What this article is advocating is vigilantism.
The justice system failed these women, but expanding “self defense” to defend vigilantism is not the solution.
this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024
25 points (85.7% liked)
Excellent Reads
1460 readers
1 users here now
Are you tired of clickbait and the current state of journalism? This community is meant to remind you that excellent journalism still happens. While not sticking to a specific topic, the focus will be on high-quality articles and discussion around their topics.
Politics is allowed, but should not be the main focus of the community.
Submissions should be articles of medium length or longer. As in, it should take you 5 minutes or more to read it. Article series’ would also qualify.
Please either submit an archive link, or include it in your summary.
Rules:
- Common Sense. Civility, etc.
- Server rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Regardless of your gender, you may kill in self defense if it's the only way. If you can easily defend yourself without killing them, that's preferable. And if you can avoid the need to defend yourself in the first place, by living in a place where you're unlikely to be attacked, even better.
I feel for that women but that case presented is self defense. She was removed from the immediate danger and had non violent options but planned out a violent attack. She took the law into her own hands by getting people to kill her husband.
I don't think the author makes a good case for this being self defense law failing women. This seems to be more that domestic violence law sucks and police were inept at supporting domestic violence victims. I would like to think that has improved nowdays with the domestic violence ads and messaging that gets put out.
I generally agree with the article, but think you have a point when you say that it's hard to argue for self defense for a premeditated action. However, I don't think that the author was trying to make the point that self defense law was failing women, but more trying to illustrate that "self defense" as a legal concept is a bit flawed.
Unfortunately, DV laws in the US kind of suck and that doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon. I read an article not too long ago about how even when women try to use DV resources and go to the police, they can often face legal repercussions for failing to protect their children from the abuse. All around horrific situation that I wouldn't wish on anyone
Yeah I come from a country that doesn't have American style self defense laws so I look at the American ones as quite extreme. You shouldn't go into a situation expecting to need to use lethal self defense, that should be a sign to not go into that situation.
I definitely see where the premeditated part makes us really question how much it could be classified as self-defense, but it's also hard to imagine how these women would choose to act when they think that death is all but certain in the near future and any option that doesn't result in the abusers death leaves a huge opening for retaliation.
Maybe better domestic violence laws could help more, but based on how the article describes our current situation that might require a lot more time and change to achieve.
There's also this YouTube channel from Reb Masel (Delivery might not be for everyone, but contents are coherently argued IMO) who goes over a really similar case in the 'stand your ground' episode. It really is just a shitty situation to be in though.
Not even just women, but lgbtq+ folks as well. The "justice" system is so fucked in the US.
The "gay panic" defense is still valid in most states. Truly tragic