Husband Kills, Wife Charged [Archive]

drkitten

3rd April 2007, 08:21 AM

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

A self-defense plea usually hinges on a "reasonable belief" that someone is in danger. From the LectLaw site (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm), "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....

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 08:22 AM

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.

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.

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 08:23 AM

A self-defense plea usually hinges on a "reasonable belief" that someone is in danger. From the LectLaw site (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm), "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....

Well there might be issues if he was fleeing at the time, and not representing a continueing threat.

brodski

3rd April 2007, 08:23 AM

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.

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.

drkitten

3rd April 2007, 08:25 AM

Well there might be issues if he was fleeing at the time, and not representing a continueing threat.

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.

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

brodski

3rd April 2007, 08:29 AM

Well there might be issues if he was fleeing at the time, and not representing a continueing threat.

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.

brodski

3rd April 2007, 08:32 AM

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

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".

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 08:38 AM

Not necessarily, according to the LectLaw site.

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."

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.

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 08:39 AM

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.

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.

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 08:42 AM

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".

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.

Bob Klase

3rd April 2007, 08:45 AM

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.

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.

brodski

3rd April 2007, 08:47 AM

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.

Ah, ok. I have issue with that aspect too.

Beerina

3rd April 2007, 09:51 AM

Well there might be issues if he was fleeing at the time, and not representing a continueing threat.

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.

Beerina

3rd April 2007, 09:58 AM

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.

I heartily encourage any politicians who believe this to trumpet it, so they may get < 0.01% of the vote at the next election.

Beerina

3rd April 2007, 10:02 AM

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.

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.

fuelair

3rd April 2007, 10:32 AM

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.
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.

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 10:35 AM

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 10:39 AM

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?

Got is. Life has no enherint value, and death should be the punishment for all percieved crimes.

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

So you have no problem with this case at all? Killing an innocent man at the instant word of a woman is the way you conduct justice?

This case is exactly why attacking people who are not a continueing threat is an issue. But what the hell you would never sleep a woman who might have another lover walk in and she panics claims rape and you get killed I am sure.

Naa, that couldn't ever happen.

Tony

3rd April 2007, 10:59 AM

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

I think it's pretty clear. He was acting on the instinct of his wife being harmed. What would you do if you walked in on your wife being raped?

brodski

3rd April 2007, 11:10 AM

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.

there is a difference between defense and revenge, if he's running away then it's no longer defense. If he's got in a truck and is driving away, it is certainly not defense.
If revenge killings are OK why do we bother with the police at all?
Vigilante justice is much cheaper, and more emotionally satisfying.

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 11:28 AM

I think it's pretty clear. He was acting on the instinct of his wife being harmed. What would you do if you walked in on your wife being raped?

Instinct is not a good defense. I hurt you by rearending your car, what is your instinct? To kill me. So is shooting someone a legitimate responce to being rear ended?

Yes he should be treated as if she was raped, but that does not mean shooting at him as he drove off is a responce that we need to accept.

LawnOven

3rd April 2007, 11:31 AM

Instinct is not a good defense. I hurt you by rearending your car, what is your instinct? To kill me. So is shooting someone a legitimate responce to being rear ended?

Yes he should be treated as if she was raped, but that does not mean shooting at him as he drove off is a responce that we need to accept.

I'm sorry, but your analogy sucks.

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 11:37 AM

I'm sorry, but your analogy sucks.

Why? Is that not an instinct to retaliate after someone has hurt you and your property?

By the laws cited, it might even be legal, if you believe that it was intentional. You would be pursing them after an assault.

Tony

3rd April 2007, 11:38 AM

Instinct is not a good defense. I hurt you by rearending your car, what is your instinct? To kill me.

Say what? Sorry, that may be your instinct, but it is not mine.

Yes he should be treated as if she was raped, but that does not mean shooting at him as he drove off is a responce that we need to accept.

Perhaps, but it doesn't mean he should guilty. And the echo LawnOven, your analogy sucks.

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 11:47 AM

Say what? Sorry, that may be your instinct, but it is not mine.
So you do not respond to an attack with violence. You have just internalized that the an assult on a womans honor is worth killing over, but not an assault on you anc your vehical.

Perhaps, but it doesn't mean he should guilty. And the echo LawnOven, your analogy sucks.

Ok so you do not need to pose a threat to be shot and have someone legitimately claiming self defense.

So when is revenge justified? The idea of defense is that you are preventing an attack, but when they are running away it is not defense but offense, thus it is revenge. So when should a civilized soceity condone revenge? You feel it is acceptable in rape but not traffic offenses, but when else is revenge legal?

