Texas wife indicted after lover killed

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

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.

Huge difference!!! That's why I made the assumption I did.

[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.

Huge difference!!! That's why I made the assumption I did.

But don't you see that the reason you don't think that's a fair analogy is because of the way you interpreted the article? As I said, the way I read it. I was explaining why I felt that what the husband did was not right. If you did not interpret the situation the way I did, then obviously you would disagree with my conclusions.

[slim 1,525]

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.

Agree 100% on this one.

IF, that's what was going on there.

The way I read the story was the husband encountered his wife "being raped" (or shortly thereafter) and she was either still in the truck with the guy, or the guy was "caught red-handed" and tried to flee, in which case a threat could not be determined. (Even if he's fleeing, he still could pose a threat... a gun on the seat maybe? A knife in his pocket? He could even use the truck to double back and run down the husband and wife together..... all what if's?, but all plausible scenarios.)

Agreed, there are a lot of "what if's?" in this story, and without knowing all the facts, it is hard to make a judgement on this one. What I see happening on this thread is not an interpretation of the facts of the case and then a judgement based on those facts, but moreover, a judgement based on whether someone who is not a law enforcement "trained professional" should have the legal right to shoot someone...

And that should not be an issue!

[Niels Bohr 72]

This thread is very interesting.

[Jenn! 918]

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.

Agree 100% on this one.

IF, that's what was going on there.

The way I read the story was the husband encountered his wife "being raped" (or shortly thereafter) and she was either still in the truck with the guy, or the guy was "caught red-handed" and tried to flee, in which case a threat could not be determined. (Even if he's fleeing, he still could pose a threat... a gun on the seat maybe? A knife in his pocket? He could even use the truck to double back and run down the husband and wife together..... all what if's?, but all plausible scenarios.)

Agreed, there are a lot of "what if's?" in this story, and without knowing all the facts, it is hard to make a judgement on this one. What I see happening on this thread is not an interpretation of the facts of the case and then a judgement based on those facts, but moreover, a judgement based on whether someone who is not a law enforcement "trained professional" should have the legal right to shoot someone...

And that should not be an issue!

I went back and read the article again, and I think you might be right about the wife still being in the truck with him. Of course, as we've agreed there are a lot of what-ifs and the facts are not clear. But if that is how it went down and the husband actually caught them "in the act" and the wife was still in the car as he tried to drive away, then hell yes, I'd shoot him too.

[slim 1,525]

The story doesn't specifically say where she was, where the husband was, where the rapist was... etc.

That's why my point is, the way I read the story, it seemed the wife told the husband she was being (or had just been) raped, and the rapist was still physically present. The husband took quick and decisive action to protect himself and his wife from a violent criminal who was still presenting a threat to them. That's a text book example of an acceptable deadly force scenario in any court, anywhere in the U.S., and once again, ESPECIALLY in Texas.

[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.

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

Of course there is...but not when they are fleeing the scene of the crime - that would not be self-defense but retaliation according to the law.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

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

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?

Rich, I second what Jenn says - you've made the wrong assumptions about my views on guns. Owning a firearm, just like a car is a great responsability and you don't have the right to use it at your discrection, even if you felt it was necessary. The law has the final say...it's not the Wild West. So I guess all we can say is if both of us were in the exact same situation, you would have shot at the fleeing man and I wouldn't have. Charles calls that passive...I call that using common sense.

You guys remember the guy who used deadly force on a NY subway and killed some muggers? In that case, I believe the law sided with him.

In general, if you're ever going to use self defense as the reason, then you better be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you had no other choice but to use deadly force or face life threatening harm to yourself or someone else.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Alex+R 0]

Everyone who has a gun should have training. Every training should include how to defend yourself without killing. What's so hard about that? I hate this thread.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Everyone who has a gun should have training. Every training should include how to defend yourself without killing. What's so hard about that? I hate this thread.

Exactly what I think.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Everyone who has a gun should have training. Every training should include how to defend yourself without killing. What's so hard about that? I hate this thread.

Yet you were compelled to post. I know how you feel.

[KarenCee 3]

Everyone who has a gun should have training. Every training should include how to defend yourself without killing. What's so hard about that? I hate this thread.

Exactly what I think.

Ditto! I hate guns...period. I know that might sound wussy, but I can't help it. I'm not going to try to regulate whether or not one has a gun or guns in their home, but it's just not something I want in mine. The gun isn't the problem...it's the gun owner who doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground that has it in his or her hands.

It's not hard to learn how to defend oneself without killing. It's the ones that think they know everything and refuse to learn gun safety...they're the problem. I hate guns, but I would take the time to learn about gun safety. There is no excuse for not educating oneself about such things.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Everyone who has a gun should have training. Every training should include how to defend yourself without killing. What's so hard about that? I hate this thread.

Exactly what I think.

Ditto! I hate guns...period. I know that might sound wussy, but I can't help it. I'm not going to try to regulate whether or not one has a gun or guns in their home, but it's just not something I want in mine. The gun isn't the problem...it's the gun owner who doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground that has it in his or her hands.

