this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
1216 points (97.3% liked)
People Twitter
5284 readers
1799 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is not correct. Do not do this.
"Your body, my choice" does not rise to the level of an imminent threat of violence or lawless behavior. It's certainly not "fighting words" as defined by SCOTUS. Without an immediate threat of violence, you do not have a legal right to use physical force. Even in states with 'make my day' laws, this is absolutely not something you can respond to with violence.
I am not an attorney, I am not your attorney, and I would strongly suggest that you consult with a competent criminal defense attorney before you take this course of action.
Wait are you saying that crimes have consequences? I thought that wasn't actually true anymore from what I have seen going on lately.
They do for us, silly.
The law needs to catch up. MAGAs have been doing this for a while. Where they say absolute heinous stuff, under the gaze of "freedom of speech and expression" until it becomes accepted enough for some other asshole to be emboldened enough to try and get away with it or even get passed as law! A tactic loved by fascists around the globe. It works similarly to a false prophecy.
MAGAs can't rape women? They'll make it clear that women will have their rights revoked into the future so they better "get used to it" starting now. MAGAs can't kill women? They'll just take life critical healthcare away. With this combination it's not only EVEN MORE LIKELY than usual someone will get away with rape, but that it'll result in the woman's death!
"Your body, my choice" should be seen as a death threat and should be dealt with accordingly. Any kids saying this should be made vividly aware of just how fucking monstrous those words are, and should face detention or even the threat of expulsion if they refuse to stop it. This is not a light matter. We're talking about rasing rapist here!
But Americans sure don't seem to agree, they still see school shootings as a "whatever, put in more police officers" to shoot at the kids with guns kind of issue, so what do I know? I guess raping and shooting up kids is what America desires and I'm the weird foreigner brining in my weird values.
Laws constantly need to catch up.
I'm not sure what law would be an improvement though. The courts tend to frown on laws that are directed at specific groups of people so you probably couldn't have something as specific as, "When a man says YBMC to a woman she's allowed to consider it a rape threat and knee him in the nuts." It also wouldn't be terribly effective since those people would likely find some variation that skirts the law but carries exactly the same message. That's so common a tactic we even have a name for it, "dogwhistles".
The most general form is a "stand your ground" law. Ie we don't question the motives of the "defender", we just assume they were right. That has some obvious issues too.
There might be something between those two that would work, but I don't know what it would be.
Maybe you missed the memo, but the law is not changing in our favor unfortunately.
As a guy, I'd acquit if I went on a jury for a case like this. It only take one to hang, and they don't have the resource to keep trying forever.
You would likely be removed for cause from the jury pool if you said something like this during questioning from attorneys.
Therefore don't say that in questioning
Lying about this can get you charged with perjury and/or held in contempt of court. I would strongly suggest that you not consider lying about things like this when attorneys are questioning you while you're in a jury pool.
They are presumably not going to ask "do you think Your Body, My Choice is a threat of violence" during questioning. If they ask whether or not any verbal threat could possibly rise to that level, then "yes" obviously. "I'm going to enjoy beating you until you stop breathing" is clearly an immediate threat to one's life and health, for example.
Unfortunately, that is probably not accurate either. That kind of threat is not necessarily something that gives you free rein to immediately use violence in order to defend yourself; it really depends on the circumstances that surround it. (And of course the relevant case law in the state that you live in.) But a really, really good rule of thumb is that you shouldn't use physical force or violence unless the aggressor has used it first.
Look, I understand your frustration and fear. I really do. I'm in a deep red part of an already red state (thankfully not Idaho, at least), and this shit is scary and awful. Depending on the outcome of some House races that still haven't been decided, we're looking at a minimum of two really, really bad years, and a lot of non-white people, women, and LGBTQ+ people are going to be harmed. I understand the desire to lash out at the people who are both complicit and actively working for this shitsack future, because I want to also. But you have to be aware of the consequences of taking that kind of action.
Agreed. Also, "Your body, my choice" is possibly meant as a threat, possibly meant as a taunt. But, what it definitely is: a statement of power. Asshole men are saying this because they think the landscape has shifted so much that they can now get away with it -- and they're probably right.
American police are already some of the biggest right-wing assholes. Who do you think they're going to side with in a confrontation where a man says this to a woman? Even if legally a woman were 100% justified in responding with violence, in the real world where men have the power, and men are feeling even more powerful since Trump's victory, being legally right isn't enough.
I took it as a counter argument, not legal advice.
People are confusing moral and legal rights.
Women absolutely have the moral right to nut-knee someone who says that to them. I wouldn't stop them or testify against them.
People generally don't have the legal right to do that. If someone tries that and gets sued, it will be up to them to prove that there was an imminent credible threat. If the guy is still alive, they'll be able to claim that YBMC is just a joke and it would be up to the victim to prove that it wasn't.
