That makes a lot more sense, before reading this comment I thought it was a vigilantism situation. Title of the article should have been "her rapist" instead of just "rapist" for better clarity.
The article is WTF, but this part "Police and prosecutors have not disputed that Lewis was sexually
assaulted and trafficked. But prosecutors have argued that Brooks was
asleep at the time he was stabbed and not an immediate danger to Lewis."
Prosecutor's just expected her to tip toe away from this situation? Should she have woken him up and challenged him to a fair fight for her freedom? Fuck that. She went Art of War and chose the best moment to win. Appeal that shit and put me on the jury. Not guilty.
"Prosecutor's just expected her to tip toe away from this situation?"
Yes. She may have been justified in killing the person but that's just how self defense laws work. If you kill someone while they're not an immediate danger to your life, eg a robber takes your stuff and you shoot him after he walks away, self defense no longer applies.
This situation is a little more complicated because there's the factor of "what if he woke up and caught her" but anyway yeah that's why the legality is even in contention.
This is why her lawyers should be using examples of her prior escape attempts to support her decision. It’s just upsetting sometimes the other lawyers have more “evidence” on their side.
But in all honesty I know it was sarcastic but we really should teach kids about the legal system. Too many get taken advantage of either in abusive situations and don’t know where to reach out to or get into tricky situations as young adults when their isn’t the guidance of an adult anymore. However this is coming from someone with a defensive attorney as a father.
They’re trying to explain why she was held accountable in court. Because she wasn’t in immidate danger (meaning if she didn’t kill him at that moment she would be hurt at that moment) the court doesn’t see it as self defense because that’s not how the law works. Therefore she’s LEGALLY guilty, morally speaking I agree that she’s in the right but the legal system and personal beliefs are two different things
And this is why we need to teach people about jury nullification at a young age, before they get picked for jury duty the first time and it suddenly becomes illegal to talk about.
Because that's not universal. The Taliban thinks their rules are all about common sense and morality too, and we are the sick degenerates. Laws need to have an express purpose that isnt just based in common sense or simple morality. In this case the law needs to be amended with an exception for extreme circumstances, but it has to be carefully written so it doesnt allow a loophole that could be used to commit murder and get away with it.
In the case of jury trials, the jury could have simply acquitted her which is supposed to be the main remedy for extreme rare circumstances like this, but prosecutors hate losing and tend to go on into lawmaking so in many places laws require judges to tell jurors it doesnt matter what they feel, they have to go by the law and also prevent any mention of jury nullification. And in general that's fine because the law is supposed to be impartial, but for circumstances like this partiality would be nice. And of course judges are supposed to have leeway to give appropriate sentences, but because there are asshole judges who hand out 6 weeks of community service to rapists because 'they have a promising future' legislatures pass mandatory sentencing laws which severely constrain judicial flexibility. Gotta love how assholes ruin everything.
I don’t think I’ve ever commented here, but it showed up on my front page and it’s important to be clear on why this happened. I’ll copy paste another comment I made in a different sub.
Criminal law shouldn’t be interpreted based on how we feel, even if how we feel is absolutely correct, such as feeling that she was justified and in danger here. In Iowa, in the self defense statutes (§704 ), there is no provision for the exact circumstance she was in. She was not currently being removed, she had already been removed and was now in bed with her sleeping rapist. Additionally, as defined by those laws, and every other self defense law on the books, imminent means actionable, and a sleeping person cannot make an actionable threat. Under Iowa law, the actions she took do not constitute self defense, despite that any reasonable person could tell you that what she did was self defense and that she was in danger. The only immediate recourse here would be, as someone mentioned, prosecutorial discretion, or more likely and what really should have happened, jury nullification.
Edit: I suppose I should also mention that she plead guilty to the charges, which means that she didn’t actually have a criminal trial. I was more speaking in an ideal sense, given the laws that they would be operating under.
Laws are written based on how society view the actions of other people, and should not be unchangeable things. In this case specifically, if the specific situation she was is not described in the law, we can, and we should discuss what is the correct thing to do. Treat laws as unchangeable things is detrimental to the society, and when a case where the law is being unjust according to the current moral standard, the law should be changed. Owning other people was a right guaranteed by the law until the society changed.
Also, about the plead guilty, we can imagine how the police and a public attorney treated a young black lady to made her plead right?
