Texas wife indicted after lover killed

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I don't feel much like repeating myself

Is it in this thread? Give me that much at least.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

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.

actually, that is a true statement in most states. it is justifiable

the rest of your post is just bs though.

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?

it's what we call

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't feel much like repeating myself

Is it in this thread? Give me that much at least.

Yes its in this thread.

Edited April 12, 2007 by erekose

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I don't feel much like repeating myself

Is it in this thread? Give me that much at least.

Yes its in that thread.

This or that? You are a slick one.

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

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?

Checking to see if someone is alright is interrogation??? I don't know about you, Charles, but if someone is yelling for help and they're in a swimming pool for example, the first thing in my mind is to tend to them. Imagine it were a woman yelling rape in a swimming pool. Are you telling me you'd leave her there without seeing if she is okay and start swimming after the perpetrator??? That's a pure retaliation mentality and not a rescue mentality. I'm thinking about rescue not retaliation.

[KarenCee 3]

God Gawd...y'all are STILL on this frickin thread????

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Someone couldn't resist bumping it apparently

[KarenCee 3]

LOL, probably...but it's just so funny that this topic has this many posts.

[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?

Checking to see if someone is alright is interrogation??? I don't know about you, Charles, but if someone is yelling for help and they're in a swimming pool for example, the first thing in my mind is to tend to them. Imagine it were a woman yelling rape in a swimming pool. Are you telling me you'd leave her there without seeing if she is okay and start swimming after the perpetrator??? That's a pure retaliation mentality and not a rescue mentality. I'm thinking about rescue not retaliation.

steven, we're not talking about swimming pools now do try to stay with the topic, in which you said:

You can't simply go by what someone tells you no matter who that person is in relationship to you.

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.

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.

what i get out of the above is that you'd not believe your wife, were such to occur (i pray it does not). now i don't know how you rate your relationship, but i have no reason to disbelieve my wife.

also, how long would it take for you to note that your wife has visible trauma and why is this an important feature in the above scenario? she was not shot, for crying out loud. and doing so while the perpetrator is making their escape? are you gonna be able to assess that in a millisecond and still be able to read the license plate after he's made it how far down the road? furthermore, what's to say the vehicle isn't stolen? or the license plate? and do you always carry around a pen/pencil and paper "just in case" on a daily basis?

given the above statements by you, it seems that you'd spend more time questioning your wife in detail about what happened instead of apprehending the perpetrator. and that is why i commented

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

in summary, you go right ahead and do things your way. i prefer the a more proactive response. i also suspect mine will result in a far quicker apprehension of the perpetrator than yours, if such ever did occur in your case, given your passive reaction.

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

in summary, you go right ahead and do things your way. i prefer the a more proactive response. i also suspect mine will result in a far quicker apprehension of the perpetrator than yours, if such ever did occur in your case, given your passive reaction.

Sure Charles, go and shoot at someone fleeing the scene when a woman yells out that she's been raped. I'll be sure to send you postcards to your jail cell. Just see how proactive you can be behind bars.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

in summary, you go right ahead and do things your way. i prefer the a more proactive response. i also suspect mine will result in a far quicker apprehension of the perpetrator than yours, if such ever did occur in your case, given your passive reaction.

Sure Charles, go and shoot at someone fleeing the scene when a woman yells out that she's been raped. I'll be sure to send you postcards to your jail cell. Just see how proactive you can be behind bars.

Steven, is there ever an appropriate time for a private citizen to use deadly farce with a gun?

[slim 1,525]

All the "don't shoot, let the police/justice system handle the rapist" people on here are not taking into account that in this scenario, the "rapist" was there, with the woman, when the husband encountered them. The woman told her husband she was/had just been raped, and the husband took action to protect his wife and himself. Why was he wrong to do that?

Was it because he couldn't prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the "rapist" had indeed just raped his wife? Or, was it because he wasn't a trained law enforcement professional, and lacked the necessary training to make split-second life and death decisions?

Where is the arguement, because all I'm hearing is "shooting someone while they're fleeing" is wrong. Also, no one has stated whether the woman was in the truck or not.

And to those out there without "professional training" - Professional training justifies deadly force whenever someone believes themselves or someone else to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Rape is one of those crimes that is often perpetrated with violence or the implied threat of violence. To counter violent crime with deadly force is justifiable anywhere in the U.S., and especially in Texas.

To those who say the husband should've aided his wife before countering the threat posed to her are obviously unaware of how violent situations unfold, show their lack of understanding in how to protect themselves and loved ones from violent situations, their lack of understanding in action/reaction scenarios, and reinforce the basis for violent crime to exist in the first place. In truth though, people like this are usually the ones to react MORE violently when faced with a crisis because they are emotionally fueled to "protect" their loved ones. The mother bear doesn't just growl at the intruder... she chases them down and kills them so they never present a threat to her offspring again.

I'm not saying those of you out there that would call 9-1-1 or write down the license plate number would be more likely to shoot a "rapist", but I am saying that placed in a life-or-death situation, you would react more violently than you expect you would. A threat posed to yourself or a loved one is not countered with a phone call. It's countered with a more violent threat, and if necessary.... a more violent action.

[Jenn! 918]

Without all the facts in this story, it really is hard to make any judgements. The way I read it, what the husband did is really no different than if the guy had made his escape, and then the husband ran into him days later, recognized him, and shot him.

I most definitely think that people are justified in using deadly force to defend themselves and their loved ones from physical harm. But I don't think that was what was going on here. I do not think it's ok to take the law in your own hands and kill those who have harmed you or your loved ones if they are not posing an immediate threat.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The problem is we are arguing with people (Steven, erekose and purple) that have no use for guns for private citizens in the real world. Oh sure... they will argue 'hypothetically' there is a use but it's just chum for the waters. It's kind of like a vegetarian arguing with you over the best cut of meat. I wish people would be more honest and just say they want all guns band.

Me? I wish there was weapons training starting in the 8th grade. Knowledge is power and ignorance breeds more ignorance.

edit... add Jenn

Edited April 13, 2007 by LuckyStrike

[Jenn! 918]

The problem is we are arguing with people (Steven, erekose and purple) that have no use for guns for private citizens in the real world. Oh sure... they will argue 'hypothetically' there is a use but it's just chum for the waters. It's kind of like a vegetarian arguing with you over the best cut of meat. I wish people would be more honest and just say they want all guns band.

Me? I wish there was weapons training starting in the 8th grade. Knowledge is power and ignorance breeds more ignorance.

edit... add Jenn

You're putting words into my mouth. Did you read my last post? I definitely do not think that all guns should be banned. Stop assuming things just because you may disagree with my views on other subjects.

ETA: My comments on this matter have been as if I were on the jury deciding the verdict on the husband. He would not have gotten off if it were up to me. How does that imply that I am for banning all guns?

Edited April 13, 2007 by jenn3539