Shooter kills wife's lover...and walks

[gorfle]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/03/texas.slaying.ap/index.html

Here's an interesting case.

Guy comes home and finds his wife and her lover in a pickup truck in the driveway. Wife cries rape. Husband shoots and kills "rapist" - her lover.

She gets the jail time.

Interesting.

[Double T]

1. Justice has been served.

[geek_sabre]

10. indeed,

[dipsydoodle]

2. There are many stories in the Naked City

and that was one of them. Needs filing under strange but true. Outcome sounds a bit perverse - seems to me they were equally guilty.

[MrSlayer]

3. Sounds about right to me.

You can't blame this guy at all. She should be facing the chair.

[Doug.Goodall]

4. Gun Pushers put deadly guns in the hands of anyone who wants them

Now two people are dead over a solvable problem. A case of marriage infidelity that ended it two people needlessly dieing.
If the Gun Pushers had not made guns so easy to get, those two people would be alive.

We need to ban ALL gun. No one outside of law enforcement or the Army needs to have a gun in this country. PERIOD.

[RC]

6. Two people? Only one was shot.

[Doug.Goodall]

7. Oh, my bad. Only one person dead; That makes all the difference

If the shooter didn't have a gun, NOBODY would be dead.

[geek_sabre]

11. What makes you so sure in this case?

If I came home and found my wife being raped, I would probably go after the guy any way I could. if not a gun, with my bare hands. If that were the case here, I think the outcome would have been the exact same. She put the man's life in danger, she should bear some responsibility for the outcome.

What would you have done? If you came home, and your wife screamed that she was being raped, what is the appropriate thing to do, as a husband?

[Doug.Goodall]

28. What would I have done?

I would have cared for my wife.

You would have gone after the other guy. And in this little hypothetical, having a gun would have made it so much easier for you to kill him.

[slackmaster]

95. I think shooting a man who you believe to be raping your wife qualifies as caring for her

:shrug:

Even in California it's legal to use deadly force to stop a felony in progress.

[iverglas]

101. and I think you know by now that shooting someone DRIVING AWAY IN A TRUCK

is what was actually done in this case, so I have to wonder what point you think you're addressing / making.

It would strike me as really very particularly stupid to shoot someone engaged in sexual intercourse, forced or otherwise, due to the presumably rather high risk of hitting the wrong person, or both people. Unless one walks up and shoots the target person in the head from a few inches away. In which case the shooting just wouldn't seem to be quite necessary and thus justified ...

Kinda like it wasn't in this case.

As I'm sure you know.

[slackmaster]

102. You keep conveniently forgetting the part about "with your wife in the cab"

:hi:

The article clearly states that the woman was in the truck, and it doesn't say anything about her getting out of it.

[iverglas]

104. funny

The article I'm reading says he dragged her out of it.

And started shooting the minute he arrived.

Hard to say, it seems. But neither version seems to support his claims.

[slackmaster]

105. Story linked in the OP says nothing of the kind

:hi:

[iverglas]

107. fascinating

Story linked in the OP says nothing of the kind

Particularly since I didn't say it did.

I had already composed another reply to you in this thread in which I cited other reports about the case, and was referring to them.

The story linked in the OP still did not say what you asserted.

on edit: at least what you asserted before you edited, and after I replied.

[slackmaster]

108. CHOMP! "I thought you said your dog doesn't bite!"

"That's not my dog."

[facepalm]

14. in other fantasy world news...

"If the shooter didn't have a gun, NOBODY would be dead."

Translation 1: if only we could uninvent guns and disarm Texas, this never would have happened. Also, I recommend riding unicorns to work, I heard they eat pollution and poop ozone.

Translation 2:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. That's some funny stuff there.

[Irreverend IX]

54. Facepalm? Baww?

You kommandos are popping up all over the place.

[Callisto32]

9. Why do you include the police?

"No one outside of law enforcement or the Army needs to have a gun in this country. PERIOD."

If nobody else had guns, as you suggest, why would the LEO's need them?

[Doug.Goodall]

29. The police have training in the use of guns

The job of the police is to confront criminals without backing down. A private citizen needs to get out of the way and let the trained professional police handle situations where the law is being broken.

LEOs need to be equipped to handle a much wider range of problems than the average guy on the street.

[jmg257]

33. What if one is ex LE? Can he have guns since he had the same training?

[Doug.Goodall]

37. Sure, Have all the guns you want. I don't like guns and I want strict gun control

What are you going to do, force Kennesaw, Georgia on me?