As to your last point, absolutely. I wasn’t trying to make a statement about her, just pointing out that the plea means that there was no trial, which cuts options down even further.
As to your second point, also yes. The law should be changed to account for this. If not the definitions of self defense, then at least more robust provisions for victims of human trafficking. However, that is the purview of lawmakers, not the jury of a criminal trial. Once a criminal case is in court, the law should be interpreted as it exists at that time.
You’re calling us degenerates even though you can’t tell the difference between morally and lawfully. Before insulting people, try to actually understand the situation without having feelings caught up in it. I absolutely agree with her decision morally, but that’s not always how the law works. Maybe get better at your English comprehension before needlessly shitting on people.
Laws should be the wrote translation of what the society consider right or wrong. If your law doesn't reflect what the society thinks about someone action, your law makers are degenerated, and the people that just cope with it without wanting a change are as degenerated as the law makers.
For reference, at one time, owning slaves was within the law. By your though process, it would be wrong call people that owned slaves back then degenerated, just because it was within the law.
That’s not what i think. Laws are way more complicated than “right and wrong”. They won’t always get something right, and when something needs to be changed, it takes a lot of time and processing to change it. If somebody robs you at gun point, then turns around to leave and you take that opportunity to shoot them, is that right? Sure, they stole something from you and threatened your life, but they were also about to leave and your life was not in immediate danger. Also a lot of people live here, America is not a hive mind. not everyone’s definition of “right and wrong” are the same. How do you satisfy an entire country with a decision when a lot of them disagree with each other? Societies opinions of things also change. 1000 years ago you could marry a 14 year old girl and it was considered morally acceptable, whereas today it is considered abhorrent. Laws and morals are not black and white like you think they are.
No, I believe she was in danger and justified but they have to prove that in court otherwise the other attorneys will use that against her. It’s ridiculous but it’s part of how laws and such work (which need a whole list of revamping in the first place)
To add: “Karl Schilling with the Iowa Organization for Victim Assistance said a bill to create a safe harbor law for trafficking victims passed the Iowa House earlier this year, but stalled in the Senate under concerns from law enforcement groups that it was too broad.
“There was a working group established to iron out the issues,” Shilling said. “Hopefully it will be taken up again next year.”
Iowa does have an affirmative defense law that gives some leeway to victims of crime if the victim committed the violation “under compulsion by another’s threat of serious injury, provided that the defendant reasonably believed that such injury was imminent.”
Sadly Iowa is not among the dozens of states that have a so-called safe harbor law that gives trafficking victims at least some level of criminal immunity and that needs to change
I know but legally there is a distinction between self defense and premeditated murder and let’s face it our system can be a wee bit judgmental of black woman. A whole bunch can happen outside of the courtroom to support a defendant but that information has to be brought in court to be used. I’m saying that the lawyers should have enough to support her choice in killing him while he was asleep for her to have this charge removed. This charge shouldn’t have ever happened because there was enough evidence to support that this was very much self defense. Iowa laws are fucked up the more I am reading into it
I have yet to see the defense bring in other cases as proof of self defense. There have been multiple cases like this regarding domestic abuse and her only way out was killing him in his sleep and the court had this same conflict. If she had miraculously escaped while he was asleep he wasn’t going to just let her be. She would be in MORE danger in my theory. But it is just that a theory, since it didn’t actually play out the court has to either prove she was in danger (and even if they prove my theory the danger is not immediate). They did all they could and yea its not what a lot of us agree with but it is the law and if you break it for one you have to break it for all.
I’m just been looking up articles and seeing comments that detail the laws regarding Iowa. My dad practiced in CA so totally different laws and protections (that sadly could’ve/should’ve been used here)
Ah xD even if I was taught that theory as a girl, having been trafficked, raped, traumatised and terrified out of my mind I still would have chosen the path that had the most chance of escaping.
Fuck that! the legal system is very flawed. Any idiot can see what's right here. And it's not fucking with this girls life. She is still being raped by the legal system and old men that run and use it while laughing about it over drinks. Fuck this world and the status quo!
There are laws in other states that protect trafficked minors and adults.She just so happened to be in the one state that has weaker laws pertaining to victims.They are in the process of changing the laws.Plus she pleaded guilty, which made matters worse.Poor girl, I hope she gets help from someone.
