Wife Indicted after Husband Kills her Lover in Texas

Miller wrote:

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

Have fun.

:wink:

Yes, thank u;
I wish u a very Happy Easter !!!
David

0 Replies

I wonder why Darrell Roberson just happened to be carrying a gun? He is an employee of a real estate firm. He was out playing cards. Why does he need to carry a gun? Does he have a permit to carry a gun? Does he carry a gun all the time? If so, why? Is he jealous and/or abusive and/or controlling? Prior to coming home, he called the house a DOZEN times until he woke up his daughter. Why did he think it necessary to call home a DOZEN times during the early morning hours when his family was supposedly sleeping? If his wife hadn't said she was being raped when caught by her husband, would she be dead too? If she lied, do you suppose she lied to protect her marriage or to protect her own life?

If she is entitled to use deadly force to save her own life, can't she also use a lie? But for her lie, there would probably be two people dead instead of just one. And, how do we know that Darrell Roberson actually believed her when she said she was raped. When he was shooting at the vehicle as it was speeding away with both the victim and his wife, did he really care who ended up dead? How do we know he wasn't trying to shoot them both?

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

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

Have fun.

:wink:

Yes, thank u;
I wish u a very Happy Easter !!!
David

Thanks David! Glad to see you over on A2K.
:wink:

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

OHSICDAVID said
1. I am not aware

David tells the truth!
Laughing

0 Replies

I think that in this case she should be charged with something, though Manslaughter seems harsh. She has told a lie which has resulted in a mans death, and then lied to the police also, so she does need to be punished for that. However, it is the husband who was carrying a weapon and used it without a second thought, causing a man's death, so he does need to charged with manslaughter.

It's so hard to say in this sort of case what is right and wrong, because there are so many grey areas. I feel for them both, their lives have both been ruined now, and for what?

Just my opinion.

0 Replies

Getting too close to married ladies can be risky.

I remember a time when a fairly nice looking young lady
consulted me professionally at a summer resort,
concerning litigation for personal injuries.
Just chatting, I analysed her factual n legal situations,
at no charge. She indicated that she was there with a trailer,
and said that she was escorted by her boyfriend ( whom I did not see ),
but that her husband was elsewhere.

She invited me into her trailer with openly amorous intentions,
but I opted against it; too risky; too much traffic
with the husband n the boyfriend.

I did not want trouble; I don t need soap operas;
not worth it.

David

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

Since when has the law allowed for vigiliante style justice?

Texas law allows people to ambush and shoot fleeing thieves in the back.

Some time back a guy in Texas blew away the repo guy who was taking his truck because he had stopped making payments on it. The bank did get his truck, but he was not further penalized because they figured he could have reasonably thought that the repo guy was a fleeing thief.

Not really considered justice though -- more a means to prevent loss of property.

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.

It is not necessary to have pulled the trigger to be convicted of murder.

For instance, in a jurisdiction that has a "felony murder" statute, if a police officer shoots at some bank robbers and accidentally kills a bystander, the bank robbers can get the death penalty for the murder of the bystander.

0 Replies

Debra Law wrote:

I wonder why Darrell Roberson just happened to be carrying a gun? He is an employee of a real estate firm. He was out playing cards. Why does he need to carry a gun? Does he have a permit to carry a gun? Does he carry a gun all the time? If so, why?

I don't know whether he carries a gun all the time, or has a permit, but if he does, the answer would be "because he chooses to".

If he doesn't carry a gun all the time, I think the authorities should closely scrutinize his explanation as to how he happened to be carrying a gun just then.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

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?

Depraved heart murder: LINK

0 Replies

Re: Wife Indicted after Husband Kills her Lover in Texas

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Link to article

You need to scroll down 2/3 of the page to find the article.

Here is a link to a Google cache of a local Texas article that has more details than the wire services carried:

LINK

Don't know how long Google will cache it, but they'll probably do so for a little while at least.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

flushd wrote:
Since when has the law allowed for vigiliante style justice?

Texas law allows people to ambush and shoot fleeing thieves in the back.

A lovely urban legend with no basis in fact.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Texas law allows people to ambush and shoot fleeing thieves in the back.

A lovely urban legend with no basis in fact.

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or [b](B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and[/b]
(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.002.00.000009.00.htm

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

oralloy wrote:
flushd wrote:
Since when has the law allowed for vigiliante style justice?

Texas law allows people to ambush and shoot fleeing thieves in the back.

A lovely urban legend with no basis in fact.

Its a pretty cool stereotype to have though..

0 Replies

southerngentleman wrote:

fishin wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Texas law allows people to ambush and shoot fleeing thieves in the back.

A lovely urban legend with no basis in fact.

Its a pretty cool stereotype to have though..

Note the citation of Texas law above. Smile

0 Replies

she gets what she deserves, poor guy she took his life by not admitting that she had the natural sexual urges every women has. if her husband killed him after she told him what happened, then he should be indicted for murder. If he cant handle not pleasing his wife and has to kill a man who is obviously pleasing her more thats his problem.

Poor guy, he killed a man for something that wasnt even worth it.

All she had to do was admit it.

0 Replies

Cud have gotten killed,
if she took your advice

0 Replies

well, looks like that should be her defense in court then doesnt it Smile

0 Replies

Convicted and facing 2 to 20. I sure don't know how they could have proven she should have known her lie would result in death... and I hope they don't sentence her too harshly.

0 Replies

That's rotten.

I really can't believe this-- the husband is off the hook for deciding to shoot someone because, gee, it was in the heat of the moment, but she should be in prison for telling a lie in the heat of the moment. Are you guys serious?

0 Replies

Wife Indicted after Husband Kills her Lover in Texas

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know