From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "I only want to hurt your for a little while" - "Prince"
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 07:19:16 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

[In a couple of previous posts I asked Kevin why he hadn't responded to Keith;
I now see that he did so separately, so I withdraw the comment.]

In  <1992Oct5.014937.16916@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>  kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
> In article <1992Oct4.233831.4764@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
>
> Stop evading the issue, Kibbles.  Larry said up there that if somebody tries
> to rape a woman, she has the right to use lethal force to stop them.  Your
> reply was "Only in some states".
>
> So please tell me which states have laws saying that it is illegal to use
> lethal force to stop a rape.

> Larry is not arguing for any _exceptions_ [sic] to established rules of law.
> He stated that if a person tries to rape a woman, the woman is allowed to
> use lethal force to stop the rape.  Your reply was "Only as a recent
> innovation".
>
> So, please post the case citations where a person was convicted of Murder
> (or Manslaughter) for using lethal force to prevent a rape.

Good points; saved me some typing.  :-)

> >As I explained to Larry, there is a miscommunication here: the sentence above
> >was intended to refer to the purpose for which the laws were created --
> >deterrence of would-be rapists -- *NOT* the circumstances under which the
> >exceptions apply.
>
> Ok, I'll buy that.  Thanks for answering.

I'd buy it as being an explanation, but not a valid one.  (Commented on
in a previous post.)

> >I have typed the relevant parts of the legal definition of "self-defense"
> >many times already. Doug Holtsinger has also cited legal authorities on this
> >point. Larry has not only ignored all of the substantial legal arguments, but
> >the only "legal authority" he has cited is some standing policy of the NYPD.

No, I cited New York State law, as *quoted* from a legal section of an
NYPD training guide.  I also quoted the Model Penal Code:
  Section 2.04.  Use of Force in Self-Protection.
   (2)  Limitations on Justifying Necessity for Use of Force
     (b)  The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this Section
          unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to
          protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping,
          or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat

You showed ignorance by asking a leading question:
> Only if the perpetrator represents an immediate danger to life and limb,
> right?
to which the answer was No, and Doug quoted a Justice Department *overview* of
state laws, claimed it proved me wrong, then wound up contradicting himself,
and went around in circles for a week, generally making a fool of himself.

> >I think it's high time Larry anted up. We've already done our part.
>
> Ok.  Larry is saying (correct me if I'm wrong, ok Larry?) that the use
> of lethal force to prevent a rape is an established legal principal.

I'm stating that the law permits it in New York, and in all other states so
far as I know, although Kevin has claimed to know otherwise.  I would assume
that these existing laws are based on an established legal principle, but
since I don't even own a copy of Blacks, I don't know what the Darcy Definition
for "established legal principle" might be.

> Please prove him wrong.

Since my claim is that the law states what the law states, that would be
rather difficult.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39053 alt.abortion.inequity:4088 alt.birthright:475