Texas wife indicted after lover killed

[KansasDragon 1]

Here's a blurb from a webpage about the story, which eliminates the issue of the "criminal" fleeing. They were still in the midst of the act, when she cried rape, and her husband shot him... Now, if someone was on top of your wife or fiancee, in the front of a pickup, and she yelled she was being raped.. What would you do??

Here's the first part of the article from CourtTV:

ARLINGTON, Texas (AP) " Darrell Roberson came home from a card game late one night to find his wife rolling around with another man in a pickup truck in the driveway.

Caught in the act with her lover, Tracy Denise Roberson " thinking quickly, if not clearly " cried rape, authorities say. Her husband pulled a gun and killed the other man with a shot to the head.

You can find the rest of the article here: http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/ap/0407/0...e_indicted.html

Edited April 4, 2007 by KansasDragon

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perhaps you missed this part further down:

Darrell Roberson, a 38-year-old employee of a real estate firm, discovered the two, his wife clad in a robe and underwear.

When Tracy Roberson cried that she was being raped, LaSalle tried to drive away and her husband drew the gun he happened to be carrying and fired several shots at the truck, authorities said.

Darrell Roberson's attorney did not immediately return a call for comment.

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

The fleeing criminal was a rapist in the shooters mind. Why is it wrong to shoot your wife's rapist? The wife is fully responsible for the lie.

Is this a serious question?

I think this case is a great example of why it's wrong to shoot your wife's rapist.

Exactly. Rich, what if someone close to you points at someone fleeing the scene and tells you they've just committed a heinous crime? In other words, how close does that person need to be to you personally(relative, trusted friend) for it to absolve you from any legal responsability if you shoot and kill the fleeing suspect based only on what they tell you? That's legally and ethically preposterous. You can't simply go by what someone tells you no matter who that person is in relationship to you.

Edited April 4, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Then accidents (like this one) would be surely be more likely, no?

Suspicion and fear and all that...

this was no accident. and what's with the fearmongering?

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

I don't remember the last time it was ok to kill someone for having an affair. Crime of passion entails a little bit more than being pissed off because your wife/husband can't keep their pants on.

given that such was known after the fact, it had zero bearing on the actions of the shooter.

I wasn't very clear. What I meant was, while it could be argued a crime of passion if you shoot at the moment you find your spouse in the act, ie the heat of the moment, it become less viable as a defence the longer the gap is between the discovery and the action. There is also the point of how many shots are fired. Four shots being fired becomes more an intention to kill than an act of desperation/duress/extreme jealousy.

maybe the person was a bad shot? not all shots fired hit their intended target.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Exactly. Rich, what if someone close to you points at someone fleeing the scene and tells you they've just committed a heinous crime? In other words, how close does that person need to be to you personally(relative, trusted friend) for it to absolve you from any legal responsability if you shoot and kill the fleeing suspect based only on what they tell you? That's legally and ethically preposterous. You can't simply go by what someone tells you no matter who that person is in relationship to you.

oh yeah, call csi and have an investigation before taking any action. like we'll have a 100% chance of finding the individual after he is outta sight, eh?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Then accidents (like this one) would be surely be more likely, no?

Suspicion and fear and all that...

this was no accident. and what's with the fearmongering?

The fearmongering comes from the idea that the broadcast media paints an unrealistic picture of the prevalence and severity of violent crime, and as a result people feel they need guns for protection.

If you don't believe me - take a look at child predators. Statistically a very rare crime - but the media presentation of it (there's at least 2 stories a week on the networks) creates the impression that its a national epidemic.

[JohnK 0]

From what I remember, his wife was still in the vehicle so he may very well have assumed she was being abducted.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

From what I remember, his wife was still in the vehicle so he may very well have assumed she was being abducted.

It certainly seems that not all the facts are available from that article alone.

[JohnK 0]

If you don't believe me - take a look at child predators. Statistically a very rare crime - but the media presentation of it (there's at least 2 stories a week on the networks) creates the impression that its a national epidemic.

Or maybe the media is trying to make people aware that a predator can be anyplace/anytime and parents need to do a better job of safeguarding their kids, especially when it comes to the internet, and your impression is wrong.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you don't believe me - take a look at child predators. Statistically a very rare crime - but the media presentation of it (there's at least 2 stories a week on the networks) creates the impression that its a national epidemic.

Or maybe the media is trying to make people aware that a predator can be anyplace/anytime and parents need to do a better job of safeguarding their kids, especially when it comes to the internet, and your impression is wrong.

Which part? That the crimes are statistically rare, or that they are over-reported by a sensationalist media that profits from collective outrage?

It's generally referred to as "Moral Panic".

Granted that there's an element of the behavior that goes unreported - but I'd recommend you take a look at national crime statistics (FBI and your local/state police). Sexual offences are a statistically very small proportion of all violent crime (and offences involving child predators are a small proportion of that). The vast majority of victims of violent crime are young men in their late teens to middle 20's.

[Caladan 19]

erekose is right in that what people fear as a real threat often doesn't line up at all with what's an actual threat. Child molestation is a good example. Statistically, your child is vanishingly unlikely to be abducted by a stranger. The media's fascination with it makes it look like it's about as common as losing your baby teeth in kindergarten.

But there are others. What was the big sensation in 2001 before September? Shark attacks! Sharks, everywhere, swimmers being eaten. Sometime in 2002 someone reported in a blurb that 2001 had fewer shark attacks than previous years.

Worries about mad cow are another. At the height of the outbreak in the UK, the worst the world has ever seen.... they lost what, 157 people? It's a dangerous disease, but more people die in a year from undercooked chicken than have from mad cow. Which do people fear more?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its common-sense really. Much the same is made of murder – which is staple story in almost every news broadcast (on any network). If that’s all you see day-in, day-out, it follows that people develop an inflated and distorted impression of the reality. Same holds true for stories about potential terrorist threats. That is more apparent IMO because 90% of those stories deal in rumour and opinion, not actual events. There was a story the other day about a “potential threat” to the Staten Island Ferry. Nothing had happened of course, no suspects arrested or plans uncovered and foiled – Fox just went out and found an ex-NYC detective who they referred to as a “terrorism expert” and spent 5-6 minutes expounding his views.

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

Exactly. Rich, what if someone close to you points at someone fleeing the scene and tells you they've just committed a heinous crime? In other words, how close does that person need to be to you personally(relative, trusted friend) for it to absolve you from any legal responsability if you shoot and kill the fleeing suspect based only on what they tell you? That's legally and ethically preposterous. You can't simply go by what someone tells you no matter who that person is in relationship to you.

oh yeah, call csi and have an investigation before taking any action. like we'll have a 100% chance of finding the individual after he is outta sight, eh?

God forbid a woman or a child accuses you of assaulting them when their husband or father is nearby, Charles. 'Shoot first, ask questions later,' only works in westerns.

[Peikko 1,575]

Maybe he was a bad shot? Not all shots fired hit the intended target

Rather supporting the notion of intentional killing than otherwise. If you are a bad shot and fire off a few shots in blind rage (and accidentally hit the target) that's a crime of passion. If you continue shooting because you failed to hit the target, that starts to look like murder.'

I also don't think using the argument "I shot him because I didn't have faith in the police force finding him" would work as a defence somehow.

[JohnK 0]

God forbid a woman or a child accuses you of assaulting them when their husband or father is nearby, Charles. 'Shoot first, ask questions later,' only works in westerns.

Excuse me, but it wasn't like the dude was just standing nearby and got shot. In this country a person has a right to protect themselves and significant others. She cried "rape", therefore he had the right to protect her. It's not his fault she's a ####### and a liar.