Husband Kills, Wife Charged

Not insanity...defense. Not self-defense, but isn't coming to the rescue of another person a legal allowance?

If he honestly thought his wife was being raped, I can't really blame him for taking serious action. Although a shot to the leg, groin, chest, or just about anywhere else would have done just as well.
 
Bob Klase said:
I don't have a problem with the wife being charged, but I don't know if the husband should get away scott free.
Click to expand...

A self-defense plea usually hinges on a "reasonable belief" that someone is in danger. From the LectLaw site, "Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force."

I don't have any problem with this. "Rape" is is by definition unlawful force, and so the husband was justified in using force to stop it.

The fact that the wife wasn't actually being raped isn't -- and shouldn't be -- legally relevant. If the husband would have been permitted to shoot his wife's actual rapist (which most people would accept), then he is also permitted to shoot someone that he believes to be his wife's rapist as long as the belief is reasonable. But it's not fair to expect the husband to be omnisicent....
 
NobbyNobbs said:
Not insanity...defense. Not self-defense, but isn't coming to the rescue of another person a legal allowance?

If he honestly thought his wife was being raped, I can't really blame him for taking serious action. Although a shot to the leg, groin, chest, or just about anywhere else would have done just as well.
Click to expand...

Depending on firearms to be non lethaly incapacitating is foolish in the real world. If you can legitimately use a fire arm, then death has to be a legitimate outcome.
 
drkitten said:
A self-defense plea usually hinges on a "reasonable belief" that someone is in danger. From the LectLaw site, "Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force."

I don't have any problem with this. "Rape" is is by definition unlawful force, and so the husband was justified in using force to stop it.

The fact that the wife wasn't actually being raped isn't -- and shouldn't be -- legally relevant. If the husband would have been permitted to shoot his wife's actual rapist (which most people would accept), then he is also permitted to shoot someone that he believes to be his wife's rapist as long as the belief is reasonable. But it's not fair to expect the husband to be omnisicent....
Click to expand...

Well there might be issues if he was fleeing at the time, and not representing a continueing threat.
 
Bob Klase said:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-31-womanindicted_N.htm



I don't have a problem with the wife being charged, but I don't know if the husband should get away scott free.
Click to expand...

If the wife was actually being raped should the husband be allowed to shoot the rapist and “get away Scot free”?

If the answer to this question is “yes” then it must follow that if the husband had reasonable grounds to believe that his wife was being raped (a guy having sex with her and she is shouting “rape” would, in my mind, be reasonable grounds to assume in the heat of the moment that a rape is taking place) then he should also get away “Scot free”.

He was attempting to save his wife, he had no way of knowing that he was actually just murdering her lover.

Now if you believe that deadly force should not be used by husbands in preventing the rape of their wives, then of course he should be charged.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Well there might be issues if he was fleeing at the time, and not representing a continueing threat.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, according to the LectLaw site.


A man may defend himself and even commit a homicide for the prevention of any forcible and atrocious crime, which if completed would amount to a felony; and of course under the like circumstances, mayhem, wounding and battery would be excusable at common law. A man may repel force by force in defence of his person, property or habitation, against any one who manifests, intends, attempts, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a forcible felony, such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, burglary and the like. In these cases he is not required to retreat, but he may resist and even pursue his adversary, until he has secured himself from all danger.
Click to expand...

Note that "rape" is specifically named as a reason that "he may resist and even pursue."
 
ponderingturtle said:
Well there might be issues if he was fleeing at the time, and not representing a continueing threat.
Click to expand...

Reading the article that appears to be what happened
"When Tracy Roberson cried that she was being raped, LaSalle tried to drive away and her husband drew the gun he happened to be carrying and fired several shots at the truck, authorities said."

To me this takes it out of "defence" and into the realms of "revenge". To my mind his actions were not morally justified, I don't know about legally.
 
drkitten said:
Note that "rape" is specifically named as a reason that "he may resist and even pursue."
Click to expand...

But he did not pursue, he shot someone while they where driving away, that would not seem to meet any reasonable definition of pursuit, and Robinson had already "secured himself from all danger".
 
drkitten said:
Not necessarily, according to the LectLaw site.
Click to expand...

