March 31, 2007

Woman Caught Cheating On Husband, Who Kills Her Lover; Woman Charged With Manslaughter, Husband Not Charged
— Ace

Reason? She induced her husband to commit, in his mind, justifiable homicide. Upon being caught, she yelled rape.

Darrell Roberson came home from a card game late one night to find his wife rolling around with another man in a pickup 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.

On Thursday, a grand jury handed up a manslaughter indictment — against the wife, not the husband.

In a case likely to reinforce the state's reputation for don't-mess-with-Texas justice, the grand jury declined to charge the husband with murder, the charge on which he was arrested by police.

...

Tracy Roberson, 35, could get two to 20 years in prison in the slaying of Devin LaSalle, a 32-year-old UPS employee.

Assistant District Attorney Sean Colston declined to comment on specifics of the case or the grand jury proceedings but said Texas law allows a defendant to claim justification if he has "a reasonable belief that his actions are necessary, even though what they believe at the time turns out not to be true."

Thanks to dri.

Posted by: Ace at 08:16 AM | Comments (100)
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

1 That sounds about right, although in the northeast, he'd be toast.

Posted by: skh.pcola at March 31, 2007 08:22 AM (yTtfL)

2 What about the one where the guy called 911 to tell about an intruder and then 10 minutes later sound up shooting the guy, who was his wife's lover-boy?

Posted by: mbruce at March 31, 2007 08:24 AM (LLCm9)

3

hmm.


 


bad woman.


 


I think the law here may handle her properly.


I wonder how the husband will live with the knowledge that he thought he was defending his wife, and wound up killing a man for her perfidy.


 


Perfidy.  Did I use that correctly?


Anyway, I don't envy Mr. bad woman.


Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 31, 2007 08:24 AM (W5xJB)

4 Call me a big pussy, but no matter what the guy thought at the time, shooting the other guy dead wasn't justifiable. At least not in just about any other jurisdiction in the country. The fact that the victim was innocent illustrates why. This guy should have been charged with second-degree murder, or at least manslaughter.

Posted by: CraigC at March 31, 2007 08:42 AM (Zr9D+)

5 Craig, you are a big pussy.

Posted by: Kevin at March 31, 2007 08:45 AM (/ndDU)

6 Craig,
should he have politely asked the rapist (as he was led to believe) to pull it out and get off his wife?

Posted by: Tushar D at March 31, 2007 08:52 AM (9ULFg)

7 DIT, you use the word "Perfidy" correctly.  You will also often encounter this word in sentences concerning the loyalty of Democrat politicians.

Posted by: sherlock at March 31, 2007 08:53 AM (gparP)

8 Evil woman.

Posted by: someone at March 31, 2007 08:56 AM (I/t4f)

9

Somehow i don't see this guy taking out a second mortgage for his wife's defense costs.


 


CraigH


Posted by: craig henry at March 31, 2007 08:56 AM (rsH2+)

10

Craig C.:


You're more than a big pussy, you're a coward.  Upon hearing his wife cry "rape" I suppose he should have suggested counseling to the alleged perp.  If my wife cried rape the assailant would be lucky to receive a quick head shot.  I would have figured out a way for him to linger in agony for a long while. 


Posted by: Fierce Scorpion at March 31, 2007 08:57 AM (CdPfY)

11 I would consider that an insult!

Please don't hurt me.

Posted by: Big Pussy at March 31, 2007 09:07 AM (Edr+m)

12 A rather wealthy man came home early from a business trip.  He stepped through the door  and loudly asked the housekeeper,  "Where is my best friend and severest critic?" The housekeeper replied, "Well, your wife is upstairs in her bed, and your best friend just jumped out the window."
 

Posted by: jbinnout at March 31, 2007 09:08 AM (/5PSc)

13

Is it a little early to ask if the ACLU will advise on the civil suit which will follow in the Texas criminal courts?, seemed to work in the OJ case, and others in the near past, got to love a legal system that will set you free on one hand, and fry your ass for profit on the other. What is a poor Texas lawyer to do, its a dubble tap which pays the bills while waiting for the Judgeship, or the Governership. Might ""Loser Pays" in civil court, clear the court for more pressing matters, ie, should a man paying support to his X wife have to continue to pay after she has a sex change to be a man?, and must he pay half  of the medical bills,. to pull his weight for the kids sake ?. Would the kids be required to send two Fathers day cards, by law, and if they skipMothers Day would they face jail time in Juv. court?. Fla courts seem to think so. Must be my warped mind trying to recover from the "Goats balls painted orange in farmers barn",police conducting further investigation, post I read a few days ago.


Posted by: The Great Satans Sr, Intern at March 31, 2007 09:22 AM (ORiVn)

14 I can't see why the husband should be charged with anything. If I were being raped and my husband walked in, I would hope he would kill (or maim or whatever) the rapist. I think that would be considered a reasonable action by lots of people.

The wife is definitely the one at fault here. Good for the grand jury.

Posted by: meep at March 31, 2007 09:34 AM (UJPBc)

15 should he have politely asked the rapist (as he was led to believe) to pull it out and get off his wife?



Well, presumably the guy already was off her.  After all, a
non-rapist is certainly not gonna just keep on having sex after being
walked in on by an angry husband.



I wasn't there, so I can't judge, but ideally the husband should have
held him at gunpoint until the police arrived.  In any case, it's
ultimately the woman's fault.  She really threw her lover under
the bus.



This is why I always wear a bullet proof vest when I sleep with Texans.  You can never be too careful.


Posted by: sandy burger at March 31, 2007 09:36 AM (z5gup)

16

No other jurisdiction would allow this?


