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

Also, his wife is charged with manslaughter.

I love Texas.

Quote:

---

Wife Charged After Husband Shoots Her Alleged Lover

FORT WORTH, Texas -- A husband who killed his wife's alleged lover after finding them together escaped a murder charge from a grand jury, which instead indicted the wife for causing the shooting by claiming she was being raped.

Tracy Roberson, 35, was charged Thursday with manslaughter in the death of Devin LaSalle, who police said Roberson invited to her suburban Arlington house in December with a text message that read, "Hi friend, come see me please! I need to feel your warm embrace!"

But prosecutors said when Darrell Roberson arrived home from a card game in Dallas and found his wife -- clad in only a robe and underwear -- with LaSalle outside in a pickup truck, Tracy Roberson told her husband she was being raped.

Police said Darrell Roberson fired four shots as LaSalle tried to drive away, with one striking him in the head.

A Tarrant County grand jury declined to indict Darrell Roberson, 38, on a murder charge.

Tracy Roberson, 35, faces two to 20 years if convicted.

---

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/11456374/d...=headlineclick

The Enlightened-beyond-the-use-of-violence Europeans may now commence their dithering, and tsk-tsking of us violent Americans. I expect lots of posts about how this man is evil for shooting someone driving away, shooting when any alleged deed was already done, shooting at a man at all, and shooting a gun.

Crazed Rabbit

Heh. Further proof that all women are evil, lying female dogs.

I don't entirely agree with him shooting at someone who was driving away, but, on balance, I think he's someone who probably doesn't desperately deserve to be in prison.

It's good that his wife is facing punishment for lying.

In seriousness, I believe one can argue that they believed a retreating rapist or the like posed a serious threat to the community if allowed to escape and continue their crimes.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

In seriousness, I believe one can argue that they believed a retreating rapist or the like posed a serious threat to the community if allowed to escape and continue their crimes.

Crazed Rabbit

---

True. I also doubt he regrets shooting now that he found out his wife was cheating, or what she is now being charged with. I wouldn't, for certain. I would feel a certain amount of guilt, but regret is something else, no?

I believe it's a good think that his wife is being punished for her lie. Is adultery still punishable in Texas?

All joking aside. I'm glad the woman is being punished it shows her what lying gets you. I'm also glad the man is being indited for trying to save his wife from rape! :smash:

Maybe he doesn't deserve a murder charge. As his wife tricked him into killing a man. But he deserves some sort of concequence for killing a man. So take away all his guns save 1 rifle for a period of 5 years. To a Texan that is a sentence worse than death or jail. :wink:

Shoot first, ask Texans later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The Euro-weenies may now commence their dithering. I expect lots of posts about how this man is evil for shooting someone driving away, shooting when any alleged deed was already done, shooting at a man at all, and shooting a gun.

---

The fact that the victim had NOT raped his wife supports the so-called "Euro-weenie" view that shooting someone driving away when any alleged deed has already been done should not be sanctioned in law, so count this as number one of the posts you are expecting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Also, his wife is charged with manslaughter.

I love Texas.



http://www.nbc5i.com/news/11456374/d...=headlineclick

The Euro-weenies may now commence their dithering. I expect lots of posts about how this man is evil for shooting someone driving away, shooting when any alleged deed was already done, shooting at a man at all, and shooting a gun.

Crazed Rabbit

---

So let me see if Ive got this correct

the guy shoots an innocent man in the back of the head while fleeing - and hes your hero?

have all the guns you want cause if 1 gun = 1 dead american, then it follows lots of guns = ????

kill yourselves if you want - live like your in a war zone - i could care less

"stupid is as stupid does" - Forrest Gump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

The fact that the victim had NOT raped his wife supports the so-called "Euro-weenie" view that shooting someone driving away when any alleged deed has already been done should not be sanctioned in law, so count this as number one of the posts you are expecting.

---

Beat me to it. I'll second that. The only person innocent of any wrongdoing is the person now dead. Though I wouldn't be surprised to learn that adultery is illegal in the state of Texas and carries a capital penalty.

I have some sympathy for the gun-ownership views that Crazed Rabbit and others argue for with passion. I can see where they are coming from, and contextually, I can respect the position oft defended.

