-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pan Dah
Oh please. The law is nowhere near that black and white. How the law applies in a given case is determined by the judge, and words like "caused" are subject to interpretation. You are treating this as though she were charged with felony murder. I'm pretty sure manslaughter does not require any other criminal act to have been committed. You refuse to treat speech as an act even though it is. The fact it was a lie does not make it criminal per se, but it makes it irresponsible, and that is a difference right there.
No I'm not. Manslaughter does require A criminal act to be committed - that is you have to cause a person's death by (generally) an unlawful act or criminal negligence (criminal negligence - not just negligence. Simply "causing" is not enough.) Lying is not a criminal act. Yes, words like "caused" are open to interpretation. That is why words like "caused" are seldom used without qualifiers in codified law. Speech is an act - in this case it is not an illegal act; and qualifying speech as a "causal act" outside of situation where speech itself IS the act should be troubling. You are building the criminality wholly on her recklessness, and really bootstrapping the action, and you seem completely unaware that the same degree of recklessness can be applied to many, many similar "actions" with some very undesirable results.
BTW - the legal system - especially the criminal system - is meant to be coherent. That is - people are meant to know in advance what is criminal behaviour and what is not. This is not something that is meant to be determined post hoc by a judge. Irresponsible behaviour doesn't make criminal behaviour. Characterizing it as irresponsible is a) not in contention and b) not relevant.
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
I'm with Jenny on this one.
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
jenny, i am pretty sure what that woman did is manslaughter under american case law (i.e., that there are examples of same). at the very least she committed reckless endangerment, which she was also charged with. using words to manipulate someone into harmful actions towards another has often been found to be criminal negligence. it's not that she lied, but that she used her lie to cause harm to another person knowingly. the death resulting is what makes the whole thing manslaughter.
in any case, this will be an interesting case as it plays out. already the 'every woman lies about rape' crew are lining up their wagons.
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miabella
jenny, i am pretty sure what that woman did is manslaughter under american case law (i.e., that there are examples of same).
Okay - so I understand this; you have cases in which a person has been found to be guilty of manslaughter because of the actions of another person, solely because of something he or she said, absent a charge of aiding/abetting/inciting or conspiracy?
Quote:
at the very least she committed reckless endangerment, which she was also charged with. using words to manipulate someone into harmful actions towards another has often been found to be criminal negligence.
Has it? Or has it been used to prove conspiracy, counselling or incitement? I mean you may be a party to an offence under whatever counselling laws exist, but that is obviously not the case here.
Quote:
it's not that she lied, but that she used her lie to cause harm to another person knowingly. the death resulting is what makes the whole thing manslaughter.
Okay, that is VASTLY overstating anything that can be proved on the known facts, and if it were true she could be indicted as a party to murder, and her husband should CERTAINLY have been indicted. "Reckless" is probably the limit to what can be proved; and again you are focusing only on ONE element of the crime. And the fact that it is not illegal to lie, and it IS illegal to shoot people should surely MEAN something here, shouldn't it? I mean, you are familiar with the term "bootstrapping"? It does not generally make good law.
Quote:
in any case, this will be an interesting case as it plays out. already the 'every woman lies about rape' crew are lining up their wagons.
Well, nothing is likely to stop those people or change their minds; and really they are just particularly loud throwbacks anyway - so really do we care what they think? No thinking person actually believes their crap.
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miabella
it's not that she lied, but that she used her lie to cause harm to another person knowingly.
The word "knowingly" seems a bit presumptuous in this case. Most of you seem to be assuming that she knew her husband had a gun, that she knew he was carrying it at that moment, that she knew her husband would shoot the man if she cried rape, and that she knew the man would be killed if her husband shot him.
Maybe I didn't read the thing carefully enough, but it seemed to me that she cried rape on impulse, without considering the consequences, and I don't think it goes without saying that she knew all of the above when she acted on that un-admirable impulse.
In any case, this story should make for a good L&O:SVU episode....
