Woman Who Falsely Cried Rape Convicted of Manslaughter

[Larkinn]

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

Stopping them is legal. Stopping them by using deadly force generally isn't. Texas has very liberal gun control laws, but I highly doubt thats legal to stop a fleeing attacker by using deadly force.

 

[Anguille]

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.

Better read the article again, the victim was not in the killer's house, he was in his own truck and he was trying to get away.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"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.

Only if caught in the act or fleeing from same. But do pretend otherwise.

And I see Dogger the anti gun nut is at work as well. What it proves is criminals should be very careful about picking their targets. That their lives are at risk if they commit crimes. Deadly force is authorized for more than just self defense. I suggest you learn what that means. I am sure criminals are learning what it means.

Just cause the guy was not in fact a criminal does not change the fact the Husband believed he was. The wife created that false impression and so was convicted of causing the death of another without cause.

 

[Larkinn]

Only if caught in the act or fleeing from same. But do pretend otherwise.

And I see Dogger the anti gun nut is at work as well. What it proves is criminals should be very careful about picking their targets. That their lives are at risk if they commit crimes. Deadly force is authorized for more than just self defense. I suggest you learn what that means. I am sure criminals are learning what it means.

Yeah except the guy in the article wasn't a criminal . Thats why its a stupid statute.

Just cause the guy was not in fact a criminal does not change the fact the Husband believed he was. The wife created that false impression and so was convicted of causing the death of another without cause.

Awesome...so now people get off for manslaughter or murder because they are too stupid to read the situation correctly.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah except the guy in the article wasn't a criminal . Thats why its a stupid statute.



Awesome...so now people get off for manslaughter or murder because they are too stupid to read the situation correctly.

Wrong. If the Husband had shot him without his wife crying rape he would have been tried for so form of murder. SHE created the impression that the man had just committed a felony. I suggest if you become a Lawyer you not do so as a criminal attorney of some sort.

 

[Shattered]

Yeah except the guy in the article wasn't a criminal . Thats why its a stupid statute.



Awesome...so now people get off for manslaughter or murder because they are too stupid to read the situation correctly.

The *guy* was too stupid to read the situatiion correctly?

Tell me.. If you came home, and your wife screamed she was being raped, would you stop and "assess" the situation, or would you do something about it?

 

[Larkinn]

Wrong.

Oh, how am I wrong?

If the Husband had shot him without his wife crying rape he would have been tried for so form of murder.

Obviously. Also not contrary to anything I claimed.

SHE created the impression that the man had just committed a felony.

Obviously. Also not contrary to anything I claimed.

 

[Anguille]

Wrong. If the Husband had shot him without his wife crying rape he would have been tried for so form of murder. SHE created the impression that the man had just committed a felony. I suggest if you become a Lawyer you not do so as a criminal attorney of some sort.

So it's okay to shoot people that other people are calling rapists. I get it. Who needs a justice system then.

 

[Larkinn]

The *guy* was too stupid to read the situatiion correctly?

Pretty much, yes.

Tell me.. If you came home, and your wife screamed she was being raped, would you stop and "assess" the situation, or would you do something about it?

If she was scantily clad in his car ? Gee, that shouldn't raise any suspicions.

And yes I would "do something about it". That "doing something" doesn't include blowing someones brains out.

 

[Shattered]

Pretty much, yes.



If she was scantily clad in his car ? Gee, that shouldn't raise any suspicions.

And yes I would "do something about it". That "doing something" doesn't include blowing someones brains out.

No, my guess is it entails offering the man tea, while you sit down on the curb, and ponder the situation...

Being "scantily clad" in someone elses vehicle, home, or whatever does *not* mean the potential for actual rape does not exist.

Why aren't you ripping this hard on the dumb ***** that got another man killed?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh, how am I wrong?



Obviously. Also not contrary to anything I claimed.



Obviously. Also not contrary to anything I claimed.

You are wrong because in most places that allow deadly force the rules are not just " if you are in danger" They include stopping someone that has ( or that you REASONABLY believe has) committed certain criminal acts. Rape being one of them. If a cop can use deadly force in that situation so can a civilian.