It's not hard to learn how to defend oneself without killing. It's the ones that think they know everything and refuse to learn gun safety...they're the problem. I hate guns, but I would take the time to learn about gun safety. There is no excuse for not educating oneself about such things.

Thanks for being honest!!

1st lesson: always assume a gun is loaded

2ndlesson: never point a gun at something you don't want to kill

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Everyone who has a gun should have training. Every training should include how to defend yourself without killing. What's so hard about that? I hate this thread.

should, but not mandatory.

[slim 1,525]

The law has the final say...it's not the Wild West. So I guess all we can say is if both of us were in the exact same situation, you would have shot at the fleeing man and I wouldn't have. Charles calls that passive...I call that using common sense.

You guys remember the guy who used deadly force on a NY subway and killed some muggers? In that case, I believe the law sided with him.

In general, if you're ever going to use self defense as the reason, then you better be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you had no other choice but to use deadly force or face life threatening harm to yourself or someone else.

It's not the Wild West... but it is Texas, and that's about as close as you can get in America! And the law did have the final say, a jury found the man "not guilty", and rightfully so. He wasn't guilty of using his gun in a situation other than when his wife was faced with harm, that's a valid instance for deadly force.

In the New York incident you speak of (or I guess this is the one you're talking about) the guy's name was Bernhard Goetz. He was approached by four young men in a subway car and shot them when he felt he was being mugged. The jury found him not guilty of murder, and the reason this case was so big was because NYC at that time had huge crime problems, he was white and the men he shot were black, and because of the "self defense" arguement when using deadly force questions the incident prompted. He didn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was in danger, only that he was being victimized by criminals and he fought back. (This is a very interesting case.... read up on it.)

Use of force says when confronted by four-to-one odds, deadly force is acceptable because four men, even unarmed men, could easily kill one. To relate that to our Texas husband, the "fleeing" rapist was in a vehicle. A vehicle can be used as a weapon, and could also very easily contain a weapon such as a knife, gun, baseball bat, etc. In this incident, the husband was told by the wife the man "raped" her, so the husband could reasonably assume since the man was still physically there, a threat was still present, even if the "rapist" attempted to flee. The threat is not neutralized simply by someone who poses a threat fleeing the scene. They can return to inflict further harm, or pull away to regroup and cause more harm shortly thereafter. In the case of Mr. Goetz, had he only shot the guy closest to him, or pulled his gun and "threatened to use it" he could've been easily overpowered and his gun used on him, or beaten to death, etc.

That's why threats have to be completely and totally neutralized before anything else can be done. For those who say they would "help their wife first", OK. But what if you were "helping your wife" and the "rapist" backed his truck over the both of you then got out and raped BOTH OF YOU? He couldn't do that if you shot him in the head, could he? Or, if that's too outrageous for you, he simply "flees the scene", parks his truck around the corner, takes his gun/knife/bat/whatever, walks back over to where you're "helping" your wife, then rapes her again while you watch. He can't do that if you shoot him in the head, can he?

Use a weapon to render a threat incapable of being a threat any longer. Then aid those that need aid, or flee.

Everyone who has a gun should have training. Every training should include how to defend yourself without killing. What's so hard about that? I hate this thread.

What's so hard about that is if you're going to use a weapon that you know is used for "deadly force", you should only use it in cases that require "deadly force." To use a gun in a situation where only a baseball bat is needed is called "excessive force." Any use of force training anywhere (worth it's salt) is going to train that when using a weapon legally it should only be used to stop the threat that prompted it's use in the first place. The only way to do that is to use it correctly. People who assume guns can be used "Wild West" style to shoot criminals in the foot while they're running away don't take into account the fact that a running foot is a very hard target to hit, and it's more easy to hit bystanders than a running foot. Remember that next time you say "why didn't the cops just shoot the gun out of his hand?" Why? Because guns aren't used to shoot other guns out of people's hands, or to shoot a fleeing suspect in the legs. They're used to quickly and decisively stop a threat. The most efficient (and safest) way of doing that is to use them in the manner they were designed to be used.

And before you argue that "shooting him in the legs would stop a criminal", I'll go ahead and agree with you. It probably would. But, it can also kill him or someone else around him. And, if you shoot a gun, you're already waiving your right to claim "well, I didn't think I was going to kill him. I just shot him in the legs."

If you wanna trip someone, throw a stick.

If you're going to argue the man in Texas shouldn't have shot the "fleeing rapist", at least make it a logical arguement, one based on legal use of force training and acceptable levels of response to violent crime, not whether or not someone should have the right to use a gun in protection of themselves and their wife or one based on unrealistic scenarios.

And once again.... those of you saying "this is what I'd do" or "I would've done this".... You can't say that. The fact is, you DON'T know what you'd do. No amount of training, practice, drills, etc., can prepare you for the real deal. You will be better prepared and will eventually (in a matter of seconds) refer back to your training, but your initial reaction is the one that you're forced to go with. Just hope you do the right thing and can prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" later that your response was the correct one, and not one that a "normal person scared for their own life" or the "life of their wife" would have. Good luck with that!