Texas wife indicted after lover killed

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

No but an innocent man is dead because he pulled the trigger. I hope he can live with that.

The area of law that handles these things is fairly non-specific, and depends on whether or not the jury determined that the force used was excessive. In this case they didn't think it was - but that says quite a bit about Texas in my view (with their conveyor-belt execution).

I have to admit its a little weird that you can get off manslaughter charges by killing someone on someone else's say-so or by acting out of "strong emotion", but still get life for killing someone in self-defence.

Edited April 4, 2007 by erekose

[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?

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.

uh huh........you've not been reading too much of this thread have you? now what's a cch?

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.

dearie, it can't be murder if you failed to hit the target

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

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.

So someone crying 'rape' is the only precursor for you to have the right to shoot to kill somebody?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

So someone crying 'rape' is the only precursor for you to have the right to shoot to kill somebody?

Didn't I see that on "The Shield", a show about bent cops...

[JohnK 0]

No but an innocent man is dead because he pulled the trigger. I hope he can live with that.

I have to admit its a little weird that you can get off manslaughter charges by killing someone on someone else's say-so or by acting out of "strong emotion", but still get life for killing someone in self-defence.

Well, "innocent" is not quite true.... he was banging the guy's wife!

There is no doubt that sometimes our legal system just doesn't seem fair or just, but it's still the best system in the world IMHO. When you leave someone's fate in the hands of a group of semi-random people ####### happens. Just ask OJ.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, "innocent" is not quite true.... he was banging the guy's wife!

There is no doubt that sometimes our legal system just doesn't seem fair or just, but it's still the best system in the world IMHO. When you leave someone's fate in the hands of a group of semi-random people ####### happens. Just ask OJ.

The OJ case would seem contradict that assessment, as would the recent experience of the son of a friend of mine who had grossly excessive charges filed against him by a California District Attorney who wanted to make an example of a 17 year old kid who had a falling out with his former girlfriend.

The only way he could get out of a first degree rape charge was to marry the girl.

But certainly the guy was innocent of any crime. Does the fact that he was cuckolding give the husband the right to shoot anyway? That's the impression I'm starting to get from some people here...

Edited April 4, 2007 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

But certainly the guy was innocent of any crime. Does the fact that he was cuckolding give the husband the right to shoot anyway? That's the impression I'm starting to get from some people here...

where are you getting that idea from?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But certainly the guy was innocent of any crime. Does the fact that he was cuckolding give the husband the right to shoot anyway? That's the impression I'm starting to get from some people here...

where are you getting that idea from?

Luckystrike and JohnK have hinted as much - that the guy doesn't deserve sympathy because he was involved with a married woman, and even discounting the the "extenuating circumstance", should have expected to receive some sort of violent "retribution" on the part of the husband.

[Caladan 19]

I'm less worried by the tough-boy rhetoric and more worried that it seems to suggest strongly that having sex with someone else's wife is a property violation.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

But certainly the guy was innocent of any crime. Does the fact that he was cuckolding give the husband the right to shoot anyway? That's the impression I'm starting to get from some people here...

where are you getting that idea from?

Luckystrike and JohnK have hinted as much - that the guy doesn't deserve sympathy because he was involved with a married woman, and even discounting the the "extenuating circumstance", should have expected to receive some sort of violent "retribution" on the part of the husband.

perhaps you are reading into that what you wish to read.......

it still comes down to what the wife told him and he acted upon that false information fed to him.

I'm less worried by the tough-boy rhetoric and more worried that it seems to suggest strongly that having sex with someone else's wife is a property violation.

in some countries, yes. this isn't one of those countries.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

perhaps you are reading into that what you wish to read.......

it still comes down to what the wife told him and he acted upon that false information fed to him.

Interpretation is kind of like that.... That said when a claim is made that the guy who had committed a moral-sin (not a legally indictable) isn't deserving of any sympathy after being shot dead, it goes a little beyond the original "extenuating circumstance", in my view.

The man is dead, after all. Regardless of who said or did what - he didn't deserve to die.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

perhaps you are reading into that what you wish to read.......

it still comes down to what the wife told him and he acted upon that false information fed to him.

Interpretation is kind of like that.... That said when a claim is made that the guy who had committed a moral-sin (not a legally indictable) isn't deserving of any sympathy after being shot dead, it goes a little beyond the original "extenuating circumstance", in my view.

The man is dead, after all. Regardless of who said or did what - he didn't deserve to die.

i don't quite see that, but perhaps you do. my stance is the shooter was justified given the information at the time in the heat of the moment. the wife deserves the full extent of the law for falsifying the events.

and the guy could have just said he was banging the wife, just delivering a package

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

perhaps you are reading into that what you wish to read.......

it still comes down to what the wife told him and he acted upon that false information fed to him.

Interpretation is kind of like that.... That said when a claim is made that the guy who had committed a moral-sin (not a legally indictable) isn't deserving of any sympathy after being shot dead, it goes a little beyond the original "extenuating circumstance", in my view.

The man is dead, after all. Regardless of who said or did what - he didn't deserve to die.

i don't quite see that, but perhaps you do. my stance is the shooter was justified given the information at the time in the heat of the moment. the wife deserves the full extent of the law for falsifying the events.

and the guy could have just said he was banging the wife, just delivering a package

Sure, but the result of that decision is that a man is dead who had committed no crime. There is a case (in my view) for manslaughter against the wife, and a (lesser) manslaughter charge against the husband. Whether or not he thought he was justified, you shouldn't be able to kill someone without some sort of legal consequence.

[JohnK 0]

The man is dead, after all. Regardless of who said or did what - he didn't deserve to die.

I never said anything about the man deserving to die. My only opinion is that the man doesn't deserve to be punished, the wife does. My point of view comes from knowing that if I came home to find a guy having sex with my wife and she screamed that she was being raped you can bet that in order to protect her I'd pump him full of bullets first and ask questions later.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Sure, but the result of that decision is that a man is dead who had committed no crime.

That would depend on whether you see adultery as a crime.

Edited April 4, 2007 by CherryXS