[jmg257]

38. Not at all. Choice is a wonderful thing.

Especially since mandatory Militia duty has long gone by the way-side.

As for strict control, if you get enough people to agree, you can get the constitution amended and the laws passed.

[Tejas]

46. Just a note, LEO's are as human as you

News shows the murder this week of a Texas DPS Trooper was committed by a former LEO.


info: The trooper was shot to death during a traffic stop, the shooter was a former police officer. Latest is that they found the bad guy, he had committed suicide.

[bossy22]

58. so

all us non-ex leo are all 2nd class citizens when it comes to guns....

"What are you going to do, force Kennesaw, Georgia on me?"
nope

[GaVetRay]

99. Gun Control

Doug,
Are you willing to put a sign in your yard that says "My
children are safe. We do not have any firearms in this
house"? I have a sign that says "I only keep a gun
in my house 4 days a week. You guess which!

[slackmaster]

100. Nobody wants to force you to own a gun or even to allow them in your home, Doug

What are you going to do, force Kennesaw, Georgia on me?

Nobody is forced to own a gun there, either. The law has a provision for conscientious objectors.

[iverglas]

50. more importantly

The police operate under public oversight. (Don't be whining at me if your public doesn't oversee its police properly, oh Guns forum regulars.)

Members of the public who possess firearms do not operate under public oversight.

Quite the big difference.

[jmg257]

64. No whining here, it is what it is. Some understand and deal with the

possibility that not all police will meet expectations. And that not all members of the public will stay within the law.

[Callisto32]

63. I have training in the use of guns,

and could easily pass the police qualifications. Many, many other private citizens also have firearms training.
Job of police: agreed, that sure is their job, to enforce the laws.
"A private citizen needs to get out of the way and let the trained professional police handle situations where the law is being broken." Ideally, yes. However, getting out of the way and waiting on the police to arrive is not always an option. I live in an area where the police response time is often in excess of 20 minutes after a dispatch has been made. The best you can hope for is about ten, if they can get a local sent out from the county seat. A LOT happens in 10 minutes.

As far as equipment, I understand what you are trying to say, but I am not sure if it is correct. While it is true that a private guy on the street will have a lower probability of being in many situations that LEOs face regularly, it is surely conceivable that any one of us could have encounters with nearly any of those situations. Obviously, though, we are not going around making traffic stops....

[jody]

12. Do you know criminals will have guns regardless of bans and you are responsible for self-defense?

If you don't, then read many threads from DU's Guns forum and fight ignorance.

[Doug.Goodall]

30. Every gun taken out of circulation is one less for the criminal to get

We need to start lowering the number and the availability of guns in this country with our objective being to reach zero gun ownership.

[Tejas]

39. let's do some math

1 gun down, 200 million guns to go.

How about 200 million divided by one gun disappearing every single minute. Anyone care to do the math on how long that will take 24hrs a day/7 days a week?

I keep coming up with 380 years.



hello?


ps: who did you say was going to pay for your little plan?

[Doug.Goodall]

42. I do not have the debate skills to win this argument. I concede to you

But I still don't like guns.

[Tejas]

43. I have none either

Nothing personal DG, just business, and the business of antis wanting to vaporize weapons held by law-abiding citizens gets under my skin.



I and my firearms are not the problem.

[Irreverend IX]

53. Thanks...

For demonstrating that the anti-gun movement is founded on emotion, not reason.

[iverglas]

55. or at least

demonstrating that bullying really does work on some people. Doesn't change their minds, just shuts 'em up, which is generally the intent.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. Could you point out the bullying?

I really can't see it.

David

[Tejas]

65. I guess "reality" = "bullying

It's all peachy keen until antis stand face to face with what they want to physically happen.

destroy ALL guns = insurmountable task = time and money

modify the 2nd = nationwide vote = time and money



see a trend there?


When they're all said and done, let's see THEM line up right next to Helmke and the rest with THEIR OWN money to pay for this crap. Any takers?

[jody]

57. Do you know you are responsible for your self-defense? How do you propose to do that job? n/t

[iverglas]

68. somebody'd better answer

because this is a serious responsibility jody is talking about, and if you fail to fulfil it, you just might find somebody holding you to account.

Charge: that you did fail in your responsibility to protect yourself.
Punishment: ?????

[slackmaster]

96. The "Guns behave like gas molecules" fallacy

:rofl:

[bossy22]

13. or the guy

could have come out with a baseball bat and beaten the other man to death

[iverglas]

19. Ya think?

Ever tried to beat someone to death with a baseball bat AS HE IS DRIVING AWAY IN HIS TRUCK?

