Justifiable Manslaughter Sexist

[suza23]

I find it ridiculous that a girl can kill a man with a weapon and it be justified but if a man does it to a girl it is murder / manslaughter.

The reason is they show a female up against a scary man that the only possible way to defend herself is by putting 6 bullets in his head but god for bid a man feels threatened by a woman he has to try and fight her off even if she has a weapon before he can shoot / stab her.

Does anyone else think that these sexist laws are ridiculous and should be changed?

[Iceman]

Yah, it can be justified, it's called self-defence. But it's not like everyone woman that kills a guy is justified.

[Jess]

That's self defense and I agree with what Socko said...um yeah

edit: but I never knew that if a man kills a woman in self-defense, that's murder. no, I didn't know that. that's self defense, not murder. same with vice versa.

[suza23]

Jess in NY if a man kills a woman in self defense it is much harder to prove it as self defense then it is for a woman to kill a man. Most likely any woman who kills a man in self defense (like he was attacking her and she killed him) she gets off scott free but if a woman is attacking a man he cant kill her he has to use reasonable force to subdue her or else its murder this is saying she doesnt have a weapon

[Iceman]

Jess in NY if a man kills a woman in self defense it is much harder to prove it as self defense then it is for a woman to kill a man. Most likely any woman who kills a man in self defense (like he was attacking her and she killed him) she gets off scott free but if a woman is attacking a man he cant kill her he has to use reasonable force to subdue her or else its murder this is saying she doesnt have a weapon

I claim, your claims, are wrong.

[Jess]

well if that's the case that's not fair.

[suza23]

Socko i'm a senior in high school taking AP Forensic Science and College level Criminal Justice im pretty sure i am right for my state at least. Please tell me what you think im wrong about.

[Iceman]

but if a woman is attacking a man he cant kill her he has to use reasonable force to subdue her or else its murder this is saying she doesnt have a weapon

That.

[Jess]

I think you should explain...?

[Iceman]

Who me?

If it's me I'm just wondering where they get there evidence that if a man gets attacked by a woman, he can't use the same force that a woman could, if a man attacked her.

I'm not trying to say he's wrong, I am just wondering where he gets this assumption.

[suza23]

Because they can say a man is psychical stronger and shouldn't have to use a weapon to defend himself from a woman they can say that he could have handled the situation differently leading it to being unjustifiable and now being manslaugter

[Iceman]

Still, you didn't answer my question.

Who is they?

And where is actual evidence saying this happens in a court room?

[Dorsum Oppel]

Jess in NY if a man kills a woman in self defense it is much harder to prove it as self defense then it is for a woman to kill a man. Most likely any woman who kills a man in self defense (like he was attacking her and she killed him) she gets off scott free but if a woman is attacking a man he cant kill her he has to use reasonable force to subdue her or else its murder this is saying she doesnt have a weapon

You seem to not have a working knowledge of fucking periods. It makes your post damn hard to read.

I know plenty of adult women who would have no trouble killing a man with their bare hands, and plenty of men who'd need a gun to defend themselves from said ladies.

Me living in texas might have a bit to do with it.

[Iceman]

You live in Texas!?

[Dorsum Oppel]

You live in Texas!?

I'm sorry.

[Iceman]

No, it just blew my fucking mind. I woul have never guessed.

[suza23]

They is referring to the prosecutor talking to the jury. The evidence would be the man they are looking at and how he is psychically bigger then the female. And the female who is dead and is smaller then the male. (am.i.using.enough.fucking.periods.now.?!)

[Iceman]

They is referring to the prosecutor talking to the jury. The evidence would be the man they are looking at and how he is psychically bigger then the female. And the female who is dead and is smaller then the male. (am.i.using.enough.fucking.periods.now.?!)

Oh my

Again, I need actual evidence of this happening.

[suza23]

Google it...

[Iceman]

I did. Obviously it doesn't happen or you would have found evidence by now.

[suza23]

Obviously it does considering my teacher is the one that brought it up and is making us write a 2 page response to why it isn't fair.

I didn't google it because it's a waste of my time.

But here goes my 25 seconds of googling

"Justified or accidental killings are considered homicides. Depending on the circumstances, these may or may not be considered criminal offenses."

And lets use our brains here for a second Socko a circumstance can be a male who is bigger then the female killing the female because she was attacking him without a weapon. He used more force then was necessary to subdue her making it murder not self defense. Also you only get 1 shot if someone breaks into your house and if you shoot them more then once and they die that is also murder in NY

[Iceman]

Obviously it does considering my teacher is the one that brought it up and is making us write a 2 page response to why it isn't fair.

I didn't google it because it's a waste of my time.

But here goes my 25 seconds of googling

"Justified or accidental killings are considered homicides. Depending on the circumstances, these may or may not be considered criminal offenses."

And lets use our brains here for a second Socko a circumstance can be a male who is bigger then the female killing the female because she was attacking him without a weapon. He used more force then was necessary to subdue her making it murder not self defense. Also you only get 1 shot if someone breaks into your house and if you shoot them more then once and they die that is also murder in NY

That's why you don't live in New York. Anyways you are assuming things.

I hate assumptions.

If a man acts in self defense there is a low probability of him actually killing the woman.

Oh and your new example goes against the original question of
I find it ridiculous that a girl can kill a man with a weapon and it be justified but if a man does it to a girl it is murder / manslaughter

Note how the original one was with a weapon

[suza23]

Maybe you didnt understand my orignal post.

I was saying if a woman kills a man who is attacking her (using his hands no weapon) she is in most cases justified because she can say that she felt threatened and that was her only defense against him

While if a woman is attacking a man (using her hands no weapon) he is in most cases unjustified because he cant say that it was his only defense against her.

I hate people who think they know what they are talking about.

[Iceman]

I find it ridiculous that a girl can kill a man with a weapon and it be justified but if a man does it to a girl it is murder / manslaughter.

I'm pretty sure everyone else and I can obviously see the giant ass word weapon. Which you say your not talking about.

[suza23]

Socko im talking about if a man assaults/rapes a woman she can use the weapon she cant just go out and attack man she has to be using it in self defense.

A man on the other hand that is being assaulted/raped by a woman needs to try other means before he resorts to a weapon

[Zephyr]

Is the double standard in these types of cases right? No.

Will a jury find it harder to believe that a man couldn't subdue a woman without use of a weapon? Yes, with some reason.

Men are biologically built to be stronger, so they have a bit more of a choice to try and subdue an attacker without a weapon than a woman would. That's what your law in question is based off of, no doubt.

[Iceman]

Socko im talking about if a man assaults/rapes a woman she can use the weapon she cant just go out and attack man she has to be using it in self defense.

A man on the other hand that is being assaulted/raped by a woman needs to try other means before he resorts to a weapon

Blah, you keep changing "what [your] trying to say". I'm done with this thread.

Is the double standard in these types of cases right? No.

Will a jury find it harder to believe that a man couldn't subdue a woman without use of a weapon? Yes, with some reason.

Men are biologically built to be stronger, so they have a bit more of a choice to try and subdue an attacker without a weapon than a woman would. That's what your law in question is based off of, no doubt.

Stephanie got it right.

[suza23]

Blah, you keep changing "what [your] trying to say". I'm done with this thread.



Stephanie got it right.

I didn't change what i am saying my original post didn't include the weapon or being attacked because the title explains it if you new what Justifiable Manslaughter was you wouldn't have been confused and you would have understood what I was saying the first time.