Spoken like a true attorney.
I understand what you are saying.
But anyone saying that to women is a clear threat and I will defend myself against anyone saying this to me and not accept this rising level of violent speech.
Force can only legally be used against imminent threats. (This, BTW, is why women tend to get convicted of murder when they kill their abusive partners; they tend to do it at a time when their partner is not harming them.) Even if you are positive that someone intends you great bodily harm or death, you can not use force legally until the moment arrives when they are trying to cause that harm. You can not pre-emptively self-defend.
If you use lethal force in the absence of an imminent, immediate threat of great bodily harm or death, it is highly likely that you would be arrested, charged, and convicted.
Indeed Inspector HelixDab, that is the letter of the law.
That said, anyone who says that to a woman deserves to have their balls kicked it, regardless of the legality. Laws are largely written to maintain order and uphold the status quo, they are not a divine tool for determining morality or justice; Rosa Parks broke the law by sitting in a part of the bus reserved for white people, but in retrospect that was a vital act of resistance.
Tolerance of patriarchal domination does not make for a more just society, it only makes things worse. Knee those balls if you can get away with it.
And that's the real trick. You might be able to get away with it, if they're embarrassed to have been taken down by a woman. But since it's probably a person that's known to the woman (this isn't really something that even the worst people would just randomly say to someone on the street, I don't think), the man might come back with intent to actually cause immediate harm. Or might call the cops, and then you're right back to potentially getting arrested.
Yeah, I agree 1000%, the people doing this deserve violence. But 'deserving' something doesn't mean that the law won't come down on you like a ton of bricks. It's frustrating as shit.
Who benefits from the woman doing time for assault? Not her, that's for sure.
I don't think that "you are allowed" was meant to be legal advice lol
But it is.
It's irresponsible to put into young girls minds that some fuckwit saying a political slogan equates to a rape threat and you should assault them.
She's literally telling people to feel safe committing an offence.
I'm sure many people will disagree with me, go for your lives, but I'm not talking about the slogan or choice, I'm saying if someone says 4 words to you and you attack them, you will be held legally responsible.
Girls have the right to defend themselves.
Not when there is no imminent threat, and there is no such thing as "defending" yourself before any "offense" is attempted. See: https://lemmy.world/comment/13417359
Stand your ground laws disagree. If one party views it as a threat of bodily harm they can definitely defend themselves by preemptively killing someone.
This was such a weird time-line switch. Trump president again and progressives on Lemmy sound like r/conservative with law interpretation. So there's no better response, no room for the very real needed evaluation of each situation, just a blanket "shoot em" now. Idk how people are so subjective to propaganda and influence when we have such a hard grasp on reality.
A bunch of women shooting men for threatening to rape them would definitely get the stand your ground laws changed for the better. Sounds like a progressive win to me.
Reality is a strange bedfellow.
Just an OG fantasy accelerationist eh? I can dig it, but I think they would dismiss it as not being fit for the definition. Judges can and are allowed to be fickle like that.
It would be wonderful to set the precedent that men can legally defend themselves but woman can't. Let's hope for fickle justices who can't help themselves.
I've literally had people argue with me saying that someone wearing Nazi paraphernalia in public was legally an immediate threat of violence that you could respond to with lethal force. No, I'm not joking or exaggerating. A lot of people take this kind of thing at face value.
Not sure where your getting the idea that you can't defend yourself from the threat of harm or realistic perception of that threat. You absolutely can.
Heck even if the perception isn't reasonable you still can. Your case is just much harder to defend.
If someone is just an ass and says YBMC to you that's probably not legit, but context matters too. If it's said in a threatening matter, that's a threat plain and simple.
As always flight should be the primary response but fighting off you can't run would be fine.
I'm the end, if you have to defend your life, then do so. Worry about the legality after. Don't let someone hurt you because the Internet said the law isn't on your side. Don't get hurt cus the cops aren't on your side, the cops are never on your side.
Yes, good luck in court!
It absolutely is assault at should be reported as such.
It is an implicit threat.
Get a fucking clue.
I 100% guarantee you, not one single police officer in my town would take the woman's side in this scenario. Right or not, its just how it would go.
Let the court decide. Jury of peers would see it as a threat. Get enough cases like this and cops would start to see it as normal fighting (If you claim assault, so will they) and both parties will start to get off with warnings. One of which will reconsider saying such things again.
You might be right that it is an implicit threat and as a threat it constitutes verbal assault, but you'd have a hard time making any real headway in court with that, especially in a he said/she said situation. It might be a crime, but it's one which will see almost no prosecution.
Not a lawyer yet still giving legal advice.
i think that
is one of the few pieces of legal advice that you don’t need to be a lawyer to offer.