One of the cornerstones of that position seems to me that responsible gun ownership is key to the well-being of an armed populace. Therefore it saddens me when clearly irresponsible gun use is celebrated as if there is some value in the death of a human being - moreover, an innocent one in this case. It tends to underpin the counter argument that gun ownership has rather too much macho posturing involved for there to be a laissez faire approach to regulation.

Quote:

---

The Euro-weenies may now commence their dithering. I expect lots of posts about how this man is evil for shooting someone driving away,

---

Yes. What exactly was the shot supposed to achieve that dialling 911 would not?

Quote:

---

shooting when any alleged deed was already done,

---

Yes. Again, why shoot rather that dial it in?

Quote:

---

shooting at a man at all, and shooting a gun.

---

No.

CR, did you not notice that the result of the shot was that a man who had done nothing wrong is dead? Not a great case to defend gun ownership on.

Although I can see where the jury was coming from, and I am glad the wife is indicted, I am not entirely sure the man should not also be facing jail time. Although I admit if I came across what I thought was my wife's rapist fleeing the scene I would have shot him too. But I would be wrong.

The man shot another man in the open, driving a car. Surely this placed others in far more potential risk than not shooting? If he caught the man in flegrante with his wife who now stated it was rape then shoot away - that would be on his own property and defending his wife.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

In seriousness, I believe one can argue that they believed a retreating rapist or the like posed a serious threat to the community if allowed to escape and continue their crimes.

Crazed Rabbit

---

Possibly, but you would also be arguing against the rule of law.

Uhm...this guy shot and killed a completely innocent man.

Why on earth should he not be punished...?

And yes, this is a very good example of why guns should be restricted. An innocent man was killed here, and he would not have been killed if there was no gun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English Assassin

Although I admit if I came across what I thought was my wife's rapist fleeing the scene I would have shot him too. But I would be wrong.

---

^^ what I think. I'd have done the same, and felt righteous, but expected to face the music - especially after ALL the facts had been revealed (wife lying).

Meh, people have been acquited of shooting after robbers here before. While I don't think this behaviour being encouraged I understand why he's getting off. At the very least he could have claimed temporary insanity...

Do I loose Euro-weenie poj ts now ?

Well, it teaches us that having sex with a married wife is a dangerous thing to do and all kinds of consequences can follow. Without a gun I might have thrown an axe into his back or so...:sweatdrop:

Well the guy was fooled by his wife into shooting an innocent man...so she should be accused of that crime now him...

but even so he still discharched his gun in a totally irresponsable way...

I propose jail time for the lying wife and a gun-owning ban against the dupped husband.:smash:

Serves him right for having sex in a pickup truck. Some people have no class.

Several points: I am not using this as a case to defend gun ownership.

I am not using this as a case of a 'good shoot'.

I am using this as a rather extreme example to compare to the usual European or leftist view on gun ownership, self defense, and justice.

I am not celebrating the death of Mr. LaSalle (I think a shot ending up in a certain nether region would have been more appropriate).

One note, to those claiming he shot irresponsibility when shooting at the truck, of the mind that such shooting might endanger others (besides Mr. LaSalle) - we don't really have enough information to go on to know what was behind the truck. He might live on a great big ranch, and not in some suburban cluster of homes.

Quote:

---

have all the guns you want cause if 1 gun = 1 dead american, then it follows lots of guns = ????

---

The number of guns, and gun ownership, has been increasing steadily in this country. Violence, on the other hand, has been decreasing. So,
Americans+more guns+less gun control=less violence

Also, you are now all enlightened-beyond-the-use-of-violence Europeans. Enjoy!

Crazed Rabbit

If she hadn't lied and said she was raped, the husband would have shot her instead (or maybe even both of them). :yes:

Wow, some people actually have a problem with this?

It's obviously a shame the man died but the wife is clearly the one at fault. I think it's naive to expect someone to react in a calm and composed manner with 20/20 hindsight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The number of guns, and gun ownership, has been increasing steadily in this country. Violence, on the other hand, has been decreasing. So,
Americans+more guns+less gun control=less violence

Also, you are now all enlightened-beyond-the-use-of-violence Europeans. Enjoy!

Crazed Rabbit

---

On a related note, gun crime in Canada is very low, whereas Canada has close to almost as many guns per capita as America. I'll do my best to find the article again.

In my opinion, he was wrong for shot a man with a good French name, Devin LaSalle, for trying to make proper love to his wife while he was out playing with the boys.