New York Consolidated Laws 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person:


2.  A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:


(b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or
attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or
robbery


New Hampshire  627:4 Physical Force in Defense of a Person:


  II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person: 
            (c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense;


 III. A person is not justified in using deadly force on another to defend himself or a third person from deadly force by the other if he knows that he and the third person can, with complete safety:
       (a) Retreat from the encounter, except that he is not required to retreat if he is within his dwelling or its curtilage and was not the initial aggressor; or


(The husband was in his driveway, which would be part of the curtilage of his house under traditioanl common law, so he would not be required to retreat even if he and his cheatin' wife could retreat in complete safety.)


So, even in enlightened, bluer jurisdictions, the husband's behavior would be considered justified under the law. 


The real question is how long until Law & Order rips this from the headlines but completely changes the facts?



 


 


Posted by: Other jurisdictions at March 31, 2007 09:38 AM (I/h9P)

17 You just know Craig C is some sensitive pansy-assed northeast liberal.  Probably hates Nascar and the NFL, too.

Posted by: Red Dog at March 31, 2007 09:57 AM (86S3r)

18 Women.  Can't live with them.  Can off their lovers.  Texas is wonderful.

Posted by: Capt. Cameltoe at March 31, 2007 10:05 AM (Wy3T0)

19

Something doesn't smell exactly right here. I would think if he witnessed any actual action between the two, before they noticed he was there, it would've been obvious this was consentual sex. They're in the driveway, so maybe they see him drive up and stop, but the story doesn't make it sound like that's the case. Why did he come home early from that card game?


Also: 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, so was she already out of the truck?


Anyway, Sandy Burger: This is why I always wear a bullet proof vest when I sleep with Texans. How do you breathe with that thing wrapped around your head like that?


Posted by: Frankly at March 31, 2007 10:07 AM (Q8tsb)

20 Wait a minute - they were screwing in the driveway? Where? On the blacktop? In the back of his truck?

And did this guy just pull up and get invited in for a "cup of coffee?" Or was this a long-term affair, enabled by daily orders from amazon?

Texas is even weirder than I thought.

Posted by: Brown Line at March 31, 2007 10:09 AM (mnTqB)

21 I love Texas.

Posted by: corn at March 31, 2007 10:34 AM (yHvEo)

22 >>>Call me a big pussy, but no matter what the guy thought at the time,
shooting the other guy dead wasn't justifiable. At least not in just
about any other jurisdiction in the country. The fact that the victim
was innocent illustrates why. This guy should have been charged with
second-degree murder, or at least manslaughter.

That's not the law, and not just in Texas.  You are permitted to use deadly force to repel deadly force as well as some other serious crimes (home invasion, an attack that may seriously wound an innocent, and I think rape qualifies).  It's the law in just about every jurisdiction that your *belief* as to the situation is what holds, not the reality.  If someone is "threatening" someone with a fake gun, and you plug him, you'll get off on justifiable homicide, so long as you really believed that you were acting lawfully (stopping a murder) and your belief was "reasonable." 

I guess there's a question of whether or not this guy gave the "rapist" time enough to stop "raping" the woman, but I don't think you're required to "give challenge" or the like.  You're allowed to fire at will when you come across a situation in which life can be protected by use of deadly force (again, not sure rape is included there, but serious crimes tend to be).

But the law also says you can't just kill someone when they're no longer a threat.  So if, as seems likely, the guy stopped "raping" the woman and got off of her and began backpedalling away while trying to explain it wasn't a rape, the law says you can't shoot him; the threat is over, and so is your right to shoot him. 

The grand jury would seem to have overlooked that part, or not believed the wife when she claimed (as she most likely did) that that's what happened. 

The law is kind of an ass on that last point.  Logically it makes sense that you can't fire when the threat has ended -- when a home invader is, say, fleeing from your home after you've drawn on him -- but human nature is tends to violence once aroused to that point, and it's sort of unrealistic to expect that a guy whose adrenaline is flowing and whose lizardbrain is cooking can suddenly turn off that in a second or less just because a dude who HAD been a serious threat (and loathesome thug to boot) a split second ago is now beginning to run for his life.

Bernie Goetz got sued for plugging an injured, downed mugger a second time ("How about another one?" I think he said as he pugged the guy) and the tried to convict him on that score.  At least one guy he shot was fairly clearly, to a mind working logically and not emotionally, no longer a threat when he shot him again (crippling him, I think or so it is alleged that that fresh shot did the crippling). 

That seems like sound logic and all, but do people really switch off the kill instinct that quickly?

I guess the law has to pretend they do, otherwise we get into debates as to how long, exactly, you have to kill someone even after their threat is ended (five minutes?  Ten?  Twenty minutes of chasing a fleeing home invader down the street?), but juries often ignore that based on common sense.



Posted by: ace at March 31, 2007 10:37 AM (+u1X0)

23

Absolutely justifiable and they made the right decision.


Some states have even removed the 'safe retreat' clause allowing you to stand your ground and use deadly force even when you COULD run away.


Because, come on. Run away? If someone is stealing your shit, run away? If someone is trying to assault you, run away???


Yah right. What kind of pacifist shit is that? I have rights, and I am within my right to defend my rights from being violated.


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 10:39 AM (Uh5fR)

24 Assistant District Attorney Sean Colston declined to comment on specifics of the case or the grand jury proceedings but said Texas law allows a defendant to claim justification if he has "a reasonable belief that his actions are necessary, even though what they believe at the time turns out not to be true."


Leftists, be careful supporting this position...

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 31, 2007 10:48 AM (wmgz8)

25 At least not in just about any other jurisdiction in the country.

In the whole state of Florida, shooting a perp to halt a forcible felony in progress is perfectly acceptable.

