Does this look justifiable to you?

[luchog]

My argument in calling what the police did in the video murder, is based on the belief that it's possible, even probable for a human being, when facing an imminent life-threatening situation because of another human, to want to kill the person who's responsible for the threat. I believe police officers are no excuses in this. On the contrary, when knowing that they have the law on their side in situations like this, it would be rather easy to release some stress through the trigger, so to speak. Or if not stress etc., the feeling of wanting to revenge.

[/quote]
The psychological literature is against you on this one. In fact, killing another human being is something that must be trained, and trained hard. All police officers are given mandatory counselling after every shooting; particularly since many of them have turned to alcohol or other self-destructive behaviours to deal with the consequences. Being a police officer is an extremely stressful job; and the need to kill dangerous suspects only makes it more stressful, not less.

Can any of you tell for certain, that it is not POSSIBLE that even one of the policemen in the video was, even once, pulling the trigger in the frame of mind that counts as murder?

Can anyone tell for certain, that it is not possible that you're not planning, even once, on raping any particular woman you encounter? Proving a negative is impossible.

However, there are reams of literature and case studies regarding the psychology of police officers and police work; and in most jurisdictions, officers receive substantial amounts of ongoing screening for just this reason. Such an occurrence is extremely rare. It happens, but no more often for police officers than for anyone else in their socio-economic brackets.

There is also the issue that every shooting is evaluated. Every single one. By a completely independent police organization known as "Internal Affairs", whose sole purpose is to police the police, and ensure that these issues are addressed properly. A "bad" shooting will result in an officer being suspended, demoted, fired, and yes, even tried for murder, depending on the circumstances.

You appear to be getting far too much of your information from movies and television; because most of what you're proposing is exactly like the bad stereotypes from those sources, and has little to do with real-life policing.

 

[Tapio]

Thanks for still going on with this. Your messages are very helpful and provoke necessary thought in me to evaluate the "other" side of the story as well.

The psychological literature is against you on this one. In fact, killing another human being is something that must be trained, and trained hard. All police officers are given mandatory counselling after every shooting; particularly since many of them have turned to alcohol or other self-destructive behaviours to deal with the consequences. Being a police officer is an extremely stressful job; and the need to kill dangerous suspects only makes it more stressful, not less.

I'm skeptical towards your two first sentences. I would imagine, that if there were statistics done on how many people are killed in self-defence per day in the world, killing another person in a blink of an eye wouldn't seem that difficult, and would absolutely be possible without training. The question is, regardless of the case: How can we know for sure the killing happened in self-defence and not as an act of rage towards a person who's threatening the killer's life?

We can't know for sure, and that's my point. Even after all the great new knowledge I've got from this thread regarding police work in the US and using firearms and tazers, I think what the police did in the video is most likely murder.

Can anyone tell for certain, that it is not possible that you're not planning, even once, on raping any particular woman you encounter? Proving a negative is impossible.

That example has now relevance whatsoever on this subject. And, is a poor example anyway, because we can physiologically most likely differentiate rape from normal, willing sexual behaviour. And after most rapes, as horrid as they are, the victim stays alive to tell us her/his side of the story.

There is also the issue that every shooting is evaluated. Every single one. By a completely independent police organization known as "Internal Affairs", whose sole purpose is to police the police, and ensure that these issues are addressed properly. A "bad" shooting will result in an officer being suspended, demoted, fired, and yes, even tried for murder, depending on the circumstances.

It would be interesting to know the results of the evaluation and conclusions of this particular case.

You appear to be getting far too much of your information from movies and television; because most of what you're proposing is exactly like the bad stereotypes from those sources, and has little to do with real-life policing.

Wrong. I haven't got a tv, and never have liked movies with shooting. I'm not claiming any stereotypes either. I'm talking about ONLY THIS ONE INCIDENT.

PLease, is it so hard to accept that I have a different view on this subject than you? And, that this view is not because of a biased understanding of facts, but due to what I saw on the videos, read in the article, serious thinking and reseach on the human psyche?

 

[Lonewulf]

That example has now relevance whatsoever on this subject. And, is a poor example anyway, because we can physiologically most likely differentiate rape from normal, willing sexual behaviour. And after most rapes, as horrid as they are, the victim stays alive to tell us her/his side of the story.