Ever considered knowing what you're talking about before you do it?

The link to the story is right here, and the fact you need to know is in my post in the thread.

[bossy22]

23. yes

maybe the guy would have actually walked up to the truck and pulled the other man out instead of firing from a distance

the story is weird....i don't really have an oppinion on it

[Doug.Goodall]

31. But a gun makes so much easier

[Tejas]

27. so guns are a drug huh?

"hey kid, wanna by a pistol grip?"


GUN PUSHERS!

LOL!

A lot of us in the hobby don't need gun-pushers. Thanks to the laws in this country we are still legally able to "roll our own".

[Doug.Goodall]

32. The NRA, gun magazines, gun manufactures all push guns

Guns are sold to America as being 'cool', good for self defense, and good to exercise a person's right to be in the Militia.

Guns are also good for a drunken fool to shoot his wife in a fit of rage.

[jmg257]

35. The 1st 3 out of 4 ain't bad reasons to own them. Make sense in fact.

Alcohol is also good for a drunken fool to shoot his wife, should we ban that again? Truth is, doing so had the opposite of the desired effect.

Chances are banning guns would have similar results - increase in violence and criminal activities related to that object banned.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. Guns are also good for a drunken fool to shoot his wife in a fit of rage.

Are you under the impression that this type of crime constitutes a large percentage of gun homicides on a yearly basis?

David

[bossy22]

59. question

"Guns are sold to America as being 'cool', good for self defense, and good to exercise a person's right to be in the Militia"

if they werent good for self-defense, why do we issue them to police officers? as party favors?

the best self-defense tool for your own safety is a gun...that doesnt mean you are safer with a gun...it means if you choose to defend yourself when you are attacked, in most cases a gun would be the best tool- mace and tasers sometimes don't stop an individual in rage- hand to hand combat is very dangerous for yourself

bullets are the only sure way of stopping your attacker- i know very few people who are "bullet proof"

[iverglas]

72. you folks do just keep on trying

if they werent good for self-defense, why do we issue them to police officers? as party favors?

Are you really this thick, though?

They are issued to the police for their use in doing their job. In the course of doing their job, they may need to use a weapon to defend themselves. The weapon is issued to them so that they can do their job effectively, in the public interest.

You, on the other hand, do not use a firearm in the course of doing a job that the public has employed you to do. You wish to use it for whatever private purposes you might think advisable in your own interests.

No one employs you to enforce the law by apprehending people who are committing or have committed criminal offences. No one gives you instructions that you are required to follow, in the course of your employment, that involve a need for access to appropriate tools for apprehending people who are committing or have committed criminal offences, or that involve jeopardizing your own safety in the public interest.

The police use firearms in self-defence when they need to defend themselves in order to carry out their duties, in the public interest.

See the difference between you and the police?

I'm sure you all do and always have. It just doesn't advance the agenda to admit it.

[Tejas]

73. speaking of thick, thank you for proving his point

"The police use firearms in self-defence when they need to defend themselves in order to carry out their duties, in the public interest."


"Citizens (of this country) use firearms in self-defence when they need to defend themselves in order to carry out their daily lives."

[iverglas]

76. speaking of thick, who needs to?

When you put on such an educational display.

[Tejas]

81. another of your typical character attacks - is childishness all you have nowadays?

Sorry, no response to your giggling.

[bossy22]

86. so

its okay to use a firearm for self defense if you are doing something for the state?

"See the difference between you and the police?"
yes i do, but the ends are the same....in both cases possession of a firearm is to defend ones life.

"You wish to use it for whatever private purposes you might think advisable in your own interests"
and what is so wrong with this? We all do this and we should be allowed to own things and use them for our own interests...as long as our interests are lawful- which mine are.

[iverglas]

88. over and over and over

Just can't restrain yourself, can you?


You wish to use it for whatever private purposes you might think advisable in your own interests
and what is so wrong with this? We all do this and we should be allowed to own things and use them for our own interests...as long as our interests are lawful- which mine are.


Why are you asking me WHAT is wrong with something when I haven't said that ANYTHING is wrong with it?

I pointed out the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO THINGS.

If I say that lemonade is cold and tea is hot, are you going to ask me what is so wrong with tea?

I expect that if you are hell bent on pretending there is no difference between lemonade and tea, you are going to do just that.


so
its okay to use a firearm for self defense if you are doing something for the state?

