Man not Indicted After Killing Man His Cheating Wife Claimed was Rapist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Now who is making assumptions?

He was in a vehicle that "probably" wasn't very far away?

He's a Texan so he "practices a lot?"

And when was the last time you had sex with someone from 3 or 4 feet away?

Although I'm fairly certain I could do it, I don't know if your anatomy is the equal of mine...

:beam:

---

I doesn't say. I don't say those things are true, I'm demonstrating that you assume anything you like. Half the people in this thread have assumed he's a murderer or could care less if his wife was killed. I don't think we have any right to say that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I doesn't say. I don't say those things are true, I'm demonstrating that you assume anything you like. Half the people in this thread have assumed he's a murderer or could care less if his wife was killed. I don't think we have any right to say that.

---

Fair enough.

But my point is that with an article this sketchy on the details, you have to make some assumptions to form an opinion. As long as you clearly state those assumptions, your opinion will be valid based on the set of circumstances you have assumed. You just have to be ready to change your opinion if one or more of your assumptions is shown to be incorrect.

And for the record:

I assume he is guilty of very poor judgement.

I think it would have been a tragedy if his wife had been killed.

I know it is a tragedy that an innocent man was killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I know it is a tragedy that an innocent man was killed.

---

I hate to nitpick (but I do anyway), many people keep referring to the guy as "innocent". IMO, anyone who sleeps with someone else's wife is a sleaze. Does that mean he deserves to get shot to death? No. But I don't really think it's accurate to say he's innocent of all wrongdoing. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

IMO, anyone who sleeps with someone else's wife is a sleaze.

---

Another trailer park humdinger, yesss! :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I hate to nitpick (but I do anyway), many people keep referring to the guy as "innocent". IMO, anyone who sleeps with someone else's wife is a sleaze. Does that mean he deserves to get shot to death? No. But I don't really think it's accurate to say he's innocent of all wrongdoing. :shrug:

---

He's innocent of rape, the accusation of which was used as the justification for killing him.

So yes, in this context, he's innocent.

But I'm not quite sure what you are driving at. Are you trying to say that because he was having sex with somebody else's wife, his death is somehow less tragic?

In the court of law, the man is innocent until proven guilty. So the man might have been guilty, but we don't know that because he is 'innocent.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Another trailer park humdinger, yesss! :thumbsup:

---

Trailer park nothing- you're a first rate ass if you sleep with another man's wife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

He's innocent of rape, the accusation of which was used as the justification for killing him.

So yes, in this context, he's innocent.

---

As long as you're putting it in context, yes, he was innocent of rape. Previous comments only stated an unqualified "innocent man". His bad behavior/judgment definitely played a part in the sad end result of all of this. Obviously, it was the bad choices of the wife that were the most significant cause of the whole mess though.

I thought swords were the current weapon of choice in dealing with imaginary rapists. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Trailer park nothing- you're a first rate ass if you sleep with another man's wife.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

As long as you're putting it in context, yes, he was innocent of rape. Previous comments only stated an unqualified "innocent man". His bad behavior/judgment definitely played a part in the sad end result of all of this. Obviously, it was the bad choices of the wife that were the most significant cause of the whole mess though.

---

I hear where you are coming from, but that whole train of thought smacks a little too much of blaming the victim for my liking.

The fact remains that this guy is dead and didn't deserve to die.

I think contractors who do cash deals under the table are also sleazy, but if I found out one had been shot by an angry homeowner for shoddy workmanship, I would certainly not say he had it coming.

Quote:

---

IMO, anyone who sleeps with someone else's wife is a sleaze.

---

Hey, it takes two to tango. If I was married, and found out my wife was having an affair, I'd me much more annoyed at her than the bloke she was sleeping with. He hasn't taken any vows to be faithful to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

In the court of law, the man is innocent until proven guilty. So the man might have been guilty, but we don't know that because he is 'innocent.'

---

Yes, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In self defense situations, it is obviously not practical to assume the assailant is innocent and ask for a time out so you can haul him in front of a judge and jury to prove his guilt.

All of the arguments bemoaning the fact that the husband in this case "took the law into his own hands" or appointed himself "judge, jury, and executioner" are very tiresome. We don't know all of the facts, but the grand jury was given every fact that the prosecution could come up with to prove this man's guilt, and they still couldn't indict him. That should tell us that he had reason to believe he was acting in self defense. (Legally, defense of another is included in self defense.)

As I explained in my earlier post, the fact that he later found out his wife was lying has no bearing on the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

The fact remains that this guy is dead and didn't deserve to die.

---

Would he have deserved to die had he raped the woman? The law says no. Do you say yes? If so, why?

The reality is that the law prohibits death for anything but the most socially unnacceptable actions. It sounds as though some people are saying that he would deserve death for theft of dignity and physical abuse. Technically, the law disagrees.

Death is promised to everyone. Technically, everyone deserves death. When someone is playing with an un-pinned grenade, they can expect death. When you engage in a trist with someone held to be the meaning of another persons life without their knowledge, their reaction can be more dangerous than the grenade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Would he have deserved to die had he raped the woman? The law says no. Do you say yes? If so, why?

---

Based on the article linked by Sasaki, this isn't the issue. The shooting wasn't a retributive execution to repay the supposed rape. It was a defensive act to prevent the man from supposedly forcefully taking his wife away.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I agree.



I hear where you are coming from, but that whole train of thought smacks a little too much of blaming the victim for my liking.

The fact remains that this guy is dead and didn't deserve to die.

I think contractors who do cash deals under the table are also sleazy, but if I found out one had been shot by an angry homeowner for shoddy workmanship, I would certainly not say he had it coming.

---

I was trying to respond to what i think was Goofballs belief about the innocence of the dead man. He was innocent of the crime that he was accused of - Rape. To say that he "did not deserve to die" is somemething else entirely. Did he not deserve to die because he did not rape the woman, or did he not deserve to die because law does not permit a rapist to be killed as a punishment for rape?
You say that the shooting was not in retribution. Why then would goofball say that the man didnt deserve to die if the shooter acted within his legal right to "self" defense? Legally, the man was in the right regardless of the reality of the situation.

this is what i was going for.

In addition, another point that I was making was that whether he was raping her or she was cheating, his life was in serious jeopardy due to the riskiness of both positions, but that is a separate issue.

some people do not believe that the husband should not have had the right to have shot a gun in the first place, thereby questioning the morality of having shot in self(other's) defence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

The shooting wasn't a retributive execution to repay the supposed rape. It was a defensive act to prevent the man from supposedly forcefully taking his wife away.

---

And that's what the jury thought too. You are allowed to use the necessary means to defend yourself or another. If your wife says she's being raped and the assailant tries to drive off with her it's reasonable to use a gun to prevent it. Had LaSalle not tried to escape with the wife still in the pickup the husband would have no justification for shooting him.

Too bad the shot was deadly, but it wasn't the husband at fault. The wife lied and her lover panicked.

Yeah yeah. He could have aimed for the tires. Probably couldn't see through the beer can wind chimes on his porch anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I was trying to respond to what i think was Goofballs belief about the innocence of the dead man which seems to be a fact. He was innocent of the crime that he was accused of. To say that he "did not deserve to die" is somemething else entirely. Did he not deserve to die because he did not rape the woman, or did he not deserve to die because law does not permit a rapist to be killed as a punishment for rape? You say that the shooting was not in retribution. Why then would goofball say that the man didnt deserve to die if the shooter acted within his legal right to "self" defense? Legally, the man was in the right regardless of the reality of the situation.

this is what i was going for.

In addition, another point that I was making was that whether he was raping her or she was cheating, his life was in serious jeopardy due to the riskiness of both positions, but that is a separate issue.

some people do not believe that the husband should not have had the right to have shot a gun in the first place, thereby questioning the morality of having shot in self(other's) defence.

---

Sorry, but I can barely understand this text.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I was trying to respond to what i think was Goofballs belief about the innocence of the dead man which seems to be a fact. He was innocent of the crime that he was accused of. To say that he "did not deserve to die" is somemething else entirely. Did he not deserve to die because he did not rape the woman, or did he not deserve to die because law does not permit a rapist to be killed as a punishment for rape? You say that the shooting was not in retribution. Why then would goofball say that the man didnt deserve to die if the shooter acted within his legal right to "self" defense? Legally, the man was in the right regardless of the reality of the situation.

this is what i was going for.

In addition, another point that I was making was that whether he was raping her or she was cheating, his life was in serious jeopardy due to the riskiness of both positions, but that is a separate issue.

some people do not believe that the husband should not have had the right to have shot a gun in the first place, thereby questioning the morality of having shot in self(other's) defence.

---

He didn't deserve to die because everybody has an inherent right to life. People do not have to justify their right to life in order not to be killed. It works the other way. If you kill somebody, you had better be able to prove in a court of law that you had a damn good reason to do so. I don't believe that standard was met in this case, since it never even went to court.

Do you think he did deserve to die? If so, what is your reasoning?

Of course the man didn't deserve to die. That's why the wife is being charged with manslaughter.

I applaud Darrell Roberson.

Everything turned out perfectly. This is one rare case in this day and age where justice is actually served. :2thumbsup:

I think you need to take another look at John's Gospel to find out whether Jesus thought the death penalty was appropriate for adultery. (Jn 8:3-11)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

I think you need to take another look at John's Gospel to find out whether Jesus thought the death penalty was appropriate for adultery. (Jn 8:3-11)

---

True. But then, Jesus didn't have dried chewing tobacco on the side of his pick-up truck either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

Sorry, but I can barely understand this text.

---

I re-read it, it was poorly written.

The main point is: "did" or "did not deserve" is an emotive rather than legitimate legal statement and varies based on your personal moral code. Therefore it holds little weight here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

He didn't deserve to die because everybody has an inherent right to life. People do not have to justify their right to life in order not to be killed. It works the other way. If you kill somebody, you had better be able to prove in a court of law that you had a damn good reason to do so. I don't believe that standard was met in this case, since it never even went to court.

Do you think he did deserve to die? If so, what is your reasoning?

---

I do, personally.

I believe that "adulterers" may possibly be killed if they are caught by a spouse. I also believe that the killer will be charged and processed by the various legal systems of different States if they are caught breaking or having broken the law.

Whether the spouse knew of the cheating or not, he killed the man cheating on his wife. Ironic and "Just" by my standards. That position is also emotional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I do, personally.

I believe that "adulterers" may possibly be killed if they are caught by a spouse. I also believe that the killer will be charged and processed by the various legal systems of different States if they are caught breaking or having broken the law.

Whether the spouse knew of the cheating or not, he killed the man cheating on his wife. Ironic and "Just" by my standards. That position is also emotional.

---

I want to make absolutely sure I understand you here:

Are you saying you believe adultery should be punishable by death, and that the scorned spouse should have the right to administer that death sentence?

https://img128.imageshack.us/img128/6800/emotwtcae8.gif

I don't think cheating is a "crime" it's just wrong. The man in this story may not have even known that the wife was married.

Tuff said it's emotional, I'm assuming a recent relationship...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

https://img128.imageshack.us/img128/6800/emotwtcae8.gif

I don't think cheating is a "crime" it's just wrong. The man in this story may not have even known that the wife was married.

Tuff said it's emotional, I'm assuming a recent relationship...?

---

Nope. as far as i know, none of them have cheated. I'm not married anyway, as long as i find out about it before i invest more time i'l just take the hit and move on. i dont believe i'd even say a word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I want to make absolutely sure I understand you here:

Are you saying you believe adultery should be punishable by death, and that the scorned spouse should have the right to administer that death sentence?

---

I don't believe the state should administer the punishment, but if the cheating spouse or their partner is killed by the cheated on spouse, i'm not sad to hear it. What I wrote was my belief in both wrath to cause death in some cases and the legal system to punish loss of control.

I do believe that cheating should cause a major split deduction for the cheating spouse in divorce proceedings.



I am also in favor of victimized parents murdering pedophiles and the like, but i believe that the law should punish that crime as well. People have the option of pursing justice within the legal system or outside of it. one will have you stay inside the walls of society, the other outside with serious repercussions, but as a viable option

Why didn't the husband just divorce her? They would still be brother and sister.

I don't get one thing. Guy comes home (he was working/fishing/walking the dog/drinking beer with his friends...) and finds his wife scantily clad with another man in a truck right in front of his house. Wife screams rape, guy starts speeding away and the husband shoots him.

More or less justifiable if we agree that husband thought hw was shooting to protect his wife from further abuse and possible murder. What strikes me as odd, is that the guy carried a gun while he was working/fishing/walking the dog/drinking beer with his friends! Who, in the right state of mind, carries a gun on any of these activities? Or did he went in house to get a gun? But I think in that case the truck would already be far away...