I’ve literally had people argue with me saying that someone wearing Nazi paraphernalia in public was legally an immediate threat of violence that you could respond to with lethal force. No, I’m not joking or exaggerating. A lot of people take this kind of thing at face value.
It’s irresponsible to put into young girls minds that some fuckwit saying a political slogan equates to a rape threat and you should assault them.
She’s literally telling people to feel safe committing an offence.
I’m sure many people will disagree with me, go for your lives, but I’m not talking about the slogan or choice, I’m saying if someone says 4 words to you and you attack them, you will be held legally responsible.
Not when there is no imminent threat, and there is no such thing as “defending” yourself before any “offense” is attempted. See: https://lemmy.world/comment/13417359
Stand your ground laws disagree. If one party views it as a threat of bodily harm they can definitely defend themselves by preemptively killing someone.
This was such a weird time-line switch. Trump president again and progressives on Lemmy sound like r/conservative with law interpretation. So there’s no better response, no room for the very real needed evaluation of each situation, just a blanket “shoot em” now. Idk how people are so subjective to propaganda and influence when we have such a hard grasp on reality.
A bunch of women shooting men for threatening to rape them would definitely get the stand your ground laws changed for the better. Sounds like a progressive win to me.
Just an OG fantasy accelerationist eh? I can dig it, but I think they would dismiss it as not being fit for the definition. Judges can and are allowed to be fickle like that.
It would be wonderful to set the precedent that men can legally defend themselves but woman can’t. Let’s hope for fickle justices who can’t help themselves.
I don’t think that “you are allowed” was meant to be legal advice lol
I’ve literally had people argue with me saying that someone wearing Nazi paraphernalia in public was legally an immediate threat of violence that you could respond to with lethal force. No, I’m not joking or exaggerating. A lot of people take this kind of thing at face value.
But it is.
It’s irresponsible to put into young girls minds that some fuckwit saying a political slogan equates to a rape threat and you should assault them.
She’s literally telling people to feel safe committing an offence.
I’m sure many people will disagree with me, go for your lives, but I’m not talking about the slogan or choice, I’m saying if someone says 4 words to you and you attack them, you will be held legally responsible.
Girls have the right to defend themselves.
Not when there is no imminent threat, and there is no such thing as “defending” yourself before any “offense” is attempted. See: https://lemmy.world/comment/13417359
Stand your ground laws disagree. If one party views it as a threat of bodily harm they can definitely defend themselves by preemptively killing someone.
This was such a weird time-line switch. Trump president again and progressives on Lemmy sound like r/conservative with law interpretation. So there’s no better response, no room for the very real needed evaluation of each situation, just a blanket “shoot em” now. Idk how people are so subjective to propaganda and influence when we have such a hard grasp on reality.
A bunch of women shooting men for threatening to rape them would definitely get the stand your ground laws changed for the better. Sounds like a progressive win to me.
Reality is a strange bedfellow.
Just an OG fantasy accelerationist eh? I can dig it, but I think they would dismiss it as not being fit for the definition. Judges can and are allowed to be fickle like that.
It would be wonderful to set the precedent that men can legally defend themselves but woman can’t. Let’s hope for fickle justices who can’t help themselves.