Use of Force Law

[Tez3]

For instance rape is classified as serious bodily injury

Not if the rapist is a swimmer though, then it's considered by the judge as a minor inconvenience for the swimmer who can swim really fast and by the rapist father as 20 minutes of 'action'. six month prison sentence, out in three months.
Ex-Stanford swimmer gets six months in jail and probation for sexual assault

 

[Steve]

Don't want to ruin the poor boy's life or anything. He's got a bright future.

 

[Paul_D]

He was intoxicated. I always find it strenge that the woman c

Not if the rapist is a swimmer though, then it's considered by the judge as a minor inconvenience for the swimmer who can swim really fast and by the rapist father as 20 minutes of 'action'. six month prison sentence, out in three months.
Ex-Stanford swimmer gets six months in jail and probation for sexual assault

He was intoxicated, and therefore his decison making was imapried, which I would imagine was taken into account when sentancing was decided.

 

[Juany118]

Well there are also some things that are universally at least in the USA considered serious bodily injury whether or not they do cause any disfigurement or the loss of any functions of the bodily organs. For instance rape is classified as serious bodily injury. Also kidnap falls under the category of serious bodily injury even though kidnap might not result in any injury at all.

Not legally they aren't. I think you REALLY need to start realizing the law and your preconceptions are very different. You also need to remember something else, different terms may be used but what is largely universal is the concept that assaults involve either; "just" physical contact, bodily injury, serious bodily injury or death. Laws on self defense and the use of force are among tbe most complicated out there because the Government needs to balance the need of a person to protect themselves against the fact there are people who will abuse such laws. Please actually do research of case law and written law, via legal reference sites. It will open your eyes, I am done being a paralegal since you keep sticking to your assumptions and not the law, since the written law I noted was specifically change to match SCOTUS case law in the 1970's and further clarified by same case law in the 80s. Such case law trumping State Laws and Courts.

 

[Juany118]

He was intoxicated. I always find it strenge that the woman c

He was intoxicated, and therefore his decison making was imapried, which I would imagine was taken into account when sentancing was decided.

Ummm no. That is why we have sentencing MINIMUMS and why the judge is now the target of a petition, required by Cali Law, to be the target of a recall as he blatantly ignored said minimums. What the probation department report, that justified the sentence, should have said was "he's a rich white kid, not a Latino or black kid, so cut him a break." I can also guarantee you that kid will reoffend. You don't rape someone outside behind a DUMPSTER, if you aren't a predator.

I also don't want to know where you were going with that first line because it looks VERY troubling.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Not legally they aren't. I think you REALLY need to start realizing the law and your preconceptions are very different.

Look it up. Rape is considered "grave bodily harm" by law and so is kidnap.

 

[Juany118]

Look it up. Rape is considered "grave bodily harm" by law and so is kidnap.

Ummm if you looked they were specifically noted as being times when lethal force can be used. Read both of my posts, the one saying when lethal force is justified, then then definition back to back. The reason why rape and kidnapping are listed separately is because while they are definitely the term you use the law must also recognize different degrees of bodily injury, which was the point of the definition I posted.

It seems to me like you are simply talking in circles at this point to try and justify some broader idea of use of force in self defense.

 

[Steve]

In this case, he was lucky enough to take advantage of a loophole in California law where the sentences are much less severe if the victim is unconscious due to alcohol, and not just impaired.

This Rape Bill Will Close the Loophole That Let Brock Turner Off So Easily

 

[Juany118]

Look it up. Rape is considered "grave bodily harm" by law and so is kidnap.

To continue, your posts seem to indicate a belief that people who are defending themselves, if they go overboard, should be given a pass because they started from a position of defense. The law doesn't work that way. All defense must be objectively reasonable and must stop when the threat ceases by case law. Heck case law has completely invalidated Statutes in States where the law amounted to "he was a no good varmint".

Why? Because the law has to balance every individuals rights vs the needs of society and to be overly generous with self defense law is to invite vigilantism.

 

[Juany118]

In this case, he was lucky enough to take advantage of a loophole in California law where the sentences are much less severe if the victim is unconscious due to alcohol, and not just impaired.

This Rape Bill Will Close the Loophole That Let Brock Turner Off So Easily

It wasn't only that however. The sentencing guidelines typically required a 2 year mandatory minimum unless mitigating circumstances could be shown. The Judge justified his decision in large part on a probation report that recommended leniency due to age and intoxication.

Now the 2 year mandatory is still far less than the current guidelines for other types of rape, and this law will fix that, but the bias in this case is pretty startling, even if the bias was subconscious.

This also brings to mind where I think Paul D was going with that line he never finished. There is a BIG difference between being intoxicated so that the little voice that says "chill just because she snubbed you doesn't mean you can rape her to prove a point" is quite and being intoxicated to the point that you are actually incapable of action.

A woman simply having sex then waking up the next morning saying "I regret that, I was too drunk, I will call 911 now" is a far cry from "omg she was so drunk she couldn't move, talk.." or "...was unconscious."