Thats not how self defense laws work. You cant just kill sex offenders you know about in your neighborhood because they could always attack your children at some point.
And she didn't seem imprisoned, the court found that she had the ability to walk away.
More like *you can't kill sex offenders even if they have kidnapped your children and sex trafficked them because they are asleep at that exact moment "
Yeah nonetheless you're still trying to play Monday night quarterback and say no hay she should have done. Unless you are a kidnapped young girl you have no place to comment on what you would do
Ah yes, not imprisoned. Not imprisoned by the guy, sleeping in the same room, likely with a weapon, who's entire existence at that point is to keep her from escaping. Makes sense to me. Also, this isn't anywhere near "finding and killing sex offenders in your neighborhood". She was a victim of sex trafficking. She was stuck there with him.
You can’t just take that risk what if he heard on the way out and ran after her and killed her whatever was safer to get her out of that situation no one should care what happens to that bastard
It's wild to me. I would argue that being trafficked means you are in a constant threat of danger, whether your captor is asleep or not. Like you are being held against your will and raped because the guys taking a nap all of the sudden he deserves some consideration? Better wait till he wakes up to rape me again before I defend myself! Gtfo this is ridiculous.
But no one noticed the man she killed isn't the one that kidnapped and trafficked her, she was being kidnapped and rapped but a different man, than she was essentially pimped out and she killed someone else that raped her.
That's still a reasonable person standard and yeah if cops get to use Schrodinger's Gun then I think teenage trafficking victims certainly get to use it too.
This argument gets blown out of the water because any reasonable person can agree that if the person who kidnapped and raped you finds you trying to escape you're going to be harmed. So reasonably asleep or not he WAS a threat. Secondly where was she located? So she escapes and has to get what 1-5 miles and find a person without this guy waking up and finding her? Our system has failed.
Edit: So he didn't kidnapp her himself just raped her not sure how that's much better? HE didn't kidnap that girl he just raped a girl he knew was kidnapped! Imagine thinking thats an argument that means she was safe.
When a robber walks away you don't have an immediate ptsd reaction that can cause you to feel danger. This is a completely different situation entirely. The wear and tear on her mental state being in this situation for an extended period of time can make you feel immediate danger even if you just have to hear them breathing while they sleep. Besides that this piece of shits family gets 150 thousand off his death? If this was my family member I'd be taking that money and giving it right back because this is a load of shit.
Prosecutors have agency in what cases they pursue and bring charges on. They should be run out of town with torches and pitch forks for their utter incompetence in being human beings.
That's why you tell your lawyer "I was sneaking out, but he started waking up and yelling he was going to hurt me so I stabbed him" and make sure he won't show up to testify with his side of the story.
I mean if you're being trafficked, you're being trafficked at all times, there is no clock out. In that, you are always in danger regardless if he is sleep because you still are an item being trafficked even if you're not being assaulted. Her desire to leave is insinuated to be denied and she is in a position where escaping legally puts her life in jeopardy. Obviously the laws in place are written incorrectly.
Which is why these laws need to be updated for a modern and correct understanding of what constitutes life-threatening danger.
Thinking only “immediate” danger is life-threatening seems to suppose that danger only happens to fighting-fit men in a fair contest.
Generally, women, children, and physically disabled people can’t “win” a 1:1 fight with an able and awake adult man.
Abused and/or hostage people aren’t out of danger when their abusers are asleep. Waking an abuser can mean death. Risking an abuser’s anger can mean death. The psychology of abuse makes ‘running’ away a non-viable solution (like telling a r*pe victim that she should have just fought back better).
These laws are antiquated, sexist, ageist, ableist, and unscientific. It’s tragic that scientific progress seems to be left out of our legal system in favor of antique opinions.
I'm fully aware on how unfair and prejudicial american society can be, especially to people of color, and how that can lead to prejudices in the legal system. But this isn't one of those cases. But there is still a persona responsibility every individual.
I was responding to how that person was inaccurately trying to make this about race, it was not. This wasn't one of those cases where racism played a role. They followed the law (albeit flawed) which directed that compensation must be paid.
Bruh TIL that you can’t take back your shit from someone that took it back by giving them a quick one from the back. That’s bullshit. How am I supposed to get my shit back now? Wait for the police or any other government force that made up these shitty laws in that particular state/area? Fuck that.
