On her "cornered cat" website, Kathy Jackson opines,



The problem with this is that it doesn't match common definitions of rape. Definitions of rape vary widely. Radical feminist writer Andrea Dworkin once declared that "all penetrative sex is rape," a definition that has (thankfully) never been widely accepted even in feminist circles. Some years ago a billboard campaign was run with ads proclaiming, "if you don't stop at 'no,' you're a rapist."

While that expansive definition has never been law, Minnesota statutes consider rape to occur whenever "force or coercion" is used. The statutes utilize the term "criminal sexual conduct" rather than rape. 3rd degree criminal sexual conduct, defined in 609.344 subd. 1 (c) is a crime where sexual penetration takes place and "the actor uses force or coercion to accomplish the penetration." The threat or fear of GBH is not required for that crime to have occurred. 1st degree criminal sexual conduct, with a longer prison term, is defined in 609.342; reasonable fear of GBH is among the factors that can lead to a 1st degree offense.

So, given all that, is lethal force (a) appropriate and (b) lawful in Minnesota to prevent rape from taking place?

(a) yes
(b) yes, that is if I understand what your getting at with both questions.

In my opinion, Rape in the most popular opinion (and Minnesota's defined criminal sexual conduct) always justifies use of lethal force. Theirs no question about it, put your self in the victims shoes.

Now, if it were a husband a wife with a headache, even thought very different and similar, is a more complicated matter. But lets not get into that here.

I was thinking about this since rape is a felony, but I realized that it just applies to your abode.

Attempted penetrative rape from a stranger is ALWAYS a threat of GBH, because you have no idea what lethal STDs you might be exposed to.

Dworkin was a loon.

Deadly force is always justified to protect against rape. Assuming the victim is a female:

1. There is a cultural predisposition that a man is generally bigger and stronger than a woman, automatically creating a disparity of force
2. There is only one reason a woman would submit to rape and that is being in fear of GBH or death

Kimberman, you're a lawyer, right? How do we approach the issue of rape when it comes to the defense of ourselves and family members and friends? Does rape normally fall under "great bodily harm" in Minnesota law? Or, must legally armed citizens permit themselves/others to be raped?
I recently had a situation that could have easily escalated to the point where I think it would have been reasonable to draw on multiple (potentially) bad guys pursuing me and some female friends of mine. Thankfully, I managed to defuse the situation and get away with my friends, but I think it almost got ugly.
Am I supposed to wait for the bad guys to advance against me (male company of the females) before I brandish my gun? Can I do more than just try to call 911, assuming it is possible, while the women are assaulted?
I have been curious about this for quite some time, but recent events have made the question a bit more urgent in my mind.
Thanks.

From MN Statutes, emphasis mine:



You may use deadly force to protect others under the law.

-Mark

Thanks for the reply, Mark.
Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear in my question. I realize that we can legally use deadly force and/or the threat of deadly force to protect others. However, for this sort of force to be used legally, we must have the reasonable fear of great bodily harm. What I want to know is whether or not rape constitutes "great bodily harm."
Can I legally use or threaten to use deadly force to protect others from being raped?

Very loudly stated: IANAL

That said...

From my readings of the statutes, rape on its own does not constitute a fear of GBH or death. It's the surrounding circumstances that would possibly justify the use of deadly force. Why? Because we forget that rape isn't really a legal term. "Sexual assault" comes in various degrees, and qualifications for those degrees can include the use of a weapon or the threat of force.

You'd have to examine the surrounding circumstances to determine the use of force to protect another. IMO, if there's rape, there's likely a reasonable fear of GBH or death on the part of the victim...but the law doesn't guarantee that will be the case.

-Mark

I don't see why not.

Because you still have to meet the criteria for the use of deadly force.

In reality, I think you'll find the acts committed together. But if we want to split legal hairs, I believe we may have very separate issues.

-Mark

Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 8 (2004), defines "great bodily harm" as "bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm."

The case law seems to really look at the attendant circumstances to determine whether there is a fear of GBH. The criminal sexual conduct 1 cases discuss this because fear of GBH is an essential element. There's [i]State v. Carloson/i] that by my very very brief read seems to say that fear of GBH doesn't come automatically because of a rape and that the court will look to the evidence to determine whether the threat is present.

In my personal opinion, RUBBISH. If its non-consensual there is always an implied threat of GBH and I don't give a damn about coercion arguments.


BC
IANAL...wait not that's not it...IMBALBINYL

Is it scary that I know you well enough to have figured out that acronym right away?

I had the same read when I was looking. I've also got the same personal opinion.

And again...IANAL!!

-Mark

One's opinion of things is often distorted when one hasn't experienced the subject in question first hand and has no hope of ever doing so.

I find this interesting that there is any debate on this issue. The reason I say that is that when I took my carry class we were told specifically that we could use lethal force to stop/prevent a rape. However, this came up as a result of a discussion about being able to protect others as well as your self from GBH or death. The instructor gave us the common sense (in my opinion) warning about being very careful who we choose to protect in that manor. He suggested only family and VERY close personal friends. One of the reasons for that was the following hypothetical situation he described. He said to imagine you are walking downtown late at night and you pass an alley and you see a man raping a woman in the alley. You tell the man to stop and get away from the woman, he refuses. You end up shooting him to protect the woman from further abuse and harm. The man falls down dead. The woman, so traumatized by the rape and the fact that someone has just walked up and shot someone dead, immediately runs off and can't be located. You are standing there in an alley with a dead man that you just shot, blood all over the place and the cops show up. Now what? You try to explain your story but the woman you say was being raped is now gone.

The other reason or example was of a woman (again, hypothetically) being beaten up or abused by a man. You fear she is in danger of GBH or death from being beaten up. You tell the man to stop and get away from the woman and he refuses. You shoot and end up killing the man to prevent any further harm to the woman. However, after shooting the man the woman suddenly is in support of the man and screaming at you for shooting her husband/boyfriend, etc. Suddenly the person you thought you were trying to help is singing a very different tune to the police about how there was really nothing going on and you shoot her husband/boyfriend, etc. for no reason.