Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Gunny, May 3, 2008.
Sometimes they get it right.
It seems rare, but sometimes they do get it right.
not so fast, gonadulites. You know damn well there is a man to blame here.
Yeah. Seems like someone was in the wrong house with his pants down.
"In late 2006, Darrell Roberson came home from a late-night card game to find his scantily clad wife with another man in a pickup truck in the driveway. Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle was driving off, killing him.
Darrell Roberson initially was arrested, but the murder charge later was dropped and a grand jury indicted Tracy Roberson instead."
I'd like to know how a guy who shoots another unarmed guy in the back gets a murder charge dropped? Was he allowed to walk away scot-free. Are crimes of passion still considered legitimately justified in Texas?
Being the relativist, I think that all three have a measure of guilt or unethical conduct at the very least. Who was morally more wrong or legally guilty is debatable.
I don't think passion was the angle; protection was. If she cried "rape," hubby might have thought that he was saving his wife by shooting the attacker. Most states probably allow the use of deadly force to stop a rape, is my guess. So, when she turns up a liar, her criminal culpability passes through him.
The defense you're probably thinking of is when a spouse catches the other in flagrante delicto with a paramour.
Saving the wife, as the "attacker" was driving off? Self defense is imminent, not when the "attacker" is fleeting.
Separate names with a comma.