Yes, I think anyone with a logical brain should agree that anybody getting abused by a spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend/parents/ etc should be able to defend themselves however that might be. Doesn't mean that the abuser deserves to die right on the spot but if they warn them then I think they should do what is necessary to protect themselves.
A victim of extended abuse should be allowed to use deadly force against their attacker. It may be the only way that they can get away from the problem. If they could get away without the use of deadly force, then that would be great. However, if I found myself in the situation of being a victim of extended abuse and found a way to get out using deadly force, then I would go ahead and do it.
I think that victims should be supported, since they need help to get their revenge. It should be taught that all wrong deeds should be strictly punished, so that such acts in the future could be avoided
I am agreeing to this topic, only because my heart does go out to people who have suffered from extensive abuse. This is a growing epidemic, worldwide, and, yes, those who have been abused should be able to carry weapons with them to prevent future attacks. Each case should be judged separately.
Victims of extended abuse will likely continue to be abused more and more, until the victim is dead, runs away, or defends himself or herself. Every person in this country has a right to life and to defend it if necessary, if that person has done no wrong. This would fall under self-defense.
It is my opinion that deadly force should only be used when there is immediate threat to one's physical well-being. People can only take so much abuse physically and mentally, and there should be more done to prevent such issues from happening. Deadly force is a very serious issue. Many people look at abuse and have different opinions as to what constitutes abuse. Abuse has many faces. In some people's opinions, mental abuse is worse than physical abuse and, in their minds, they feel justified in using deadly force when someone in their right mind, who has not been abused, would not see deadly force as being justified in the situation. This is a very tricky question to answer, and I feel it is a very opinionated question to answer.
In this country, there is the fact that someone can be allowed to plead self-defense in a case where they have killed someone, if their own life was threatened. This plea can and is used in cases where someone has been a victim of extended abuse. Another plea that is also used and is very viable in this case as well is the psychological defense. I feel that these are completely fair.
Persons subjected to long-term abuse often have no choice but to defend themselves. Often, the law is not on their side until it is too late. Many times, people don't have anyone to turn to for support. Often, abusers are charming and respected people to everyone else. Over time, the abuse sneaks up on the victim insidiously. In the end, they often don't have a choice but to exhibit deadly force.
I think a person has a right to defend themselves and their family. If someone is being abused they may get in the situation where they either have to help themselves with force, or continue to be abused or even killed.
Victims of extended emotional, verbal or physical abuse should be legally allowed to use whatever force (up to and including deadly force) is necessary for them to remove themselves from the abusive situation they are in. Victims of these three types of abuse find themselves under a combination of mental and physical restraint that can seem insurmountable by logical and rational means. All people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and should not be punished for using whatever is available to them when these rights are unfairly restricted by others.
Abusive behavior is often a symptom of a psychological or emotional disorder, so I don't think that all people who engage in it necessarily deserve to die. There are better alternatives, such as seeking counseling or contacting the authorities, that could be employed, rather than resorting to deadly violence, which only makes the victim a killer.
If a person is a victim of long time abuse that does not give them the right to fight back with the possible intent to kill. The way to fight abuse is to report it and let professionals deal with it. Even if a person is afraid to come forward to face their attacker that does give them the right to take the law into there own hands.
The fact that abuse has been "extended" does not make disproportionate violence in self-defense more justified than it would be if the abuse had only happened once. But it does mitigate the severity of the sentence the person defending themselves ought to receive. To claim that extended abuse makes killing someone in a non-life-threatening situation all right, implies that the one's overall life status, or the moral caliber of the relationship dynamics, rather than the details of the particular situation in which the fight occurred, ought to be decisive in determining the justice of the act. This is an illogical standard that dangerously dilutes the concepts of unjust killing and of self-defense. To be sure, if the abuser's past behavior gives one particular reason to fear for one's life, that could be a justification for using deadly force. But that's a different matter from the mere existence of past abuse.
Those experiencing extended abuse generally have the opportunity to change their life, and get away from the abuser. While deadly force may be appropriate when their life is directly threatened, such as in a case of a rape or a robbery, extended abuse tends to be more involved. These people are usually close relatives, or people they are dating.