A couple gender related points came up in the "Realities" forum (see "Dark Side" Thread) and I thought I'd give them some voice in their own thread before they get buried. (Thread piracy - avast mateys - those with objections can walk the plank!)
Regarding the legal aftermath of a self-defense confrontation where you are lucky enough to emerge alive and defeating your assailant - I made this comment about responses and interacting with those first on the scene:
<blockquote>I was taught years ago during a firearms self-defense type course - (the teacher was scarier than a lot of the weirdoes I can envision on the street) that if I had to shoot - aside from the 6 to the chest and the 7th on the eye socket - to take advantage of my gender for the legal issues to come... i.e. dissolve into tears, shake uncontrollably - go into hysterics - and continue pulling the trigger on the now empty gun while standing over the fallen assailant screaming "he was trying to kill me - he was trying to kill me!" - regardless of any sense of calm felt at the time.
Then dissolve further into tears and hysterics with your hand on your lawyer's card - making no comments or sense pleading for your friend (who is really your lawyer) to come and help you as you are too upset to even talk.
Student's admonitions to shut up till your attorney gets there seem to mesh well with this advice.
The female tears and hysterics shouldn't be too hard to come up with in a situation like this - the idea being to play up the "weak woman being attacked by the big bad guy" image to help justify the use of deadly force.
How well does that sit with those of you with experience on the legal side of this issue?
Good idea? unfair? Worthless? Does gender REALLY make no difference?</blockquote>
Sensei Canna refered to that type of response from a woman as "resourceful" - and a few follow up posts brought up some further points - some probing thoughts by "student":
<blockquote>Lori-chan:
Vive la Difference! You have sparked off a number of truly mind boggling scenarios in my head:1) a FATAL ATTRACTION number - the attacker is female, the defending male is justified, but where's the sympathy going to be?
2) The combatants are male; the LEO is female.
3) FATAL ATTRACTION and the LEO is female.
4) The defender is female, but has martial arts/defensive tactic/firearms/knife/tongs and spatula training and certification....
You might have multiple cards from your attorney; one to keep, several to hand out to the investigating officers.
student</blockquote>
Good questions! I'm sure more than one of these has been explored in the legal arena - and while things may be changing in some parts - in the deep South it seems that the Bible Belt still has women in the kitchen - and the interpretation of the law swings to that stereotype often enough to make gender a real issue in these types of cases. Whether the female is the assailant or the defender - it would seem that any resulting jury would have to have some kind of gender prejudice - regardless of how carefully they are selected. As student says: where's the sympathy going to be?
Ted-san added:
<blockquote>Lori, if women should cry, then men should pee their pants! If it doesn't happen naturally, that is. No brutal, raving, macho hazzard image here, hey?
------------------
Ted T.
The Fighting Old Man</blockquote>
No - definitely no major macho image to worry about here - but again, where would the sympathy be? OK - he was scared so bad he couldn't control himself - look at the poor guy - he's crying! - or would he be perceived as a wimp? I don't think "wimp" would come to mind as easily for an emotional female - she would almost be expected to be in tears and hysterics... if the man was acting that way general opinion might actually go against him wouldn't you think? This is not personal opinion, it seems to come across in the presentation of the evening news! "Oh the poor woman, brutally attacked, bravely fought off the attacker with a small gun she purchased after being mugged a few years ago..." But on the other side, any man, even defending his property against armed robbers, gets investigated as to his past arrest record, how many guns he owns, military background, etc. You never hear about that when it comes to a woman using deadly force. Maybe it is done in other parts, but not what I've noticed in the South anyway.
Not fair? Sure - life isn't fair anyway - and deBecker says in his book where he explains why he refers to predators primarily in the male gender - the majority of assailants on a female ARE male - so we've got that disadvantage already. So why not use what little advantage we DO have to emerge from the ensuing legal spiderweb?
Yet women still have to fight a dissection of their character should they choose to follow up an assault - "she dressed invitingly - she has a promiscuous past - she didn't say no loud enough" all of that is the disadvantage. Not one men have to worry about.
Can men use the gender gap to their advantage? And if not, how to minimize the vunerablity if a legal snare involves a gender-related incident?
Just some points to ponder.
Peace,
Lori
"The dark side" from another angle
Moderator: Available
-
Shelly King
"The dark side" from another angle
Ahhh...the double standard....I for one personally use it...not ashamed to admit I can and have turned on the hysterical waterworks to get out of a minor traffic violation or two. But what if it's more serious than running slightly over the speed limit...
Say a man attacks a woman and then kills her...no one says much about the woman's character or how she was dressed...she's dead and that makes it a serious crime and him a criminal.