So. What I actually said was that the police use firearms for self-defence when it is necessary to do so in order to perform their duties, which they are carrying out in the public interest. (And I obviously approve of the possibility of such use.)

Is there something about this that is unclear to you?

Is there some reason to rewrite it to mean something I didn't say?

Yes, I know, there is a reason. It just isn't a good one.


See the difference between you and the police?
yes i do, but the ends are the same....in both cases possession of a firearm is to defend ones life.

I don't doubt that you do see the difference, and see perfectly well that the ends are no more the same than the ends for which you drink cold lemonade and hot tea are the same. Wait, don't tell me ... tea and lemonade are both wet ...

[iverglas]

51. an excellent question!

I look forward to you posing it when the next bozo raises the failed war on drugs as a reason why some particular form of regulation of firearms acquisition/possession won't work.

[Tejas]

71. your jealousy is showing again

as usual, you're just mad because Canada doesn't have its own drug war.

[iverglas]

74. your ignorance is showing again

What might you imagine the vast majority of handgun homicides in Canada are associated with?

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071017/d071017b.htm

Prior to 1990, rifles/shotguns were used far more frequently than handguns. However, since the late 1970s, the use of rifles/shotguns began to decrease, while the use of handguns remained relatively stable. By 1991, the number of handgun homicides surpassed that of rifles/shotguns, and the gap has continued to grow since.

In 2006, handguns accounted for 108, or over half, of the 190 victims killed by a firearm. A further 36 victims were killed by a rifle/shotgun, 24 by a sawed-off rifle/shotgun and 22 by another or unknown type of firearm.



... In total, police reported 104 gang-related homicides in 2006, including both youths and adults. Gang-related homicides accounted for about 1 in every 6 homicides, similar to the previous year.

Half of these homicides occurred in the census metropolitan areas (CMAs) of Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton and Vancouver. The province of Quebec reported the highest proportion of homicides involving gangs, at just over 1 in 4.

Three-quarters of gang-related homicides in 2006 were committed with a firearm, usually a handgun, compared with less than one-quarter of non-gang-related homicides.

And the major enterprise in which gangs are engaged would be ...

[Tejas]

77. not concerned, so it's impossible to be ignorant

Could care less at this moment if Canada has a war on drugs or not. That said, all I am ignorant of is the fact of whether Canada has a war on drugs or not. I do get a kick out of how your government infiltrates your protests.......







sigh, the people that whine about others backyards.

[iverglas]

79. not knowing what could possibly go on in your head

not concerned, so it's impossible to be ignorant

I see words, I see punctuation, but I'm utterly unable to discern meaning.

I'm not concerned about the price of tea in China AND I'm ignorant of it. I'm not concerned about whether you're concerned about the subject matter of my post, and you're still evidently wholly ignorant on that subject.


I do get a kick out of how your government infiltrates your protests.......

Me, I'm amazed that you'd know what a "protest" is. Isn't it one of those things that happens in little corrals where people who disagree with their government get penned up whenever a VIP from said government comes to town?

And of course I laugh at gigantic black pots calling little tarnished kettles anything.

[Tejas]

83. Come on, let's hear it

"Me, I'm amazed that you'd know what a "protest" is."


I just have to know why you assume that.

[iverglas]

85. very happy to oblige

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_156530.html

The ACLU filed a lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia on behalf of four advocacy organizations that claim the Secret Service forced them into protest zones or other areas where they could not be seen by President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney or be noticed by the media covering their visits.

The seeds of the lawsuit were planted on Labor Day 2002 when William Neel, 65, of Butler, was charged with disorderly conduct for refusing to move to a designated protest area during a visit by President Bush to Neville Island.

District Justice Shirley Trkula of Coraopolis eventually dismissed the charge, saying that Neel had a right to free speech.

... "The pattern we found was at presidential and vice presidential appearances, protesters were restricted to areas where they were out of sight, out of earshot and often out of mind," said Witold J. "Vic" Walczak, legal director for the Greater Pittsburgh chapter.

Compare and contrast:



Tuesday Nevember 30, 2004 indymedia
http://www.nowar-paix.ca/notobush/

I'm standing just to the left and a little down from the photographer, outside the frame. On the steps of Centre Block, the building that houses the House of Commons and Senate of Canada.



http://www.nowar-paix.ca/notobush/

... I'm in there somewhere ... dark green puffy coat, long brown hair, glasses ... not the one with the white scarf, although that could have been me 'n the co-vivant 30 years earlier ...



