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.

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

Ok I was thinking about it from the perspective that the person being raped is someone I know or a member of my family. To commit a rape on the victim, the rapist would have to rip off the victim's clothes. Once the perpetrator has laid their hands on the victim, I have a reason to believe that the victim is under the threat of great bodily harm or death. I have no way of knowing the rapists ultimate intention. It's not like he's going to tell me or the victim. In that case I think I would be justified to use any means to stop him.

There was a case somewhere else where the husband comes home and a guy is on top of his wife in the car outside. She cried "Rape", he shot the guy, then later we find out that they were having an affair. He wasn't charged, she was charged with murder.

IANALAIDWTBO.

911 calls for someone other than family, bullets fly if it is family.

A question I find much more interesting is whether a woman could defend herself lawfully using lethal force if there was no threat of GBH without relying on castle doctrine. Many if not most rapes are in this category. A typical example would involve a person known to the victim, a disparity in size and strength, and no effective escape route.

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."

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."

NDtish's experience not withstanding, and I am completely in agreement that rape is GBH, despite what some might nitpick over the reading of the laws, the laws have also stated that with the risk of HepC and HIV, rape in and of itself can be considered attempted murder. There is a huge difference between case law and precedent, and statute.

IANAL, but I think you'd have a hard time finding a jury that would convict a woman fighting off a rapist.