Say, same guy attacks same woman but she gets away, reports it, and they catch him...now she's the one on trial...what was she wearing, how was she acting, why was she were she was at the time she was, did she really expect this simple man to be able to control himself, afterall, no real harm done...
Ok, same guy, same woman, this time in self defense she kills him...Yeah for her, she fought back and becomes a hero...no probing searches into her past relationships, no cross-examination about her clothes or morals...just a woman protecting herself.
Granted these are general cases, not taking into account her or his station in life, though that does matter...was it Senator so and so attacking homeless chick or some escaped con attacking movie star X. So why do we have this double standard...in my opinion, we use it to reinforce the "it won't happen to me" mindset. In order to feel safe enough to leave our homes and live our lives, we must rationlize the violence that is all around us everyday. We don't want to believe that bad things happen to good people and that violence is random.
So yes, there is a double standard and it works both ways...can a woman get away with murder by playing the innocent victim...sure. Can a guy get off the hook because the woman was "asking" for it...sure. Will innocent people be labeled as criminals because they protected themselves....of course. It's a nasty world out there, and everything and anything can and will be used against you....but then again, it might just work in your favor.
------------------
Shelly
Say a man attacks a woman and then kills her...no one says much about the woman's character or how she was dressed...she's dead and that makes it a serious crime and him a criminal.
Say, same guy attacks same woman but she gets away, reports it, and they catch him...now she's the one on trial...what was she wearing, how was she acting, why was she were she was at the time she was, did she really expect this simple man to be able to control himself, afterall, no real harm done...
Ok, same guy, same woman, this time in self defense she kills him...Yeah for her, she fought back and becomes a hero...no probing searches into her past relationships, no cross-examination about her clothes or morals...just a woman protecting herself.
Granted these are general cases, not taking into account her or his station in life, though that does matter...was it Senator so and so attacking homeless chick or some escaped con attacking movie star X. So why do we have this double standard...in my opinion, we use it to reinforce the "it won't happen to me" mindset. In order to feel safe enough to leave our homes and live our lives, we must rationlize the violence that is all around us everyday. We don't want to believe that bad things happen to good people and that violence is random.
So yes, there is a double standard and it works both ways...can a woman get away with murder by playing the innocent victim...sure. Can a guy get off the hook because the woman was "asking" for it...sure. Will innocent people be labeled as criminals because they protected themselves....of course. It's a nasty world out there, and everything and anything can and will be used against you....but then again, it might just work in your favor.
------------------
Shelly
"The dark side" from another angle
"Those with objections can walk the plank?"
I'd best get started, Lori-Chan. I can't remember a hearing or trial when I did not have objections. Lots of them....
But, seriously: what I see running through these threads is the realization that you, the defender, must know what is right in the eyes of the law. You must act accordingly and do what's right, in the law; no more.
Being right will never ensure that there will not be legal consequences, hassles, arrest, trials; it merely makes it more likely that you will eventually prevail
Don't look at me; I never said it was fair.
I agree that gender is one of the factors that people will consider. But that's something you can do very little about; it's not really a variable, Christine Jorgensen notwithstanding.
Behavior is a variable. Amount of force used is a variable. Reactions in front of the officers is a variable. Preparation is a variable. Training is a variable; you get the picture.
Control the variables you can. Accept that there are factors beyond your control. And mine.
It's nice to know you did read my post and found it worthy of comment.
student
[This message has been edited by student (edited 12-08-99).]
I'd best get started, Lori-Chan. I can't remember a hearing or trial when I did not have objections. Lots of them....
But, seriously: what I see running through these threads is the realization that you, the defender, must know what is right in the eyes of the law. You must act accordingly and do what's right, in the law; no more.
Being right will never ensure that there will not be legal consequences, hassles, arrest, trials; it merely makes it more likely that you will eventually prevail
Don't look at me; I never said it was fair.
I agree that gender is one of the factors that people will consider. But that's something you can do very little about; it's not really a variable, Christine Jorgensen notwithstanding.
Behavior is a variable. Amount of force used is a variable. Reactions in front of the officers is a variable. Preparation is a variable. Training is a variable; you get the picture.
Control the variables you can. Accept that there are factors beyond your control. And mine.
It's nice to know you did read my post and found it worthy of comment.
student
[This message has been edited by student (edited 12-08-99).]
"The dark side" from another angle
Tony-san and Scott - you guys are awesome!
Thanks for getting this reply thing fixed!
Whatever would we do without you?
Thanks!!!!!
Thanks for getting this reply thing fixed!
Whatever would we do without you?
Thanks!!!!!