I suggest you study more firearms and state statutes

Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 31, 2007 10:59 AM (yikpN)

26 If the dumb bastard could not afford a motel room, or the "Lady" could not agree to screw in HIS driveway, I think the little head was telling the big head what, and where, to do the deed, sounds like a winner in the redneck hall of shame. Never rule out gun play when the pick up truck is rocking in the driveway when the old man pulls up to tell the little woman he won enought money playing cards to pay for the boob job. Was this street drama played out in daylight?, if so, at least the the crew in the hood got a magic moment to view the passing of the local cock monster. I guess the police get to keep the gun, and had to find someone else to brighten up the 3rd shift. Thats a dirty rotten shame. Good Nuckey gone bad!!.

Posted by: The Great Satans Sr, Intern at March 31, 2007 11:23 AM (ORiVn)

27 At least not in just about any other jurisdiction in the country.

And you would be wrong.  At least in Pennsylvania.
§ 506. Use of force for the protection of other persons.

(a) General rule.--The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:



the actor would be justified under section 505 of this title
(relating to use of force in self-protection) in using such force to
protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the
person whom he seeks to protect;
under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be,
the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such
protective force; and
the actor believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.Short version:  At least in PA, the use of force upon another person to protect that person is legal, and using a firearm to stop a violent felony (which rape is), is completely justified.

Posted by: Xoxotl at March 31, 2007 11:29 AM (F/ysA)

28 Wow, that reply by me got mangled.

Posted by: Xoxotl at March 31, 2007 11:30 AM (F/ysA)

29 ...it's sort of unrealistic to expect that a guy whose adrenaline is
flowing and whose lizardbrain is cooking can suddenly turn off that in
a second or less...


That's what I keep saying! And, apparently, a good many people realize I have nothing except the lizardbrain.

And thanks for the plug (so to speak), ace.

(Dang Pixy and his ban-stick! I can't pimp my blog in the sig line, so I'll do it here: lizardbrain. (And double-dang the new comments thingy! Why can't I just type in the html, instead of having to mouse-click like a brain-damaged Windows user?))

Posted by: lizardbrain at March 31, 2007 11:57 AM (t3Mks)

30 pee ess:

You mind if I steal that line?

Posted by: lizardbrain at March 31, 2007 12:00 PM (t3Mks)

31

30 posts and no one has said


"What can Brown do for you"


Slack, is all I can think or too much Value Rite.


Kemp


 


 


Posted by: kempermanx at March 31, 2007 12:00 PM (+AlFt)

32 As Ace wrote above, one can normally use lethal force to stop a felony.
In Utah an attempted escape is a continuation of the felony act so a guy who ran over a fleeing felon (used a knife to steal the guy's wallet) in a van was not charged with a crime. Ran his ass over in a parking lot but there was no crime because the escape was part of the felony and in Utah you have the right to stop any felony with deadly force. Take that, Texas!

CraigC,
You're wrong.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at March 31, 2007 12:02 PM (+Juee)

33

Holy Shit, I just played Amish's video.


Honey, why are all those damn Burger King wrappers in the closet??


Kemp


Posted by: kempermanx at March 31, 2007 12:07 PM (+AlFt)

34 What if the woman testifies that her husband had told her, "If I catch you with another man, I'll shoot you dead!"  He comes home and she sees him approaching with a gun. To save her own life, she yells rape. Should a jury find her guilty of manslaughter?

Posted by: Red at March 31, 2007 12:09 PM (3gYuD)

35

victim was innocent  - CraigC


Well, tell that to the wife! The husband has no way of knowing that, eh? Hense they (properly) charged the wife in the man's death, since she put him in mortal peril by crying rape.


if...the guy stopped "raping" the woman and got off of her - Ace


Well, the article just says he tried to drive away. She probably was still inside the truck, which would make the husband's shooting even more justified! Not only rape, but kidnapping too!


As for the idea of stopping the rape without shooting, how does the husband know the "rapist" doesn't have a knife or gun (which he used to force himself on the wife, presumably) and by attempting to "scare him off" ends up getting her killed?


It's pretty clear that the husband is not guilty of anything, and the wife should go to jail for false reporting and 3nd degree murder (or wreckless endangerment.)


Of course in Canada the husband would be in jail, the wife would take half his stuff as she divorced him and "get off" scott free. (pun intended)


Posted by: 5Cats at March 31, 2007 12:10 PM (cVijR)

36

What if the woman testifies that her husband had told her, "If I catch you with another man, I'll shoot you dead - Red


Well, in that case, she's crimally STUPID for banging hey boy-toy in the home driveway, eh? Lmao!


Plus she's still responsible for getting the man killed by her direct actions, and the husband is still not 'guilty' of anything except believing & defending his (cheatin) wife.


She's also guilty of stupidity for staying with someone. However "what ifs" are generally worthless in cases like this. If I were in a boating accident, and I held some guy underwater till he drowned because I can't swim, am I innocent of murder? I was only "saving my own life"!


Posted by: 5Cats at March 31, 2007 12:19 PM (cVijR)

37 From the article:  Assistant District Attorney Sean Colston . . . said Texas law
allows a defendant to claim justification if he has "a reasonable
belief that his actions are necessary, even though what they believe at
the time turns out not to be true."

Again, what if the wife had "a reasonable belief that" yelling rape was necessary to save her own life? Does she not deserve a similar instrutction under Texas law?


Posted by: Red at March 31, 2007 12:22 PM (3gYuD)

38 Not illegal to be stupid. Otherwise, most of you would be in the clink. Also, if she is stupid for not leaving her husband, maybe he's just as stupid for sticking with her. And as to "what ifs" -- everybody else is doing it, so don't deny me the right.

Posted by: Red at March 31, 2007 12:24 PM (3gYuD)

39 If I were in a boating accident, and I held some guy underwater till he
drowned because I can't swim, am I innocent of murder? I was only
"saving my own life"!

Wouldn't you be? If it's between you drowning and me standing on your back, you're going down!

Posted by: Red at March 31, 2007 12:27 PM (3gYuD)

40

Again, what if the wife had "a reasonable belief that" yelling rape was necessary to save her own life? Does she not deserve a similar instrutction under Texas law?


COME ON


Look, she can make that argument if she likes and her lawyers can argue it. Why do so many people not understand the word "reasonable"?


She can make that argument, and the jury of her peers will decide whether or not her beleif was reasonable. Just like they decide whether or not she is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.


That does not mean ANY doubt. That does not mean that if maybe, just maybe, the whole thing was a set up perpetrated by alien invaders the person gets off. Look at Scott Peterson - They have no direct evidence he killed his wife, just evidence that suggested he was everywhere the murderer would have had to be at the time the murderer would have had to be there, plus the fact there was no evidence of anyone else, plus the fact that he acted like a guilty SOB.


Does this mean he was guitly beyond any doubt? Of course not. Lots of theories about Lacie are POSSIBLE that don't involve her husband, and his lawyer offered a few. But none of them are PLAUSIBLE. They are not reasonable. He was convicted.


This is why we have juries.


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 12:33 PM (Uh5fR)

41

And if you're in a boating accident, and you hold someone under even to save your own life, you are guilty of manslaughter.


The other dude wasn't the one who was threatening your life. The water, combined with your inability to swim was.


IF That other dude tossed you in in the first place, knowning you cannot swim, in an attempt to drown you, then you may stand on his back with impugnity.


But as it were, if the boat just went down, he is an innocent bystander. You're not allowed to go around killing people to save your own life.


You're not allowed to murder someone and take their kidney if you can't get a transplant organ and then argue you needed it to live and get off, any more then you can drown another person because you can't swim.


You can DEFEND yourself against people. You can use lethal force against your attackers.


You cannot use lethal force against bystanders because your life is threatened by circumstance.


If you're standing on the ledge of a roof and you lose your balance, you cannot grab a girlscout and toss her off a roof in order to regain your balance. That is murder. But if someone pushed you off the roof, you can grab the guy the pushed you and toss him off to regain your balance. That is defense.


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 12:40 PM (Uh5fR)

42

And if she beleived her life was threatened unless she shouted "rape" it's probably still murder, because the guy "raping" her wasn't her attacker.


If she had pulled out a gun and shot her husband when he caught her, she could make that argument.


But crying "rape" as she did was the same concept as drowning a guy to stay afloat or chucking a girlscout off a roof. He was a bystander, he was not the source of the threat.


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 12:44 PM (Uh5fR)

43 The important thing is that at least one of these bad actors died in this tragedy.

Posted by: Bart at March 31, 2007 12:48 PM (dsK4l)

44 He should have shot them both just to make sure.

Posted by: Unruly Human at March 31, 2007 01:03 PM (FahjS)

45

If you're standing on the ledge of a roof and you lose your balance, you cannot grab a girlscout and toss her off a roof in order to regain your balance.


I'd chuck a girlscout off a roof in a New York minute. Never have trusted those little fuckers. I bet she was the one that pushed him. All Holier than thou with their Thin MintsTM  and cute little outfits... kill 'em all!


Posted by: Frankly at March 31, 2007 01:07 PM (Q8tsb)

46 Take it easy, you bloodthirsty bastards. I need these types of people for my tv show.

Posted by: Jerry Springer at March 31, 2007 01:15 PM (dsK4l)

Posted by: Frankly at March 31, 2007 01:26 PM (Q8tsb)

48 Look, she can make that argument if she likes and her lawyers can argue it. Why do so many people not understand the word "reasonable"?

Oh, I understand reasonable alright. If husband says if you do X, I will shoot you. Then while you're doing X, your husband comes up to you with a gun, is it reasonable to believe that he will shoot you? Yes. It is also possible that she didn't believe that her husband would shoot either her or her husband and she yelled rape just not to be caught in an embarassing position? Yes.

And if you're in a boating accident, and you hold someone under even to save your own life, you are guilty of manslaughter.

So, if we are in a boating accident and there is only one lifejacket, is it okay for me to take it away from you? I think so. Survival of the fitest, pal. Just because you got to it first doesn't mean you get to live and I get to drown. 

You cannot use lethal force against bystanders because your life is threatened by circumstance.

Sure you can. Not in all states, but I believe in some duress is still a defense to murder. Anyway, yelling rape is not using lethal force. Her husband used lethal force.

Posted by: Red at March 31, 2007 01:42 PM (3gYuD)

49

Wow, that was one of the worst written stories I've ever seen published by a news source.


My favorite part:


This notorious section of North Ridgewood Avenue has a reputation marred by drugs and prostitution. But, for the kids, it's a place to ride bikes and fish in the nearby river, parents say.


There really are two Americas -- right on the same street!


These parents are shitheads. All of them.


Posted by: Bart at March 31, 2007 01:46 PM (dsK4l)

50

Red, at this point what are you even arguing?


You think that what, the man should have went to jail? Or the woman shouldn't have? Or both?


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 01:50 PM (Uh5fR)

51 Texas Penal Code Chapter 9:

Deadly force is justified:

to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Link

I really love this state.


Posted by: ArmedGeek at March 31, 2007 01:55 PM (vjHOi)

52 I'm arguing that it is not as cut and dried as everyone assumes.

Posted by: Red at March 31, 2007 02:01 PM (3gYuD)

53 If i have have liver disease and and need a transplant is it ok for me
to kill my brother and take his in order to save my own life?

