in Canada?

"So all in all in all: damned if I can figure out why you keep telling me your opinion about what should be done to rapists in general or the man who assaulted me in particular."

I'd like to see more women take self defence into their own hands like shown in post #12. Then there would be no second victim.
Rapists do like their victims unarmed.

[demsrule4life]

38. On the NOW website

they say the biggest cause of death of young women is murder, they also say women should not fightback. I might not be the brightest light bulb in the pack but it seems to me that not fighting back isnt working.

[RoeBear]

39. I guess that you realized a rapist...

...killed by his intended victim is not an 'extra-judicial execution'.

"The justice system that dealt with him, and the society that instituted it, aren't interested in your opinion."

So what penalty did he get?

[iverglas]

40. why would you "guess" that?

I won't even try to guess.

I'd already stated what I thought, which was that what you suggested would have amounted to an extra-judicial execution. In my own case (but not in the earlier incidents you were talking about, as I understand what happened in them), had I not been able to escape from him and had I had no other option but to kill him in order to survive, I would undoubtedly have had a pretty ironclad self-defence claim, based on the facts and my reasonable assessment of the danger. I have no regrets at all about having exercised my other option: running away and calling the police and assisting fully in their investigation, with the result that he was apprehended within less than a day.

Perhaps if you'd stop ignoring the fact that I have said something and stop demanding that I respond to irrelevant comments by yourself, you'd spare yourself having to read so much written by me.

The individual in question was sentenced to three concurrent terms in penitentiary, slightly offset in time so that they came to about 4.5 years from the date of the first trial, plus, I believe, about .75 years in pre-trial custody, so call it 5 years. I have no idea what happened to him after that; this was long before the days of victims being notified of parole applications and so on.

And trust me on this: I'm really not interested in your views on Canadian sentencing practices or on the sentencing of an individual about whom I have essentially told you nothing.

.

[RoeBear]

41. You made an erroneous comment...

...and refuse to admit it. A victim of sexual assault IS allowed to use deadly force. So, therefore, it would not be an extra-judicial execution.

extrajudicial
adj : beyond the usual course of legal proceedings; legally
unwarranted; "an extrajudicial penalty"
Synonyms: illegal

http://dict.die.net/extrajudicial/

I know, I know, you'll accuse me of leaving out pertinent facts because I didn't post the entire dictionary. I'm sorry.

He got 5 freaking years for turning your life inside out? I'd have rather seen him with a bullet between the eyes.

[iverglas]

42. go correct someone who's interested

"A victim of sexual assault IS allowed to use deadly force."

Maybe that's an accurate statement where you're at. Maybe if you said "it's raining", that would be an accurate statement where you're at too. I don't know, or particularly care.

Neither is true where I'm at. MY statement was NOT "erroneous".

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec34.html

Criminal Code of Canada, based on long-standing common law:

PART I Defence of Person

Self-defence against unprovoked assault

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.

Extent of justification

(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and

(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

As I said, and I can say it a few more times if you like: *I* would undoubtedly have been found to have had a "reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm" and to have believed "on reasonable grounds" that I could not otherwise have preserved myself from death or grievous bodily harm, had I been unable to escape.

In fact, all that is exactly what was going through my head as I was being choked and trying to guess what was likely to happen to me. As a researcher studying the sentencing of sexual offenders, and as a feminist activist, I knew very well that the sexual assaults reported to police represented only a fraction of the assaults committed, so that there were huge numbers of sexual assaults committed every year -- while when someone was murdered, there was always a body, so we could take the number of known murders as a reliable indication of the number of actual murders. With the result that the odds of being killed in the course of a sexual assault are in fact minimal.

But I just thought to myself: bingo, I think I've hit the jackpot. And when I was instructed to go for a walk in the woods in a deserted quarry in the middle of nowhere -- I'm not sure whether those old lyrics about 5 girls goin' to the graveyard and only 4 of 'em comin' back came into my head right then or when I first recounted the incident -- my apprehension of death became even more reasonable, and if I had been unable to escape, my belief that causing him bodily harm or death was my only option would have been even more reasonable.

As far as I know, the two young women in the first offence known of would not have had such reasonable apprehension or reasonable grounds. As far as I know, no force at all was used against them. Now, it's likely that he did threaten them with death, i.e. that he would kill one if the other escaped. And so they might have had a self-defence justification if they had killed him, indeed. But no, if he had not made such threats and they had not believed that they had no option to save their lives, they would not have had justification for killing him. They most especially would not have had justification for killing him if injuring him would have preserved their lives.

So no, no no no. Had I (or they) not had that reasonable apprehension and reasonable belief, I (or they) would have been engaged in an extra-judicial execution. A vigilante action. No more nor less.

My life wasn't exactly turned inside out. I was a big girl, and nobody's fool. I didn't regard my honour as having been damaged, my value as having been diminished. What after-effects I suffered -- and yes, I do have post-traumatic stress symptoms and was sensitized to subsequent trauma -- were from the near-death experience, not the sexual assault. Oh, and from the psychiatrist who told me I had a rape wish and death wish and then told me a revolting sexist "joke" on that point. I knew he was a vicious idiot, and just refused to cash the health-plan cheque and pay him.

Sexual assault is just not intrinsically the horrific thing it is exploited as being. It is one of a number of mechanisms that a patriarchal society uses to ensure that women do not threaten the status quo, but only one of them; others are just as damaging. It is hugely more likely that a robbery victim will be killed than that a sexual assault victim will be killed, or even injured -- but perpetuating the fear of death in the course of sexual assault serves the patriarchal interests.

My experience was very rare. Most sexual assaults are committed by family members, intimate partners, friends, acquaintances, people in positions of authority -- not the big bad drooling bogeymen who haunt those late-night streets of the fear-inducing myths women's lives are controlled by. Those people virtually never intend to, or do, cause physical harm, let alone death, to their victims. The psychological harm can indeed be severe, although it results far more from the surrounding circumstances (the way girls and women are socialized not to protect their own interests and then to feel shame when they are abused) than from the assault itself. And "fear of psychological damage" just is not a basis for a self-defence justification.

(I am not talking about battered/abused-victim syndrome at all; the psychological damage already done can indeed result in someone having a "reasonable apprehension" of death and a "reasonable belief" that killing the person who presents that threat is the only option, where a person not so damaged could not claim such apprehension or belief.)

All in all, I tend to feel that his sentence was perhaps a little bit on the short side, just on principle, but at the time, and now, I see no purpose that would have been served by incarcerating him for much longer. It certainly wouldn't have done anything for me. And I still don't care how *you* would rather have seen him. Your concern seems to be entirely in your own interests, not mine.

.

[RoeBear]

43. FYI

This was the only part of your response that I read:

""A victim of sexual assault IS allowed to use deadly force."

Maybe that's an accurate statement where you're at. Maybe if you said "it's raining", that would be an accurate statement where you're at too. I don't know, or particularly care.

Neither is true where I'm at. MY statement was NOT "erroneous"."

The rest was just a waste of your time.

BTW- This is a US message board. I gave the US answer.
I'll check back in half an hour and see how much more diarrhea you can spew.

[RoeBear]

44. It's been over an hour...

...don't tell me that you are still typing. :boring:

[iverglas]

47. yup ... and I still

... don't see any substantiation of your claim that it is lawful where you're at (and all over the US, of course) for a person who fears an imminent sexual assault, but does not reasonably fear grievous injury or death and reasonably believe that s/he has no other way of averting that injury or death, to kill the person whom s/he fears is about to assault him/her.

After all, I did provide law to substantiate my own claim that it isn't.

Not that "lawful" is even the subject of the discussion, actually. It started by you asking me a question that was apparently meant to mean, as I later figured out: would I have thought it in my interest if the previous victims had killed the man who subsequently assaulted me?

That isn't even a question of law, actually. My response was that it would have been an extra-judicial execution and that I don't consider such things to be in my interest. On the other hand, of course, had the women reasonably feared that they were going to be killed or grievously injured, and reasonably believed that they had no other way of averting death or grievous injury, then yup, it would have been in my interest for them to kill him if necessary, because it isn't in my interest for people to be murdered (and yup, it isn't in my interest for the murderer to then have an opportunity to kill someone else, including me).

My law happens to agree with me. It reflects values I concur in, the human values that the common law developed in tandem with, and which was then codified in statute form.

You're welcome to your little snit about US discussion boards and US laws. I don't care how blinkered and resistent to the wide world of facts and ideas you want to make yourself look.

.

[jody]

7. Canada has a rape rate that is 2.3 times higher then the US.

Perhaps Canada should consider arming its women so they can defend themselves against predatory rapist who can commit their evil unafraid of an armed victim.

