He just pointed out the obvious fact that your question is not fair because it assumes that two vastly-different incidents are somehow the same and worthy of the same treatment. They're not the same. They're so different that the judgments making sense for one scenario don't really apply in any reasonable way to the other scenario. I don't think your position is rational at all.
Not to mention putting a question about "your daughter". If one of your kids committed a crime that they even admitted to how many would want to see them put away for life or to death?
just to clarify, you think that the girl in my scenario shouldn't be punished for her act of murder, right?
WTF kind of stupid question is that? Does her guilt or innocence somehow depend on who she's related to?
No, the girl in your scenario likely wouldn't be charged for murder. Allowance would be made for the fact that she was violently attacked and had every reason to fear for her life. Beyond even that, she could reasonably argue that she had a break due to the attack and could not rationally determine her next course of action as being right or wrong. BUT...your scenario has nothing to do with this case. A better scenario for you would be... A girl is walking down the street one day and a guy whistles at her and slaps her butt. She gets out a gun and shoots him in the knee. He falls down and says "damn girl you crazy." Angry that he mocked her, she shoots him several times in the chest. She then drags his body into an alley. There she discovers that he is still alive, gasping for air. She puts the gun to his chin and shoots him again. Does this girl deserve to be prosecuted? You betcha.
You seem to like asking questions without answering any of the multiple hypotheticals posed to you. Why is that?
no, having your home broken into and your safety threatened is far closer to rape than it is having your butt slapped. sorry.
nope, has absolutely nothing to do with who she's related to. feel free to remove "your daughter" from the scenario if you are objective enough to understand that who it was in regards to the 2 strangers involved is irrelevant.
Why wouldn't it be murder? Her safety is not in danger any longer. She may not get life in prison because she was the victim of a crime herself however she should definitely get a long jail sentence.
The man's safety was never in danger and when he dealt the fatal blows he knew he was in no danger. His own telling of the story precludes the idea that he was making split second decisions that he believed to be a matter of life or death. His own telling of the story clearly illustrates intent to kill, knowledge that he was not in danger, rage at being mocked by one of his victims and cold blooded malice when he realized one was still alive, gasping for air. There is no moral equivalence between this scenario and a woman who is being raped killing her rapist.
You are pointing me to a question I asked you that you didn't answer? And yes, the answer to all your questions (especially the bizarre reverse-rape question) is that they people would be arrested and likely charged. The psycho rape person would likely get a long sentence; the woman who took the kill shot would probably get some significant consideration for circumstances.
I have had homes broken into, twice when I was there including once punching a guy trying to climb into my bedroom window. I have never been raped but know women who have. A home robbery and a rape are not close.
That really depends on the prosecutor. The self-defense laws are pretty clear that once your life, safety and safety of others are no longer under threat you cannot continue to use violence against your assailant.
the scenarios are more closely analogous than home break-in and a public pat on ass. i didn't say robbery and rape were the same, don't put words into my mouth.