You have the option of getting on a waiting list. If one is not available in time, we'll miss you.  But, that's not the example I gave. Are  you telling me that if there is only one lifejacket, you would punish the person who took it and let the other person drown? There is no way they would be charged under the law.

Im pretty sure that killing an innocent just to save your own hide makes you a murderer, Red.

In some states duress is a defense to murder, in other states it is not and cannot even mitigate murder. 

Posted by: Red at March 31, 2007 02:08 PM (3gYuD)

54 Okay, let's say you are a woman. You come home and find your husband tied to a bed and a woman on top of him having sex with him. He looks at you, yells rape, you whip out your glock and put a couple of caps in her head. Different charges?

Posted by: Red at March 31, 2007 02:10 PM (3gYuD)

55

The woman is not in jail because she killed the man, or because she killed the man to save her life.


She is in jail because she induced someone to commit a crime. Period.


This is against the law. Whether or not she felt like her life was in danger does not matter when you do this.


You are allowed to use force against your attacker if your life is in danger. Not against other people. If she felt her life was in danger, that does not give her the right to kill the other guy.


Now she didn't kill the other guy, and she didn't get convicted of that either. She induced her husband to kill him. That is a crime.


I'm not even sure what the hell Red is trying to argue anymore.


Is the self defense defence a justifiable reason to induce a crime, which is what red is suggesting??? I have no idea, but it doesn't matter, because even if it _IS_, the justification would be aimed at your attacker, not at a 3rd party, not at a passerby, so she's STILL boned by the law. That is what I am trying to say.


What is Red saying? Is he saying he thinks inducement to murder shouldn't be a crime? Is he saying he thinks there should be justifiable inducement? Is he saying he thinks justification should extend willy nilly to anyone, so that if your life is in danger you have carte blanche to just start offing people? Because he seems to think that's the way it is, and he also seems to be saying it should apply to inducing people to murder as well.


I don't know what the hell his point is.


Maybe he's just trying to illustrate why he beleives no use of force is justified at all, by trying to provide examples where it wouldn't work well. If he is, he's sucking at it. Very badly.


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 02:11 PM (Uh5fR)

56 why do some people have such a hard time with the concept of DEFENSE ?

Posted by: ArmedGeek at March 31, 2007 02:12 PM (vjHOi)

57 This is basically a "good faith" idea extended to felony: you were acting on the best information you had with genuine intent to do what is right in the situation. The fact that, for example, the information you had turned out to be not entirely accurate or at least only partially accurate does not make your initial effort or intent any more wrong or mistaken.


You could even extend this to matters of state, if you were going to be consistent.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 31, 2007 02:13 PM (wmgz8)

58

Are  you telling me that if there is only one lifejacket, you would punish the person who took it and let the other person drown? There is no way they would be charged under the law.


If the person jacked somebody in the face and took their life jacket, yes. There may be a crime there. There's certainly an assault and perhaps some form of murder.


If a person just happens to pick it up first and simply has the only life jacket, then no. You're not killing anyone. Circumstances are. You're not legally required to forfeit your life for the benefit of others.


That DOESNT MEAN you're allowed to forfeit other's life for your own. You can only do that _IF_ they are the one endangering your life in the first place.


Survival of the fittest has shit to do with it. Our legal system does not operate on the principle of survival of the fittest, nor even recognize it. 'Survival of the fittest' is not a legal argument. That doesn't justify a goddamn thing.


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 02:15 PM (Uh5fR)

59

In some states duress is a defense to murder,


I am not familiar with the state of Some.


Was it added recently? Can you provide ANY example of a guy being allowed by a court to INTENTIONALLY kill someone who he didn't even BELEIVE to be threatening him in order to save his life?


I don't think so.


in other states it is not and cannot even mitigate murder. 


Is Other next to some Some? What state does not recognize the right to use force as self defense?


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 02:18 PM (Uh5fR)

60 "You could even extend this to matters of state, if you were going to be consistent."

In a world inhabited by sane people....

Posted by: Unruly Human at March 31, 2007 02:18 PM (FahjS)

61

Okay, let's say you are a woman. You come home and find your husband tied to a bed and a woman on top of him having sex with him. He looks at you, yells rape, you whip out your glock and put a couple of caps in her head. Different charges?


Look if you hear screaming, run in, see someone tied up and another violating them, beleive it's a rape, and shoot them, and it turns out to be BSDM, no crime has been commited. No one goes to jail.


If  you hear someone screaming, run in, see someone tied up and another violating them, and the person who is tied up says to you "OH MY GOD HELP ME HE'S RAPING ME" and you shoot them, the tied up person will go to jail because that is illegal.


Now different states may differ on whether or not another person being violently raped justifies homicide (but they all recognize SOME form of justification). And different states might differ on whether or not inducement to commit a crime is itself a crime, but I highly doubt it, and it is a good and just law.


That is the way it is.


If you don't beleive me, provide some evidence to the contrary or I'll be forced to conclude you're just being obtuse.


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 02:23 PM (Uh5fR)

62 Entrophy:  Don't put fucking words in my mouth. If you don't understand simple english, that's your problem.  As to what states still allow duress as a defense/mitigation to murder, google it yourself, pal.



Posted by: Red at March 31, 2007 02:29 PM (3gYuD)

63 Lets say the two people take a trip on a boat. There is one and only
one jacket on board. The boat starts to sink. Whoever gets to that
jacket first is the rightful owner in my opinion. If  the other person
takes the jacket away from them, causing them to die, then they are a
murderer in my opinion.