Top 100 Rapes
1. South Africa 1.21 per 1000 people
2. Montserrat 0.83 per 1000 people
3. Australia 0.8 per 1000 people
4. Seychelles 0.8 per 1000 people
5. Canada 0.75 per 1000 people
6. Zimbabwe 0.49 per 1000 people
7. Jamaica 0.49 per 1000 people
8. Dominica 0.34 per 1000 people
9. United States 0.32 per 1000 people
10. Iceland 0.26 per 1000 people

[iverglas]

10. perhaps jody should know what she's talking about

... at least once in a while.

"Perhaps Canada should consider arming its women"

Canada does not have women. Canada has trees, skyscrapers, cows, and a lot of other stuff. But Canadians just don't say things like "our women". (Perhaps that should be "our wimmin".)

You just get more and more offensive with every opportunity that presents itself to you.

I am a woman. I am a Canadian. I am not some chattel of my country; I am my country.

It is so grossly offensive to refer to a country doing something in respect of "its women" that once again, this reader is left nigh speechless. This sort of language is expected of the Taliban, perhaps, but I do not expect it of anyone I know.

And now we get to the issue of simply knowing whereof one speaks.

Jody cites her source
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap_cap
which gives this information for Canada:

24,049 (2000)

Hmm. I search that site for information as to where it gets its data, and find nothing.

Here's a little something that jody doesn't know.

In Canada, the offence of "rape" does not exist.

The offence of "sexual assault" is punished under s. 271 of the Criminal Code of Canada; sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm under s. 272; aggravated sexual assault (wounding, maiming, disfiguring or endangering life) under s. 271.

The offence of "rape" was abolished in Canada about 20 years ago. The idea was to remove the stigma attached to "rape", recognize that sexual assaults not involving male-on-female penetration are serious, and eliminate the distinctions between sexual assaults on male and female persons, with the aim of encouraging reporting of offences -- and stressing the criminal, rather than sexual, nature of the offences.

So what I ask myself is: how does jody's source know how many "rapes" there were in Canada, when, as far as I can tell, no such statistic exists??

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/030725/d030725a.htm

Total sexual offences include: sexual assault (level 1) which involves minor physical injuries or no injuries to the victim; sexual assault (level 2) which involves sexual assault with a weapon, threats or causing bodily harm; sexual assault (level 3) which results in wounding, maiming, disfiguring or endangering the life of the victim; and "other" sexual offences, a group of offences that primarily address sexual abuse and exploitation of children.

No breakdown according to male-on-female penetration that I see.

Data for 2002 show the rate of sexual offences in Canada has remained relatively steady for the past four years.

In 2002, there were 27,100 sexual offences reported to police, representing a rate of 86 incidents for every 100,000 population, virtually unchanged since 1999 when the rate was 89.

The rate in 2002 was 36% below the peak of 136 incidents for every 100,000 population in 1993. The rate of sexual offences reported to police increased after new sexual assault legislation was passed in 1983. The increase was driven largely by incidents of sexual assault level 1, which involves minor physical injuries or no injuries to the victim. Between 1983 and 2002, the rates of sexual assault levels 2 and 3, the more serious forms, declined.

Jody's source says 24,049 "rapes" in 2000.
Statistics Canada says 27,100 sexual offences in 2002.

Jody's source reports a "rape" rate of 75/100,000 people in 2000.
Statistics Canada reports a sexual assault rate of 86/100,000 people in 2002.

Forgive me if I doubt that 9 out of 10 sexual offences reported to police in 2002 (assuming a "rape" rate similar to what jody's source claims for 2000) were male-on-female penetration cases.

In 2002, sexual assault level 1 offences accounted for 88% of all sexual assault incidents. "Other sexual offences," which are primarily offences against children, accounted for 10%, and sexual assault levels 2 and 3-the more serious forms-accounted for the remaining 2%.

(It is not possible to infer that level 1 sexual offences were not "rape" in any particular proportion; the level refers to the degree of violence/injury, not the specific sexual nature of the assault.)

Police statistics represent only a small portion of all sexual offences and offenders. Victimization surveys suggest that as many as 90% of all sexual offences are not reported to the police. Once reported, sexual offences are also less likely than other violent offences to result in charges.

In Canada, it was found that changing the definitions of sexual assaults coincided with a higher rate of reported sexual assaults. It is reasonable to believe that this was not because of a higher rate of occurrence, but because of a higher reporting rate.

