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

[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

Lol:

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

Also, my argument is completely correct.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

[Yun Dog]

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.

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)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

[Yun Dog]

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




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

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

[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?

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

[Yun Dog]

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

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.

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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!

[Adrian II]

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.

[doc_bean]

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.

[English assassin]

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.

[KukriKhan]

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?

[Soulforged]

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.

[Petrus]

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?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[English assassin]

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

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

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.

[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.

[InsaneApache]

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!

[Reenk Roink]

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".

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.

[Goofball]

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

[Goofball]

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

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.

[gunslinger]

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.

[Ser Clegane]

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.

[Proletariat]

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..

[Ser Clegane]

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"

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

[Goofball]

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.

[Goofball]

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...

[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..

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.