LawnOven

3rd April 2007, 11:52 AM

Why? Is that not an instinct to retaliate after someone has hurt you and your property?

By the laws cited, it might even be legal, if you believe that it was intentional. You would be pursing them after an assault.

It sucks for a variety of reasons which I think should be obvious. It is just not a very realistic compairson. Not intellectually honest, it seems like an intentional attempt to make the opinion which you disagree with seem ridiculous.

Being rear ended, once, by another car in no way compares to witnessing your wife being raped right in front of you. The social contexts of the two situations are in no way comparable.

LawnOven

3rd April 2007, 11:56 AM

So you do not respond to an attack with violence. You have just internalized that the an assult on a womans honor is worth killing over, but not an assault on you anc your vehical.

Jesus Christ, dude, seriously.

A womans honor? or a woman who happens to be your wife being violently assaulted by another man in one of the most degrading ways possible.

Hmm car vs. wife, yeah I'd say a normal person would see a difference between the two.

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 12:01 PM

It sucks for a variety of reasons which I think should be obvious. It is just not a very realistic compairson. Not intellectually honest, it seems like an intentional attempt to make the opinion which you disagree with seem ridiculous.

Being rear ended, once, by another car in no way compares to witnessing your wife being raped right in front of you. The social contexts of the two situations are in no way comparable.

So you refuse to articulate any principle on when you can pursue someone offering you no obvious dirrect threat at this time?

"Vengence is acceptable when I say it is" that is your arguement, you are not presenting one more detailed.

BUt I guess rational reasons for revenge are never going to be forthcoming, sw we should accept the LawnOven priciples of when pursuing someing and killing them is justified. What LawnOven says is right.

Tony

3rd April 2007, 12:04 PM

So you do not respond to an attack with violence. You have just internalized that the an assult on a womans honor is worth killing over, but not an assault on you anc your vehical.

You never said anything about an attack. You're moving the goal posts. You simply said "I hurt you by rearending your car".

Ok so you do not need to pose a threat to be shot and have someone legitimately claiming self defense.

How do you know he didn't pose a threat. Where you there?

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 12:07 PM

Jesus Christ, dude, seriously.

A womans honor? or a woman who happens to be your wife being violently assaulted by another man in one of the most degrading ways possible.

Hmm car vs. wife, yeah I'd say a normal person would see a difference between the two.

So, what is the line when retribution becomes acceptable? This is not about defense, as there is no reason to assume you are preventing anything. This is about retribution.

So what are the principles you will decide as to when retribution is acceptable as a private individual and when it is not? When do you have to stop chasing him down to kill him? 1 minute, 5? 1 Hour? 5 years?

The priciple in all of them is revenge, you accept the idea that individuals can take personal revenge for personal affronts. But you do not hold that right absolute or you would accept that chasing someone down and shooting them for the attempt to kill you as demonstrated in rear ending you is not valid.

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 12:10 PM

You never said anything about an attack. You're moving the goal posts. You simply said "I hurt you by rearending your car".

Ah so hitting you in your car with my car is not an attack even if you percieve it as intentional?

How do you know he didn't pose a threat. Where you there?

So everyone running away from you is a threat? That must make murder convictions harder, "sure I assaulted him, but how was I supposted to know he was not a threat just because he was running away?"

LawnOven

3rd April 2007, 12:12 PM

So you refuse to articulate any principle on when you can pursue someone offering you no obvious dirrect threat at this time?

"Vengence is acceptable when I say it is" that is your arguement, you are not presenting one more detailed.

BUt I guess rational reasons for revenge are never going to be forthcoming, sw we should accept the LawnOven priciples of when pursuing someing and killing them is justified. What LawnOven says is right.

*sigh*
No actually I'm not willing to articulate any principals, because they would be irrelavent and I am not a lawyer nor a lawmaker. The reason I said "your analogy sucks" is not because I think you are full of sh!# and a moron, but because I really thought, "your analogy sucks". Believe me, I would have been more specific if I thought I was the delegator of societal morality.

I took issue with your analogy because you want to pretend that a "rear-ended" car and a "rear-ended wife" (was going to be said sometime) are equal. An idea with which I feel that most people would disagree; and I hope you would too. That is why your analogy completely and utterly sucks and blows at the same time.

LawnOven

3rd April 2007, 12:14 PM

So, what is the line when retribution becomes acceptable? This is not about defense, as there is no reason to assume you are preventing anything. This is about retribution.

