Deadly force is justfied in response to rape not because rape always involves death or grave bodily harm (although it too often does), but because there is a clearly-understood threat that the rapist will kill or seriously hurt his victim if she does not cooperate with him. The implied threat of death or serious injury for non-cooperation is present even if the rapist never says a single word to his victim, and its presence is part of what defines the crime of rape.

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when
necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the
actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in
the actor's place of abode.

609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when
necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the
actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in
the actor's place of abode.

From MN Statutes, emphasis mine:



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

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?

I don't see why not.

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

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

Radical feminist writer Andrea Dworkin once declared that "all penetrative sex is rape,"