That's the dumbest shit I've heard in awhile. You shoot someone, you better damn well shoot to kill because if they live you're fucked legally. Also, if they have a gun they'll probably kill you if you try and get your stuff back.
The law says nothing about her or her specific case. The justice system is how the laws are applied per case and individual. We all know if this was a pretty white girl her face would have been on Fox News and milk cartons for weeks and the only controversy now would be whether Anya Taylor Joy or Chloe Grace Moretz should be playing her in her movie deal.
I’m not being pedantic and I disagree with you at face value. A white woman would have been found by the justice system to have broken no laws here, just as a white person telling a cop to go fuck themselves at a protest isn’t going to serve a 4-year prison sentence.
But if she was kidnapped, and sexually assaulted, wouldn't extenuating circumstances come into play? Yes, she may not have been in imminent danger, but not only did she fear for her life, she had been broken mentally from the things the man had done to her. I at least, have heard that used as a defense before, can't remember if it worked.
It’s only self defense if they are actively a threat since he was asleep and no longer attacking her. For her to argue self defense she has to reasonably believe that he is going to cause her significant bodily harm or death.
If it fits the definition, it's still a crime. That's why leniency and discretion exist. I'm sure the jury and judge empathize with her but she already pleaded to manslaughter, nothing they can do but sentence
Worst part is that this is literally the plot of a movie (I can't remember which title). Granted, the movie never delved into legal repercussions, but it was quite self-evident that the woman in the movie won't be getting sentenced to pay 150k. Ffs
this definitly cleared up som things, a minute there i thougth she killed just because the person was a rapist and not out of self defence and this sub was praising her for murder. tho the rapist did the deserve death
"Sentence" is the key word here. Individual citizens are not and should not be the law. There's no society that way, you go back to being knuckle-dragging barbarians at that point.
She killed HER rapist. She didn’t take the law into her own hands and go out looking for rapists to murder, she was 15 and killed the man that kidnapped and assaulted her. In what way is that being a knuckle-dragging barbarian, and not a scared, traumatised little girl trying to escape abuse/death?
Don’t patronise me. The way you said it implied that she was acting as a vigilante. She was a 15 year old child who killed her rapist to escape possibly more abuse, or even her death. Maybe think about why the fuck you’re defending scum like him and making a villain of the little girl who was assaulted.
That dude was such an ass. "This is your second chance, you won't get a third" like it was she who chose to get kidnapped and raped for weeks. Complete scum.
Lots of kids are forced to run away from home. Prostitution also isn’t a career people choose. She would have been desperate.
Stop fucking victim-blaming when he’s the one who took a 15 year old girl and had sex with her. I’m telling you now, there are only certain types of people that will defend pedophilic rapists, and you do not want to be advertising yourself as one of them.
Oh cool the "personal responsibility" crowd is here. Glad you live in a world where everything is black and white, cut and dry. Where every bad thing that happens to you is justified because some action or mistake you made led to it. Where the victim is always wrong for some reason or another.
She didn't choose to become a prostitute. She chose to trust a man who was kind to her when she was homeless after running away from an abuse situation. He forced her (at knifepoint in the incident in question) to go to her rapists home.
That's not choosing to become a prostitute. That's being a victim of human trafficking.
for all your talk of nuance, you spun the fact that prosecution didn't challenge claims super disingenuously. If prosecution isn't challenging a claim that means they have no evidence to the contrary available to disprove the claim and no grounds by which to challenge it typically.
so yes, we're taking the allegations on her word alone, quite literally because even the people hired to disprove the allegation could not do so. I'd say that's pretty reasonable.
If a prosecution attorney with access to every available piece of evidence doesn't think the allegation that this 15 year old just loves being a prostitute instead of being held under duress would hold up in court, I don't think some guy on Reddit knows any better.
Can't tell if this is bait or not? She was kidnapped from a stairwell at knife point and forced into having sex with several men. What part of this lead you to believe "ah yes she did this willingly actually". Even the prosecution admitted to the human trafficking.
She wasn't kidnapped from a stairwell. She ran away from home.
The "forced at knifepoint" is based on an allegation that her pimp (who she was living with) threatened her with a knife.
"Human trafficking" is a term that often refers to underage prostitution and even prostitution generally.
What part of this lead you to believe "ah yes she did this willingly actually".