So what are the principles you will decide as to when retribution is acceptable as a private individual and when it is not? When do you have to stop chasing him down to kill him? 1 minute, 5? 1 Hour? 5 years?

The priciple in all of them is revenge, you accept the idea that individuals can take personal revenge for personal affronts. But you do not hold that right absolute or you would accept that chasing someone down and shooting them for the attempt to kill you as demonstrated in rear ending you is not valid.

These are questions I never claimed to be able to answer. I think this discussion is interesting. I just took issue with your crappy crappy analogy, which was really dishonest.

edit: if you are asking me personally if someone was continually rear ending me and it was obvious that they were either trying to seriously hurt or kill me or a loved one... I don't know how I would react because I've never been in that situation. I would like to think that I would do what ever I thought was nessesary to essure the safety of my friends and family, into the future, from that particular threat maybe even if the confrontation started to not go the assailant's way.

Tony

3rd April 2007, 12:30 PM

Ah so hitting you in your car with my car is not an attack even if you percieve it as intentional?

When did I ever say I percieve it as intentional?

So everyone running away from you is a threat?

If someone just raped my wife, and then attempts to drive away with her in the car, that person is a threat to my wife. Perhaps you're ok with a rapist kidnapping your wife, but I am not.

Bob Klase

3rd April 2007, 12:36 PM

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.

So you'd also be in favor of the death penalty for anyone convicted of any serious crime? Or only rape and perceived rape?

By initiating a crime, this guy deserves 0% protection.

Of course in this case he didn't actually initiate (or commit) any crime (except perhaps adultery- and if that's still a crime in Texas it's never prosecuted and certainly doesn't get the death penatly).

A womans honor? or a woman who happens to be your wife being violently assaulted by another man in one of the most degrading ways possible.

Except that in this case the woman wasn't being assaulted by the man. Much like an innocent person being executed for a crime they didn't committ.

LawnOven

3rd April 2007, 12:45 PM

Except that in this case the woman wasn't being assaulted by the man. Much like an innocent person being executed for a crime they didn't committ.

Ergh! what is it with you people?! That is TOTALLY IRRELAVENT to everything I've said.

I took issue with the ANALOGY which ponderingturtle used in an attempt to frame this very interesting discussion in a very disingenuous way.

Car does not equal wife and I will stand by that.

I swear I think some of you are obtuse on purpose; you think it's funny or it makes you clever or something.

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 12:45 PM

*sigh*
No actually I'm not willing to articulate any principals, because they would be irrelavent and I am not a lawyer nor a lawmaker. The reason I said "your analogy sucks" is not because I think you are full of sh!# and a moron, but because I really thought, "your analogy sucks". Believe me, I would have been more specific if I thought I was the delegator of societal morality.

My analogy was intended to be a Reductio ad absurdum. OF course it is a bad analogy, it was not intended as an analogy but to show how the basic ideals being articulated are not applicable to similar situations.

I took issue with your analogy because you want to pretend that a "rear-ended" car and a "rear-ended wife" (was going to be said sometime) are equal. An idea with which I feel that most people would disagree; and I hope you would too. That is why your analogy completely and utterly sucks and blows at the same time.

No I am saying that they are both can be interpreted as assaults. Would you support chasing and killing someone who rapes your wife, but not someone who just physically attacks her or you?

I am trying to establish what people support and why, regarding the acceptability of personal retribution.

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 12:48 PM

When did I ever say I percieve it as intentional?

I did. It is all about perception anyway, as there was no rape here, he just percieved that there was. So if you claim to think that at the time that it was intentional to hurt you, why shouldn't you be able to track them down and kill them?

If someone just raped my wife, and then attempts to drive away with her in the car, that person is a threat to my wife. Perhaps you're ok with a rapist kidnapping your wife, but I am not.

Ah now she is in the car? Where is your evidence for that?

THe point was that he is not a further demonstrated threat, and is running away. That is what you have been in favor of. That is retribution and has nothing to do with kidnapping.

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 12:52 PM

Ergh! what is it with you people?! That is TOTALLY IRRELAVENT to everything I've said.

I took issue with the ANALOGY which ponderingturtle used in an attempt to frame this very interesting discussion in a very disingenuous way.

Car does not equal wife and I will stand by that.

I swear I think some of you are obtuse on purpose; you think it's funny or it makes you clever or something.

What people are trying to do is illustrate how the idea that you can take retributive justice into your hands as an individual is concidered by some an extreem point of view.