To me, it's only the natural order of things.

She was probably a porker anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The number of guns, and gun ownership, has been increasing steadily in this country. Violence, on the other hand, has been decreasing. So,
Americans+more guns+less gun control=less violence

Also, you are now all enlightened-beyond-the-use-of-violence Europeans. Enjoy!

Crazed Rabbit

---

you do realise you attempting to make an argument more guns=less violence and as you example youve used an innocent man being gunned down in cold blood

dude wake up and smell what your shoveling

as for the case at hand

so theres no chance they guy knew perfectly well the guy was porking his wife - shot him in the back - forced the wife to lie and make up the rape story

some of the views expressed on here are little bit well naive

if all the people having affairs were allowed to shoot each other there'd be alot less people in the world - like it or not cheating is very common

the shooter should face the chair - fire a gun and accept the consequences - by the guys own vigilantism - the verdict he would hand down on himself would be a life for a life.

luckily in Australia we have a code of laws and these guys called Pleezmen, who enforce the law - citizens are not allowed to be hand out sentencing because they are in general idiots and will get it wrong, just look at what happens when you let them vote. I understand this is no longer the case in the US (which no longer has the code of laws), so good luck with that.

More guns does mean less violence because everyone is afraid they'll get a :rifle:

This verdict does herald to the earliest human records, and I think that in light of the issue, this is the only justice he could have gotten. If he had taken the man to suit, he would have lost. The two witnesses were the 'victims' and they wouldn't speak a peep about their affair.

Also, the man WAS arrested, given a trial by his peers, and justice was handed out, and while it is unusual to say the least, it is in the tradition of democracy.

However....

What you are advocating is a 'POLICE STATE' where the law is handed out by men who could 'ABUSE' those powers. Thats a 'NO-NO' to peace loving people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Also, the man WAS arrested, given a trial by his peers, and justice was handed out, and while it is unusual to say the least, it is in the tradition of democracy.

---

well thats more than he CHOSE to give the victim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

What you are advocating is a 'POLICE STATE' where the law is handed out by men who could 'ABUSE' those powers. Thats a 'NO-NO' to peace loving people.

---

erm no

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

I understand this is no longer the case in the US (which no longer has the code of laws),

---

But see, this is why we need all the guns. Without a police force how else are we going to stop people from doing stuff they shouldn't do? Your own argument defeats itself.

Quote:

---

luckily in Australia we have a code of laws and these guys called Pleezmen, who enforce the law

---

The law was carried out, the police arrested the shooter, and he was taken before jury, etc. etc.

I think the man was fully justified in shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yunus Dogus

you do realise you attempting to make an argument more guns=less violence and as you example youve used an innocent man being gunned down in cold blood

---

Lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

Several points: I am not using this as a case to defend gun ownership.

---

Also, my argument is completely correct.

Quote:

---

so theres no chance they guy knew perfectly well the guy was porking his wife - shot him in the back - forced the wife to lie and make up the rape story

---

Um, no. Everyone is in agreement that the man came home, found wife scantily clad with Mr. LaSalle, wife said he was a rapist, husband thought, well that's no good, a man is trying to rape my wife, Mr. LaSalle started driving, and the husband shot the fellow.

Quote:

---

if all the people having affairs were allowed to shoot each other there'd be alot less people in the world - like it or not cheating is very common

---

Eh, the guy didn't get off because the grand jury thought shooting adulterers was all well and good, but because the guy thought he was shooting a rapist.

Quote:

---

the shooter should face the chair - fire a gun and accept the consequences -

---

You advocate death for people who shoot guns? Or just for people who shoot people they think are raping their wife? Would you advocate death for someone who shot a burglar breaking into their house at night?

Quote:

---

by the guys own vigilantism - the verdict he would hand down on himself would be a life for a life.

---

You're assuming an awful lot, and you know what they say about assuming.

Quote:

---

luckily in Australia we have a code of laws and these guys called Pleezmen, who enforce the law - citizens are not allowed to be hand out sentencing because they are in general idiots and will get it wrong,

---

But the police are apparently of another species who don't get things like this wrong? Perhaps you saw my recent thread on Chicago's finest.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But see, this is why we need all the guns. Without a police force how else are we going to stop people from doing stuff they shouldn't do? Your own argument defeats itself.

