thankfully i have no idea what a drake is(other than a duck) but it's prolly good advice anyway
Posted on 06/15/2018 6:58:34 AM PDT by Morgana
He ceased to be a victim the moment he whipped out his johnson and started committing buggery.
Subduing them and tying them up is self defense.
Shooting them while they're a threat is self defense.
Sodomizing them for five days (or even once) while they're restrained is a horrible crime.
Yeah, because the drunk CHOSE to do something that killed an innocent.
I believe all drunk drivers hurting others should be tried as pre-meditated murder. They very willingly chose to lose control and have available a deadly weapon.
Good.
Goes both ways.
Morality does a world of good.
Don’t believe me? Watch Judge Judy.
I think a more accurate rendering of his viewpoint is “Going to a man’s hotel room shall be viewed as an indicator of consent”, in situations where he claims consent and she claims she didn’t.
thankfully i have no idea what a drake is(other than a duck) but it's prolly good advice anyway
If someone has been captured by another and is being raped by them (especially over and over as mood strikes their captor as in this case) if they find the opportunity to escape by killing their captor that is self defense.
It doesn’t matter how or why they were caught, or the sort of person they are, to take the life of the rapist to escape is self defense.
So if, in this case, these men had broken free and killed their captor as they were escaping it would have been him dying in the commission of a crime.
You almost seem to be working on the view that a person wronged has a right to mete out punishment for the wrong.
In this case once he’d subdued them, and they were alive, he had no right to punish them himself under our laws. A castle doctrine isn’t about meting out punishment but about defense. They are burglars, their crime is burglary. The man is a rapist, his crime is rape. If he’d gone on to tire of them and killed them he would’ve been a murderer and a rapist.
What they did is bad ... but just doesn’t compare to what he did,
And they too, now that he’s been caught and they’re free (from him, not the cops for their own crimes) do not have a legal right to avenge themselves on him later ... if they hire a hit man or they did it themselves hereafter they would be guilty of the appropriate crime.
Darn you brevity, the soul of wit!
(Good job)
A farmer catches two neighbor boys doing something illegal to his property. He tells them I won’t tell your parents or the authorities if you help me take care of my cattle this week. The boys agree.
To both of you: Did the farmer just blackmail or otherwise enslave these boys? Or did he show an act of mercy while exacting a price for their crime?
The two burglars did not consent to buggery. In no way was the buggery an act of self defense. Any claims of self defense ended when the burglars were subdued and restrained. Nor was it an agreed upon alternative to judicial punishment.
It was RAPE. It was A FELONY.
The rapist was rightly charged, and should be punished in accordance with the law.
If the law provided for rapists to hang by the neck until they are dead, I'd be OK with that.
Your continued defense of homosexual rape is evil, and is in no way consistent with a "conservative" mind. Seriously ... I'm starting to wonder about you.
You are intellectually dishonest and cannot answer simple questions.
Is that your take?
Mine is “stay the hell away from THAT guy’s farm!”
I mean, early on I was trying to keep it light hearted (let them go with time serviced) but it’s really getting out there.
We must be getting trolled.
You are a pervert.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.