Seems like you missed his point.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

we can physiologically most likely differentiate rape from normal, willing sexual behaviour.

We can? Please expand...


ETA: It seems like you would like the presumption of innocence changed to the presumption of guilt in all cases involving death. Is that the case?

 

[Dancing David]

That example has now relevance whatsoever on this subject. And, is a poor example anyway, because we can physiologically most likely differentiate rape from normal, willing sexual behaviour. And after most rapes, as horrid as they are, the victim stays alive to tell us her/his side of the story.

You need to flush out your head gear dude, it would appear your brain is full of fecal matter.

First off, you are making a very bad analogy that has no relation to the topic at hand.

Secong RAPE Is A CRIME OF VIOLENCE!

I don't know what you mean by this stupid statement "because we can physiologically most likely differentiate rape from normal, willing sexual behaviour", what palnet did you get that from? Sometimes there are marks and signs that would differentiate it from willing vaginal sex and sometimes there aren't, do you get you data from a cereal box?


The question was about INTENT, and now you can't tell the difference between action and intent.

Here is the deal, rape is an act of violence that uses sex as a means of harming, intimidating, subjugating, humiliating and terrorizing the victim. The intent is to act in violence towards the victim using sex as a tool of violence.

The actions are similar but there are ways that rape is not like sex, but they will based upon 'subjective criterai of the participants'.
1. Consent of the victim.
I know there is a language barrier but you need to read what INTENT is, and anwers questions without delving into realms of stupidity.


Apparently some countries might ahave a problem in general as to what constitues rape:
I take Amnesty witha grain of salt:
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Am...icises+Finnish+rape+legislation/1135239507838

Is this true that if a victim is asleep or intoxicated/unconscious then it is not rape?

Wow.

Rape does not need violence to occur, restrainst and intimidation are commonly used.

Wow.

 

[Tapio]

You need to flush out your head gear dude, it would appear your brain is full of fecal matter.

First of all, I suggest you take a minute, in this case maybe ten, before you answer a comment that gets you emotional. There is no need to get personal. You show incredibly bad taste and a complete lack of proper conversation with your comment. It feels bad, because I'm truly trying to explain my view, without attacking anybody. As I said, I'm new to the forums, so maybe I don't know your secret language codes of being rational and competent, but this kind of commentary is completely unnecessary.

First off, you are making a very bad analogy that has no relation to the topic at hand.

I don't understand. What part do you mean of my writing?

Secong RAPE Is A CRIME OF VIOLENCE!

Oh my...really? I thought it to be the latest macarena?

I don't know what you mean by this stupid statement "because we can physiologically most likely differentiate rape from normal, willing sexual behaviour", what palnet did you get that from? Sometimes there are marks and signs that would differentiate it from willing vaginal sex and sometimes there aren't, do you get you data from a cereal box?

Once again, please refrain from making mocking arguments, if you wish to keep up a dialogue with me. What I wrote is true, and if several surveys of rapist behavioral patterns, rape as a physical act, the mental counseling for rape victims and indepth conversation with sexual therapists (hired to work on a large pedophile scandal in Finland a couple of years back) count as "cereal box" reading, fine.

My studies have led me to the impression that in most cases gynecologists find physical trauma on a rape victim, usually absent after willing intercourse. Of course, most rapes don't get reported (one reason being that most rapes, at least in Finland, are comitted by a close relative), and if they are, many are reprted so long (due to psychological shock, shame etc.), after the incident, that the worst physical trauma has healed.

The question was about INTENT, and now you can't tell the difference between action and intent.

Here is the deal, rape is an act of violence that uses sex as a means of harming, intimidating, subjugating, humiliating and terrorizing the victim. The intent is to act in violence towards the victim using sex as a tool of violence.

The actions are similar but there are ways that rape is not like sex, but they will based upon 'subjective criterai of the participants'.
1. Consent of the victim.
I know there is a language barrier but you need to read what INTENT is, and anwers questions without delving into realms of stupidity.

AND AGAIN. I will not answer another post from you, if you don't get gentile.

Of course I understood what luchogs POINT was. But I think it's NOT a good comparison. For, if I:

1) Passed by a woman on the street and raped her in my imagination, but do nothing to indicate her of what I was thinking, what would she know? What harm would it do her? In the case of the OP, this would be equivalent to the cop thinking about shooting the victim, but actually doing nothing.

2) Passed by a woman and whispered "If you don't (whatever), I'm going to rape you" in her ear, it would equal the warning shout of the police: "Freeze, drop down your weapon, or we'll open fire!" Thus threatening the object of violence. BUT STILL NOT DOING ANYTHING. Of course, in this case, the woman would be already harrassed and would have cause to react, whereas the guy in the video is merely being given a last chance to cooperate.

3) Passed by a woman, imagined I'd rape her, threaten her AND THEN DO IT, only then would it be the proper equivalent to what happened in the video.

So luchog's comparison would've worked in an original situation as in number 1. That's why I think it is not a good example. Intending to rape somebody, but not doing anything is not a crime. As is not thinking about killing somebody. Get my point now?

Apparently some countries might ahave a problem in general as to what constitues rape:
I take Amnesty witha grain of salt:
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Am...icises+Finnish+rape+legislation/1135239507838

Is this true that if a victim is asleep or intoxicated/unconscious then it is not rape?

Wow.

Rape does not need violence to occur, restrainst and intimidation are commonly used.

Wow.

If your trying to attack my feeling of nationality, it won't work. It's only for you US guys (at least you guys seem to take your country somewhat personally when reading through the threads). I've lived abroad and travelled way too much to have any emotional attachement to the piece of Earth that's been decided to be called Finland.

I think the laws on rape in Finland are proposterous. Actually, I'm part of a group which is forcefully driving campaigns to get people's awareness on the subject. So no preaching needed here, thank you.

Now, I couldn't find one decent argument in your post taking the conversation on the OP an inch further. If you have nothing worth saying regarding it, save some adolescent nagging, maybe you should keep your dancing fingers off the keyboard on this one. It's really a shame to run into this kind of behaviour in such a short time as a member of these forums.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Once again, please refrain from making mocking arguments, if you wish to keep up a dialogue with me. What I wrote is true, and if several surveys of rapist behavioral patterns, rape as a physical act, the mental counseling for rape victims and indepth conversation with sexual therapists (hired to work on a large pedophile scandal in Finland a couple of years back) count as "cereal box" reading, fine.

My studies have led me to the impression that in most cases gynecologists find physical trauma on a rape victim, usually absent after willing intercourse. Of course, most rapes don't get reported (one reason being that most rapes, at least in Finland, are comitted by a close relative), and if they are, many are reprted so long (due to psychological shock, shame etc.), after the incident, that the worst physical trauma has healed.

Are the differences reliable enough to be presented as evidence in court? Is so, why do so many cases end with an acquittal because the accused's defence is that the sex was consensual? Do you have any references for this?

You also seem to have avoided answering whether you think that in all cases with a killing there should be a presumption of guilt rather than a preumption of innocence. Because if you are calling all killings murder because of the possibility that the shooter's main intention was to kill - do you think it should be treated this way in law, or just in your own head. Do you treat all crimes this way, or just ones that result in death?

ETA - when you say "a close relative" what exactly do you mean?

 

[Tapio]

Are the differences reliable enough to be presented as evidence in court? Is so, why do so many cases end with an acquittal because the accused's defence is that the sex was consensual? Do you have any references for this?

It's past midnight in Finland, so I'll check for papers tomorrow.

But all in all, at least in Finland, you constantly hear of women who go to report their being raped to the police, and the first response they get is: "what did you do, so that this happened?"

Actually, there's this one case where a woman started keeping her own blog after being raped, and this was used as an attack by the defence in court. She was questioned whether she "planned on getting raped to get a reason to start a blog". Unfathomable, eh?!

If this kind of attitude is present in court (not saying it is, but knowing a couple of cases where it very likely seems to be the case), I believe it won't be hard for the defense to convince the judge, in spite of having medical records on physical trauma, that "they just had it a bit rough."

You also seem to have avoided answering whether you think that in all cases with a killing there should be a presumption of guilt rather than a preumption of innocence. Because if you are calling all killings murder because of the possibility that the shooter's main intention was to kill - do you think it should be treated this way in law, or just in your own head. Do you treat all crimes this way, or just ones that result in death?

Sorry, missed that question while trying to cope with the emotional attack of Dancing David there.

I think "all cases of killing" is way to broad to discuss here. But if we say "all cases in which a suspect is shot to death by an on-duty police officer", I'd say the presumption to be innocence. I believe in the majority of police men and women to be doing their utmost best to keep things safe and secure. But this doesn't mean they're not suspects to primitive human reaction.

Once more. The OP asks : Does this look (emphasis mine) justifiable to you? My answer is no. Not to me. Maybe a hundred other cop-shoots-suspect videos would, but not this one. So please understand that I'm not (at least conciously) trying to generalize in any way. I'm trying to keep my opinion on topic.

I'm in no position in my life to "treat crimes" in one way or the other. Or do you mean by treating how I position myself according to them? I disagree with the Finnish law in many points, and have committed acts of civil disobience throughout my life. So I've really had to think about these things, interesting food for thought as they are.

ETA - when you say "a close relative" what exactly do you mean?

Sorry, noticed a wrong word there. I mistook "relative" to meaning "somebody who you lnow well". So replace the word with that, and you'll get my point. Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[luchog]

I'm skeptical towards your two first sentences. I would imagine, that if there were statistics done on how many people are killed in self-defence per day in the world, killing another person in a blink of an eye wouldn't seem that difficult, and would absolutely be possible without training.

I suggest that you look into the literature. In the US at least, killing in self-defense is very uncommon, and very often has serious negative repercussions for the individual defending himself. They also typically end up in counselling, and have a suicide rate higher than the general population; as do police and military personnel.

Other parts of the world are not comperable; particularly the Third World, since human life is given very little value, and killing has an entirely different psychological impact. No, I'll have to amend that, the amount of killing that happens in those regions is a direct result of the dehumanization and depersonalization which is so common. It's not possible to kill without serious psychological consequences without that level of dehumanization and depersonalization.

The question is, regardless of the case: How can we know for sure the killing happened in self-defence and not as an act of rage towards a person who's threatening the killer's life?

That is what police investigators are trained to determine.

We can't know for sure, and that's my point. Even after all the great new knowledge I've got from this thread regarding police work in the US and using firearms and tazers, I think what the police did in the video is most likely murder.

Based on what evidence? There is nowhere near enough evidence available to us to make a determination either way; although the nature of police work and it's history and accompanying psychological literature would tend to work against your conclusion, and more in favour of the officer.

That example has now relevance whatsoever on this subject. And, is a poor example anyway, because we can physiologically most likely differentiate rape from normal, willing sexual behaviour. And after most rapes, as horrid as they are, the victim stays alive to tell us her/his side of the story.

Your English skills are lacking, since you appear to have completely missed the point of my comment. There is no way that anyone can know for sure that you don't intend to rape a women, just as there is no way to know for sure that a police officer doesn't intend to kill a suspect. It's called "proving a negative" and is a logical fallacy.

You are starting with a presumption of guilt, and demanding that someone else prove a negative. That is impossible, and an invalid argument. The rest of us are starting with the facts, and basing our conclusion strictly on what evidence is available to us.

PLease, is it so hard to accept that I have a different view on this subject than you? And, that this view is not because of a biased understanding of facts, but due to what I saw on the videos, read in the article, serious thinking and reseach on the human psyche?

No, it's clearly biased, since you started out this thread with the conclusion that the incident was murder, and have clearly been approaching all the facts with that conclusion in mind, demanding other posters to prove negatives. The reasonable, skeptical approach would be to start with no conclusions, and simply follow what the facts are in this case. There is nowhere near enough evidence in the videos that have been posted to make any kind of determination of intent. That is why all police departments in the US, and I'm assuming western Europe as well, have personnel -- investigative officers and psychologists -- who are trained on doing exactly that.

 

[luchog]

If this kind of attitude is present in court (not saying it is, but knowing a couple of cases where it very likely seems to be the case), I believe it won't be hard for the defense to convince the judge, in spite of having medical records on physical trauma, that "they just had it a bit rough."

You evaded the question, you didn't answer it.

The fact is that the physical evidence is more often than not insufficient to completely differentiate between rape and rough sex; and almost impossible when the victim is unconscious or unresisting.

Once more. The OP asks : Does this look (emphasis mine) justifiable to you? My answer is no. Not to me. Maybe a hundred other cop-shoots-suspect videos would, but not this one.

You are not a trained investigator, and have access to only a very very small fragment of the entire incident; so you cannot possibly make such a determination with any kind of accuracy. Continuing to insist on your viewpoint is strong evidence of bias, not rational evaluation of the evidence.

 

[Dancing David]

Tapio, I have worked in domestic violence and with rape victims, you are uninformed, show the data.

RAPE is non-consensual sex, I think you are misinformed if you can come up with valid research that makes your point.

there are not physical markers that are always present in the case of rape.


BTW I notice you have already evaded this question before, figures.
that is where i ams aying you are misinformed, but by all means act as though you feelings are hurt.

RAPE is non-consensual sex, and you made an unsupported assertion.

I do not support handgun possesion either and some of your claims about hand guns and shooting poeple in the arms or legs are unsupported as well.

You can now show your data.

My contentions still stands, less rudely stated.

You do not know of which you speak, you can not differentiate rape from consensual sex by evidence of truama to the vagina and cervix. The precense of black eyes, bites marks, hand restraint bruises would not be present in non battery cases of rape/

How can you tell is the perpetrator threatened to fire someone and used intimidation to force rape Tapio?

Lets us see the data you allege that you have.

 

[Matthew Best]

It seems the conversation has drifted from the original incident quite a bit, but I thought this link might be of interest. It's a look at the videos by a crime scene analyst and forensic photographer.

 

[Lonewulf]

Huh, that was very in-depth and detail. I agree with him that this case seems a clear cut case of the fault being with the perp, and not with the police. So yes, I think this is justifiable.

I'm sad that he wielded a cell phone as if it was a weapon. I'm wondering if this was suicide by cop?

But yeah, apparently cell phones might just be a hidden firearm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxIjkBVEtyE

Scary stuff.

 

[Moochie]

It seems the conversation has drifted from the original incident quite a bit, but I thought this link might be of interest. It's a look at the videos by a crime scene analyst and forensic photographer.

Yeah, it confirms what I thought happened upon a first viewing of the video, and on learning the guy didn't have a gun but a cell phone, which one can clearly see him brandishing and pointing toward the officer behind him in a gesture that makes it look like he is going to shoot.

Suicide by cop.


M.

 

[jsiv]

Also he told me, that a few days ago they had a gathering with experts from diffrent countrys, among them someone from Norway, a guy that works with Flemming, Flemming seems to be a big experts on this things from Norway.

It has to be put into context though.

Norway has traditionally not had much gun-related crime. It has usually been restricted to someone getting their shotgun out in an argument with a neighbor, or someone killing their family with a military reserve weapon.

As a result, Norwegian police do not carry firearms. And even when they do respond to a call that requires them to arm themselves (if the suspect is reported to be armed), the standard sidearm is in most cases still a revolver.

Things are changing though, as violent crime is becoming more common.

 

[Travis]

My step-dad was in the CHP for 35 years and he said they had what they called "no-sense shooters" which is a situation where, after being pulled over, someone just starts shooting at the officer for no apparent reason. They don't have warrants for their arrest or any drugs in the vehicle. They just start shooting for reasons that are usually never determined because they usually end up dead. This happens frequently enough here in California that everyone in the CHP is expected to encounter it at some point in their career. For my step-dad it happened near Merced after he pulled a guy over just to give him a littering ticket. That guy ended up dead and my step-dad took a bullet to the shoulder that still causes him problems to this very day.

Because of things like "no-sense shooters" I tend to side with the idea that cops should be allowed to use lethal force in the heat of the moment.

 

[Tapio]

Dancing David. I know this imust be frustrating to you. Please, first read again what I've really written earlier in the thread, then evaluate your assumptions again.

After this, would you please specify on what subject do you wish me to present data I've claimed to have the knowledge on?

The rest of you. After the last few posts I'm starting to sense we're talking about two different things here. I've been posting on the topic on if what happened in the video looks justifiable to me, as stated in the title of this thread. Wheras the lot of you go on gathering evidence from different sources to decide whether it IS justifiable by law. No wonder it seems impossible for you to agree to disagree with me.

I took the title literally, you as an invocation to dig deeper behind the scene. I genuinely respect that. But it was not what I understood the thread to be about. I gave my opinion on the subject according to the title, only based on the video, you waited to get more evidence. I respect that also, but didn't understand the thread to be about such behaviour.

Now I know better. This has been very educating.

I see I have a lot to learn in the ways of a skeptic. I'm grateful for the new information aquired here.

 

[Dancing David]

That example has now relevance whatsoever on this subject. And, is a poor example anyway, because we can physiologically most likely differentiate rape from normal, willing sexual behaviour. And after most rapes, as horrid as they are, the victim stays alive to tell us her/his side of the story.

Here it is this is the statement, of many strange ones that you made that is unsupported by the evidence.

As I stated earlier, other than the testimony of the victims, if there is no battery of the victim, it will be impossible to tell rape from consensual rough sex. Also if sex is coerced through intimidation there may be no bruising, tearing of the vagina and cervix.

And the subject of intent is very germane, you are the one who said that the shooting should be murder, now hasty and subject to review yes, but not automatic murder.

Which is why the issue of intent is crucial, which is why i said that rape is a crime of violence, the intent is not to have sex, it is to humiliate, terrify and abuse the victim. The pleasure of the sexual intercourse is secondary, at best, to the perverse thrill of coersion.

Now perhaps you will support your statement in bold.

The rest was anger at your statemenst that seem to make a strange case about the physical evidence in rape. The comments about Finnish law are regards the strangeness of having sex with a passed out individual and not considering it rape, or having non-physical violence (battery) and it not being rape. If I threaten to fire you, evict you or kill your puuppy to force you to have sex with me, it is violence and it is rape. Does Finnish law allow for marital rape?

Now Finnish law may not be what Amnesty reported as well.

 

[Euromutt]

Police officers in the states are usually issued 9mm handguns, and I can only assume that they went with a standard load-out (no hollow points).

You're a little out of date. High-capacity 9mm Parabellums were popular in the late 1980s/early 1990s, but since then, the .40 S&W has become the most popular cartridge for law enforcement, hands down. Part of the reason, or so I'm given to understand, is that the .40 S&W is comparatively bad at penetrating body armor, making it more difficult for cops to be fatally shot with their own guns. The .357 SIG is gaining some popularity (the state police forces of Iowa and New Mexico use it, I believe), but the NYPD is probably the largest police force to still use 9mm Para. The NYPD was also one of the last agencies to switch to hollowpoints, after the Diallo shooting.

I think somebody earlier in the thread quoted an article that the two officers in this incident were using .40-cal Glocks (i.e. model 22 or 23), loaded with hollowpoints. I seem to recall from having read about this incident some years ago that the guy who got shot was seriously out of his head on something.

ETA Correction: I don't know that Marquise Hudspeth (the guy shot) was on something, but he did lead the cops on a 120 km/h-speed chase for 8 km through a city after one cop tried to pull him over for suspected drunk driving, so there may have been alcohol involved, and definitely a lot of adrenaline.

 

[Tapio]

The rest was anger at your statemenst that seem to make a strange case about the physical evidence in rape. The comments about Finnish law are regards the strangeness of having sex with a passed out individual and not considering it rape, or having non-physical violence (battery) and it not being rape. If I threaten to fire you, evict you or kill your puuppy to force you to have sex with me, it is violence and it is rape. Does Finnish law allow for marital rape?

Has it occured to you, that because of my not speaking English as my mothertongue there might be some thoughts I want to express, but which I fail to do in a detailed and (to you) fully comprehensable manner, simply because I don't know how to do it? Have you, even once, in your anger given a moments pause to ponder on the fact that what I'm writing is but a translation. Maybe a little better one than the average Finn could manage to do, but in the end, still a translation. I go through great lengths in trying to succeed in making my posts as adequately spelled, and use the right words to describe things accordingly, but it's all bound to fall short in my not being able to express exactly what I mean. Can you see how this might result in you getting the wrong impression from what I write, and how it could be recommendable for you to first check if you've understood me correctly (by asking from me, as you would hopefully do with anyone, let alone a person who's an amateur in writing English) before lashing out in anger?

As I stated before, Finnish laws on rape are abhorring. They do not allow marital rape, but count marriage as a "reducing circumstance" (I don't know the right word and couldn't find it). There's also a very unsettling new decree regarding the settling of home violence and sexual abuse. If somebody decides to drop charges against her/his husband/wife and agrees to go and try settle it with the aid of this special social worker of sorts, without going to court, after that they can't press charges agin, even if the settlement is unsatifying to them. So this has made it possible (in many cases proved afterwards) for the accused violator to intimidate the victim into settlement, after which everything goes back to square one again. Also, if after settling some incident once, the same kind of thing happens again and the victim goes to report it, they might well get a really dull reception in the way of "oh, c'mon, this was already settled before by us. Can't you just handle it yourself this time?" This has been recorded to happen alarmingly often, especially in cases with the women as victims.

Here it is this is the statement, of many strange ones that you made that is unsupported by the evidence.

Now perhaps you will support your statement in bold.

Hm. First of all, I'm not "evading" the question. I happen to have a life of my own (shared with four other members of my family) outside these forums. Excuse me for being a bit slow in responding.

I suspect that this is one of the misunderstandings due to how I use English. I get the feeling you consider me to be a moron. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but you really don't seem to believe me when I say this is a subject I've studied a whole lot about. I'm not claiming to be a professional sociologist, specialized in the research concerning rape, but I have educated myself fairly well on the subject.

As you can see, in the claim I wrote "most likely". There I'm taking into account ALL different kinds of rape, ranging from babies to old people, and the rapes of both women and men. The average amount of physical injuries on +/- 20-year-old women varies a bit depending on the study, but most of the data puts it to somewhere around 50% of all cases. However, physical trauma on children and young teens is a lot more common. Also, you completely disregarded the sentence after the bolded one. There I was trying to elaborate further my view of how also the phychological aspects of rape victims can (and must) be used to help in differentiating consensual sex from rape.

Here's a couple of links to English texts regarding this. I have a lot of material in Finnish, but don't have the time to start translating it right now. I will, if you wish, but I don't see the point, because the results are quite congruent with most of the ones in English.

http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:89888

http://books.google.fi/books?id=-o6ZXECf6A4C&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=physical+trauma+caused+by+rape&source=bl&ots=wbHG1aVdNX&sig=FJi-vDP2wHdsxRehftBcsZGAppc&hl=fi&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA88,M1

The "rape fact sheet" from CDC

http://www.medhelp.org/NIHlib/GF-617.html

Here's a brief history of the definition itself with some relevant figures

http://www.acvcc.state.al.us/asads/sexualassault.htm


From here you can also find some general figures of rape in the US. I picked out the ones concerning physical injury below the link.


http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm

- In 47% of rapes, the victim sustained injuries other than rape injuries.
- 75% of female rape victims require medical care after the attack.
- Non-genital physical injuries occur in approximately 40% of completed rape cases.18 As many as 3% of all rape cases have non-genital injuries requiring overnight hospitalization.19
- Victims of rape often manifest long-term symptoms of chronic headaches,18,20fatigue20, sleep disturbance20, recurrent nausea,20 decreased appetite,21 eating disorders,22 menstrual pain,18 sexual dysfunction,23 and suicide attempts.21 In a longitudinal study, sexual assault was found to increase the odds of substance abuse by a factor of 2.5.24
- Estimates of the occurrence of sexually transmitted diseases resulting from rape range from 3.6% to 30%.18,22 HIV transmission risk rate from rape is estimated at 1 in 500,22,25 although a few probable cases have been documented in Sweden and Great Britain. 26,27
- Victims of marital or date rape are 11 times more likely to be clinically depressed, and 6 times more likely to experience social phobia than are non-victims. Psychological problems are still evident in cases as long as 15 years after the assault.28
- Fatalities occur in about 0.1% of all rape cases.29,30
- A study examining the use of health services over a five year period by female members of a health maintenance program found that the number of visits to physicians by rape victims increased 56% in the year following the crime, compared to a 2% utilization increase by non-victims.31

This one's also interesting (on how it might be harder to detect physical trauma on dark-skinned women)


http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_70605.html

After this I don't know a better word to use than "most likely", when talking about if we can differentiate rape from consensual sex using the physical marks and the psychological state of the victim. Maybe you can help me find an adequate word.

And the subject of intent is very germane, you are the one who said that the shooting should be murder, now hasty and subject to review yes, but not automatic murder.

I didn't say it should be murder. In answering the title of the thread I said to me it looked like murder. Now it appears, that at least according to the law, it wasn't. Fine by me, though it still looks unjustified to me.