---

:laugh4:

Im not against the US citizens having guns... have all the guns you can get your hands on... by other posters logic that will result in a paradise on earth Utopian society

and the best thing is if people can just remember to shoot first then that will save all those messy expensive trials and lawyers, theres a crime, theres a dead guy... case closed

then the guys with the biggest and most guns can meter out justice - the people of PNG have a very similar legal system - called payback

it works very effectively - some guy wrongs you or your family, your entitled to hack him down in the street if you find him, then his rellies will want payback so they will hack down some members of your family, you might recruit some wontoks from your neighbouring village and go and rape his daughter and shoot his sons, and burn down his village, he will then come and dismember your wives and burn down your village.... etc etc and so on

great system, aprat from the obvious people being hacked to pieces in the mall, there was no crime

I see it as win win ... as long as I dont ever have to live there (the US that is, Papuans are much more civilised and some of my closest friends)

Hey man it works for us, don't dis our system. If I hadn't been able to defend yourself when my neighbor attacked me with his machete for playing my music too loud I wouldn't deserve to call myself an American.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Several points: I am not using this as a case to defend gun ownership.


The number of guns, and gun ownership, has been increasing steadily in this country. Violence, on the other hand, has been decreasing. So,
Americans+more guns+less gun control=less violence

Also, you are now all enlightened-beyond-the-use-of-violence Europeans. Enjoy!

Crazed Rabbit

---

not at all, i see your point now

:laugh4:


assuming alot... that hes a vigilante that took the law into his own hands and made himself judge jury and executioner... im not sure he had even passed the bar exam yet :laugh4:

erm i would call those facts not assumptions

so by his system of justice he should be dead now... its what he wouldve done

I will understand if you find it difficult to follow the logic

Do you understand the term vigilante? It means taking the law into your own hands about matters that aren't of your concern, or any danger to you.

Hunting down sex offenders is vigilantism. Shooting a rapist is self defense. Get it?

I see nothing in this man's behavior to indicate he would kill someone who did what he did - shot what he thought was a rapist.

Once again, I must ask:
[Do] You advocate death for people who shoot guns? Or just for people who shoot people they think are raping their wife? Would you advocate death for someone who shot a burglar breaking into their house at night?

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Do you understand the term vigilante? It means taking the law into your own hands about matters that aren't of your concern, or any danger to you.

Hunting down sex offenders is vigilantism. Shooting a rapist is self defense. Get it?

---

erm no you are wrong

taking the law into your own hand is vigilantism "full stop"

was he being raped - no

had he observed his wife being raped - no

sorry - he went off half cocked so the speak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I see nothing in this man's behavior to indicate he would kill someone who did what he did - shot what he thought was a rapist.

---

and I saw him shooting a man in the back and I decide to shoot him, killing who I thought was a murderer... get it.. he didnt give the guy a chance to find out he was wrong... by that... neither should he be given a chnace to explain himself... it would be no more than he did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Once again, I must ask:
[Do] You advocate death for people who shoot guns? Or just for people who shoot people they think are raping their wife? Would you advocate death for someone who shot a burglar breaking into their house at night?

---

you do understand the difference between shooting someone running away and someone that is attacking you ....??

let me help you ... someone who is breaking in through you window is a direct and present threat to you and you family... a guy who is running away is not... and you have OPPORTUNITY to call for help

having said that.. if you take a life... even defending your own... you had best be prepared for the consequences, which could be a life term in prison, sad but ... best to try and avoid having to kill people really


[edit]clarity

Regarding the term "vigilantism" , I'm pretty sure that shooting a fleeing rapist who did not rape you is upholding a personal (and widely held) sense of justice, satisfying the definition. Now, I'm not saying that I disagree with Vigalantism in any way, unless is its againt the things that I believe, but lets call a spade a spade.

It is Vigalantism to strongly act with disregard for established laws in the name of percieved "Justice", but when acts of vigilantism occur, 95% of the time i find myself cheering for the vigalante. Unfortunatly, post-crime laws are made to protect bad people from harm when they used to exist to protect good people from being wrongfully accused of being bad people, who would be "justly" destroyed or ruined in every way by social consensus.

Vigilantism exists for those who don't believe that the morality of the few lawmakers should trump ones own morality.

yeaaaaa law into your own gun-filled hands!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Shooting a rapist is self defense. Get it?