George W. Bush was having lunch in the building just out of the frame on the right. I think I was having lunch around the corner at that moment; we got to that site after the excitement when a few of yer usual black-bandana assholes started throwing things at the cops.

So I'm betting that I've been part of a massive protest within spitting distance of your President, and you haven't.

Any clearer now?

[iverglas]

75. perhaps you failed to grasp the point

That would be one explanation for your content-free "reply".

I look forward to you posing it when the next bozo raises the failed war on drugs as a reason why some particular form of regulation of firearms acquisition/possession won't work.

As in: PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK!

Which makes sense only if: firearms are similar to drugs.

Which they: aren't.

[Tejas]

78. yeah, and the sky is mauve

"Which makes sense only if: firearms are similar to drugs.

Which they: aren't."



In this country, there are those that want to wipe illegal drugs off the map. There are also those that post here, such as you, that would like to see guns wiped off the face of the map.


Label them as you wish, what ever makes you happy, but both "wars" are a waste of resources in THIS country.

[iverglas]

82. in your universe, I'm sure it is

In this country, there are those that want to wipe illegal drugs off the map.
There are also those that post here, such as you, that would like to see guns wiped off the face of the map.

In my country, dogs have four legs.
Tables also have four legs.

I assume that the same is true in your country, and that people there are required to buy licences for their tables and keep them on leashes when they go out in public.

In my country, people put cream and sugar on their strawberries.
There are also people who put manure on their strawberries.

Does that mean that I should put your post on my breakfast cereal?

[Irreverend IX]

87. Explain the differences between firearms and drugs...

That make gun prohibition more achievable than drug prohibition.

[iverglas]

89. you're too droll

Pretending the conversation has never been had before. Very cute!




http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068327/quotes

(on the pronunciation of "phlegm")

Brian Roberts: P H is always pronounced as F, and, uh, you don't sound the G.
Natalia Landauer: Then why are they putting the G, please?
Brian Roberts: That's, that's a very good question, but rather difficult to explain.
Sally: Try, Brian.
Brian Roberts: Well, uh, it's just there.
Natalia Landauer: So, Mr. Professor, you do not know?
Brian Roberts: No.
Natalia Landauer: Then I am sorry. I cannot help you.

Look it up, Mr. Professor.

[jmg257]

34. But what if you did need a gun, and you couldn't get it cause they were banned?

That would suck. Period.

Maybe we can ban infidelity. The guy would still be alive, and no one needs to cheat on their spouses.

[Doug.Goodall]

40. Fine, use the well polished gun pusher debate tactics to back me into a corner

I still don't like guns, and you are not going to be able to change my mind.

[jmg257]

41. That's fine. Really. It is your choice not to like them. No need to change your mind at all. nt

[Tejas]

45. fair enough

We have the BOR, some of us like it just the way it is. You can hate guns all you want, but when it comes to self defence, don't look down on me if I choose to exercise some human nature by shooting the bad guy.

[iverglas]

70. do speak for yourself

don't look down on me if I choose to exercise some human nature by shooting the bad guy

That may be your nature.

To call it "human nature" would be putting just a tad too fine a point on it.

Oh, and I'll look down on anybody I want for any reason I want, myself.

[Tejas]

80. I will, and I can, because I live in this country

I live under the Constitution of this country and its laws. If you have a problem with that, then maybe you should start some "nation-building" or something, it's a popular thing lately.

[iverglas]

84. do speak rationally occasionally

when it comes to self defence, don't look down on me if I choose to exercise some human nature by shooting the bad guy.

I live under the Constitution of this country and its laws.

Apparently not. Or at least you don't give a shit that a law that lets you shoot bad guys when your life and limb are not in immediate danger is a complete violation of your Constitution.

You do know that sometimes laws violate constitutions, I assume.

[57_TomCat]

109. Well our constitution via the Supreme Court has a...

slightly different view...

In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the Supreme Court held that the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution permits the use of deadly force when necessary to prevent the escape of a felony suspect when there is probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a crime "involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm."

I guess rape can be considered "serious physical harm" and it does constitute a felony. As such it applies to the original post AND tends to support Tejas's argument.

[bossy22]

69. its your right

to hate guns- in fact its your right to hate anything for any reason you want and i will fight for that right for you..

[medeak]

5. It's Texas! surprised? n/t

[Tejas]

26. should be like that everywhere (vote the rascals out!) n/t

[slackmaster]

97. Use of deadly force to stop a felony crime is lawful in most states

Including California.

