Wife Indicted after Husband Kills her Lover in Texas

The husband must be a pretty confident shot... or else, he didn't much care which one he hit!

0 Replies

No Gun. No death.

0 Replies

Tico wrote:

It doesn't matter to me whether he thought she was being attacked or not. The question is, should she be convicted of murder. To that, I say "no" because she did not kill anyone. You can dress this up in any amount of emotion, or precedence, or whatever, but she did not pull the trigger.

I'm not saying that she's not guilty (of many things), I'm saying that she did not kill anyone and therefore should not be convicted of murder.

Well you are right of course. I guarantee you she won't be convicted of murder.

The fact that she was only charged with manslaughter makes it a fairly safe bet on my part. Razz

0 Replies

Quote:

The fact that she was only charged with manslaughter makes it a fairly safe bet on my part.

fishin'- Morally, I think that she WAS guilty of manslaughter. Because of misinformation, she set actions into motion that caused the death of her lover. I am curious as to whether the prosecution could pull it off legally, though.

This is a highly unusual case. I am attempting to think of another scenario that would be similar. Let's say that someone, as a hoax, tells people in a theatre that there is a bomb in the theatre, that will go off momentarily. There is a panic, and someone is killed in the crush. Could the hoaxter in this case be charged with manslaughter?

0 Replies

Horrendous.

Since when has the law allowed for vigiliante style justice? Well...should it?

First prove it. I'm sure their 'proof' will be based on emotionally charged hogwash. Nonetheless, courts have been known to be twisted and juries are anything but just.
She claimed rape - but there was no time for the man to assess whether she actually was being raped.

If he had stopped for 2 seconds, the fact that she was in her underwear and robe in the truck in front of her house would have tipped him off.
Also, I'd want to know what the circumstances were concerning this couple before all this.
Big time. Maybe this isn't the first time she cheated? Maybe there was lots of fighting? On and on to set the stage for the man to 'hit the last straw'.

It's possible the man even knew she was not being raped. And shot anyways.

Who hasn't wanted to shoot a cheater?

If the man is not charged with manslaughter, that would be the beginning of a very slippery slope. Pretty soon anyone will be able to justify killing another for emotional reasons.

I think both the hubby and wife should be locked up. Together. Twisted Evil

Ahh, but a nice dream.

0 Replies

Quote:

His wife also was charged with making a false report to a police officer -- for allegedly saying she was raped

Has the wife admitted that she wasn't being raped? If not, why was she charged "with making a false report"?

0 Replies

The e-mail indicates she invited him over, therefore not rape.

Doesn't all this tie into the latest sweeping passage of laws re: carrying a gun and self defense if one feels threatened? Remember that? I think we had a thread on it when the law passed in Florida. Has passed several other places now.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

The e-mail indicates she invited him over, therefore not rape.

Plenty of women are raped while on a date. Her note proves nothing relative to her precise intentions during her session with the man.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

This is a highly unusual case. I am attempting to think of another scenario that would be similar. Let's say that someone, as a hoax, tells people in a theatre that there is a bomb in the theatre, that will go off momentarily. There is a panic, and someone is killed in the crush. Could the hoaxter in this case be charged with manslaughter

Yes. Manslaughter is the charge when one's reckless actions result in someone elses death. That's why she was charged with manslaughter in this case. By misrepresenting the situation by claiming she had been raped she created the situation where her husband ended up using deadly force.

0 Replies

Good point, Miller. I feel like a dork for not thinking of that.

0 Replies

Husband: Story says she was in the truck, crying rape, while the accused is trying to drive off with her. Remarkable reaction time to get out a gun and fire accurately enough to kill the man, to save his wife from being kidnapped by the man raping her. I'm not sure it gets any more justifiable than that. Given that the husband had mere seconds to react; the only question is; could a reasonable person react as he did? Resounding yes in a significant majority of any set of jurors I would think. Even if they charged him, he'd never be convicted.

Wife: Manslaughter, not murder. Did her actions cause the death of another human being? Probably. I wouldn't think she'll be sentenced too harshly if convicted as she couldn't possibly have known her actions would cause the mans death. I'd bet she pleads out to a lesser charge... perhaps whatever Texas calls "Reckless endangerment". It is entirely possible that she wasn't lying... and was indeed being raped. We don't know. the above is what I would consider the worst that'll happen, and it's probably fair enough. If she lied that's pretty tragic... but I don't think she could have predicted the result of the lie, so I don't think she's really all that culpable.

Wife=Property? Where the hell did that nonsense come from? A man need not consider his wife property to choose not to let a rapist kidnap her. Come on.

0 Replies

"Wife=Property? Where the hell did that nonsense come from"?

Patriarchal religions, past and present.

0 Replies

I meant in regards to this story. Laughing

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
It's an open and shut case, if she cried rape. He thought he was avenging/protecting his wife.

exactly

So stipulated, as to the husband.

As to the wife,
she may have deemed it necessary to her survival
to shout as she did, under the circumstances.
David

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

"Wife=Property? Where the hell did that nonsense come from"?

Patriarchal religions, past and present.

It is by application of the same principle ( people being property )
to children, that Elian Gonzales is living out his life
under communist slavery in Cuba because his owner is a commie.
FORGET the 13th Amendment, right ?

David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Miller wrote:
"Wife=Property? Where the hell did that nonsense come from"?

Patriarchal religions, past and present.

It is by application of the same principle ( people being property )
to children, that Elian Gonzales is living out his life
under communist slavery in Cuba because his owner is a commie.
FORGET the 13th Amendment, right ?

David

What gets me is how hard people fought to keep Elian Gonzales in this country, against his will and against the will of his father, and said not a word of protest about his sister, who was also in the USA.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Miller wrote:
"Wife=Property? Where the hell did that nonsense come from"?

Patriarchal religions, past and present.

It is by application of the same principle ( people being property )
to children, that Elian Gonzales is living out his life
under communist slavery in Cuba because his owner is a commie.
FORGET the 13th Amendment, right ?

David

What gets me is how hard people fought to keep Elian Gonzales in this country, against his will and against the will of his father, and said not a word of protest about his sister, who was also in the USA.

1. I am not aware of his sister.

2. He said, on TV, that he chose to remain here.

U twist the facts.

0 Replies

OHSICDAVID said
1. I am not aware

0 Replies

Right.
Y don 't YOU tell us all about the sister.
Dump your omniscience on the rest of us.

0 Replies

Hi David! Are you going out today for a big and fancy Easter dinner?

Have fun.

:wink:

0 Replies

Wife Indicted after Husband Kills her Lover in Texas

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know