Well as I said might, we are getting into all kinds of issues with no one saying anything definite.


Note that "rape" is specifically named as a reason that "he may resist and even pursue."
Click to expand...

And that is why I said there might be an issue. I have no idea of Texas self defense laws, but there does need to be something to prevent someone who is not posing a direct threat anymore from being killed in retaliation, or you are legalizing vengeance killings. Of course not everyone thinks that is a bad thing.
 
brodski said:
Reading the article that appears to be what happened
"When Tracy Roberson cried that she was being raped, LaSalle tried to drive away and her husband drew the gun he happened to be carrying and fired several shots at the truck, authorities said."

To me this takes it out of "defence" and into the realms of "revenge". To my mind his actions were not morally justified, I don't know about legally.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I don't know texas self defense laws. I would not be suprised if they are less restrictive of violent behavior than others.
 
brodski said:
But he did not pursue, he shot someone while they where driving away, that would not seem to meet any reasonable definition of pursuit, and Robinson had already "secured himself from all danger".
Click to expand...

He continued the engagement after the other individual tried to flee, from self defense that would seem to fit into pursuit. If you are permited to continue force after the other person tries to leave that would seem to fit into a general catagory of pursuit.
 
brodski said:
If the wife was actually being raped should the husband be allowed to shoot the rapist and “get away Scot free”?

He was attempting to save his wife, he had no way of knowing that he was actually just murdering her lover.

Now if you believe that deadly force should not be used by husbands in preventing the rape of their wives, then of course he should be charged.
Click to expand...

My doubt stems from the fact that the 'victim' was apparently trying to drive away. I wonder if this wouldn't mean that the danger is leaving.

ETA: But the article doesn't say whether the wife was still in the truck when he tried to drive away. If she was, then as far as the husband knew this would be a continuing threat and appear to be attempted kidnapping in addition to rape. Certainly I wouldn't have doubts if that's the case.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
Well there might be issues if he was fleeing at the time, and not representing a continueing threat.
Click to expand...

You don't know that he isn't going outside to where he has his other gun hidden, to come back in to shoot at you. You don't know he isn't about to turn back around. It isn't your job to take increased risk to "preserve his right to life". You should have the right to take 100% certainty of action to protect yourself. By initiating a crime, this guy deserves 0% protection.
 
brodski said:
Now if you believe that deadly force should not be used by husbands in preventing the rape of their wives, then of course he should be charged.
Click to expand...

I heartily encourage any politicians who believe this to trumpet it, so they may get < 0.01% of the vote at the next election.
 
brodski said:
Reading the article that appears to be what happened
"When Tracy Roberson cried that she was being raped, LaSalle tried to drive away and her husband drew the gun he happened to be carrying and fired several shots at the truck, authorities said."

To me this takes it out of "defence" and into the realms of "revenge". To my mind his actions were not morally justified, I don't know about legally.
Click to expand...

I have no problem blowing away a rapist as he scurries away. Just what the hell are you protecting? His right to rape again? Perhaps your own mother?

If the two choices are: him getting away, preserving his "life", or him dying with bullets in his back, I choose the latter.

Let any politician who believes otherwise please trumpet this before the next election.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Depending on firearms to be non lethaly incapacitating is foolish in the real world. If you can legitimately use a fire arm, then death has to be a legitimate outcome.
Click to expand...
My rule of thumb on that is never be well trained enough - officially - in any martial art that someone legal can claim your control was easily sufficient to avoid killing.
 
Beerina said:
You don't know that he isn't going outside to where he has his other gun hidden, to come back in to shoot at you. You don't know he isn't about to turn back around. It isn't your job to take increased risk to "preserve his right to life". You should have the right to take 100% certainty of action to protect yourself. By initiating a crime, this guy deserves 0% protection.
Click to expand...

I don't know that everyone I see who walks down the street isn't planning on killing me. So should I get them before they get me?

I don't know that he isn't going to do it again, so I am going to track him down and kill him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom