| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"HVAC" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2007 04:52:27 AM |
| Object: |
Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged |
ARLINGTON, Texas (AP) -- 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.
On Thursday, a grand jury handed up a manslaughter indictment --
against the wife, not the husband.
The grand jury declined to charge the husband with murder, the charge
on which he was arrested by police.
"If I found somebody with my wife or with my kids in my house, there's
no telling what I might do," said Juan Muniz, 33, who was having lunch
Friday with one of his two small children at a restaurant in the
middle-class suburban Dallas neighborhood where the Robersons lived.
"I probably would have done the same thing."
Tracy Roberson, 35, could get two to 20 years in prison in the slaying
of Devin LaSalle, a 32-year-old UPS employee.
Assistant District Attorney Sean Colston declined to comment on
specifics of the case or the grand jury proceedings but said Texas law
allows a defendant to claim justification if he has "a reasonable
belief that his actions are necessary, even though what they believe
at the time turns out not to be true."
Mark Osler, a Baylor University law school professor and a former
federal prosecutor, said the grand jurors evidently put themselves in
the husband's place: "I can see one of them saying, 'I would have shot
the guy, too. I was just protecting my wife.' "
The December night before the shooting, Tracy Roberson sent LaSalle a
text message that read in part, "Hi friend, come see me please! I need
to feel your warm embrace!" according to court papers. LaSalle
apparently agreed.
Darrell Roberson, a 38-year-old employee of a real estate firm,
discovered the two, his wife clad in a robe and underwear.
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.
Darrell Roberson's attorney did not immediately return a call for
comment.
His wife also was charged with making a false report to a police
officer -- for allegedly saying she was raped -- and could get up to
six months behind bars on that offense. It was not immediately clear
whether she had a lawyer.
She had not been arrested as of Friday afternoon.
.
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged |
31 Mar 2007 06:37:58 AM |
|
|
On Mar 31, 2:52 am, "HVAC" <MR.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Osler, a Baylor University law school professor and a former
federal prosecutor, said the grand jurors evidently put themselves in
the husband's place: "I can see one of them saying, 'I would have shot
the guy, too. I was just protecting my wife.' "
[snip]
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.
It's hard to imagine how you're protecting your wife by shooting
someone who is leaving. I suppose he could make a reasonable argument
that he feared the guy might try to run them over. It's not self-
defense (or any kind of defense) if you're trying to punish the guy or
stop him from escaping.
On the other hand, he was trying to apprehend a felon. But that's not
"protecting" your "wife", that's apprehending a felon.
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged |
31 Mar 2007 08:15:37 AM |
|
|
David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mar 31, 2:52 am, "HVAC" <MR.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Osler, a Baylor University law school professor and a former
federal prosecutor, said the grand jurors evidently put themselves in
the husband's place: "I can see one of them saying, 'I would have shot
the guy, too. I was just protecting my wife.' "
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.
It's hard to imagine how you're protecting your wife by shooting
someone who is leaving. I suppose he could make a reasonable argument
that he feared the guy might try to run them over. It's not self-
defense (or any kind of defense) if you're trying to punish the guy or
stop him from escaping.
On the other hand, he was trying to apprehend a felon. But that's not
"protecting" your "wife", that's apprehending a felon.
Interesting case. I suppose I would treat the guy like a temporary
cop in my reasoning. Anything a cop could do and not be
charged with a crime, the guy should be able to do to stop the
felon. That's assuming the guy had a permit to carry the gun,
which I didn't see mentioned.
I wonder if the guy yelled out "Stop, or I'll shoot!"
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hagar" |
|
| Title: Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged |
31 Mar 2007 02:08:03 PM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:kens03tglhnutjbdkparjb91vh1564l002@4ax.com...
David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mar 31, 2:52 am, "HVAC" <MR.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Osler, a Baylor University law school professor and a former
federal prosecutor, said the grand jurors evidently put themselves in
the husband's place: "I can see one of them saying, 'I would have shot
the guy, too. I was just protecting my wife.' "
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.
It's hard to imagine how you're protecting your wife by shooting
someone who is leaving. I suppose he could make a reasonable argument
that he feared the guy might try to run them over. It's not self-
defense (or any kind of defense) if you're trying to punish the guy or
stop him from escaping.
On the other hand, he was trying to apprehend a felon. But that's not
"protecting" your "wife", that's apprehending a felon.
Interesting case. I suppose I would treat the guy like a temporary
cop in my reasoning. Anything a cop could do and not be
charged with a crime, the guy should be able to do to stop the
felon. That's assuming the guy had a permit to carry the gun,
which I didn't see mentioned.
I wonder if the guy yelled out "Stop, or I'll shoot!"
Ask the dead guy ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged |
31 Mar 2007 06:34:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 12:08:03 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Hagar" <hsahm@surewest.net>:
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:kens03tglhnutjbdkparjb91vh1564l002@4ax.com...
David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in alt.atheism
On Mar 31, 2:52 am, "HVAC" <MR.H...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Osler, a Baylor University law school professor and a former
federal prosecutor, said the grand jurors evidently put themselves in
the husband's place: "I can see one of them saying, 'I would have shot
the guy, too. I was just protecting my wife.' "
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.
It's hard to imagine how you're protecting your wife by shooting
someone who is leaving. I suppose he could make a reasonable argument
that he feared the guy might try to run them over. It's not self-
defense (or any kind of defense) if you're trying to punish the guy or
stop him from escaping.
On the other hand, he was trying to apprehend a felon. But that's not
"protecting" your "wife", that's apprehending a felon.
There doesn't seem to be anything about whether the wife was
still in the truck. If so, it wouldn't matter if he was
leaving, since there would still be a kidnapping in
progress.
Interesting case. I suppose I would treat the guy like a temporary
cop in my reasoning. Anything a cop could do and not be
charged with a crime, the guy should be able to do to stop the
felon. That's assuming the guy had a permit to carry the gun,
which I didn't see mentioned.
I wonder if the guy yelled out "Stop, or I'll shoot!"
Not required.
Ask the dead guy ...
Two victims here - the husband and the lover. One criminal -
the wife. Sounds like the DA got it right.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
| User: "JoelKatz" |
|
| Title: Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged |
01 Apr 2007 04:19:24 PM |
|
|
On Mar 31, 4:34 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
Two victims here - the husband and the lover. One criminal -
the wife. Sounds like the DA got it right.
I don't see how or why. She didn't directly cause the man's death. She
didn't intend to cause the man's death.
I think the closest analogy would be a person driving a car who sees a
squirrel in the road. He swerves to avoid the squirrel, and hits a
child standing on the side of the road. In both cases, you see a
definite minor hazard, take a risky step to avoid it in a split-second
decision, and it results in a death you did not intend.
1) Woman sees her husband, knows she's busted for cheating. = Man sees
squirrel, knows he's going to kill it.
2) Woman shouts rape in a split-second decision, risky but helps
prevent her from being busted, not something one would ordinarily
expect to cause someone's death (but definitely putting others in some
risk). = Man swerves in a split-second decision, risky but helps
prevent him from killing the squirrel, not something one would
ordinarily expect to cause someone's death (but definitely putting
others in some risk).
3) Husband decides to shoot the guy, a somewhat natural result of her
decision to yell rape but not what she intended or expected. = Man
hits child on side of road, a somewhat natural result of his decision
to swerve suddenly, but not what he intended or expected.
So would you charge someone with manslaughter if they swerve to avoid
a squirrel and hit a person they didn't see?
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged |
01 Apr 2007 07:25:44 PM |
|
|
On 1 Apr 2007 14:19:24 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by "JoelKatz" <davids@webmaster.com>:
On Mar 31, 4:34 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
Two victims here - the husband and the lover. One criminal -
the wife. Sounds like the DA got it right.
I don't see how or why. She didn't directly cause the man's death. She
didn't intend to cause the man's death.
I think the closest analogy would be a person driving a car who sees a
squirrel in the road. He swerves to avoid the squirrel, and hits a
child standing on the side of the road. In both cases, you see a
definite minor hazard, take a risky step to avoid it in a split-second
decision, and it results in a death you did not intend.
1) Woman sees her husband, knows she's busted for cheating. = Man sees
squirrel, knows he's going to kill it.
2) Woman shouts rape in a split-second decision, risky but helps
prevent her from being busted, not something one would ordinarily
expect to cause someone's death (but definitely putting others in some
risk). = Man swerves in a split-second decision, risky but helps
prevent him from killing the squirrel, not something one would
ordinarily expect to cause someone's death (but definitely putting
others in some risk).