What if it is my jacket and you get to it first? If you refuse to take it off and give it to me knowing that if you do you will drown, you think the state would charge you with murder? 

Posted by: Red at March 31, 2007 02:34 PM (3gYuD)

64

As to what states still allow duress as a defense/mitigation to murder, google it yourself, pal.


My position is that ALL states allow self defense to justify murder in at least SOME situations.


Google it myself? Because it's going to be easier for me to look up EVERY fucking state to see each one to find out I'm write and prove a negative then it would be for you to actually just give me the ONE you claim exists?


OK Dude. I'll fucking do it. I'll be back in hour or so.


And you will fucking eat it now. I'm gonna rub it in if I gotta look for it.


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 02:35 PM (Uh5fR)

65 Reminds me of a joke.

Guy's at work, picks up the phone and dials his home number.  After a couple of rings, a child picks up the phone.

Man: "Hey there sport.  Is Mom around?"
Child: "Oh, hey Dad.  Mom's upstairs with her, uh, friend."
Man: "Who?!?"
Child: "That man that she has been friends with.  They're in the bedroom, and the door is closed.  I think I hear giggling."
Man: "..."
Man: "Okay, this is what I want you to do.  Pound on the door and say that I just walked into the house and that I have a gun."
Child: "Okay Dad.  I'll be right back."
(a couple of minutes pass and the man hears loud screaming)
Child: "Mom's friend must have been taking a bath or something, because he ran out with only his underwear on."
Man: "Really?  Where did he go?"
Child: "Well, Mom's crying now.  The man try to climb out of the back window onto the roof, but slipped and fell onto the tennis court.  Uh, he's not moving.  I think he's bleeding real bad."
Man: "The tennis court?!?"
Child: "Yup."
Man: "What tennis court?  Heh, is this 555-1234?"

Posted by: Xoxotl at March 31, 2007 02:41 PM (F/ysA)

66 My position is that ALL states allow self defense to justify murder in at least SOME situations.

I never denied that, shithead. I'm not talking about self-defense. I'm talking about the defense of duress. Those are two entirely different defenses. But, just to toy with you, look up imperfect self-defense, which is not the same as self-defense and which is also not recognized in all states.

This was a friendly conversation. But, you had to get personal and insulting. So, go fuck yourself. I'm done with you.

Posted by: Red at March 31, 2007 02:41 PM (3gYuD)

67 That should be...

Man: "What tennis court?  Hey, is this 555-1234?"

Posted by: Xoxotl at March 31, 2007 02:43 PM (F/ysA)

68

Red, let's say I'm on an airplane. I'm flying to Miami. I order a drink from the flight attendant. She hands me the drink. Two hours later, I take a leak. On my way to the lavatory, I notice a couple of cute chicks. I smile. They smile back.


When I get to my seat, one of the cute chicks is sitting in it. She says, "Do you mind if I sit with you?"


"I'd be pleased," I answer. Luckily the other seat was unoccupied, so we are now sitting next to each other. We chat. She giggles. Then she puts her hand in my lap.


Am I justified to lean over and kiss her?


Well, am I?


 


 


Posted by: hypothetical Bart at March 31, 2007 03:05 PM (dsK4l)

69

Let's say that I'm on a ferris wheel at the carnival. I notice my wife blowing a carnie behind the bumper cars. In a fit of rage, I jump off the Ferris Wheel to go confront them. I land on my head and break my neck.


Should my wife be charged with murder? Manslaughter, perhaps?


 


Posted by: hypothetical Bart at March 31, 2007 03:10 PM (dsK4l)

70

I never denied that, shithead. I'm not talking about self-defense. I'm talking about the defense of duress.


Thanks for making that clear 30 posts later.  You start off saying "what if this/what if that", objecting to everyone's posts with hypotheticals don't apply, and now we find out you're trying to say that it is not a clear cut issue whether or not an inducement to murder might be justified by duress.


In that matter, yah, I beleive you. I have no idea if duress would have been a justification. That doesn't have shit to do with anything though, because that hasn't been claimed and it seems unlikely to even be tried.


This was a friendly conversation. But, you had to get personal and insulting. So, go fuck yourself.


I said..


If you don't beleive me, provide some evidence to the contrary or I'll be forced to conclude you're just being obtuse.


Yeah I'm a total dick. I said that I would call you obtuse if you're not willing to provide any example.


I might as well have called your mother a whore.


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 03:11 PM (Uh5fR)

71 The important thing to remember is that I'm the one you should all hate.

Posted by: Ann Coulter at March 31, 2007 03:16 PM (dsK4l)

72 Not to be a complete pedant dick, but I think there's some confusion in this thread with the defense of DURESS and that of NECESSITY.

If someone cares to look around, Duress is detailed, in Arizona anyway, under ARS 13-412.  Necessity under 13-417.  I think they're the same definitions used in a lot of states cause they imported it from some model code.

Posted by: Ray Midge at March 31, 2007 03:17 PM (rH3Ei)

73

Robert Zemeckis is making Beowulf.


Crispin Glover is Grendel.


Angelina Jolie is Grendel's mother.


Why do they put this woman in films?


Posted by: Ann Coulter at March 31, 2007 03:40 PM (dsK4l)

74 Thanks for making that clear 30 posts later.  

It was never unclear to anyone but you, dumbass. You were so focused in making shit up and attributing it to me instead of reading my actual words which were clear as a bell.

You start off saying "what if this/what if that", objecting to everyone's posts with hypotheticals don't apply, and now we find out you're trying to say that it is not a clear cut issue whether or not an inducement to murder might be justified by duress.    