You are just saying "I don't think that" well you are not contributing to the discussion because you refuse to comit to anwers on when is chasing someone and killing them in retaliation for a percieved crime against you justified.

LawnOven

3rd April 2007, 12:53 PM

My analogy was intended to be a Reductio ad absurdum. OF course it is a bad analogy, it was not intended as an analogy but to show how the basic ideals being articulated are not applicable to similar situations.

Yes I understand what you are doing the problem is, they are in no way similar situations.

I am trying to establish what people support and why, regarding the acceptability of personal retribution.

If this is what you are interested in; then why not just ask? And then ask 'why'?

Tony

3rd April 2007, 12:59 PM

I did.

When you moved the goal posts. And how do you know how I'll percieve it?

It is all about perception anyway, as there was no rape here, he just percieved that there was.

Yeah. It's a funny thing that when a woman yells "rape" and has a naked stranger on top of her that someone would actually think she's being raped.

So if you claim to think that at the time that it was intentional to hurt you, why shouldn't you be able to track them down and kill them?

False analogy.

Ah now she is in the car? Where is your evidence for that?

Read the article moron.

ARLINGTON, Texas (AP) — Darrell Roberson came home from a card game late one night to find his wife rolling around with another man in a pickup in the driveway.

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.

THe point was that he is not a further demonstrated threat, and is running away. That is what you have been in favor of. That is retribution and has nothing to do with kidnapping.

You don't have a point, you're being a twat. Next time, atleast read the article before you make yourself look like an idiot.

LawnOven

3rd April 2007, 01:02 PM

You are just saying "I don't think that" well you are not contributing to the discussion because you refuse to comit to anwers on when is chasing someone and killing them in retaliation for a percieved crime against you justified.

Please don't lecture me on disscussion contributions when your entire analogy is lacking in contribution. If you think my contribution lacks merit, then fine--I'm done. It was all for you benefit anyways; as far as I'm concerned.

drkitten

3rd April 2007, 01:10 PM

THe point was that he is not a further demonstrated threat, and is running away.

Unfortunately, this point is not well-made. It's an assumption, and not a particularly good one at that.

As has been pointed out, it's not clear where the wife was as the man tried to drive away. If she was still in the bed of the pickup truck (the newspaper report suggests that as the site of the tryst itself), then whether or not he's running away, he's still a threat. The article does not provide enough information to tell.

Beyond that, it's not clear that just because someone is behind the wheel of a pickup truck, they are no longer a threat. Was the person actually trying to "run away," or was he trying to get into a better position to return fire? Was the person planning to come back ore reverse the truck and try to run down the gunman? Did he have a concealed pistol in the truck?

And, more importantly, would a reasonable person believe that just because a rapist was now in the cab of a truck, there is no more danger? I certainly wouldn't.

The law does not demand that just because someone might no longer pose a threat, you are required to act as if he does not. Quite the opposite -- once someone has proven himself to be a threat, you can take any reasonable steps to eliminate all danger.

From my point of view, if you have established yourself as a deadly threat -- which a rapist certainly qualifies as -- you continue to be a deadly threat until you are either completely subdued or have left the area completely. It's too easy for someone to, for example, pull a concealed firearm out and start firing. If for whatever reason, I have to start shooting at you, I will continue shooting until you are either dead or incapacitated. I have no obligation -- and no intention -- to put myself at risk by accepting, for instance, a feigned surrender.

And the law supports me in this. Notice the phrasing from the cite I gave.... "until he has secured himself from all danger." A violent felon at the controls of a moving car is still a danger -- he might, for example, decide to total the witnesses. As such, I get to keep shooting -- legally -- until the car and the rapist both stop moving.

Basically, you're making the assumption that a fleeing felon is no longer a danger. The cemetaries are overstocked with people who believed that.

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 01:22 PM

Yes I understand what you are doing the problem is, they are in no way similar situations.

So an assault is not something that you feel you can persue someone and have it still be concidered self defense?

OR you do not think that anyone could reasonably assume being rearended was an assault?

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 01:26 PM

When you moved the goal posts. And how do you know how I'll percieve it?

Yeah. It's a funny thing that when a woman yells "rape" and has a naked stranger on top of her that someone would actually think she's being raped.

False analogy.

So when is personal retribution permissable? When is it not? Why can't you ever make any statements about how you determine such things?

Read the article moron.

Ah so like all potential rape victims, when the purpetrator gets out of the back of the truck goes around and opens a door, gets in and drives away, they sit there?