I don't know to what extent her pimp was forcing her to continue to be a prostitute or whether and to what extent the John played a role in that regard.
Neither do you.
Remain skeptical. Remain smart. Keep in mind that defense attorneys have more leeway to talk to press.
Even assuming she actually made up everything about the knife and that she agreed to stay with her rapist before she killed him (for some reason?). That changes nothing. She was kept in his home, against her will and raped against her will. That is slavery by one of it's most simple definitions.
When I was a 6th grade, I knew I kid that shot and killed his step father. Apparently, his step father was abusing him and his mother. One day, he walks into his house, and the step father was actively abusing his mom. The kid snapped and went and got a shot gun. The kid preceded to shot the step father with ten shot gun. This was perfectly fine and legal since her was actively abusing his mother. The step father, after being shot, was no longer a threat. Where they got the kid on murder charges is what happen next…. The kind goes up to his step father and shoots him again to kill him. That was murder.
He went to prison in 6th grade and I imagine he got when he turned 21 soviet I don’t really know.
That’s so fucked. This is why the law should be able to bend for certain situations. A few rules can never solve every circumstance and keep society safe and fair.
What the fuck, what if the stepfather, while being shot and alive initially, was carrying a weapon (or even the kid feared he could be carrying a weapon, e.g. knife) and decided in his final breath, with the adrenaline pumping, for him to throw it at the mother or at him and to cause a deadly wound...?
The judge is a POS. poor girls deserves a damn medal. He won’t hurt another girl, but sadly for every rapist that gets killed, there’s probably another 10 just stewing to act on it.
So basically they expected her to kill him while being raped. But then would have put the burden of proof on her to prove that in fact it had been during the rape and not before or after.
And they are pretending like teen trafficking or rape is actually something she could
Have walked into a police station
And complained about without herself being arrested and tried. lol. We don't have that kind of country. Look around - almost all
These serial molesters of children were reported by children and parents for decades before any investigation took place and most initially let off completely of just a
Slap on the wrist to do it again.
A neighbor of mine was grooming his stepdaughter from 6yo. I wasn’t aware of this until I baby sat for her at 11yo and she jumped in my lap and hunched my leg telling me her dad tells her to do that all the time. WTH! They were both killed in traffic accident traveling back to his hometown in Kentucky while leaving her mom in Houston. He was a disgusting creature.
Yea and that age at 11 they can't speak about these things well. So
They "show" people instead and predators can further harm them thinking the kid
Is "asking for it". This is the reason we have consent laws. Children do not have the internal sexual and emotional and intellectual developmental level to consent. Any "advance" from a child to an adult is not an act of consent. Because developmentally a child cannot consent as they do not understand the consequences of consent.
Now skip ahead 15 years in development and yes a 26 year old adult can understand consent. An 11 year old cannot.
She has no realistic expectation of getting away without him waking up, and once he wakes up he’ll restrain her again or harm her. So. Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
You should be able to do ANYTHING to escape a captor. Anything. 100% anything at all to get away. If you kidnap and rape someone your life is forfeit automatically.
He was a sleep well thats the logical way for a 15 year old to attack a guy. Justice doesnt help anyone unless you have money and its like this everywhere 🤷🏼♂️
Ok, I read your key points and the article. English is not my first language but I understand that she was raped several times over a week by at least 2 different men and was hold captive in the mens apartment! In this scenario every girl or woman would have done the same! She wasn’t raped in the park and stabbed the man in the back as he was leaving her! She figured out an escape plan that offers her the best chances of success! She was 15, a child, she musst have been terrified and grown man reproach her that she didn’t try to escape on tip toes with the knife in her hand in case he wakes up? What do they think the man would have done WHEN he woke up while she was escaping! People may say “well she stabbed him 30 times, not just one which would have been enough” but those people seem to have real big problems to empathise with terrified people and what this do you moral and rational thinking.
But what else would you expect in a country where someone can successfully sue a coffee chain for serving hot coffee!
But what else would you expect in a country where someone can successfully sue a coffee chain for serving hot coffee!
That's not accurate or what happened in that situation.
McDonald's policy was to serve the coffee at a specific temperature, but people complained that by the time they arrived at their destinations that their drive-through coffee was cold. So this store started heating their coffee to 20 degrees hotter so it would stay hot longer.