3) Husband decides to shoot the guy, a somewhat natural result of her
decision to yell rape but not what she intended or expected. = Man
hits child on side of road, a somewhat natural result of his decision
to swerve suddenly, but not what he intended or expected.
So would you charge someone with manslaughter if they swerve to avoid
a squirrel and hit a person they didn't see?
Nope. Negligent homicide (failure to control the vehicle
resulting in the death of a person).
Note that the arguments you use could be as easily applied
to someone giving the car keys to a drunk, followed by the
drunk getting in the car and mowing down a pedestrian; after
all, neither of them didn't *meant* to injure anyone.
Actions have consequences, sometimes unintended ones. That
such consequences weren't "intended" doesn't make the
"actioner" non-culpable, and initiating a foreseeable
sequence of events leading to the death of an innocent party
makes the initiator just as guilty as if he/she had pulled
the trigger personally. In this case, the initiator *knew*
no crime had been committed, but chose to lie to avoid
repercussions from her husband. He, on the other hand,
responded to a perceived felony; IMHO, appropriately. Who's
the guilty party?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
| User: "JoelKatz" |
|
| Title: Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged |
08 Apr 2007 06:14:42 PM |
|
|
On Apr 1, 5:25 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
Nope. Negligent homicide (failure to control the vehicle
resulting in the death of a person).
It wasn't negligent, it was intentional. It was a bad decision, but a
decision nonetheless. This was not careless, this was a calculated
risk. (In the case of the vehicle).
Note that the arguments you use could be as easily applied
to someone giving the car keys to a drunk, followed by the
drunk getting in the car and mowing down a pedestrian; after
all, neither of them didn't *meant* to injure anyone.
Sure, the arguments could be used in that case, but you'd have to have
a comparative harm. All of these examples are a person trying to avoid
a smaller harm and in the process inadvertently causing a larger harm.
So, for example, if you gave your car keys to someone drunk so that
they could drive you to a hospital, that would be comparable.
Actions have consequences, sometimes unintended ones. That
such consequences weren't "intended" doesn't make the
"actioner" non-culpable, and initiating a foreseeable
sequence of events leading to the death of an innocent party
makes the initiator just as guilty as if he/she had pulled
the trigger personally.
Even if the initiator takes a risk to avoid a smaller, but certain,
harm? These are all cases where split-second decision to avoid a small
but certain harm inadvertently leads to a larger harm, forseeable to
some extent, but unintended. You can't compare it to cases where the
split-second decision wasn't to avoid a certain harm.
In this case, the initiator *knew*
no crime had been committed, but chose to lie to avoid
repercussions from her husband. He, on the other hand,
responded to a perceived felony; IMHO, appropriately. Who's
the guilty party?
This type of argument is based upon the false premise that there must
be some fixed amount of risk to go around and therefore that one
party's culpability has some bearing on the other's. The premise is
false, so the argument is meaningless.
It is not a crime to lie to your husband. It is a crime in many
jurisdictions to shoot someone who is trying to escape when you can
escape in complete safety.
I think the woman made a split-second risky decision to mitigate a
certain, but minor harm. Her actions had the arguably foreseeable
affect of a large harm. It's precisely analogous to swerving to avoid
an animal and killing a child you didn't know was there.
I would argue that it is rational in most cases to avoid a certain but
small harm even if it means the risk of a foreseeable but uncertain
larger harm. We do this all the time when we drive to the grocery
store to get groceries.
DS
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JoelKatz" |
|
| Title: Re: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged |
01 Apr 2007 04:13:26 PM |
|
|
On Mar 31, 6:15 am, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
Interesting case. I suppose I would treat the guy like a temporary
cop in my reasoning. Anything a cop could do and not be
charged with a crime, the guy should be able to do to stop the
felon. That's assuming the guy had a permit to carry the gun,
which I didn't see mentioned.
That's not really a fair comparison because a cop has a higher level
of training and a duty to protect the public.
I wonder if the guy yelled out "Stop, or I'll shoot!"
It is totally unreasonable to expect a civilian to do that. It
tremendously increases the risks he has to take. If you take a course
on gun ownership prior to obtaining a carry permit, that is one of the
things they will tell you never to do.
DS
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