We now have two reasons why Canadian figures are not comparable to figures for countries which prosecute under the traditional definition of "rape":

- Canadian figures include sexual assaults that are *not* "rape";

- the reporting rate for sexual assaults is probably higher in Canada than in other countries.


Then, of course, there is the abject stupidity of this "arm the women" business anyway:

Victims of sexual offences knew the accused in 80% of cases. About 10% were assaulted by a friend, while 41% were assaulted by an acquaintance. Just over one-quarter (28%) were assaulted by a family member, while the remaining 20% were victimized by a stranger.

It would really be somewhat unusual for a woman to arm herself against her date, her friend, her family member.

This crap talk about Canada, or any other country, arming "its women" against sexual assault is nothing more than collaboration in the assaults that women suffer at the hands of men in their entourage; it plays along with the pretence that women are victimized by nasty strangers and that arming themselves against those strangers is what is needed to stop victimization of women.

In fact, women are victimized by men they know and trust, and to pretend otherwise is to misrepresent women's experience, and endanger women by diverting public attention from, and inhibiting women's awareness of, the real problem.


If jody would read something reliable and authoritative once in a while, she might stop making such dreadful blunders. The attitude problem expressed in language like "its women" and the appropriation of someone else's life and experience for her own ends might also be alleviated by reading something other than the words of dead white guys.

.

[Shanty Oilish]

11. Source

The source is right under #65 on the list (Saudi Arabia). It reads:
"Source: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)"

[iverglas]

13. sorry, doesn't fly

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7pc.pdf

That's the report in question: "Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems". It shows statistics for Canada for "rape", a crime that does not exist in Canada. I can only assume that Canada reports "sexual assaults", and they are then counted as "rapes" for the UN statistics purposes. I might take a shot at finding out what's up.

http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/InstrumentE.pdf

That's the UN's questionnaire, used for collecting the data shown in the report.

5. "Rape" may be understood to mean sexual intercourse without valid consent. Please indicate whether statutory rape is included in the data provided. If, in your country, a distinction is made between sexual assault and actual penetration, please provide relevant information.

"Sexual intercourse without valid consent" is not a distinct crime in Canada. NO distinction is made "between sexual assault and actual penetratoin". The only way that statistics about "rape" in Canada could be collected would be by reading the evidence, or agreed statement of facts, from every sexual assault charge for which a conviction was obtained. I am confident that this ain't done.

One must assume that the information referred to in the underlined portion of the quoted passage is provided by Canada to the UN. What the UN chooses to do with it is not something I've been able to ascertain as yet.

There is no category for "other sexual assaults" in the UN statistics. It therefore is not possible to compare Canada to other countries by aggregating "rape" and "other sexual assaults", for instance, if the aggregate figures for another country that one might expect to be comparable to Canada were indeed comparable, this would confirm my hypothesis.

It is ludicrous on the face of it to imagine, let alone claim, that Canada has a "rape" rate more than two times higher than the US, or whatever the allegation was.

I might understand that someone unfamiliar with the relevant facts that I've provided might take the figures at face value, although I would think that anyone with the scantest knowledge of crime rates in Canada and elsewhere would find it rather bizarre that, both overall and for other specific crimes, Canada's rates are lower than US rates, for example, and yet in this one instance the rate is similar to what is found in a disordered and violent developing nation ... and no one in Canada seems to be at all concerned.

Anybody making the assertion, being now in possession of the information that I've given which certainly demonstrates that assertion to be unreliable, needs to do something like find statistics for "other sexual assaults" in both Canada and any other country to which a comparison is proposed, from which it should be obvious that the "rape" comparison is a case of apples and oranges.

[billbuckhead]

35. Notice there are no gun hating EU nations

I have trouble believing the rate in the USA is.32 per 1000. I've noticed how gunners fantasize about defensless women being raped. It's like they think people who are antigun should be raped.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. Wow

That certainly is a lame assault.

No the thing about people with guns is that we all have people we care about more than the lives of those who would do them harm.

[Pert_UK]

37. Well it would be lame except....

only yesterday Shatoga posted a line that said that people who refuse to own guns are "Wusses" and that if all wusses were wiped out by criminals then nobody would miss them....

He may have been being sarcastic, but it got deleted and I'm not sure he was....

Basically - refuse to own a gun and you deserve everything you get.