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
Hmm, okay alot of people are arguing this case, but are doing so without taking into account all the facts that were presented in the article. Okay, I'll lay it out and then give my opinion. The husband comes home, his wife is in the truck with another man. Okay, we got that down. Here's the part everyone seems to have missed, the wife screamed rape, at which point the driver took off. Nowhere in the article does it state that the wife got out of the truck. So on top of false accusations she prompted the entire the event, through her actions. Herein lies where the charges stem. Had she not screamed rape would the driver have taken off? Would the husband had shot if his wife hadn't given him the idea that she was in danger. See here's the thing, her actions inadvertantly or not set off the chain of events that lead to the mans death. We could sit here and argue that he had reason to do so or that she doesn't deserve it. However, we don't have a report we can analize and figure out exactly what happened.
Try to put yourself in the husbands shoes however. You get home there's a strange truck at your house. Late at night, burglars maybe, whatever point is it's not a common thing and arming yourself in case is a logical step in this situation. You approach the truck and you hear your wife screaming rape and the truck start off to leave, with your wife still in the vehicle. You have no idea what is going on, all you know is your wife is being raped and being kidnapped. Take that into consideration and then tell me if you think the husband was at fault.
Now obviously this is all conjecture, but that is the impression I got from reading the article. Now, I'm a Texan so my response is, let the bitch fry, lethal injection, whatever. I got my reasons for thinking that way I just don't feel like elaborating right now, but it's not because I think she might or might not deserve it.
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
Okay, here's a simple breakdown of what the differences are in the types of charges. Murder, knowingly and consciously taking action to end another persons life. Manslaughter when your actions which you are aware of lead to another persons death. Involuntary manslaughter, when you without action of your own intent or knowledge cause someone elses death.
You may think that manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter are the same thing, but you would be mistaken. Involuntary manslaughter is usually the charge dropped on drivers that kill somebody, or in accidents. Another example would be backing out of the driveway and killing a toddler that had put themselves in danger. Basically involuntary means that the person had no other recourse, because they were not aware of the situation. Manslaughter though, the person took a conscious action and was aware of the situation. It does not mean she knew that she would cause someones death, it simply means the person was aware of the situation and took some action, intentional or not, that lead to someones death. In this case the wife was aware of the situation and yelled 'rape', that yell, was her action. Hence the manslaughter charge.
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
Okay, but to those who say she should "fry,"--you can't be put to death for manslaughter, can you??? Even in Texas, that's really not okay, is it????/:O
For the record, I definitely know men who WOULD NOT shoot to kill in that situation. I just don't see how you all can think that would be an inevitable outcome of her actions. I'm not saying that his actions aren't understandable under the circumstances, I'm just saying that I really don't see them as inevitable, or even as unequivocally "the right thing to do."
Maybe it's a Texas thing and I just wouldn't understand???/:O
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicolina
Maybe it's a Texas thing and I just wouldn't understand???/:O
1. The husband walked.
2. The wife will absolutely walk.
3. The UPS guy died.
The only thing important in Texas is that someone dies. :-\
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jenny
Is it just me, or do you think that they are going to have a bit of a hard time showing that the wife... did anything? I mean, she may have been reckless, but she didn't shoot him, plan to shoot him, conspire with her husband to shoot him, etc. Does she not seem a little short on action to anyone else?
The law doesn't work like that all the time though. In many cases you can be charged with things that happen inadvertently by your own actions. For example, the actual act of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theatre is actually not illegal. You have freedom of speech rights to protect you there. What is actionable are the consequences of what you did. If someone was trampled because of your yelling that you may face assault charges. If someone was killed in the stampede you may face manslaughter charges. Of course this may also cause loss of revenue to the theater so you may have a civil case filed against you. So where the actual act of yelling "fire" in the theater is not illegal, you are legally responsible for the consequences of that action for all the things that may happen as a result of it.
The same thing is true here. The wife claimed her new boy-toy was a rapist so as far as the husband was concerned, this guy was raping his wife. He probably tried to flee the scene and the husband shot him which isn't unreasonable given the fact he thought this guy was raping his wife just mere moments ago. I'm sure there isn't a woman on this board who would shoot a rapist as he was fleeing the scene of the crime and so the husband did the same thing based on the actions of the wife.
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
^^^
Someone has already mentioned that. I don't think it is an apt comparison because inciting and starting a riot (even my yelling fire) is already illegal in most places. That is - you DON'T have an existing right to start a riot; you DO have an existing right to lie to your husband about being raped.