It is also wrong because the PURPOSE of the Justice system is to, well mete out JUSTICE. Not just convict people. The man acted in good faith to stop what he thought was violent offender that was a threat to not only his wife and he but others in society as well.

 

[Anguille]

Pretty much, yes.



If she was scantily clad in his car ? Gee, that shouldn't raise any suspicions.

And yes I would "do something about it". That "doing something" doesn't include blowing someones brains out.

I can somewhat understand how someone could lose control of their self in a situation like that, I'm not so sure I wouldn't have lost it and shot the guy too, if it was me. But I certainly would expect to be charged for committing a crime afterwards.

 

[Anguille]

You are wrong because in most places that allow deadly force the rules are not just " if you are in danger" They include stopping someone that has ( or that you REASONABLY believe has) committed certain criminal acts. Rape being one of them. If a cop can use deadly force in that situation so can a civilian.

It is also wrong because the PURPOSE of the Justice system is to, well mete out JUSTICE. Not just convict people. The man acted in good faith to stop what he thought was violent offender that was a threat to not only his wife and he but others in society as well.

The guy was a threat to no one. He was unarmed and he was shot in the back.

 

[Larkinn]

You are wrong because in most places that allow deadly force the rules are not just " if you are in danger"

Yes, actually they are.

They include stopping someone that has ( or that you REASONABLY believe has) committed certain criminal acts. Rape being one of them.

You can "stop" them. You can't kill them. Thats why the word "imminent" is in self defense statutes.

If a cop can use deadly force in that situation so can a civilian.

Haha, no. The standards for deadly force that a cop can use are generally different from civilians. Cops are trained, civilians aren't. Luckily most of the legislatures aren't as stupid as you.

It is also wrong because the PURPOSE of the Justice system is to, well mete out JUSTICE.

The Justice system metes out justice. This guy wasn't part of the justice system.

Not just convict people. The man acted in good faith to stop what he thought was violent offender that was a threat to not only his wife and he but others in society as well.

Which is why its a stupid statute. Statutes that create dead civilians because of "good faith" efforts with little to no appreciable benefit qualify as stupid.

(NB...I don't think there actually IS any statute letting the guy off. I think the Grand Jury just didn't want to indct".

 

[Shattered]

The guy was a threat to no one. He was unarmed and he was shot in the back.

A threat to no one, after the others guys wife had just been supposedly raped? Seems pretty threatening to me..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The guy was a threat to no one. He was unarmed and he was shot in the back.

That is not how the law sees it. At least not every where. It is also not a truthful statement. If he WERE a rapist he WAS a threat to everyone, especially women.

 

[Larkinn]

A threat to no one, after the others guys wife had just been supposedly raped? Seems pretty threatening to me..

It was consensual sex. Nobody was raped. He wasn't a threat at all and now he is dead, in part, because someone read the situation wrong.

 

[Anguille]

You are wrong because in most places that allow deadly force the rules are not just " if you are in danger" They include stopping someone that has ( or that you REASONABLY believe has) committed certain criminal acts. Rape being one of them. If a cop can use deadly force in that situation so can a civilian.

It is also wrong because the PURPOSE of the Justice system is to, well mete out JUSTICE. Not just convict people. The man acted in good faith to stop what he thought was violent offender that was a threat to not only his wife and he but others in society as well.

I also have doubts as to whether the husband really believed his wife had been raped.

 

[Larkinn]

That is not how the law sees it. At least not every where. It is also not a truthful statement. If he WERE a rapist he WAS a threat to everyone, especially women.

Really?

Cite a law that says you are allowed to kill a fleeting attacker that has none of your property.

 

[Shattered]

It was consensual sex. Nobody was raped. He wasn't a threat at all and now he is dead, in part, because someone read the situation wrong.

And he knew that, exactly how? He's supposed to stop and ask the would-be attacker "Is my wife lying? Did you just rape her?"

Good lord.

Again, why are you not as hard on the dumb ***** that caused another man to be murdered due to her false accusations?