RE: Responsibility to End Evil
Not appropriate, but necessary to get out of the sittuation.
That cannot be true unless she saw absolutely no other way like he was a powerful and well-known figure in the community and she literally had nowhere to go to, no family, no friends and not one social service or public service that she was aware of. Unless that was the case, what she did was revenge and completely unnecessary to get out of the situation and revenge cannot be just, it's only a lust for blood, a thirst to undo what cannot be undone, and if not, it would simply be self-defence and justified as such by the situation such as in our hypothetical case if and only if she saw absolutely no other way out, which isn't want the example was about or implied by the concept of "taking the law into your own hands".
Some women in this sittuation retaliate when the man is asleep.
And that is taking justice in their hands and removing any doubt that it was simply done in malice and with the intent of enacting revenge. They will have time to think about that by themselves.
The other in a direct reaction to the humiliation. In this case, it is defense.
If it was self-defence it wouldn't need any interpretation since people can readily recognize if an act was unnecessary or necessary, and if it is revenge, people will see that it's unnecessary and if it was an Appropriate Response of Force to defend from an Attack, they will see that it was self-defence, but if it was excessive, they might still throw them in a cage for man-slaughter,
Manslaughter is a common law legal term for homicide considered by law as less culpable than murder.
I disagree. Past records a lot of murders pardoned by the independent courts.
If it wasn't a murder it would be self-defence or manslaughter, no and's, if's or but's about it.
As I stated before, you need to take psychology of the people in the consideration. Cutting one's bounds to family is the first thing an abuser does, before he becomes more violent. You forget the psychology. Lawbooks is not how minds of people work. It is how we should judge in case the person was completely alright when comitting a crime.
Why, we weren't discussing the psychology of people only the Lawful, Appropriate and not Excessive actions that people should take. As I stated, if she had absolutely nothing to turn to then maybe that could excuse it, but even then it wouldn't be "self-defence", it would be closer to vengeance still. Cutting ties to family or what an abuser does first (huh? are you certain an abuser does that first and what would the sequence of events that it's "first" part of be called? steps abusers take to ...?).
We do judge people based on their capacity to reason and their capacity to understand, and I never expressed that we were discussing that or that it was ever a poignant or crucial factor in what we were discussing, because it never was, the discussion was always about taking the law into one's hands, an expression that means to disregard what is Lawful. If you want to keep arguing about the hypothetical scenario then I suggest you address what I remarked and not what I didn't remark, and if you do address what I didn't remark, please do tie it in congruently and don't fall off a tangent that has no importance to the scenario which is there to explain that taking the law into ones hands means Lawlessness and it's never ok, right or otherwise it wouldn't be expressed as such, and if it was self-defence that's all it is, it's not "taking the law into your own hands", it's simply self-defence, a lawful act that will be judged whether it was excessive or appropriate response.
By the way, you are a lawyer, aren't you?
Why do you ask?