[east texas lib]

8. I guess they were all out of scarlet letters that day.

[iverglas]

15. and about the umpteenth time it's been posted here

It just has all the elements of a good Guns forum tale, don't it?

I mean, "scantily clad wife"? I wonder how the man was "clad".

The man obviously used his firearm out of just exactly what her lawyers said: jealousy and rage. And Texas juries obviously hate women about as much as they hate any number of other groups of people.

For anyone who missed it:

Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him.

Just not quite the scenario some might be dreaming of.

[Tejas]

16. and for the umpteenth time, you are correct

"The man obviously used his firearm out of just exactly what her lawyers said: jealousy and rage. And Texas juries obviously hate women about as much as they hate any number of other groups of people."


Contrary to juries in other countries, at least the countries that still have jury-trials, Texas juries are known for their fairness, they don't discriminate.

[iverglas]

18. Andrea Yates

Oh well, the second jury got it right.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/yates/index.html

[Tejas]

66. you go beyond moot at times

The first jury ruled according to the evidence presented in the first trial. Only there's one little sticky part that you missed about the 1st trial, which is the false testimony made by an expert witness of the state, which is the *core reason a new trial was granted.


Read YOUR link a little more closely, then you might at least know a little more concerning your subject.



*stated at the very beginning of the opinion by the Court of Appeals.

[iverglas]

21. but let's just try this again

Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape,
and her husband fired four shots into the truck
as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him.

He committed a crime by firing at someone who was not a threat to himself or to anyone else.

If the woman had said "he has our baby!", maybe. I mean, possibly stupid, but justified.

Firing at someone DRIVING AWAY because of what he HAD ALLEGEDLY DONE?

His choice, his crime.

Simple, easy, and obvious to anyone not looking to blame a woman for what a man did.



html fixed

[Tejas]

25. but then you perpetuate

"He committed a crime by firing at someone who was not a threat to himself or to anyone else."


Under the laws of Texas, the shooter percieved a threat (that would stand in court under the Castle Doctrine) and so followed through.


Where do you people keep coming up with this "he/she was wrong, the badguy was no longer a threat"? You're missing the whole point of the law.

Granted, you may not like it and you may think the shooter is in the wrong (legally) but the state sides with the shooter in this one. Still in a tiff? Then work to change the law, but while you're at it try doing a little also to change the habits of badguys, ammo is expensive.

[facepalm]

36. location texas, not canada

the law may indicate one outcome, but the culture of the jury pool clearly dictates another

[iverglas]

47. "the culture of the jury pool"

Uh yes. I believe I have referred to said "culture".

Google rule of law.

[facepalm]

61. a modest proposal

Google "trial by jury." It's been part of the rule of law since the 1300s I beleive. Earlier if you count the medieval land juries that didn't hear criminal cases.

Jury trials are the best thing ever. They ensure that people will be subject to the standards of their communities, not to the standards of wealthy politicians in a distant state or federal capitol. It also limits the power of prosecutors and judges to throw people in jail by stretching the law for political or personal reasons.

I personally am opposed to the current trend towards limiting juries to mere determiners of fact (concealing the power of jury nullification and not telling them about the sentences associated with each crime). Juries are smart and will put a lot of effort into reaching the fairest and most just verdict they can. Fully informing them about the consequences and scope of their decision making powers will enable them to make the best determinations about guilt.

Avoiding getting shot in the South (of which Texas is a part) is quite simple. Don't commit crimes and don't enter people's property without being invited. Even if you break these rules, you probably won't get shot every time. If you have an IQ above 3, you can probably master these rules well enough that you might survive long enough to become Governor or President.

[iverglas]

94. back at ya

Google "trial by jury." It's been part of the rule of law since the 1300s I beleive. Earlier if you count the medieval land juries that didn't hear criminal cases.

No, trial by jury has nothing to do with the rule of law. It may be one way of ensuring that the rule of law prevails, but it is not an inherent part of the concept of the rule of law. Sorry.

Juries are just as capable of undermining the rule of law as any dictator is. And that's quite simply what this "jury nullification" crap is.


Avoiding getting shot in the South (of which Texas is a part) is quite simple. Don't commit crimes and don't enter people's property without being invited. Even if you break these rules, you probably won't get shot every time.

Avoiding getting stoned in certain parts of the world is quite simple. If you can't manage to be born male, don't commit adultery and don't go out in public without a male guardian and the required garb. Even if you break those rules, you probably won't get stoned every time.

Amazing how much Texas looks like the ugliest bit of the uncivilized world when you spend a moment thinking about it, ain't it?



