Texas wife indicted after lover killed

[JohnK 0]

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

That wasn't a personal attack, that was a fair question based on your responses or lack thereof to many of the points made by other people and myself.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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

That wasn't a personal attack, that was a fair question based on your responses or lack thereof to many of the points made by other people and myself.

Really? I see you ignored my response of your post.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

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.

I said 'expect' to die. Not deserve. You quote my words and change them in the same post.

If I rob a crack dealers house I would 'expect' to get shot at and die depending how good a shot they are. It doesn't matter if:

1. the gun is registered

2. the dealer is selling an illegal product

3. it's not his house

Use some common sense people.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

I said 'expect' to die. Not deserve. You quote my words and change them in the same post.

If I rob a crack dealers house I would 'expect' to get shot at and die depending how good a shot they are. It doesn't matter if:

1. the gun is registered

2. the dealer is selling an illegal product

3. it's not his house

Use some common sense people.

Common sense certainly - but that's far from the best analogy.

Firstly, as pointed out previously adultery is not a crime. Secondly, if gun owners are broadly responsible people (I can accept that), why would you characterise their behaviour by relating it to that of an unpredictable (criminal) drug dealer? Thirdly, why should you 'expect' to die for having an affair with a married man/woman? I mean are you saying, after establishing the responsibility involved in owning and maintaining a firearm that those same people will throw away all that discipline and whip out their concealed pistols and start blasting away at someone for something (like an affair) that's depressingly commonplace these days. I mean, is there any top to go over there...?

Edited April 4, 2007 by erekose

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Common sense certainly - but that's far from the best analogy.

Firstly, as pointed out previously adultery is not a crime. Secondly, if gun owners are broadly responsible people (I can accept that), why would you characterise their behaviour by relating it to that of an unpredictable (criminal) drug dealer? Thirdly, why should you 'expect' to die for having an affair with a married man/woman? I mean are you saying, after establishing the responsibility involved in owning and maintaining a firearm that those same people will throw away all that discipline and whip out their concealed pistols and start blasting away at someone for something (like an affair) that's depressingly commonplace these days. I mean, is there any top to go over there...?

trying to keep it 'over the top' so liberals can understand

I expect everyone in Texas to be armed. You should too. Ignorance of reality is no excuse.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Common sense certainly - but that's far from the best analogy.

Firstly, as pointed out previously adultery is not a crime. Secondly, if gun owners are broadly responsible people (I can accept that), why would you characterise their behaviour by relating it to that of an unpredictable (criminal) drug dealer? Thirdly, why should you 'expect' to die for having an affair with a married man/woman? I mean are you saying, after establishing the responsibility involved in owning and maintaining a firearm that those same people will throw away all that discipline and whip out their concealed pistols and start blasting away at someone for something (like an affair) that's depressingly commonplace these days. I mean, is there any top to go over there...?

trying to keep it 'over the top' so liberals can understand

I expect everyone in Texas to be armed. You should too. Ignorance of reality is no excuse.

Actually that isn't what I was getting at. Everyone in Texas may well be armed - the question is whether shooting someone simply for having an affair with your wife (outside of any extenuating circumstances) is a reasonable reaction for a supposedly responsible person who takes their right to bear arms seriously. If you consider that reaction to be typical then surely it only strengthens the argument against those weapons as being ultimately detrimental to society.

Edited April 4, 2007 by erekose

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Actually that isn't what I was getting at. Everyone in Texas may well be armed - the question is whether shooting someone simply for having an affair with your wife (outside of any extenuating circumstances) is a reasonable reaction for a supposedly responsible person who takes their right to bear arms seriously. If you consider that reaction to be typical then surely it only strengthens the argument against those weapons as being ultimately detrimental to society.

You keep missing the point. This guy pulled out his gun to shoot a rapist, not an adulterer.

Gun owners are not always responsible. Is that the real point you are trying to make? Neither are car owners, parents, nuns, farmers, butchers, teachers, police officers, firefighters, doctors.... catch my drift?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually that isn't what I was getting at. Everyone in Texas may well be armed - the question is whether shooting someone simply for having an affair with your wife (outside of any extenuating circumstances) is a reasonable reaction for a supposedly responsible person who takes their right to bear arms seriously. If you consider that reaction to be typical then surely it only strengthens the argument against those weapons as being ultimately detrimental to society.