How do you know it won't apply? All along I said neither I nor anyone else knows all the facts at this time. I also stated I do not know whether that defense is accepted in Texas. It's pretty obvious to anyone but the very dense (you) that I would not be throwing out hypothetical if I thought it was clear cut. And I wasn't objecting to anything, soupuss, just trying to have a discussion.  What are you? A fucking control freak? Have to dictate what everone can and cannot discuss?

In that matter, yah, I beleive you. I have no idea if duress would have been a justification. That doesn't have shit to do with anything though, because that hasn't been claimed and it seems unlikely to even be tried.

Again, how do you know? Are you her defense attorney? Have your reviewed the police reports? Spoken to her? Spoken to witnesses? Researched the law? You have no idea what her defense is. The only thing you have read is that she told her husband she was raped. You don't even know if she admitted this or if it is based on her husband's statement to the police alone.

I said..

If you don't beleive me, provide some evidence to the contrary or I'll be forced to conclude you're just being obtuse.

You said a lot of shit and were acting like a jackass long before you posted that sentence demanding I produce proof of something I never said and told you I never said repeatedly.  

I might as well have called your mother a whore.

Go ahead. It's apparantly the best you can do in a debate or any discussion where someone doesn't kiss your ass. 

Posted by: Red at March 31, 2007 03:48 PM (3gYuD)

75 What if she had the best ta-ta's ever?

Posted by: Ricky Bobby at March 31, 2007 04:10 PM (dsK4l)

76

You said a lot of shit and were acting like a jackass long before you posted that sentence demanding I produce proof of something I never said and told you I never said repeatedly.  


You did not tell me that repeatedly. You mostly just provided lots of hypothetical examples without telling anyone anything.


And if by "alot of shit" you mean a lot of stuff, then yes, yes I did. And "jackass", of course, is subjective.


I took no personal shots at you apart from saying if you couldn't produce examples I would conclude you were being obtuse with your infinite hypothetical objections to my claiming self defense doesn't cover killing 3rd parties (and it still doesn't).


Not until after you blew your shitstack and told me to fuck off did you bother to explain yourself properly.


Go ahead. It's apparantly the best you can do in a debate or any discussion where someone doesn't kiss your ass. 


If by "kiss your ass" you mean provide clear arguments and examples, then yes, it is probably the best I can do.


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 04:18 PM (Uh5fR)

77

Again, how do you know? Are you her defense attorney? Have your reviewed the police reports?


I know she's also being charged with filing a false police report because she told the cops the guy raped her as well.


And I know that after the fact she did not leave the guy or seek police protection from him. Think a jury is gonna buy duress? I don't.


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 04:22 PM (Uh5fR)

78

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?  The dude shot the other guy dead.  He was wrong.  He now owes his life.  Biblical justice.  It's time this country got back to basics.


Woman gets offed as well.  F her.  Lying bitch.


Two shots = justice served.


Posted by: Helmet at March 31, 2007 04:47 PM (Wy3T0)

79

Look, it's rather to clear to me this whole 'argument' hinges on a misunderstanding, one that wasn't clarified until after I was frustrated and you were taking it personally.


Whatever. I'm still frustrated and you're still taking it personally.


I mentioned several times I didn't understand where you were trying to go with your examples. You weren't talking about self defence, but that is all I had ever been talking about, but you never said " I'm not talking about self-defense " until after you started cursing me out. You just gave hypotheticals that seemed to me to be objections without any explanation of what you were objecting to.


So from my point of view, you were still archaic and never clearly explained what the hell you were talking about, which was frustrating me that you kept objecting anyway.


Think whatever the hell you want. I certainly don't care.


But I was never (and am still not - I really don't care if you call me a shithead) making it personal. The only thing I ever called you was "obtuse", and even that was couched in an "if" statement and based on a misunderstanding.


I do still think you were unclear though, and make no apologies.


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 04:48 PM (Uh5fR)

80

obtuse:



Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.

Sounds about right.


Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at March 31, 2007 05:05 PM (/rgAZ)

81

What if hypotheticals didn't exist?


Posted by: Warden at March 31, 2007 05:06 PM (d/K6p)

82 ghbsgf: It might be because the phrase is usually "purposefully obtuse", as in a person that refuses to recognize basic facts because it invalidates their own arguments.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at March 31, 2007 05:15 PM (/rgAZ)

83

I'm no lawyer, but it certainly seems to me that precedent has been set: Ace's comments section is much like a Japanese game show.


(oh - very funny, Warden)


Posted by: Frankly at March 31, 2007 05:16 PM (Q8tsb)

84
We all should hold off on judging this matter until we hear what Rosie thinks about it.

She's real smart-like.

Posted by: eman at March 31, 2007 05:56 PM (FWrFx)

85 What Can Brown Do For You?

Posted by: red speck at March 31, 2007 06:06 PM (1aktJ)

86

I'm arguing that it is not as cut and dried as everyone assumes.  - Red (55)


Well, yeah, especially when you start talking about completely different subjects, or introduce ideas that aren't contained in the news item.


What we're doing is reading the link, offering our opinions based on our views & research (like some people did, linking laws and such)


What Red's doing is introducing hypotheticals, then implying that we're wrong because, well I'm not sure why. If Red's of the opinion that the woman might have a duress excuse & shouldn't be charged (or something) then fine, but don't change the subject then suggest that everyone else is wrong. If you're convinced there's more to the story (and there usually is) then get some links going.


Red don't you wonder why 5 or 6 readers have no idea what you're trying to say? What your point is? Is it that we're all stupid or that you're not being clear?


Posted by: 5Cats at March 31, 2007 06:11 PM (cVijR)

87

I would have pulled the guy off my wife and hacked his tallywhacker off at the root and handed it to him.


"Here. You dropped this."


