If u could get rid of any law, which one would it be?

*
In our country, or...?
CokeTheUmbreon posted een jaar geleden
*
^ Same question.
Jet-Black posted een jaar geleden
 TimberHumphrey posted een jaar geleden
next question »

Random Antwoorden

ThePrincesTale said:
One Australian state STILL has "gay panic defence" law on their books: basically u can assault / kill someone if u think they're making unwanted same-sex advances. It doesn't apply to unwanted heterosexual advances. Thankfully they're getting rid of it this year.

Also some of the dumbass laws restricting embryo use in scientific research. Right now, scientists can only use excess embryos from IVF procedures (only if the man and women give consent ofc, and also under extremely strict conditions, eg. they cannot let it grow bigger than a few dozen of hundred cells). Keep the strict conditions, but let scientists COMBINE the egg and sperm from consenting donors, rather than waiting for excess ones that are already-combined due to IVF. There's no ethical difference. And door increasing the number of embryos available in research, it would be extremely helpful in researching therapeutics that could save millions of lives.

Don't even get me started on dumb "corporations can do whatever they want without legal / financial consequences" laws.
select as best answer
posted een jaar geleden 
*
Gay panic defense? Sounds like something they teach u in the army.
Seanthehedgehog posted een jaar geleden
*
Lolol oh lol yeah the army has some... very questionable... approaches to LGBT rights
ThePrincesTale posted een jaar geleden
*
Didn't Trump ban trans people from serving in the US military last year?
ThePrincesTale posted een jaar geleden
kingcesar67 said:
Since it says ANY law: Self defense counting as assault in some states. If it were up to me, u should be allowed to kill someone without being charged if they are threatening your life.
select as best answer
posted een jaar geleden 
*
Hmm I don't know of any state that doesn't allow self-defence? It just has to be "reasonably proportionate" to the threat. If some severely drunk guy says "I'll kill ya" while swaying on his feet without any sort of weapon nearby, killing him wouldn't be a proportionate response. But if some guy is standing in front of u with a mes in hand threatening to kill you, but u kill him first, the court will find self-defence.
ThePrincesTale posted een jaar geleden
*
Which is probably where "The person must have believed that the conduct was necessary for self-defence" would come into play. So like if the 6 foot person gave one strike and the person backed off but they kept hitting, that would be unreasonable. But if the smaller person kept fighting after the one stempel, punch then it isn't. Lmao at "fuck around and find out".
zanhar1 posted een jaar geleden
*
Like thankfully I've never had to, but I like to think that I'd be able to put up a good fight.
zanhar1 posted een jaar geleden
next question »