Her location at the time was not indicated.

You don't have a point, you're being a twat. Next time, atleast read the article before you make yourself look like an idiot.

ANd you don't have any principles. You just seemingly at random decide that personal retribution is permissable when you feel like it. That is such a wonderful basis for legal judgements.

"I know self defense when I see it"

ponderingturtle

3rd April 2007, 01:30 PM

Unfortunately, this point is not well-made. It's an assumption, and not a particularly good one at that.

As has been pointed out, it's not clear where the wife was as the man tried to drive away. If she was still in the bed of the pickup truck (the newspaper report suggests that as the site of the tryst itself), then whether or not he's running away, he's still a threat. The article does not provide enough information to tell.

Beyond that, it's not clear that just because someone is behind the wheel of a pickup truck, they are no longer a threat. Was the person actually trying to "run away," or was he trying to get into a better position to return fire? Was the person planning to come back ore reverse the truck and try to run down the gunman? Did he have a concealed pistol in the truck?

And, more importantly, would a reasonable person believe that just because a rapist was now in the cab of a truck, there is no more danger? I certainly wouldn't.

The law does not demand that just because someone might no longer pose a threat, you are required to act as if he does not. Quite the opposite -- once someone has proven himself to be a threat, you can take any reasonable steps to eliminate all danger.

From my point of view, if you have established yourself as a deadly threat -- which a rapist certainly qualifies as -- you continue to be a deadly threat until you are either completely subdued or have left the area completely. It's too easy for someone to, for example, pull a concealed firearm out and start firing. If for whatever reason, I have to start shooting at you, I will continue shooting until you are either dead or incapacitated. I have no obligation -- and no intention -- to put myself at risk by accepting, for instance, a feigned surrender.

And the law supports me in this. Notice the phrasing from the cite I gave.... "until he has secured himself from all danger." A violent felon at the controls of a moving car is still a danger -- he might, for example, decide to total the witnesses. As such, I get to keep shooting -- legally -- until the car and the rapist both stop moving.

Basically, you're making the assumption that a fleeing felon is no longer a danger. The cemetaries are overstocked with people who believed that.

So when do you stop trying to kill the one who wronged you? I can clearly see that running away and not continueing a threat is not enough. but you never know if they will be back so you must track them down and kill them, no matter how long it takes or how many years they are in prison for.

drkitten

3rd April 2007, 01:33 PM

So when do you stop trying to kill the one who wronged you?

I already answered that one. Legally speaking, at the point where it is not longer "reasonable" to believe that he presents any danger.

Tailgater

3rd April 2007, 01:33 PM

PT-

All other arguements aside, what would you do if a rapist was raping your wife and then drove off with her (probably to rape her some more and kill her). Your only option is to shoot him or let him go.

Tony

3rd April 2007, 01:41 PM

So when is personal retribution permissable? When is it not? Why can't you ever make any statements about how you determine such things?

Irrelevant.

Ah so like all potential rape victims, when the purpetrator gets out of the back of the truck goes around and opens a door, gets in and drives away, they sit there?

Her location at the time was not indicated.

Yes it was:

ARLINGTON, Texas (AP) — Darrell Roberson came home from a card game late one night to find his wife rolling around with another man in a pickup in the driveway.

The article states she was in the truck. Since it give no further information, we have no reason to believe she was anywhere other than in the truck when the guy started to drive away. Furthermore, where is your evidence that they were in the back of the truck? That isn't stated in the article.

ANd you don't have any principles.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

How you even pretend to divine that from what I've said is a mystery. Are you using Tarot Cards or a Crystal Ball?

You just seemingly at random decide that personal retribution is permissable when you feel like it.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha

That is such a wonderful basis for legal judgements.

Please, keep crying and making fallacies about it, it's been entertaining.

Tony

3rd April 2007, 01:47 PM

Dr Adequate

3rd April 2007, 05:07 PM

I'd have done the same thing, this is exactly why people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

fuelair

3rd April 2007, 06:41 PM

My analogy was intended to be a Reductio ad absurdum. OF course it is a bad analogy, it was not intended as an analogy but to show how the basic ideals being articulated are not applicable to similar situations.

No I am saying that they are both can be interpreted as assaults. Would you support chasing and killing someone who rapes your wife, but not someone who just physically attacks her or you?

.
I have answered this many times here so I won't repeat again. But in your specific example here, yes to all three - any physical assault can lead to murder by the attacker. My rule is, it won't be my others or myself who will die if I can prevent it.