And, I haven't made a big thing because it isn't really the issue - but I don't think it is okay to shoot people for fleeing a scene, let alone shoot to kill. I don't think that is a reasonable action. Shooting someone to prevent harm is one thing - shooting them afterwards because you were mad is quite another.
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jenny
^^^
Someone has already mentioned that. I don't think it is an apt comparison because inciting and starting a riot (even my yelling fire) is already illegal in most places. That is - you DON'T have an existing right to start a riot; you DO have an existing right to lie to your husband about being raped.
No, it's not illegal to lie to your husband. At the same time, the wife should be responsible for the consequences of those lies. She was caught in bed with her lover...told her husband she was being raped...and expected her husband to do nothing? And she KNOWS that her husband has guns? What she did wasn't illegal. It was stupid. A man lost his life because she told her husband the guy was raping her. That is what she is responsible for. That fits very nicely into the charge of manslaughter.
Quote:
And, I haven't made a big thing because it isn't really the issue - but I don't think it is okay to shoot people for fleeing a scene, let alone shoot to kill. I don't think that is a reasonable action. Shooting someone to prevent harm is one thing - shooting them afterwards because you were mad is quite another.
But, was the guy mad? Did he let the guy go home and then track him down because he realized that the UPS guy was screwing his wife? No, he shot the guy fleeing his house thinking the guy was a violent offender. A criminal who broke into his house and was raping his wife. When these things happen like that, it's called "Crime of Passion". Thanks to the little wifey, he THOUGHT he was shooting a violent criminal. Shoot to kill? Probably not a good idea...but these things happen and if the wife wouldn't have said she was being raped, he would be more accountable for the shooting death of the UPS guy.
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
I don't know how to put this any more clearly - the "consequence" in question was the uncounselled, unassisted action of another free human being. The reasoning that circuitously holds her responsible can be used to get some VERY undesirable results. I've already mentioned a few. Further all of the "what she should have known" is not really related to the element I'm contesting. Y'all are responding intuitively to the distastefulness of a false accusation of rape; if you substitute a "false accusation of rape" with any other statement that a person knew or should have known might cause another person to commit a crime (absent counseling) I don't think you'd have the same instinct. E.G. - If a guy is at the movies and hits on a woman and then her intimidating boyfriend menaces him, so he falsely claims that the woman initiated the encounter ("she came on to ME, man") and then the guy hits his girlfriend (I know the facts are convoluted, but bear with me); is the pick up artist guilty of assault? You might argue the degree of knowledge or recklessness, but the ACT is the same. How comfortable are you with that? How easily can you articulate a conceptual difference in these two situations? If you're going to say "because she was lying about a crime" - why does this matter?
I was contesting the validity of "any reasonably person would shoot first and ask questions later". I don't think this is the case. And provocation defences are defences that usually reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter, aren't they? Not a legal stance that shooting first is a reasonable action.
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
I totally agree with Jenny.
The wife did a stupid thing. She is not a nice person. She's a liar, cheater and an idiot. But did she commit a crime? No, she did not.
I find it rather disturbing that so many people want to kill her. :O
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
It's nighttime. Driver stops to ask for directions.
"Oh, you want to go to Albany? Turn right at the next gate."
The driver drives to the gate, turns right, plunges off a cliff, and dies.
"Hey, I didn't drive him off the cliff. I only gave bad directions. That's not a crime."
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
We could argue the semantics, precedents, law codes, etc., until we're all blue in the face, but the fact is that Canadian Law is a LOT different from American law, and Texas law is a lot different from the laws in most other states.
People here have the right to carry concealed handguns and have the legal right to shoot someone who threatens them or their family on their property.
Is it a little backwards? Maybe so. Is it right? Well, that's debatable. Having lived here for the vast majority of my life, I can say with nearly 100% certainty that this woman will be prosecuted for manslaughter, as she rightly should.
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jay Zeno
It's nighttime. Driver stops to ask for directions.
"Oh, you want to go to Albany? Turn right at the next gate."
The driver drives to the gate, turns right, plunges off a cliff, and dies.
"Hey, I didn't drive him off the cliff. I only gave bad directions. That's not a crime."
Well that's what you get for not looking at the road.
I mean, really, she was in sexy lingerie at the 'crime' scene.
