504
Note that I'm not necessarily opposed to her facing consequences for killing him -- my issue is with how gleefully NYPost is framing it as if she just attacked him out of the blue and shoehorning her into the "evil transgenders" stereotype
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2025
504 points (78.6% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
12436 readers
1055 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post is complete dogshit. "self defense" my ass
You can absolutely get murdered by an unarmed person
That's complete bullshit.
How many manslaughter cases have there been where 2 people get in a fist fight and one of them gets brained on the concrete?
To be clear, the claim that it's legally indefensible may be true, but your life is absolutely in danger in an unarmed fight
So if an MMA fighter starts kicking your ass, you aren't allowed to use a weapon to defend yourself because they are unarmed?
Armed vs unarmed is not a definitive factor in a self defense case. The criteria are that a defender who 1. reasonably believes they face a 2. credible, 3. criminal, 4. imminent, 5. threat of death or grievous bodily harm, may use any level of force 6. necessary to stop that threat.
Reasonable belief, credible threat, criminal threat, imminent threat, sufficient threat, necessity of force.
An unarmed attacker can, indeed, generate all six criteria required to justify lethal force in self defense.
The jury doesn't seem to think that happened in this particular case, but it certainly can happen and has happened. Please don't repeat that nonsense that it can't.
After getting hit 3 times?
The person doesn't have to have a weapon to be a threat to your lif. Based on your logic someone could say I'm going to beat you to death and go about doing it and 10 minutes later with 17 broken bones you'd have no case for self defense that doesn't track at all.
I think you misunderstand
This is absolutely false. Arming yourself does not prevent you from making a claim of self defense against an unarmed attacker. "Being armed" does not negate your claim.
that’s every gun self defense claim ever othetwise
That's easy to say when you're not the one getting punched in the face repeatedly. You never know how far a violent person will go.
Oh bullshit. 95lb woman against me, a 225lb man? If I were to attack a woman like that you are saying she shouldn't be able to level the field.
But you're making absolute statements and it's just false.
And you're just flat out incorrect
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/35.20
This is a complete fantasy. You don't even have to ensure that they are armed they represent a fatal threat by breaking into your house with you in it you would have every right to shoot them immediately
The logical explanation is you don't know the law correctly because your "friend" at the ACLU realized a wild bisexual hothead such as yourself with a gun was a recipe for disaster, understandably. So this person lied, made up a litany of non-existant jurisprudence, and the world is safer and sexier as a result. This does not mean that actual claims of self-defence go away.
Most of us don't live in NY
And you know this because..?
NY is way too small to hold 8.2 billion people.
That's fine. It's almost like the law has nuance.
Go read that NY law I posted to your above comment and tell me that an armed person using deadly force against an unarmed person is always illegal in New York.
edit: yeah, gedafukouddahea!
If you had ever followed that advice, you wouldn't be repeating this nonsense. You would have learned the 6 general criteria required for a self defense claim, and that none of thoae criteria require the defender to be less-well-armed than the attacker.
This subject is too serious for your uninformed opinion. PM me your zip code, and I would be happy to find you a class on the laws regulating self defense.
This is basically fabrication. For instance around here in WA a woman shooting a man attacking her was deemed self defense because he presented a threat of great bodily harm or death you know actual legal standards. If she didn't use it her merely having the gun wouldn't prevent said harm so she got a free pass to ventilate him.
He lived she didn't go to jail
The specifics of this case are irrelevant. You said multiple times that an armed person has no claim to self defense against an unarmed person and that is demonstrably and obviously untrue. The fact that you're carrying a weapon doesn't require you to tolerate unlimited violence by someone without a weapon. That's crazy.
You are not required to brandish a weapon because this isn't a thing you should do outside of a movie. Waving around your gun means someone takes it from you.
This is even more laughable with a knife.
Most of the people here are rebutting your general claim that self defense is only available to the unarmed. Those rebuttals don't constitute support for this woman.
I am making a general comment on your argument, and not specific to this case. Like most of the arguments directed at you in this thread, My comments should not be construed as support for this woman in this particular case.
You are conflating "threat" and "force". They are distinct. A "threat" is an attempt to influence the subject's decision to act, by making them fear a future action. "Force" is a physical action imposed on the subject.
A threat is something intended to convince the subject to decide to act in a particular way. Force is when the subject's choices are removed, and their body is physically manipulated against their will.
Force can also be a threat, but a threat alone is not force. Holding a knife to your neck and demanding your wallet is force (your neck is being physically manipulated against your will) and a threat (you are being coerced into giving up your wallet).
There are six generalized criteria for defensive force. A person who 1. Reasonably Believes an imperiled person faces a 2. Credible, 3. Criminal, 4. Imminent, 5. Sufficient threat (sufficient = "death or grievous bodily harm") may use any level of force 6. Necessary to stop that threat.
When you articulate your arguments about this specific case using the above terminology, you will find that your opinion is shared by the overwhelming majority. There is very little support in this thread for her self defense argument.
An armed person theoretically has a greater capacity of force than an unarmed person, but threats made be an unarmed person can certainly justify a forceful response by the armed person.
I'm not defending anything except my position that your assertion is incorrect. Brandishing a weapon with the intent to scare someone off is illegal in its own right in every jurisdiction I am familiar with in the US. You are giving bad advice and you need to educate yourself before you give what could be interpreted as legal advice.
What is the acceptable level of violence LGBT people must endure before responding? Keep in mind LGBT people are constantly receiving low levels of emotional abuse: dirty looks, mean laugh, cruel comments... So when violence happens, exactly how long should someone like that wait? Would 4 punches have been okay?
Also, have you ever heard of one punch knockout deaths? They do happen, people get into bar fights, someone gets knocked out, falls backward, hits their head, and dies. Being hit and punched can get lethal...
Your logic feels transphobic to me, not genuine thought free of prejudice.