Woman Who Falsely Cried Rape Convicted of Manslaughter

[RetiredGySgt]

Really?

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

I don't need to. I can though cite federal deadly force rules that allow you to shot someone for just that situation as well as the nebulous one of "endangering National Security".

 

[Anguille]

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.

Even if he was a rapist he was not an immediate threat to anyone. The husband could have shot out his tires and held him at gunpoint till the cops arrived. By that point the wife might have had time to tell him the truth. I doubt she expected her husband was going to go so far as to kill the guy, she was just trying to hide her own adultery. Of course the husband might have gone ahead and shot them both at that point, but if he had tried to detain the man instead of outright kill him, most likely no one would be dead.

 

[Larkinn]

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.

Which is why its idiotic to allow civilians to have this sort of vigilante justice.

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

Hmm, lets see.

Person 1- Told a lie.
Person 2- Shot someone in the face.

Hmm. Gee, one seems just slightly more egregious than the other.

So much for personal responsibility I guess....

 

[Larkinn]

I don't need to. I can though cite federal deadly force rules that allow you to shot someone for just that situation as well as the nebulous one of "endangering National Security".

You don't need to?

I'll take that as an admission that you can't. So care to come up with another argument then?

 

[Shattered]

Which is why its idiotic to allow civilians to have this sort of vigilante justice.



Hmm, lets see.

Person 1- Told a lie.
Person 2- Shot someone in the face.

Hmm. Gee, one seems just slightly more egregious than the other.

So much for personal responsibility I guess....

Person 1 told a lie...that resulted in HER HUSBAND DEFENDING HER, which resulted in another man being KILLED for RAPING his wife.

Man, you're dumber'n a ******* brick. Sure as hell hope you're not married, and nothing ever happens to your family, cause my guess is they'd be 6' under before you'd understand the consequences of your INactions.

 

[Larkinn]

Person 1 told a lie...that resulted in HER HUSBAND DEFENDING HER, which resulted in another man being KILLED for RAPING his wife.

You do know what defense is, right? Defense is NOT shooting someone in the back as they are driving away.

And Nobody was killed for raping anyone. Someone was killed for having consensual sex with someone.

Man, you're dumber'n a ******* brick. Sure as hell hope you're not married, and nothing ever happens to your family, cause my guess is they'd be 6' under before you'd understand the consequences of your INactions.

Are you retarded? This wasn't self defense. Nobody has claimed it was. The guy was in his car driving away. Please tell me exactly what they needed to defend themselves from.

 

[Anguille]

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.

Not by any stretch of the imagination can it be claimed that the killer was justified in killing the guy because he thought "he was a threat to everyone, especially women". The guy was no immediate threat to anyone and he could have be detained till the police arrived rather that shot dead on the spot.

As I see it, if the killer believed his wife had been raped, he killed the guy out of revenge. If he didn't believe his wife, he killed out of jealousy. Neither are a justifiable reason for killing. A hot head in possession of a loaded firearm got away with murder and now other hot heads know they have a chance of doing the same.

 

[manifold]

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.

I wouldn't convict him if I were on the jury, no matter what the charge.

 

[Dogger]

And I see Dogger the anti gun nut is at work as well.

This anti-gun nut owns 2 rifles and a 12 gauge shotgun. I got my first rifle at age 12.

I'm not anti-gun. I just think we make it too easy for the mentally ill and the irresponsible to acquire firearms that perpetuate avoidable tragedy.

I understand the husband probably believed he had interrupted a rape. Had he been correct and called the police (he had the ID of the car, and could have gotten a tag number instead of his gun), the perp would have been arrested. Because he chose to kill instead, an innocent man is dead.

For a pro-life, law and order kind of guy, you come across as extremely anti-life, pro-vigilante in this thread.

 

[Gunny]

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.

Without ready access to firearms they're rather pointless as weapons of self-defense.

And yeah, this IS Texas ... don't **** my wife.

 

[Dogger]

Without ready access to firearms they're rather pointless as weapons of self-defense.

And yeah, this IS Texas ... don't **** my wife.

I only argued against "ready access to firearms by people with low impulse control."

I understand why that statement makes RGS defensive.

Why are you geting defensive?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I only argued against "ready access to firearms by people with low impulse control."

I understand why that statement makes RGS defensive.

Why are you geting defensive?

There ya go again making broad assumptions, don't you argue we shouldn't do that? There is of course a word for your behavior.

 

[Gunny]

I only argued against "ready access to firearms by people with low impulse control."

I understand why that statement makes RGS defensive.

Why are you geting defensive?