You keep missing the point. This guy pulled out his gun to shoot a rapist, not an adulterer.

Sure in this case. What I was getting at was your claim that a person who has an affair with a married man/woman in Texas should expect to be shot / killed, regardless of any extenuating circumstances.

Gun owners are not always responsible. Is that the real point you are trying to make? Neither are car owners, parents, nuns, farmers, butchers, teachers, police officers, firefighters, doctors.... catch my drift?

I was making the distinction between using a gun for the purposes of personal/home defence and using it for petty vigilantism. The latter arguably goes against the spirit of the second amendment which grants those rights. If getting shot for having an affair (quite apart from any home invasion / self defence issues) is something you should expect from people living in the state of Texas, I wonder if you can see how that might strengthen the argument for greater gun control?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Sure in this case. What I was getting at was your claim that a person who has an affair with a married man/woman in Texas should expect to be shot / killed, regardless of any extenuating circumstances.

Your words, not mine. Now you're making stuff up.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure in this case. What I was getting at was your claim that a person who has an affair with a married man/woman in Texas should expect to be shot / killed, regardless of any extenuating circumstances.

Your words, not mine. Now you're making stuff up.

Your words

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

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Sure in this case. What I was getting at was your claim that a person who has an affair with a married man/woman in Texas should expect to be shot / killed, regardless of any extenuating circumstances.

Your words, not mine. Now you're making stuff up.

Your words

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

That's just one outcome (topical to this thread). There are many possible outcomes of sleeping with another man's wife, but I didn't list them all.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

Dismiss it as liberalism - I call it common sense. Common sense tells me that shooting at someone with the intent to kill based primarily on someone's cry of being raped is preposterous. Even if you saw a person in the act of sexual intercourse and she cries 'rape' does not automatically mean it is a rape or that it means using deadly force is the appropriate action to take. You're making a lot of lawless assumptions. Suppose you are a neighbor who came to the aid of the wife next door who then tried to seduce you. She could do all kinds of things to make it convincing at the glance of an eye that you just assaulted her just as the husband comes home, even if you are completely innocent.

Of course there are mitigating circumstances for when there is reasonable cause to use deadly force but based on the report, nothing warranted the husband shooting at his wife's lover other than out of rage.

You shouldn't simply act on emotions when making life and death decisions - ask any well trained police officer. We are rational beings - we can't just act out our emotions.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Of course there are mitigating circumstances for when there is reasonable cause to use deadly force but based on the report, nothing warranted the husband shooting at his wife's lover other than out of rage.

Did you even read the story? HE THOUGHT THE MAN WAS A RAPIST. Yes, his wife lied and she is going to jail for it.

edit: added bold just in case you missed the caps.

Edited April 5, 2007 by LuckyStrike

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Actually that isn't what I was getting at. Everyone in Texas may well be armed - the question is whether shooting someone simply for having an affair with your wife (outside of any extenuating circumstances) is a reasonable reaction for a supposedly responsible person who takes their right to bear arms seriously. If you consider that reaction to be typical then surely it only strengthens the argument against those weapons as being ultimately detrimental to society.

You keep missing the point. This guy pulled out his gun to shoot a rapist, not an adulterer.

Sure in this case. What I was getting at was your claim that a person who has an affair with a married man/woman in Texas should expect to be shot / killed, regardless of any extenuating circumstances.

erekose, are we to assume by your question that only the wives of law abiding gun owners have affairs?

luckystrike is right - he used the firearm on a rapist, not an adulterer (which was known only after the fact) and if you're banging a married woman (not your wife) then expect the worst.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Dismiss it as liberalism - I call it common sense. Common sense tells me that shooting at someone with the intent to kill based primarily on someone's cry of being raped is preposterous. Even if you saw a person in the act of sexual intercourse and she cries 'rape' does not automatically mean it is a rape or that it means using deadly force is the appropriate action to take.

quite wrong............

nice to see you've taken the caveman stance steven - so when a woman says it's rape it's not and when a woman says no it means yes?

jeesh..