---

Sure, I think we all get it. It's trailer park justice for you, the rest of us prefer the rule of law. Case closed.

BTW aren't you allowed to shoot anyone who enters your property uninvited in Texas ? Sinc ehis wife claimed she didn't invite the 'rapist' he'd be perfectly within his rights.

Quote:

---

Vigilantism exists for those who don't believe that the morality of the few lawmakers should trump ones own morality.

---

Umm. Yeah, goddam these elected lawmakers and accountable policemen, how dare they impose their morality on us. We demand the right to take life and death decisions on a random and ill informed basis.

An evening in the pub should be more than enough to persuade you that allowing people to act on their own morality is not the best idea.

I still say that the actual outcome of this case seems sensible, albeit that the husband was wrong.

So now we're examining the authority to use force (since we're discussing vigilantism).

The shooter in this case, acted on (what turned out to be) a false report.

Not to get too hypothetical but, if the shooter had not been the husband, but Officer Bubba, who noticed the couple in the pickup truck, and the woman reported rape... would HE (as a representative of the people/society) have been righteous in shooting at the alleged rapist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Hunting down sex offenders is vigilantism. Shooting a rapist is self defense. Get it?

---

Sure, only if he's raping you, if he's raping anyone else it's called defense of others. But notice that the offense has to be actual and concrete. You don't get to shoot the bastard after he has finished the raping because that's not defense. And if you shoot him while on the act but then you discover he was not a rapist, you still could get a manslaughter conviction.

A kind of honor killing if i understand correctly.
Maybe Texas shares values with the mediterranean world?
Is it linked to a local tradition or religion in any way?

The most astonishing thing in this is that a lot of people here seem to think it's okay to cuckold someone.

It's not. It might no longer be a criminal offense but it's still a moral offense.

Pity it wasn't Utah, there it's still illegal to have sex with a woman not your wife.

So, onto the shootist. I have two sets of feelings.

1. I sympathise, though in my case nescessity would require me to use a bowie nife or axe. I think most men would act that way with that information.

2. He was escaping, so it's no kind of defence and he was shot in the back, which negates any honour arguement.

Do I think he deserved to die? Had he been a real rapist then yers, definately.

It's just a bit of a shame he wasn't, all things considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Not to get too hypothetical but, if the shooter had not been the husband, but Officer Bubba, who noticed the couple in the pickup truck, and the woman reported rape... would HE (as a representative of the people/society) have been righteous in shooting at the alleged rapist?

---

I don't know, although I seem to recall that's how it worked in TJ Hooker :beam:

I thought (but I may be wrong) that people who have armed police have armed police for the policeman's self defence, and/or the defence of others, not to save them the effort of chasing a suspect. Although a policeman clearly can use reasonable force to restrain a suspect, in the UK that is necessarily limited to chasing after them and rugby tackling them, because they don't have guns.

Given that I would not want to live in a society where the police were allowed to use UNreasonable force, and given that shooting someone in the back when they are running away and not posing a threat to you or anyone else seems to me to be the definition of unreasonable force, I would guess the answer is that no, officer Bubba would not have been righteous in shooting the alleged rapist.

But possibly this is all hopelessly naive in the context of US law enforcement

Quote:

---

The most astonishing thing in this is that a lot of people here seem to think it's okay to cuckold someone.

---

Are you kidding? No dumb dates on valentines, no endless conversations about moving in together, no need for showy presents, NO MOTHER IN LAW. Sure you have to spend a bit on motels, (or having your pick up lovemobile valeted), but seriously, its the way to go. :clown:

Some of you haven't read the story.

The wife and the guy were in the car.

The wife said he was raping her.

The guy started to drive away WITH THE WIFE STILL IN THE CAR


Kidnapping = mortal threat = lethal force justified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Some of you haven't read the story.

The wife and the guy were in the car.

The wife said he was raping her.

The guy started to drive away WITH THE WIFE STILL IN THE CAR


Kidnapping = mortal threat = lethal force justified.

---

Mebbe he sussed his missus was lying and was a bad shot!:whip:

It's so funny seeing both sides take potshots at each other with the "euroweenies" and "trailer park" while also being so firmly convinced of their own conception of justice; "justified vigilantism" and "rule of law". :laugh4:

Although generally nonexistent in this thread, the few attemps at actually justifying the ethical 'maxims' have been extremely superficial (standing more on rhetoric and emotiveness than on any actual rational ground), and rely on sheer personal opinion which can be dismissed as easily as it is asserted. :rolleyes:

For all those of you who are saying this is not a case of vigilantism: [...]. This most certainly was (assuming the guy isn't lying about what his wife told him) a case of vigilantism. It ceased to have any possible element of self defence as soon as the guy started trying to run away.