The rule of law quite simply means that the law, and the application of the law, is without regard for persons -- or with equal regard for persons.

If you have politicians or prosecutors who are failing to make or apply laws in accordance with that principle, you have something that needs fixing. Juries refusing to apply laws on their own whim is not a fix.

[jmg257]

44. Actually, in NY, it would not be a crime to shoot him...

S 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in
preventing an escape.
...
" 4. A private person acting on his own account may use physical force,
...and he may use deadly physical force for such
purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes
to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
sodomy and who is in immediate flight therefrom."

[iverglas]

48. uh huh

And shooting at someone driving away in a truck is an attempt to "effect the arrest" of that person?

I don't actually think so.

These two sets:

(a) using force to arrest a person

(b) using force against a person

are not identical. Set (b) includes set (a), but not all actions in set (b) are also in set (a).



typo foxed

[jmg257]

56. Agreed. Curious also how one would use "deadly physical force" to "simply" effect an arrest.

"Deadly physical force" means physical force which, under the
circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death
or other serious physical injury.

[iverglas]

60. so, the main purpose of this post

is to make fun of myself for fixing my typo and then typing "typo foxed". Feel free to jeer. ;)

Anyhow, yes, the thing seems odd. I would think that it refers to using force that *could* cause death, but not *intending* to cause death, and using the force in a way that is intended to / reasonably characterized as being to effect arrest.

[Tejas]

67. now you understand

Not everyone insists on "shooting to kill", disabling to apprehend works very well in most instances, wouldn't you think?

[SteveM]

20. You might appreciate one of Texas' early forays into gender equality...

Urban legend has it that a guy came home and found his wife cheating, and shot her. He was acquitted, based on precedent/law that allowed a man to do such. Folks rightly complained that this was discriminatory against women. Result: a new law was passed allowing a woman, finding a cheating husband, to blast him.

[iverglas]

22. snopes isn't quite clear on that ...

Texas Adultery Law
A lawyer who works in Texas gets a call about an emergency which requires him to immediately fly out of the state for a short period of time. He doesn’t even have enough time to pack, so he calls home to tell his wife about the trip.

The maid answers the call, but is quite hesitant about putting his wife on the phone. After quite a bit of interrogation, she admits that the wife is upstairs in bed with the mailman! The lawyer is furious, and wants to rush right home, but of course there is this emergency he must take care of. So instead, he tells the maid to go get the gun from the desk drawer and kill both his wife and the mailman.

The maid protests, but the lawyer explains that under Texas law it is legal to kill your adulterous spouse and his/her lover. Using his silver tongue, he finally convinces the maid to do it, offering a hefty bonus as a reward. She puts down the phone, and soon the lawyer hears the sound of two gun shots, a scream, a dozen or so loud thumps, and finally, two splashes.

The maid comes back to the phone. The lawyer asks, “Did you kill them?”

“Yes,” she replies.

The lawyer questions her again, “What did you do with the bodies?”

“I threw them in the pool,” she responds.

There is a brief pause from the lawyer. He asks her, “Did you say the pool?”

“Yes! I threw them in the pool!” she says.

“Uh, is this 555-8234?”

...

[SteveM]

24. Ha! A good variation. (nt)

[spin]

17. "Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early do." (nt)

[T4RSR5]

90. Seems that in this case...

no matter how sad it is for all involved, justice was served correctly.
The man's wife made the cry of 'rape'!. Her husband did what he should have done. If a man is raping your wife, kill him., both to stop him, and to prevent him from doing it again. If she did it just to cover her ass, then she is responsible for the outcome. The only person I am feel sorry for is the husband who has to live with having killed a man. The wife should rot in prison, which she will.

Sometimes the courts get it wrong, this time they got it SO right.

[iverglas]

91. yes, that poor poor husband

Shooting at a man DRIVING AWAY IN HIS TRUCK and presenting no thread to anyone, on the word of a third party that something had happened THAT WAS NO LONGER HAPPENING even if it had really happened in the first place.

Yes, that poor poor man. Having to live with the consequences of having killed someone for no reason at all ... and laughing all the way to his new life without the bad, bad wife, because he got away with it.

And yes, all wives should be held responsible for everything their husbands choose to do, illegal and vile though it may be. That will be one way to keep those bitches in line. If they know that the moment they step out of line their husband will do what a man's gotta do and *they* will be the ones rotting in prison, they'll be a whole lot less likely to step out of line, I'd say.

