I said criminal liability. You’re talking about civil.
In MI, you can use lethal force in respose to the threat of ‘grievous bodily harm’ or loss of life. Just finished my CCW classes 
Shodan I don’t recall.
Robert – again on a practical basis, I’ve met folks who were convicted for assault for hitting some one who was assaulting them - one did several years when he choked the woman who was stabbing him (yes, he had stab wounds) he was told ‘when she passed out, you should have let go and called for the cops’; and the above referenced case where a woman used a baseball bat to hit a man who was choking her. Additionally, theres’ a case in St. Johns MI that’s recent where two friends got into a fist fight, one fell to the ground and hit his head on something, refused medical attention, then died, the other guys being prosecuted.
Slight hijack (although I suppose vaguely on-topic).
My CCW instructor, a former sheriff, said that a person can expect to spend roughly $50,000 in legal fees if they ever kill someone in self defense. It depends on how the prosecutor feels (if they decline to prosecute, your home free), but almost invariably, the now-dead aggressors family will sue in civil court. But $50,000 in the hole beats being dead/raped.
again, Robert, the circumstances will in fact be very very varied, and I’d hate to see you in court saying “But my CCW instructor told me that it was ok”. One guy I knew had 3 people come into his home and try and beat him up, he put them in a hospital and he went to jail.
Two options for you - one - check it out w/an attorney. two, (and I’ve done this, but I live in Lansing, so the phone call is free), call the attorney general’s office and ask. I suspect that it will make a great deal of difference if you know the assailant or not, where the assault was etc.
But, bottom line, I would not take the word of your CCW instructor as your permit to shoot.
It is ridiculous to blame the rape victim because the rapist got a disease. I have ZERO sympathy for a rapist suffering the natural consequences of their actions.
Should we expect people to give disclaimers while they are being raped?
“Excuse me? Pardon me? Yeah, I have the Human Imunodeficiency Virus, so keep that in mind while you forcibly rape me. Just a little FYI.”
To be fair, KellyM, I didn;t know about this until the following post, but there are apparently criminal consequences for my hypothetical:
wring- Do you have any more details?
I agree. Let’s call the moral portion of the OP closed, unless someone wants to play devil’s advocate.
the second quote wasn’t from me.
re: details - keep in mind I work w/convicts, have done so for 25 years, this was a guy I’d worked w/ a couple of years ago, I don’t recall his name, so there’d be no way for me at this point to locate any further specifics than what I recall.
He knew the 3 guys, there had been an on going dispute. I don’t recall if the 3 kicked the door down or merely pushed their way in side, the guy who got convicted was really quite a big guy, I had no problem believing that he could out fight 3 on 1; there were no weapons involved, the other 3 guys ended up hurt badly enough they were in the hospital for more than just an ER visit.
but the principal that I learned from that was “just 'cause the other guy threw the first punch etc. doesn’t mean that you can do whatever to them”. this is why I cautioned Robert to not assume that if he felt threatened to assume that meant he was legally ok to use ‘lethal force’.
Sorry about the quote, wring. Hopefully a mod will be around to change it.
So you basically think the fella who was convicted took the opportunity to beat the living hell out of the 3 guys, assuming he could because he was (initially) in the right?
no, I think he thought he was ‘defending himself’, and that he had a right to do so, given that they outnumbered him and started the fight.
I also suspect that he got convicted 'cause he didn’t merely ‘fight back’, but made sure they weren’t going to get up again to start again. But then, I also think the average guy involved in a fight wouldn’t pretty much do the same. what he’d been told was that there was a point wherein the other guys weren’t making additional moves towards him, and he should have stopped then and contacted the police. HOwever, I also assume that he wanted to make sure they were ‘down for the count’ as it were, before he assumed he was safe from their assault.
it’s a very tricky thing, and gets even dicier when weapons are involved. I know another local case where a cop went to a mans house to arrest him, the man resisted arrest, grabbed the cops’ flashlight and hit the cop in the knee. The cop shot and killed the guy, the shooting was ruled justified. However, I also believe that had it been a citizen vs. a cop, that a hit to the kneecap w/a flashlight would not have been seen as a justification for using ‘lethal force’.
I took care of it.
Beating someone else up is not a passive act. If you beat someone else, you have committed a voluntary act that may or may not be privileged as self-defense. Being raped, on the other hand, is not a voluntary act. There is no question of privilege here; you simply aren’t doing anything at all. So I would say the examples are inapposite; you’re confusing a privileged act with no act at all.
Bingo, we were trying to say the same thing, you much more accurately.
KellyM- I see your point. But the end result of both is the same. Serious harm or death that could have been avoided. While it’s true that rape is very much involuntary, it is voluntary to withhold what would prove to be life-saving information. [Fair to assume that the victim had the precense of mind to think of the HIV, but not tell her attacker?)
" She’s liable for my heatlh and medical bills 'cause she didn’t tell me she was HIV positive when I was raping her!"
I don’t think that would go over well with a jury. Credibilty is a matter for the jury, and admitted rapists don’t have much credibility. His version of the facts would always be looked upon with skepticism. IMO, there’s no way he could win a civil judgement against her.
In CA (according to my copy of how to use a gun and stay out of jail) 3-1 odds is considered lethal force. We would probably need more details. I would be amazed that any jury would convict him of anything.