For all those of you who think this was a "good" shoot: [...]. This guy did not have enough evidence or information to make a judgement, pass a death sentence, then carry out that death sentence. The only evidence that he had available top him was his wife saying "That guy raped me." Assuming a rape case even made it to court with such flimsy evidence, the accused would have his walking papers within ten minutes, and rightly so.

Because guess what? Most of the time when there is no evidence to support an accusation, that means the accusation is groundless. That's why we have courts. To try to sort through all that crap and make sure bad guys go to jail, and innocent guys don't get executed.

This is a perfect example of what happens when we take a shortcut.

I hope the dead guy's family sues the shooter. If there is any justice he will be living in a cardboard box eating catfood by the end of the year.

Oh and Rabbit? I suggest you take a statistics course. You don't seem to understand the difference between cause and correlation.

Quote:

---

It ceased to have any possible element of self defence as soon as the guy started trying to run away.

---

no no, read my post. If a man your wife claimed was raping her drove away with her in the car you wouldn't shoot at him? Please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

no no, read my post. If a man your wife claimed was raping her drove away with her in the car you wouldn't shoot at him? Please.

---

I read your post. The article doesn't say that she was still in the truck. Granted, it doesn't say she had gotten out of the truck either; it's vague on that point.

So, assuming that she was not in the truck, my post still stands.

Assuming she was in the truck, that does raise a bit more defence for the shooter.

But to your question: would I have shot?

Probably not.

I would venture to say that I have put more rounds downrange than most posters in the Backroom. I know I am a pretty good shot. Actually, better than pretty good. Would I trust myself to fire into a moving vehicle that contained my wife and be confident of not hitting her?

Nope.

What I would have done is got in my own car and chased the guy to keep them in sight, while calling the cops on my cell phone so they could apprehend him.

Quite frankly, if the guy's wife was in the truck and he still decided to start pumping rounds into the vehicle, that indicates to me that he might not have believed that his wife was being raped, but figured he had a chance to cap both of them for cheating.

So at best, this guy made a very poor decision about using deadly force. At worst, he is a murderer.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradent...n/16999898.htm

Quote:

---

When he arrived, Roberson saw his wife, clad in a robe and underwear, with a man in a Chevrolet Silverado pickup, police have said. After Tracy Roberson claimed that the man was trying to rape her, her husband fired four shots at the vehicle as the man tried to drive away with his wife, police have said.

LaSalle -- a UPS employee who had recently moved to Mansfield from New Orleans -- was struck once in the head. The father of three was pronounced dead at the scene.

---

Sorry, I'd read this on another forum so I didn't check the article in the op.

I don't get your assumptions. You don't know how good a shot he is, you don't know how good a shot he had, you don't know if he would have been able to follow the guy in his car, you don't know if the police would have been able to apprehend the guy, you don't know if your wife would die in the car chase. He shot the guy in the head, I don't think he was just pumping randomly.

edit: the article doesn't even say the truck was moving. I would imagine the guy started the truck and the husband pulled his gun and started firing as soon as the the truck started moving. The point is he was acting to protect his wife from what he believed was mortal peril based on what she told him, so the death is her fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

I thought (but I may be wrong) that people who have armed police have armed police for the policeman's self defence, and/or the defence of others, not to save them the effort of chasing a suspect. Although a policeman clearly can use reasonable force to restrain a suspect, in the UK that is necessarily limited to chasing after them and rugby tackling them, because they don't have guns.

---

The exact details of a police officer's authority to use force varies from state to state in the U.S. As a general rule, though, a police officer is authorized by law to use deadly force to prevent the escape of someone the officer is attempting to arrest for the commission of a Forcible Felony if the arrest can't immediately be accomplished in any other way.

I know that the man in our news story wasn't a police officer. I was only trying to answer EA's honest misunderstanding of an officer's authority to use deadly force.

As far as our story goes, we don't have enough information about what really happened. I will point out that in the U.S. a person in a case such as this is judged only on the facts and circumstances that were available to them at the time of the action and whether a "reasonable man" would have interpreted those facts and circumstances in a substantially similar way. In other words, the husband in our case is judged as if his wife were really being raped as long as a "reasonable man" would have come to the same conclusion based on the circumstances and the wife's statement that she was being raped.

Someone stated that the husband was found innocent at trial. This isn't true. A Grand Jury is only used to decide whether Probable Cause exists to formally charge a person with a crime (indict them). Probable Cause is a much lower standard of proof than "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" which is used at trial. Neither the defendant nor his lawyer are present at the hearing. In fact, the defendant usually doesn't even know it's happening. There isn't a judge present either. It's just the prosecutor, his witnesses (usually just the police officers involved), and 24 jurors. Unlike a trial, the jurors can actually ask the witnesses direct questions. This means that 24 Texans of all walks of life heard the whole story and decided that it was reasonable to believe that the husband believed his wife was being raped and that he needed to use deadly force to prevent further damage. After hearing only the prosecution's side, with no defense, they couldn't even find PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that a crime had been committed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki

He shot the guy in the head, I don't think he was just pumping randomly

---

As he fired four shots and all articles only mention a single hit in the head it seems that three shots missed.

That of course still doesn't mean that he was pumping randomly, maybe just a lousy shot.

Nice explanation, gunslinger.

Since this was posted, I've been trying to find a news article on a man who found his wife in bed with another man, shot them both, and got off scot-free in Texas. If anyone remembers the incident, lemme know if you find a link, but I think marital justice kinda works a lil different down there..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

maybe just a lousy shot.

---

Which wouldn't make it a particularly great idea to fire when his wife was sitting (or whatever position she assumed) right next to the "target"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Which wouldn't make it a particularly great idea to fire when his wife was sitting (or whatever position she assumed) right next to the "target"

---

I think it would be incredibly presumptuous of me to assume that this man would rashly risk his wifes life. In a pickup truck they will be 3 or 4 feet apart. He fired four shots from a vehicle that probable wasn't that far away. I see no reason to assume he was putting his wife at more risk than she would have been from being abducted by a rapist. For all you know the other three shots were fired after the first one hit and were right nearby. He's a texan he probably practices a lot.

VV same thing. We don't know what the situation was. For all you know he was firing into a stationary vehicle from 6 feet away, his wife was curled up in the corner, and the other three shots were fired after the first had hit. There isn't enough information to condemn him of having recklessly endangered his wifes life. Seems like people are just bringing their dislike of the man based on their assumptions from crazed's article over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradent...n/16999898.htm



Sorry, I'd read this on another forum so I didn't check the article in the op.

I don't get your assumptions. You don't know how good a shot he is, you don't know how good a shot he had, you don't know if he would have been able to follow the guy in his car, you don't know if the police would have been able to apprehend the guy, you don't know if your wife would die in the car chase. He shot the guy in the head, I don't think he was just pumping randomly.

---

You asked me if I would have shot. I said no and gave my reasons why. And, as has been pointed out, he fired four shots, only one of which was a confirmed head shot. Although he didn't hit his wife, there was an excellent chance that even if all of his shots had hit his target, he still might have hit her with an exit round or a ricochet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I think it would be incredibly presumptuous of me to assume that this man would rashly risk his wifes life. In a pickup truck they will be 3 or 4 feet apart. He fired four shots from a vehicle that probable wasn't that far away. I see no reason to assume he was putting his wife at more risk than she would have been from being abducted by a rapist. For all you know the other three shots were fired after the first one hit and were right nearby. He's a texan he probably practices a lot.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Since this was posted, I've been trying to find a news article on a man who found his wife in bed with another man, shot them both, and got off scot-free in Texas. If anyone remembers the incident, lemme know if you find a link, but I think marital justice kinda works a lil different down there..

---

What you are describing is the "irresistable impulse" defence. It is an affirmative defense similar to the insanity defense. The case of a man who finds his wife in bed with another man and becomes so enraged that he temporarily looses control and kills the other man or his wife is the most often used hypothetical example of this defense. The basis of the defense is that in the past the courts found that you couldn't reasonably expect a person to remain in control of himself in such circumstances. In today's society, where marriage vows aren't taken as seriously as they were 100 years ago, this defense is somewhat anachronistic, but still legally valid since case law evolves very slowly.

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: