Texas wife indicted after lover killed

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Shotgun = Overkill

not really.

What I'm saying is that a person can't play judge, jury and executioner. The guy was not defending, he was avenging.

you might wish to study the castle law in many states

Erekose, A jury decided..... the system works.

I'm sure he was charged or a grand jury decided he didn't need to be charged.

If the system worked innocent men would not be blown away by "have-a-go" heroes.

does not apply in this case, as he was portrayed as a rapist by the wife. the husband was not playing hero as you put it.

Edited April 3, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

does not apply in this case, as he was portrayed as a rapist by the wife. the husband was not playing hero as you put it.

I doubt the victims relatives would view it the same way. The fact is the decision the guy made was wrong.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Erekose, A jury decided..... the system works.

I'm sure he was charged or a grand jury decided he didn't need to be charged.

If the system worked innocent men would not be blown away by "have-a-go" heroes.

He should have thought twice about banging a married woman. It's a stiff penalty but being in Texas he should have known better.

He wasn't innocent to the husband of a raped wife.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He should have thought twice about banging a married woman. It's a stiff penalty but being in Texas he should have known better.

He wasn't innocent to the husband of a raped wife.

Well that isn't really the point is it? Moreover if the guy had known his wife was having the affair and shot anyway it would most definitely be murder wouldn't it...?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

He should have thought twice about banging a married woman. It's a stiff penalty but being in Texas he should have known better.

He wasn't innocent to the husband of a raped wife.

Well that isn't really the point is it? Moreover if the guy had known his wife was having the affair and shot anyway it would most definitely be murder wouldn't it...?

That would be up to the jury. He might be acquitted because it was a crime of passion.

Edited April 3, 2007 by LuckyStrike

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That would be up to the jury. He might be acquitted because it was a crime of passion.

There's always that.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

does not apply in this case, as he was portrayed as a rapist by the wife. the husband was not playing hero as you put it.

I doubt the victims relatives would view it the same way. The fact is the decision the guy made was wrong.

no. given the information he had he made the same choice many would have made. and i think he was right. so said the jury. it must really chap your butt, a citizen have the right to keep, bear, and use firearms like this.

Edited April 3, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I can see the divide between

1. guns are scary and should be outlawed

2. guns are a tool of protection and are designed to kill people

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

no. given the information he had he made the same choice many would have made. and i think he was right. so said the jury. it must really chap your butt, a citizen have the right to keep, bear, and use firearms like this.

The only thing that bothers me is that an innocent man can be gunned down out of hand with a minimum of handwringing. This is a prime example of where "shooting first, asking questions later" is generally poor idea.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

no. given the information he had he made the same choice many would have made. and i think he was right. so said the jury. it must really chap your butt, a citizen have the right to keep, bear, and use firearms like this.

The only thing that bothers me is that an innocent man can be gunned down out of hand with a minimum of handwringing. This is a prime example of where "shooting first, asking questions later" is generally poor idea.

easy to say when you are unfamiliar with firearms, have never been in that position, and so on. as a cch holder, the husband was justified in what he did. as stated earlier, the wife should be facing trial for murder as her statements set into motion these events.

here's another story for you to get worked up over. and btw, the homeowner was justified.

Police: Homeowner Shoots Teen Robber

A homeowner shot a teen who was breaking into his southeast Houston home early Tuesday, officials told KPRC Local 2.

Houston police said the homeowner discovered Jesus Gonzales, 17, breaking into his home in the 7600 block of Avenue H near 76th Street shortly before 3 a.m.

Homeowner Bob Manross said he keeps a loaded gun beside his bed for protection.

"I don't trust this neighborhood," Manross said.

Manross said Gonzales demanded money from him at gunpoint.

"He said, 'Bob, give me all your money,'" Manross said. "I said, 'Well, I don't have it with me right now. I got it in the next room.'"

Detectives said Manross went to his bedroom, got his gun and shot Gonzales in the abdomen.

"He ran out the door and he ran back to his house where he was staying," Manross said.

Manross called 911 while Gonzales ran to a home two doors down the street, police said.

Gonzales was rushed to Memorial Hermann Hospital in critical condition.

Gonzales' brother said this is not the first time he has been accused of breaking into cars and homes.

"Yeah, he got caught a couple of times doing that," Luis Gonzales said.

Investigators said Jesus Gonzales may have been responsible for several car burglaries on Avenue J shortly before the home invasion.

Manross said he and his 84-year-old wife are scared they may face retaliation for the shooting.

Police have not said if the homeowner will face any charges or what charges Jesus Gonzales may face.

link

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you break into someone's house you more or less deserve what you get - more to the point "breaking and entering" IS a crime. Still it seems a little weird to live in an area "you don't trust" and feel you need a gun to keep you safe.

I don't apply that logic to this case, because someone else's say-so should not be sufficient reason to start shooting.

If I don't understand the mania to own guns, its because in 29 years (of living and travelling in various places around Europe and the US) I've never once (ever) been the victim of a violent crime.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

If you break into someone's house you more or less deserve what you get - more to the point "breaking and entering" IS a crime. Still it seems a little weird to live in an area "you don't trust" and feel you need a gun to keep you safe.

perhaps the only place they can afford?

I don't apply that logic to this case, because someone else's say-so should not be sufficient reason to start shooting.

it is. unless, of course, you expect a full blown csi team to show up to verify the facts first, thus letting the criminal escape.

If I don't understand the mania to own guns, its because in 29 years (of living and travelling in various places around Europe and the US) I've never once (ever) been the victim of a violent crime.

count your blessings.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Without human interaction a gun will hurt no one. Not all gun owners are maniacs.

My father bought me my first gun when I was 10. And I have had many since. So in 28 years of gun ownership I have shot or killed no one. I haven't even pointed a gun at anyone. Your house may never burn down but it's a good idea to have fire insurance.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Without human interaction a gun will hurt no one. Not all gun owners are maniacs.

True - but I still wonder how many people own guns out of a unreasonable fear of being the victims of crime/s whose likelihood of occurrence isn't reflected statistically.

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

Without human interaction a gun will hurt no one. Not all gun owners are maniacs.

True - but I still wonder how many people own guns out of a unreasonable fear of being the victims of crime/s whose likelihood of occurrence isn't reflected statistically.

so what if they do?