[T4RSR5]

92. So, A man should not protect his wife's life?

Iverglas, you silly person, I trust my wife. I trust what she tells me as the truth. If she said she was being raped by a man, I would believe her.I give her unconditional love and respect. I also promised to protect her in any way I can, no matter what the circumstances, she is my lady, and partner in life.

If she lies about that, the fault is on her. So, what do you think would be best? The man could not trust his wife, the person he swore his life to (let her be raped, and just be angry about it after the fact), or he could trust her, and stop a violent criminal from injuring her, Which do you prefer, because those are the choices. If she lied, she was not deserving of trust, she created the situation from beginning to end. You are claiming that men want to 'rule' women because they expect their own wives to be truthful when life and death is on the line? Do you really think that little of women that you do not think they are capable of making that judgement call?

She brought 2 men into a situation, one of the men (husband) being the last to know, and the only person being shocked and surprised, and he is at fault? She lied several times, the 'other man' probably knew what he was getting into (don't know for sure he knew she was married, but it seems likely by the story and being in the truck and all). Woman should rot in prison, and will fortunately, maybe even capital punishment is appropriate.

If you like rapists, thats your prerogative, but you might be slightly sick if thats the case.

[iverglas]

93. so, you beat your dog?

If you like rapists, thats your prerogative, but you might be slightly sick if thats the case.

If you want to be a thorough-going asshole, that's your prerogative. I won't speculate as to why anyone would want to be that.

[slackmaster]

98. Story says the man's wife was in the truck as well

Which makes the act of driving off look remarkably like a kidnapping rather than a retreat.

[iverglas]

103. this story??

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/03/texas.slaying.ap/index.html

I don't thiiiink so. You reading something else?


A bit confusing, it all is.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-roberson_03met.ART0.West.Edition1.46871d9.html

Authorities say her husband, Darrell Roberson, fired the shot that killed Mr. LaSalle, 32, outside the Robersons' Arlington home. Mr. Roberson had come home unexpectedly from a gambling trip to Dallas the night of Dec. 11, 2006, and found his wife and Mr. LaSalle together in Mr. LaSalle's truck.

He started shooting as a horrified Mrs. Roberson began saying she was raped. Arlington police charged Mr. Roberson with murder, and a detective testified that authorities never took out a warrant for Mrs. Roberson.

But a Tarrant County grand jury declined to indict Mr. Roberson and indicted his wife instead, though police never presented grand jurors with evidence against the church volunteer and mother of three.

An interesting bit:

Testimony showed that Mr. Roberson called his home 19 times while he was away. He finally got his young daughter, who told him his wife was outside.

Mr. Roberson headed for home, and when he found his wife and Mr. LaSalle together – Mrs. Roberson was clad in only a robe and underwear – he fired four rounds from a 10 mm Smith & Wesson at the truck. One of the bullets hit Mr. LaSalle in the head, killing him.

And I guess we're actually supposed to believe that Roberson believed the assault tale ...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-roberson_30met.ART.State.Edition1.468369d.html

When Ms. Roberson's husband came home from a gambling trip to Dallas the night of Dec. 11, 2006, and found the two of them together in Mr. LaSalle's truck, Ms. Roberson panicked, her attorney told a Tarrant County jury.

Darrell Roberson "immediately jumps out of his SUV and starts firing," Ms. Davis said. "He's aiming to shoot anyone because he's angry and jealous. She hasn't said anything about rape yet. She could have been hit. Darrell didn't care who got it."

Mr. Roberson yanked his wife off of the floorboard of the truck where she had sought cover, Ms. Davis said.

"That's when she yells rape," Ms. Davis said. "She is scared. He never believed that she was being raped. This allegation of her causing him to pull the trigger is absolutely untrue."

But hey. She's a woman. She lies. That's what women do.

[slackmaster]

106. Very messy situation, and of course the woman's attorney would spin it so she was not at fault

:shrug:

But hey. She's a woman. She lies. That's what women do.

It has been my experience that women don't lie like that, but children do. And lawyers.

[57_TomCat]

110. Sounds like it could be a real morass...

but rape claims were made by the wife, it appears she was in the truck when the bullets were fired and the law and precedent support the use of deadly force to stop a felon from escaping after infliction of serious bodily harm. Rape counts as serious bodily harm.

Maybe the man got away with killing the lover during a rage but it sure seems to me he did so within the law. Since I was not there and do not "know" what happened, I will rely on the cumalative reporting to form my opinion. The consensus of reported fact would indicate the lady should go to jail.