I always know I make myself purty just before I'm raped.
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jenny
And, I haven't made a big thing because it isn't really the issue - but I don't think it is okay to shoot people for fleeing a scene, let alone shoot to kill. I don't think that is a reasonable action. Shooting someone to prevent harm is one thing - shooting them afterwards because you were mad is quite another.
So what about someone fleeing with your SO? Here's part of the article.
Darrell Roberson came home from a card game late one night to find his wife rolling around with another man in a pickup truck 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.
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, authorities said.
So in essence he was preventing harm from coming to his wife. I mean if someone is trying to rape your wife and drives away with her then WTF? I mean would it make sense that once he got away he would have let her go?
Anyways, seeing that, the reason the husband isn't being charged was listed @ the top of the article.
Texas law exonerates those who believe actions are justified at time.
I can admit I jumped the gun about frying her. My bad, realistically she can plea bargain and avoid jail time if she has a good lawyer.
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
Well, that would be less "fleeing" and more "abducting" - and not the impression I got. But you're right - it is a possible variation of the facts I had not considered. I did not have the impression that she was in the truck as he was fleeing; for a variety of reasons, including if she were in a moving vehicle when the driver was shot she would likely have injuries.
Although, some googling (hey I wanted to check!) turned up some other variations on the facts:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.3db2425.html
This doesn't actually change my analysis; but it is interesting to consider what she's really being indicted for and what behaviour is really being criminalized. I mean, she really doesn't sound like a very nice woman.
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
How do we know that if she hadn't cried rape, her husband wouldn't have shot her instead? What if that were the case?
Would that make her lie a form of self-defense?
What if she hadn't cried rape and he'd still shot the guy--just for fucking his wife. Wouldn't he be in trouble then? (Or is that legal in Texas? Someone told me it is. :O)
Of course, the article Jenny just linked to states that the woman told her husband she was being raped but he didn't believe her. In that case, he acted on the belief that the sex was consensual. Shouldn't this exonerate her, then?
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
Well people here seem confident that "causing" a death by lying about a crime being committed is different kind of act than "causing" a death by either a different kind of lie or by telling the truth. I'm not exactly sure why, as the same degree of recklessness could certainly apply (like, if she knew or should have known - as we all seem confident that she should have - that her husband was short tempered and carried guns and all that stereotype entails - surely telling him that she was having consensual sex with the UPS guy in the driveway while neglecting her 7 year old daughter could be seen, by a reasonably person, as reckless). If the "cause" is the same and the "recklessness" is the same, I'm not sure why we couldn't still hold her responsible.
I do think it is interesting what facts are given and which have been edited - there are, of course, ways the police could have verified his story over hers - neighbours over hearing maybe? But given the nature of the incident (including the fact that he apparently didn't believe her "cover story" about being raped) you kind of wonder how reliable it is. It occurs to me that the reasons she is REALLY being indicted is just because people find her distasteful. I mean, even here - the minimum sentence for manslaughter in Texas is like, 2 years? The maximum is 20. How many people wanted to trot out the death penalty on a manslaughter charge because false accusations of rape press all kinds of buttons? It kind of makes people irrational.
-
Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged...Owned yo!
How do we know that if she hadn't cried rape, her husband wouldn't have shot her instead? What if that were the case?
Would that make her lie a form of self-defense?
^^
I would think she would have an incredible argument for self-defense then.
What if she hadn't cried rape and he'd still shot the guy--just for fucking his wife. Wouldn't he be in trouble then? (Or is that legal in Texas? Someone told me it is. :O)
^^
No, that's not true. You can't legally kill someone here (or anywhere in the U.S.) for something like that. But yeah, he would have been charged with murder, or more than likely a crime of passion-still a heavy sentence, but not as much as premeditated murder.
Of course, the article Jenny just linked to states that the woman told her husband she was being raped but he didn't believe her. In that case, he acted on the belief that the sex was consensual. Shouldn't this exonerate her, then?
^^
I believe the grand jury dismissed the charges against him based on the fact that he did have reason to believe she was in fact being raped. If there were any evidence to the contrary, I'm sure the charges wouldn't have been dismissed against him. But I agree, if he did act on the premise that the sex was consensual, he is the one that should be charged and not her.