Posted by: Barry in CO at March 31, 2007 09:20 PM (kKjaJ)

88

Texas just passed a "you don't have to try to flee" law.


Good for us.


 


I'm still conflicted on this story.  If you're not preventing a crime I don't this deadly force is justified.


Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 31, 2007 10:21 PM (W5xJB)

89 Dave,

The husband was led to believe that he was preventing a crime.

Posted by: Cybrludite at April 01, 2007 12:32 AM (8EdfY)

90

Cybrludite, I think Dave is concerned because the "rape" that he thought had happened was already finished when he shot the UPS guy. It doesn't bother me. The fleeing is part of the felony and a vehicle could be considered a dangerous weapon or he might have had a weapon inside the vehicle. Did the husband know the guy was trying to escape, or did he consider the guy might be trying to run over him with it? The fact that the DA wouldn't file charges against him indicates that he didn't think he could get a conviction against the husband.


Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at April 01, 2007 04:37 AM (/rgAZ)

91 ace: TAB had this story days ago. u shud really read TAB every day.

Posted by: reliapundit at April 01, 2007 05:39 AM (H6Lch)

92

This is why I always wear a bullet proof vest when I sleep with Texans.  You can never be too careful.


Sandy, This is not very sexy, but it is wise.


;-)


Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at April 01, 2007 05:45 AM (ZLSG3)

93

reliapundit,


What's TAB?


 


Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at April 01, 2007 05:46 AM (ZLSG3)

94

That brown fucker is lucky he got a head shot. If it were I, he would have had two .40 clips in him before you could say "Overnight Delivery". And the Mrs...she would have had some collateral damage as well.


 


Fucking brown shoed asswipes. Another reason to use Fedex.


 


 


 


Posted by: RighTurn at April 01, 2007 06:32 AM (ojH/g)

95

Like Ace said, once you make that decision to use force, you don't just flip it off. The way your brain thinks and reacts actually changes in a situation like this. You go into a more instinctive lizard mode.


He could be retreating to come back. Going to get a weapon. Planning to run him over. Going to get his buddies and come back later. You aren't thinking about any of these things, or the fact that he is fleeing either. You've allready identified him as dangerous, and now your thinking is merely...strategic, focused on how to stop him. You're reacting.


At any rate....If this was a real rape...I personally, don't really care if he hunted him down 2 weeks later and shot him dead.


Obviously that's illegal and it should be. But you wouldn't want me on the jury. For killing his wife's rapist, I'd let the dude off pretty much regaurdless of the circumstances or methods.


Posted by: Entropy at April 01, 2007 06:50 AM (Uh5fR)

96

Number of ejaculations: 3.8


Number of ejaculations after reading all these stupid fucking comments: -4995


I haven't seen this many absurd hypotheticals since the proposal was made to form Air America!!


All I would add is this: If you don't think this grand jury was fair, then you're welcome to keep your Volvo driving ass the fuck out of our state.


Posted by: Sticky B at April 01, 2007 08:11 AM (wkjFE)

97

TAB  = [The] Astute Blogger


Nice blog, lots of interesting topics and links. I'm no expert of course, lol!


(sarcasm mode = ON) Now now Entropy! We must appreciate and accept the lawfully-differentiated (criminals) and help them vis-a-vis societal interaction (committin crimes). Thus we must not shoot them (justice), but offer to go to the ATM and get more money for them to steal (appeasement). And if they're raping your wife, offer them a beer and a sammich too! Perhaps your own ass as well (non-homophobic). Thus they will be satisfied and commit less crimes (yeah right). If you thwart them they'll only go out and try again somewhere else, like a Democrat's home, and we can't have that now can we? (sarcasm = OFF)


I'm just so grumpy in the morning!


Posted by: 5Cats at April 01, 2007 08:27 AM (cVijR)

98

Hey! Wadda ya know? The Husband is Black!


Not that that makes a tiny bit of difference, eh? BUT it will prevent this from becomming a lefty 'cause celeb', because they're never going to play-up a negative story about a coloured person.


Further info at the link: she recklessly caused LaSalle's death and faces manslaughter charges because of that. She's charged too with false report to a police officer so she followed up her "rape" cry after the event as well.


It happened in the early morning hours, the couple's 7 year-old was inside the house. I guess that's why wifey was out in the truck (a Chevy, not a UPS van).


KEY FACT: husband fired four shots at the vehicle as the man tried to drive away with his wife so he was trying to stop her from being both raped and kidnapped! He was indeed trying to stop (as far as he knew) his wife's abduction at the hands of a rapist. The husband was charged with the shooting but those charges were dropped. Well good!


I found that link at Gun Watch which was linked by TAB. It's already Monday at Gun Watch blog! lol!


Posted by: 5Cats at April 01, 2007 08:48 AM (cVijR)

99 Red et al,

It's all very well and good to second-guess the guy with information that you have that he didn't at the time. Sure, now you know his wife wasn't actually being raped, but can you say with 100% certainty that he knew that at the time as well?

I'm not going to assume that he shot the lover out of jealous rage because he obviously had to know that his wife was not actually being raped. Nor am I going to assume that the wife thought her life was in danger: she was probably going off her gut instinct as well and wasn't exactly thinking her actions through. (Obviously not, if she was stupid enough to cheat on her husband)

People don't always do stupid things like she did only if they feel their lives are in danger. Many times, people do stupid things for fear of being caught and getting in trouble. I'm pretty sure her panic involved getting caught and nothing more than that.

So what happened was regrettable, but I don't see a crime on the part of the husband. Not from what's been presented in the news.

Posted by: The War Unicorn at April 02, 2007 09:29 AM (p27vn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
149kb generated in CPU 0.25, elapsed 1.431 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.2958 seconds, 335 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.