Woman Who Falsely Cried Rape Convicted of Manslaughter

[Gunny]

Saturday, May 3, 2008
Associated Press

FORT WORTH, Texas — An Arlington woman who caused her lover's shooting death by falsely crying rape was found guilty Friday of involuntary manslaughter.

Tracy Denise Roberson, 37, cried slightly when the verdict was announced after jurors had deliberated for more than a day. The punishment phase was set for Monday, and she faces two to 20 years in prison.

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.

more ... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354049,00.html

Sometimes they get it right.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Good!

 

[cbi0090]

It seems rare, but sometimes they do get it right.

 

[Gungnir]

 

[Shogun]

not so fast, gonadulites. You know damn well there is a man to blame here.

 

[Gunny]

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.

 

[Anguille]

Sometimes they get it right.

"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?

 

[mattskramer]

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.

 

[William Joyce]

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?

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.

 

[Larkinn]

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.

Saving the wife, as the "attacker" was driving off? Self defense is imminent, not when the "attacker" is fleeting.

 

[Anguille]

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.

The victim was fleeing the scene. The killer wasn't shooting to protect, he was shot because he had just had sex with the shooter's wife. Although the killer may have believed his wife was raped rather than had been a willing participant, I still think a crime of passion argument was what may have convinced the DA to drop the murder charges.

The victim "took something' from the husband and the husband shot him in the back. And now the woman is the one convicted of manslaughter!! Something is very wrong with this picture.

 

[BrianH]

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to let a rapist get away. If my wife cried rape and the guy started running, he's problaby get a bullet from me also. Too bad she lied though.

 

[Anguille]

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to let a rapist get away. If my wife cried rape and the guy started running, he's problaby get a bullet from me also. Too bad she lied though.

Would you have shot to kill or would you have shot out his tires and held him till the police arrived?

Do you think the husband did or did not commit murder when he shot the victim in the back?

I think the wife bears some responsibility for what happened but ultimately the husband is the one who fired the shot that killed the man. There was no self defense argument to be made.

I can understand the extreme emotions the husband may have been feeling at the time. Certainly, this is not premeditated murder but it is murder just the same. He killed for revenge.

 

[Dogger]

This episode proves the tragedy of gun laws that allow ready access to firearms by people with low impulse control. The husband was coming home from a card game; why was he armed? Without quick access to the gun, the police get called, and matters are sorted out without killing anyone.

As to the husband's guilt, it may be manslaughter but it isn't murder. It might be excused either as temporary insanity, or an attempt to apprehend a fleeing felon. Perhaps the prosecutor simply declined to charge the husband because he knows a jury wouldn't convict. This is Texas, where Joe Horn doesn't get charged after killing two men with a shotgun for burglarizing his neighbor's home, even though he was in no danger until he confronted them.

 

[cbi0090]

"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?

In most other countries they are!

 

[cbi0090]

Would you have shot to kill or would you have shot out his tires and held him till the police arrived?

Do you think the husband did or did not commit murder when he shot the victim in the back?

I think the wife bears some responsibility for what happened but ultimately the husband is the one who fired the shot that killed the man. There was no self defense argument to be made.

I can understand the extreme emotions the husband may have been feeling at the time. Certainly, this is not premeditated murder but it is murder just the same. He killed for revenge.

No. First of all he comes home to his wife crying rape and a man in his house. A person capable of breaking into a someone's home with the intent of assaulting and raping someone is not your usual Joe. That's a mad dog. There isn't a better way to explain someone like that but that is a very dangerous person and taking one out of society is not a bad thing. Quite frankly, there are not too many of us who have met someone like this in person but if you every did, you'd know exactly what I mean. There is only the facade of humanity there.

Now, it turns out, he's not that kind of person, just someone out looking for a good time with someone else's wife. That's an idiot. But, unfortunately, her husband didn't know that and she was selfish and stupid enough to label the guy as something far different and should be blamed.

 

[Larkinn]

No. First of all he comes home to his wife crying rape and a man in his house. A person capable of breaking into a someone's home with the intent of assaulting and raping someone is not your usual Joe. That's a mad dog. There isn't a better way to explain someone like that but that is a very dangerous person and taking one out of society is not a bad thing. Quite frankly, there are not too many of us who have met someone like this in person but if you every did, you'd know exactly what I mean. There is only the facade of humanity there.

The problem with this is that vigilante justice doesn't work so well. Such as in this case.

Now, it turns out, he's not that kind of person, just someone out looking for a good time with someone else's wife. That's an idiot. But, unfortunately, her husband didn't know that and she was selfish and stupid enough to label the guy as something far different and should be blamed.

Which, again, is why you don't go out killing people for revenge. We have a justice system for that. You decide to go vigilante, and you can take your lumps when the justice system prosecutes you, as it should have in this case.

 

[Anguille]

This episode proves the tragedy of gun laws that allow ready access to firearms by people with low impulse control. The husband was coming home from a card game; why was he armed? Without quick access to the gun, the police get called, and matters are sorted out without killing anyone.

As to the husband's guilt, it may be manslaughter but it isn't murder. It might be excused either as temporary insanity, or an attempt to apprehend a fleeing felon. Perhaps the prosecutor simply declined to charge the husband because he knows a jury wouldn't convict. This is Texas, where Joe Horn doesn't get charged after killing two men with a shotgun for burglarizing his neighbor's home, even though he was in no danger until he confronted them.

"This episode proves the tragedy of gun laws that allow ready access to firearms by people with low impulse control" Indeed it does!

I think the husband meant to kill the guy when he shot him thus he should have been charged with murder. I would guess you are probably correct that the DA declined to charge the guy knowing how juries in Texas tend to view things. What a shame he wasn't even charged with voluntary manslaughter. It seems to send the message that anyone who thinks his wife has been raped is free to go shoot the person he he thinks was a rapist.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Saving the wife, as the "attacker" was driving off? Self defense is imminent, not when the "attacker" is fleeting.

Stopping a fleeing attacker in a lot of places is also completely legal. I would suggest it must be so in Texas as well.

 

[Anguille]

cbi0090
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anguille View Post
"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?

In most other countries they are!

Reply With Quote

Specifically what countries are you referring to? In doing a little research I found that the crime of passion defense is no longer permissible in England, France or Italy.