Texas wife indicted after lover killed

[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.

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.

No - of course not. I was merely addressing the claim that an expected reaction for having an affair in Texas is to get shot (regardless of circumstances), which in my view validates the argument that those weapons are bad for ultimately society. Similarly, as Luckystrike pointed out however - its one possible reaction (out of many) and clearly not everyone would react the same way.

Even so you have to consider how the wife would know that her husband would react in the way he did - likely she wasn't thinking clearly under the stress of being caught in a compromising position. So as I said - certainly there is a case against her for manslaughter. That said, there are legally defined degrees of manslaughter, so it would seem to me that the husband is culpable to some degree in an unlawful killing. I simply don't believe you should be allowed to kill someone without legal consequence unless there is a direct, demonstrable threat to life.

Edited April 5, 2007 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

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.

No - of course not. I was merely addressing the claim that an expected reaction for having an affair in Texas is to get shot (regardless of circumstances), which in my view validates the argument that those weapons are bad for ultimately society. Similarly, as Luckystrike pointed out however - its one possible reaction (out of many) and clearly not everyone would react the same way.

Even so you have to consider how the wife would know that her husband would react in the way he did - likely she wasn't thinking clearly under the stress of being caught in a compromising position. So as I said - certainly there is a case against her for manslaughter. That said, there are legally defined degrees of manslaughter, so it would seem to me that the husband is culpable to some degree in an unlawful killing. I simply don't believe you should be allowed to kill someone without legal consequence unless there is a direct, demonstrable threat to life.

and you can also get stabbed, run over with a car, and so on. shall we ban all of that too?

best answer is don't put someone in that position, eh?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

and you can also get stabbed, run over with a car, and so on. shall we ban all of that too?

The obvious answer to that is that none of those things (knife, car etc) are designed solely with that purpose in mind.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

and you can also get stabbed, run over with a car, and so on. shall we ban all of that too?

The obvious answer to that is that none of those things (knife, car etc) are designed solely with that purpose in mind.

So we've come back to 'guns are bad'... mmmmm kay

I have a revelation for you. Humans are bad. Not all, but we sure do have a mean streak in us. From chopping off heads or limbs to trying to exterminate entire races. A truly bad person will use any means (including guns) to accomplish his goals. And people like you want to deny the 'good' people the means to protect themselves. That's evil More restrictive gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. By definition criminals ignore these laws.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

and you can also get stabbed, run over with a car, and so on. shall we ban all of that too?

The obvious answer to that is that none of those things (knife, car etc) are designed solely with that purpose in mind.

So we've come back to 'guns are bad'... mmmmm kay

I have a revelation for you. Humans are bad. Not all, but we sure do have a mean streak in us. From chopping off heads or limbs to trying to exterminate entire races. A truly bad person will use any means (including guns) to accomplish his goals. And people like you want to deny the 'good' people the means to protect themselves. That's evil More restrictive gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. By definition criminals ignore these laws.

You guys really like your melodrama don’t you? I was responding to Charles’ throwaway comment that “its just a tool”. Sure I agree with that – but it’s a tool with a singular purpose in mind, no? Of course I guess I could be wrong there - recalling that Simpsons episode where Homer uses his pistol to open beer bottles and change the channel on the, but that’s just being facetious ;-)

In essence it’s not too dissimilar to the infamous comments made by Prince Philip (shortly after the most worst and most infamous school massacre in UK history) – where he suggested that a person might as well ban “cricket bats” than guns (as if crazy guy running around with a length of wood would have the same success).

And BTW – how is it you can claim that gun control laws only affect “law abiding people”? Obviously there will always be criminals (who by definition, will always break the law), and (obviously) there will always be victims. What’s the point you’re trying to make here? That just because someone may try to mug you in a subway that you shouldn’t be constrained by any laws whatsoever?

If I’m skeptical about this its because I simply don’t see the massive influx of criminals on every street corner (waiting to rob you, kill you and kidnap your children) that your rampant “I must defend myself against all and everyone” paranoia seems to indicate. I have never been the victim of any sort of violent crime, and judging by the informal poll I started in the other thread 70% of the people who respondend hadn’t either.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Isn't it getting a bit stale to continue debating on a nearly-week-old local newsitem?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Isn't it getting a bit stale to continue debating on a nearly-week-old local newsitem?

Probably - feel free to start something new

[JohnK 0]

Certainly there are a few (including the UK and much of Europe) that severely limit, or explicitly outlaw media presence inside court rooms

I would dispute that media presence in a court room causes some soft of imbalance in a trial. I would assert that media presence does more to ensure that trials and punishments are MORE fair because everyone involved, including those wack job judges that like to give out prison terms based on a person's stature rather than crime, know they are going to be held accountable long afterwards for the decisions they make.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Certainly there are a few (including the UK and much of Europe) that severely limit, or explicitly outlaw media presence inside court rooms

I would dispute that media presence in a court room causes some soft of imbalance in a trial. I would assert that media presence does more to ensure that trials and punishments are MORE fair because everyone involved, including those wack job judges that like to give out prison terms based on a person's stature rather than crime, know they are going to be held accountable long afterwards for the decisions they make.

So you mean that the endless features on mainstream (and specifically tabloid) news shows and publications that follow big court cases featuring interviews by people claiming that the guy did it, was acting suspiciously or "was always a loner and a little strange" aren't prejudicial to a case?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Isn't it getting a bit stale to continue debating on a nearly-week-old local newsitem?

Probably - feel free to start something new

I think the horse is dead

[JohnK 0]

So you mean that the endless features on mainstream (and specifically tabloid) news shows and publications that follow big court cases featuring interviews by people claiming that the guy did it, was acting suspiciously or "was always a loner and a little strange" aren't prejudicial to a case?

It is seriously irritating when you take something a person says, then you add your own ####### to it and then question a person about the ####### you added. I said "MEDIA IN THE COURT ROOM". Once it's in court, the JURY DOESN'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT THE TRIAL FROM THE OUTSIDE.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

You guys really like your melodrama don’t you? I was responding to Charles’ throwaway comment that “its just a tool”. Sure I agree with that – but it’s a tool with a singular purpose in mind, no? Of course I guess I could be wrong there - recalling that Simpsons episode where Homer uses his pistol to open beer bottles and change the channel on the, but that’s just being facetious ;-)

i said no such thing. you're reading what you want and making what you want out of this.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

And BTW – how is it you can claim that gun control laws only affect “law abiding people”? Obviously there will always be criminals (who by definition, will always break the law), and (obviously) there will always be victims. What’s the point you’re trying to make here? That just because someone may try to mug you in a subway that you shouldn’t be constrained by any laws whatsoever?

for someone who talks out of one side of their mouth about loss of rights, i find this statement to be most amusing as you seem to be advocating removing that right from the people.

it should appear painfully obvious to anyone that obviously the law abiding people will follow and obey the law, whereas those who don't follow it are criminals. ergo, "...gun control laws only affect “law abiding people”

are you just chasing your tail for entertainment value?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i said no such thing. you're reading what you want and making what you want out of this.

I responded to:

and you can also get stabbed, run over with a car, and so on. shall we ban all of that too?

Reading more into it than was there? Maybe - but your implication was fairly clear...

Knife=tool

Car=tool

gun=tool

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

i said no such thing. you're reading what you want and making what you want out of this.

I responded to:

and you can also get stabbed, run over with a car, and so on. shall we ban all of that too?

Reading more into it than was there? Maybe - but your implication was fairly clear...

Knife=tool

Car=tool

gun=tool

you're the one who drew the parallel between them, not me. i didn't use the words nor quotation marks, like you did

time for quoting class for you