I'm not. How do you propose to identify those who have low impulse control when the courts and physicians in VA didn't even want to label a complete nutjob what he was which would have popped red smoke all over the BATF form he filled out each time he purchased a gun?

I have no problem with irresponsible people not being allowed to possess firearms. Problem is, no one would ever agree on what irresponsible is beyond the obvious no-brainers.

 

[Yurt]

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.

I only argued against "ready access to firearms by people with low impulse control."

I understand why that statement makes RGS defensive.

Why are you geting defensive?

1. i am not sure the news article gives us all the facts surrounding the situation as the "facts" were quite skimpy.

2. pray tell how a "low impulse control" test for gun ownership would pass constitutional scrutiny? that is the most absurd test i have ever seen proprosed and the most likely to be shot down even in a liberal court. maybe you want to put them on MTV's boiling points before they purchase a gun....

 

[Dogger]

I'm not. How do you propose to identify those who have low impulse control when the courts and physicians in VA didn't even want to label a complete nutjob what he was which would have popped red smoke all over the BATF form he filled out each time he purchased a gun?

I have no problem with irresponsible people not being allowed to possess firearms. Problem is, no one would ever agree on what irresponsible is beyond the obvious no-brainers.

The current system is designed to fail. It requires honest reporting by gun applicants, and repetitious verification at the point of sale. It is intended to give the illusion of control with little real restriction in place. VA Tech proved that.

At a minimum, gun owners should be required to take regular firearms training and classes in gun safety and gun-related legal issues. I think the NRA is already set up to offer these. Anyone who wants to discuss a comprehensive approach needs to start another thread.

 

[Dogger]

1
2. pray tell how a "low impulse control" test for gun ownership would pass constitutional scrutiny?

That's not a legal test. That's a general observation regarding the kind of people who shouldn't have guns. Any test would be more specific.

Are you saying that people with bad judgment and poor impulse control should be allowed to arm themselves to the teeth? If you have a fender bender with someone like that, you'll understand where I'm coming from.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The current system is designed to fail. It requires honest reporting by gun applicants, and repetitious verification at the point of sale. It is intended to give the illusion of control with little real restriction in place. VA Tech proved that.

At a minimum, gun owners should be required to take regular firearms training and classes in gun safety and gun-related legal issues. I think the NRA is already set up to offer these. Anyone who wants to discuss a comprehensive approach needs to start another thread.

Actually until the anti gun crowd got going in the 60's regular firearms training was done by numerous organizations including some schools systems. Now the insurance required to do that is prohibitive unless you are a going concern.

Hell you can not even take anyone under 16 to a range to teach them to shoot in this State because the Range can not afford the insurance or the potential law suits or criminal complaints that " concerned" citizens might launch.

And poorly written and enforced laws around the country make it dangerous to teach anyone under 18 to handle and shoot a gun in a lot of States. Especially cities.

 

[Gunny]

The current system is designed to fail. It requires honest reporting by gun applicants, and repetitious verification at the point of sale. It is intended to give the illusion of control with little real restriction in place. VA Tech proved that.

At a minimum, gun owners should be required to take regular firearms training and classes in gun safety and gun-related legal issues. I think the NRA is already set up to offer these. Anyone who wants to discuss a comprehensive approach needs to start another thread.

The failure was not with the purchasing end of the system in the case of the VT shooter. The failure was at the end where physicians and the court did not want to call someone crazy for fear of being called politically incorrect and discriminating against loonies. The guy was obviously a loon and it was ignored at every level.

IMO, when you start requiring people to take regular training and classes at their expense you go to far. Yes, they are available, but on a voluntary basis.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The failure was not with the purchasing end of the system in the case of the VT shooter. The failure was at the end where physicians and the court did not want to call someone crazy for fear of being called politically incorrect and discriminating against loonies. The guy was obviously a loon and it was ignored at every level.

IMO, when you start requiring people to take regular training and classes at their expense you go to far. Yes, they are available, but on a voluntary basis.

You now have to pay for a pistol license in this State. You have to have a background check done and that requires you pay the Local Sheriff to run it and issue the license if he agrees to it. In other words you pay and may not even get the license. The Sheriff is not limited to just what the check reports. he can use his own "judgement" to deny the request.

 

[Yurt]

That's not a legal test. That's a general observation regarding the kind of people who shouldn't have guns. Any test would be more specific.

Are you saying that people with bad judgment and poor impulse control should be allowed to arm themselves to the teeth? If you have a fender bender with someone like that, you'll understand where I'm coming from.

so then the state/government will not enforce this test of yours...a general observation...made by the guy behind the counter at Big 5?