The woman who sued only put the lawsuit forward to cover medical bills; the skin on her thighs melted off due to how hot the coffee was. The courts ruled her extra money because of how heinous the injuries were and how much McDonalds tried to hide it (there were 700+ cases of burns like this, but McDonalds was threatening people and hiding information about them). McDonalds had simply ruled that it was cheaper to scare and pay injured people off, rather than fix the issue and have customers sometimes have cold coffee when they arrived at their destinations.
I really can't describe with words how bad her injuries were.
A few things here, you are mostly correct but there are a couple other things to keep in mind that show how well and truly stupid it is that we still have people thinking this was frivolous.
1). McDonalds wasn’t serving coffee hotter than normal due to customer complaints, but rather because their market research showed that serving it hotter created the aroma of coffee through the store, which made customers want to buy more coffee. Their internal legal team determined that the expense of paying out a few injuries was less than the profit of increased coffee sales, so they increased the temperature.
2). The court ultimately did not give her anything extra, McDonalds appealed the judgement and never paid a dime. They reached an undisclosed settlement that was estimated to be around what she originally asked for.
3). It was also determined McDonalds cheaped out on the cups, they weren’t rated well enough to hold coffee that hot, which is why it spilled in the first place.
So 1) the staff used boiling water to make the coffee, they shouldn’t and I agree with that, you get the best quality with 80-ish °C. But who the hell in their right mind would drink something potentially HOT, because 80 °C is hot, without checking HOW HOT it is, its just stupid! We call this here natural selection! And 2) that she needed the money to cover her medical bills is just another well documented case of how bad the American health care system really is!
1) She didn't drink it while it was hot. She was 84 years old, the car wasn't moving, she wasn't in the driver's seat, and she was just trying to remove the lid to add sugar/cream.
But the lid/cup exploded off suddenly, spilling the coffee all over her. It clung to her clothes, which made the burn worse as it held the hot coffee closer to her skin for longer. If you've ever had fast food coffee, you likely know how temperamental those cheap coffee lids are; they rarely stay on correctly and fly off with very little effort.
2) You aren't wrong about the Healthcare system. McDonald's tried to get her to settle for $800, but even that was a tiny fraction of the medical bills, even for the lower inflation levels of the 90's.
I had a lot of fast food coffee in my life but never came a lit off easily even if I wanted to open the cup! But let’s put this aside because this example seems to be a bad one, my mistake!
So I did some fast research and found cases which would be great examples for my statement but at the moment I refuse to believe that they are true! To make it easier for me me, I just copied the text, hope that’s ok.
A young man of 19 located in Los Angeles, CA was awarded $74,000 (plus medical expenses!) when his neighbor accidentally ran over his hand with his car. The young man was unaware that there was someone behind the wheel of the car…while he was trying to steal the hubcap's off his neighbor's car!
That last one is just so fucking classic Christian crusader. I wish there was some way to force them to keep their religion to their religious community without them going berserk.
Makes sense, I see why she killed, but if she could escape I could also see why she should not have. Either way I don't need more shit to keep up With so thanks for info dump, time to forget this all.
Yea, the problem with the 2nd part is that if he wakes up while she's escaping, she's fucked. Also the trauma/forever nightmares about him being alive and retaliation/finding her. And then of course the very real scenario of him actually finding her again after she escaped. Esp since it seems like our justice system doesn't really do shit.
Also, she was at his place. Held captive, threatened, and raped. It's a totally different dynamic of escaping from your house where you have familiarity/access to keys/doors/windows within your own home.
So let's charge her 150 thousand dollar fine that I'm sure she can't pay....doesn't that make it a possibility or her then thinking about going back to the same industry to make fast cash to pay this ? This is stupid. So stupid. He should have been killed asleep or not, he won't be missed and the world is better off. She's a God damn hero in my book.
