Texas wife indicted after lover killed

[almaty 19]

I'm less worried by the tough-boy rhetoric and more worried that it seems to suggest strongly that having sex with someone else's wife is a property violation.

Women are property in those countries with that 'peaceful' religion.

Man - that's cheap...

and incorrect

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's Texas. I would expect to get shot at if I was banging someones wife.

As I said, that says something about Texas. I'm glad I don't live there.

Edited April 4, 2007 by erekose

[almaty 19]

another case..that did happen and was the therapist for a party...

a woman, who has been beaten several times..police involved....but always the charges were dropped by her ( according to her due to fear and no economic support)...after a beating the spouse went to a local tavern where he was drinking with the boys...she walks in and up to their table..pulls out a pistol and shoots him five times..killing him....

she was charges with manslaughter..........

the jury verdict..i will withhold to see if i can get a debate...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

another case..that did happen and was the therapist for a party...

a woman, who has been beaten several times..police involved....but always the charges were dropped by her ( according to her due to fear and no economic support)...after a beating the spouse went to a local tavern where he was drinking with the boys...she walks in and up to their table..pulls out a pistol and shoots him five times..killing him....

she was charges with manslaughter..........

the jury verdict..i will withhold to see if i can get a debate...

I would say probably guilty - due to the element of pre-meditation involved.

[JohnK 0]

I would say probably guilty - due to the element of pre-meditation involved.

Even suposed premeditation won't get a guilty verdict. Just means you need to pay for a more expensive lawyer. Just ask Mrs. Bobbit. She didn't kill him obviously but still... almost as good as death.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would say probably guilty - due to the element of pre-meditation involved.

Even suposed premeditation won't get a guilty verdict. Just means you need to pay for a more expensive lawyer. Just ask Mrs. Bobbit. She didn't kill him obviously but still... almost as good as death.

True - but that would also contradict the view that the US justice system is the best in the world.

Pre-meditation is often what makes the distinction between a case of murder and one of manslaughter. Any prosecutor would go for the maximum sentence.

Oddly enough - I saw one case on one of those "rough justice" shows last year which demonstrated that exactly. A wife shot her husband, in self-defence after he came home drunk from a bar, kicked down the bathroom door and came at her with his fists. This was a man who had a long history of marital abuse (with several of the dead man's former friends testifying in court to that effect). Regardless, she was convicted of murder and given life imprisonment. I believe this was also in Texas...

[JohnK 0]

True - but that would also contradict the view that the US justice system is the best in the world.

No it doesn't. Show me a better one.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I'm less worried by the tough-boy rhetoric and more worried that it seems to suggest strongly that having sex with someone else's wife is a property violation.

Women are property in those countries with that 'peaceful' religion.

Man - that's cheap...

and incorrect

In countries that enforce the strictest form of Sharia law it's true. Not in your enlightened country brother Dean. Have fun in Saudi Arabia or Iran though.

Iran arrests four women activists

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

True - but that would also contradict the view that the US justice system is the best in the world.

No it doesn't.

When your chance of being acquitted is linked largely (if not solely) to the cost of your lawyer (as opposed to the guy who gets stuck with the public defender), and the charges you face can be trumped up by politically motivated district attorneys? You don't see that as a flaw?

Then there's the small question of "prejudice" - when TV movies can be made and aired on TV showing the defendants guilt before the trial has been concluded, and when there are next to no restrictions on media coverage of active cases.

Edited April 4, 2007 by erekose

[Jenn! 918]

Question...how can this woman be liable for the guy's death unless she knew that her husband was armed and would shoot upon her crying rape?

[almaty 19]

I'm less worried by the tough-boy rhetoric and more worried that it seems to suggest strongly that having sex with someone else's wife is a property violation.

Women are property in those countries with that 'peaceful' religion.

Man - that's cheap...

and incorrect

In countries that enforce the strictest form of Sharia law it's true. Not in your enlightened country brother Dean. Have fun in Saudi Arabia or Iran though.

Iran arrests four women activists

i agree with you on that bro rich, and you can add a few others...

[JohnK 0]

You don't see that as a flaw?

Why don't you learn how to read? Like I said earlier "There is no doubt that sometimes our legal system just doesn't seem fair or just".

And I've noticed you still haven't pointed out a better one.

[Caladan 19]

The fleeing criminal was a rapist in the shooters mind. Why is it wrong to shoot your wife's rapist? The wife is fully responsible for the lie.

Is this a serious question?

I think this case is a great example of why it's wrong to shoot your wife's rapist.

Exactly. Rich, what if someone close to you points at someone fleeing the scene and tells you they've just committed a heinous crime? In other words, how close does that person need to be to you personally(relative, trusted friend) for it to absolve you from any legal responsability if you shoot and kill the fleeing suspect based only on what they tell you? That's legally and ethically preposterous. You can't simply go by what someone tells you no matter who that person is in relationship to you.

You're creating hypothetical situations to fit your world view. I would leave it up to the jury to sift through the facts. Liberals hate juries too it seems.

1. My wife is curled up in a ball on the front porch crying. She says she was raped by the guy driving away.

2. My wife is standing on the front porch drinking a cup of coffee, looks surprised and says the guys driving away just raped her.

Two similar scenarios that I would react differently to.

For liberals I find it odd you don't want to take human emotion into account. Your fear (from lack of knowledge) of guns is that great. Humans are not robots.

I haven't fired a gun recently, but I'm willing to bet that I'm a better shot than most of the men here. My sisters definitely are and have the championship medals to prove it. So... it's not a fear of guns. It's just a belief about what legally counts as self-defense and heat-of-the-moment. You know, like a responsible gun owner would.

We don't have all of the facts here, but in neither of your scenarios is it a case of self-defense. You're not preventing a harm. It's also not defense of your property, so what is it? Revenge? An understandable emotion, but not one that is self-defense. A just penalty for adultery? Like I said, it's not good to emulate the Taliban.

I wonder what the jury was thinking. I'm guessing Texas' heat of the moment exemption is broad enough to cover this, but it seems a bit of a stretch.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You don't see that as a flaw?

Why don't you learn how to read? Like I said earlier "There is no doubt that sometimes our legal system just doesn't seem fair or just".

And I've noticed you still haven't pointed out a better one.

First off - do you think we can nip the personal attacks in the bud?

As for a "better" system - surely "fairer" is the more apt description you're looking for? Certainly there are a few (including the UK and much of Europe) that severely limit, or explicitly outlaw media presence inside court rooms (precisely because it introduces prejudice), and certainly do not permit movies being made on active, ongoing cases (a la Scot Peterson).

[Peikko 1,575]

It's Texas. I would expect to get shot at if I was banging someones wife.

So, if you are caught having sex with a married person you deserve to die if you live in Texas? I am reading some very wierd views today. Are you also saying that, as it takes two to tango, both parties deserve to die, or only the man? Just curious.

I thought about your question too Jenn, but as the facts of this case are not only in short supply but also contradictory in some areas, I guess we aren't going to know.