 

[Paul_D]

You don't rape someone outside behind a DUMPSTER, if you aren't a predator

From the incident report I read they were at a party togther, had drinks and left together. DNA tests also showed no evidnce of gential to genital contact, so I;m not sure "predator" is the correct word in this instance.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Ummm if you looked they were specifically noted as being times when lethal force can be used. Read both of my posts, the one saying when lethal force is justified, then then definition back to back. The reason why rape and kidnapping are listed separately is because while they are definitely the term you use the law must also recognize different degrees of bodily injury, which was the point of the definition I posted.

It seems to me like you are simply talking in circles at this point to try and justify some broader idea of use of force in self defense.

Well let me ask you this, what is your legal background?

 

[Juany118]

From the incident report I read they were at a party togther, had drinks and left together. DNA tests also showed no evidnce of gential to genital contact, so I;m not sure "predator" is the correct word in this instance.

Yeah only if you insert a penis into a another person are you a predator. Are you serious?

 

[Juany118]

Well let me ask you this, what is your legal background?

Police Officer for 19 years...the guy who will decide if I arrest you or not in any case except a homicide where I need to consult a DA as well. Also this is all fresh in my mind having just had to go over 6 credit hours exclusively on Use of force and self defense laws.

 

[PhotonGuy]

To continue, your posts seem to indicate a belief that people who are defending themselves, if they go overboard, should be given a pass because they started from a position of defense. The law doesn't work that way. All defense must be objectively reasonable and must stop when the threat ceases by case law. Heck case law has completely invalidated Statutes in States where the law amounted to "he was a no good varmint".

Why? Because the law has to balance every individuals rights vs the needs of society and to be overly generous with self defense law is to invite vigilantism.

Well lets say you stop an attacker and they are lying there incapacitated, obviously no longer a threat. If you were to then kick and stomp them than that would be excessive and it would not be self defense since they are no longer coming at you and no longer a threat. And it makes sense for that to be considered excessive as you said otherwise it could invite vigilantism. However, using force to stop the attacker while he's coming at you I don't see why that would be a problem as in that case it clearly is self defense.

 

[Paul_D]

Yeah only if you insert a penis into a another person are you a predator. Are you serious?

Predator suggests to me he is roaming the streets at night looking for vulnerable women in secluded places to attack.

Going to a party, chatting to a girl, having drinks with her, leaving the party holding hands (all from the incident report) are not the actions of a predator.

Of course, you know perfectly well that was what I was referring to, but you have conveniently chosen not to include that part when you quoted me because you are clearly trolling, which I have neither the time nor the inclination to be drawn into. So Goodbye.

 

[Juany118]

Predator suggests to me he is roaming the streets at night looking for vulnerable women in secluded places to attack.

Going to a party, chatting to a girl, having drinks with her, leaving the party holding hands (all from the incident report) are not the actions of a predator.

Of course, you know perfectly well that was what I was referring to, but you have conveniently chosen not to include that part when you quoted me because you are clearly trolling, which I have neither the time nor the inclination to be drawn into. So Goodbye.

Legally it can be determined from a single offense depending on the severity. In this case he was convicted of penetrating the victim with foreign objects by force. So yeah...

 

[Tez3]

He was intoxicated. I always find it strenge that the woman c

He was intoxicated, and therefore his decison making was imapried, which I would imagine was taken into account when sentancing was decided.

From the incident report I read they were at a party togther, had drinks and left together. DNA tests also showed no evidnce of gential to genital contact, so I;m not sure "predator" is the correct word in this instance.

She was unconscious and in no position to give consent. The victim does not say she left with him and even if she had that doesn't give or imply consent to sexually molest her while she was unconscious. He had tried to get off with the victim's sister and has admitted he was looking to get off with someone that night. I hope you have also read her impact statement. Here's The Powerful Letter The Stanford Victim Read To Her Attacker
The judge let him off because he was in the judge's words a talented swimmer, hence my comment.
There is no excuse for anyone whether drunk or not to sexually molest an unconscious person, it was a lapse in judgement, it was sexual assault.

 

[Juany118]

Well lets say you stop an attacker and they are lying there incapacitated, obviously no longer a threat. If you were to then kick and stomp them than that would be excessive and it would not be self defense since they are no longer coming at you and no longer a threat. And it makes sense for that to be considered excessive as you said otherwise it could invite vigilantism. However, using force to stop the attacker while he's coming at you I don't see why that would be a problem as in that case it clearly is self defense.

But the thing is the level of force must be "objectively reasonable" under the totality of the circumstances, not simply the use and this is what gets people in trouble.

 

[Tez3]

Predator suggests to me he is roaming the streets at night looking for vulnerable women in secluded places to attack.

Going to a party, chatting to a girl, having drinks with her, leaving the party holding hands (all from the incident report) are not the actions of a predator.

Of course, you know perfectly well that was what I was referring to, but you have conveniently chosen not to include that part when you quoted me because you are clearly trolling, which I have neither the time nor the inclination to be drawn into. So Goodbye.

No excuses. She was unconscious.