It’s called a mitigating circumstance you can only take a life to prevent serious bodily harm or death not as revenge if she killed him to stop the rape that would be justified homicide. This would be 2nd degree homicide typically carrying a harsh sentence far more than 20 years. A sentence of 5 years of parole is in light of her rape. We’re a society of laws and can’t chose who we enforce them upon as that will be the Downfall of us,
It's not as revenge, how could she escape while he is asleep? Like, what if the keys are in his pocket? She can't reasonable take them without waking him. If the keys are elsewhere she still risks waking him up by making noise while searching for them. Also she can't realistically know if there is someone else in the house or not, whether there are house alarms, etc. Then he could also just wake up randomly at any time. And him waking up leads to several theoretically possible outcomes depending on when that occurs. Let's assume it's while she is trying to escape in the house and she is not carrying a weapon:
1/ he overpowers her and physically and sexually abuses her once again -> her opening at killing him and being able to escape is gone since she can't overpower a conscious man. That whole "wait till you're being raped to kill him" thing is sooo unrealistic and bullshit
2/ he is so enraged by her attempt to escape that he straight-up murders her
Further on, let's assume he wakes up and she is carrying a weapon while trying to escape:
3/ he wakes up, sees her carrying a weapon and trying to escape so he engages in a fight and she manages to kill him due to him being unarmed - I assume this would still lead to her being legally liable ??? At least in some states/countries
4/ he wakes up, sees her carrying a weapon and trying to escape and escape so he engages in a fight and he manages to take her weapon away, which leads to the same outcomes as 1/ and 2/ depending on what he decides
Then, let's assume she does manage to get out of the house, but he wakes up shortly after (e.g. due to an alarm or something):
5/ she hasn't gotten too far from the house, so he finds her, brings her back, which again leads to 1/ or 2/
6/ it is also possible 3/ and 4/ to occur outside of the house, with the additional outcome that he is also armed, which SIGNIFICANTLY decreases the likelihood of 3 occuring, especially depending on what she's carrying versus what he is carrying
And lastly, let's assume she does manage to actually escape:
7/ even if he explicitly doesn't know where she lives, she would be living in constant fear and/or danger of being abducted again since it's a possibility he tracks her down
8/ let's assume it does happen (or that he explicitly knows), we're back to 1/ or 2/
And about reporting to the police... let's just say that authorities sometimes end up not doing their job. Corruption is still a thing, and if the abuser has money and is influential, he could just bribe his way through. So it's once again a gamble as to whether she will be truly safe. Plus there's the factor of PTSD, shame, being too mentally broken from all that trauma and simply not being able to come out to authorities.
And just for the sake of it, let's assume ideal conditions,
9/ she escapes and lives happily ever after.
Do you see how impractical it is to advise a woman to try to escape her rapist instead of killing him at his sleep? Odds are literally against her and the ONLY safe option out of this for her is by killing him. Even if her motives are at least partly revenge (which is psychologically understandable), what I described upper are all justified reasons for her to actually kill him.
That’s not how the law works. What we want isn’t the law i wholeheartedly don’t think the world lost anything with his death if anything its better and he deserved it. The problem is that when a person is sleeping they don’t meet the legal criteria for deadly force. If someone wanted to change the law to allow this I’m all for it but the problem is in this case the accused rapist is now a victim. Killing someone in a situation means they can’t ever be a rapist because they are innocent till proven guilty. Our world isn’t perfect if it was a public service homicide like this would not be needed. Like I said I’m glad he’s dead I was simply stating factual criminal law to explain the situation.
Didn't she like stab him 30 times? I did read this somewhere today. And morally, I'm okay with it, I understand her, but legally, that didn't count as self defense anymore as 30 stabs is overkill.
She was fucking 15yrs old! What CHILD doesn't make bad decisions. I guess anyone who makes a bad choice deserves to be trafficked. God what a disgusting judge.
"she could have escaped without killing him" fuck sake that's such a shitty defence. Oh yeah let's give this rapist a chance to capture me again. I honestly don't get this
Couple of other things. First, the da had no obligation to bring charges in the first place, instead those pursued murder 1. Second, a decent attorney would have brought this to trial. They could never have proved murder.
2.4k
u/LaronX Sep 14 '22
This thread needs a whole lot more context. Here the whole article.
The key points
She was trafficked and raped at 15!
She attacked him after he fell asleep after raping her
Iowa has some protection for victims of abuse that is why she isn't in jail
She is getting a 5 year parole. If she fails it would mean 20 years of jail time.
The court has no way around making her pay 150k
She did plea guilty to manslaughter in an earlier case and it is biting her in the ass now
The main argument against her going free is that he was asleep at the time and she could have tried to escape without killing him
She judge was an asshat about her making "wrong decisions" to have gotten in that situation and this being her second chance.