Texas wife indicted after lover killed

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I also think its a little presumptuous to make explicit claims about how a person would respond when placed in a highly stressful situation. People who do martial arts, for instance can’t necessarily defend themselves when faced with a person intent on doing them harm. It goes so against your expectations of daily life that some people freeze up and forget they are a black-belt or indeed the Glock 9mm they have in their desk.

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

Slim, you're arguing with people that believe there is never an opportunity to justifiably use a gun under any circumstance.

Someone comes home to find their entire family being raped.... you:

a. shoot them

b. call 911

c. assume it's consensual, apologize and leave

d. give them a time-out

or...

If the guy is fleeing the scene, you'd immediately come to the aid of your wife first. That would have been my first reaction. Then, after I noticed she had no visible physical trauma, I'd write the guy's license number down and call the police. Call that being a pansy...I call it using common sense. And the end result (if I were the husband in this particular case) ? I would not have to spend a single day in jail for my wife's lie.

you'd spend a long time on the couch though if you were wrong

What would I be wrong about? Protocol? When someone in general makes a cry for help, do you quickly look for the cause of their despair or do you look to see if they are okay and in need of your aid?

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

Why because I personally don't like the idea of people going about carrying guns on their person (nor do I see the need or justification for it). If nothing else it would tend to make me think twice before honking at someone at the lights, or knocking on someone's door after dark. Do I have to justify it?

so your dislike of people exercising their rights under the 2nd amendment is due to your fear of being accosted by a law abiding citizen who's been background checked by the state. interesting

[Peikko 1,575]

Clearly Charles looks to see if there is an opportunity to fire off his weapon!

Edited April 12, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

and yet, you still missed the boat........

spelled out, my comment meant this - if a man chooses to disbelieve his wife when she claims to have been raped, does nothing more than caspar milquetoast would do to catch the perpetrator (write down the license plate indeed....and if the vehicle was stolen, it's a dead end) then he'd better be ready to spend a long time sleeping on the couch instead of sleeping in the bed. apparently such flew by you the first time

Yes, it did, your comment was quite ambiguous and still is. Are you saying the wife would be so put out that her husband didn't shoot the rapist instead of calling the police that she would punish him in this way? Wow, your understanding of rape victims is incredible.

she'd probably be quite put out that her man did nothing more than whip out a pencil and paper and scribble down the license plate.

Slim, you're arguing with people that believe there is never an opportunity to justifiably use a gun under any circumstance.

Someone comes home to find their entire family being raped.... you:

a. shoot them

b. call 911

c. assume it's consensual, apologize and leave

d. give them a time-out

or...

If the guy is fleeing the scene, you'd immediately come to the aid of your wife first. That would have been my first reaction. Then, after I noticed she had no visible physical trauma, I'd write the guy's license number down and call the police. Call that being a pansy...I call it using common sense. And the end result (if I were the husband in this particular case) ? I would not have to spend a single day in jail for my wife's lie.

you'd spend a long time on the couch though if you were wrong

What would I be wrong about? Protocol? When someone in general makes a cry for help, do you quickly look for the cause of their despair or do you look to see if they are okay and in need of your aid?

steven, you're going to tell me that you'll do an interrogation of your wife, give her a visual examination and so on, all the while the perpetrator is escaping?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why because I personally don't like the idea of people going about carrying guns on their person (nor do I see the need or justification for it). If nothing else it would tend to make me think twice before honking at someone at the lights, or knocking on someone's door after dark. Do I have to justify it?

so your dislike of people exercising their rights under the 2nd amendment is due to your fear of being accosted by a law abiding citizen who's been background checked by the state. interesting

More to the point - law abiding citizens don't generally wear a shirt that says "law abiding citizen"

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

Clearly Charles looks to see if there is an opportunity to fire off his weapon!

clearly you're just looking for an excuse for the personal attacks. you know nothing about me, now sit. stay. good girl.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Steven and Erekose,

Can there ever be a situation where either of you believe deadly force with a gun is justified?

[Peikko 1,575]

Not everyone has the revenge blood lust. Some wives would prefer their husbands go through the proper channels rather than having a corpse on their conscience.

Edited April 12, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

steven, you're going to tell me that you'll do an interrogation of your wife, give her a visual examination and so on, all the while the perpetrator is escaping?

Put it another way - if someone shot your wife, would you stay with her or give chase, leaving her in a pool of blood?

Steven and Erekose,

Can there ever be a situation where either of you believe deadly force with a gun is justified?

Hmmm I believe I answered that question several pages (and weeks) ago.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

steven, you're going to tell me that you'll do an interrogation of your wife, give her a visual examination and so on, all the while the perpetrator is escaping?

Put it another way - if someone shot your wife, would you stay with her or give chase, leaving her in a pool of blood?

Steven and Erekose,

Can there ever be a situation where either of you believe deadly force with a gun is justified?

Hmmm I believe I answered that question several pages (and weeks) ago.

entirely different scenario, erekose, than the previous.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Hmmm I believe I answered that question several pages (and weeks) ago.

Humor me. I don't feel like sifting through posts.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

Not everyone has the revenge blood lust. Some wives would prefer their husbands go through the proper channels rather than having a corpse on their conscience.

those are probably the wives that didn't have an affair and claim rape when caught either

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

steven, you're going to tell me that you'll do an interrogation of your wife, give her a visual examination and so on, all the while the perpetrator is escaping?

Put it another way - if someone shot your wife, would you stay with her or give chase, leaving her in a pool of blood?

Steven and Erekose,

Can there ever be a situation where either of you believe deadly force with a gun is justified?

Hmmm I believe I answered that question several pages (and weeks) ago.

entirely different scenario, erekose, than the previous.

Different scenario to what - The story in the OP article? I'm still pretty positive I answered that question on the preceding pages.

Hmmm I believe I answered that question several pages (and weeks) ago.

Humor me. I don't feel like sifting through posts.

I don't feel much like repeating myself

[Peikko 1,575]

those are probably the wives that didn't have an affair and claim rape when caught either

Which means what exactly?

Essentially, your argument seems to be that it's justifiable to shoot first and ask questions later with violent crime BECAUSE the police can't be trusted to do their job properly and bring the bad guys to justice. I am saying that no, that's not a good justification and furthermore would be inadmissable as a defence in law.