Man Shoots Wife's Lover, Wife gets charged

Status
Not open for further replies.
to me the true victim is the husband who did what he thought right for the situation and come to find out was not as potrayed to him. he has to deal with taking a mans life because his wife misrepresented what was/had transpired. not sure fact she lied will help him deal with remorse. hope he can come to grips and move on.:(
 
not sure fact she lied will help him deal with remorse
Click to expand...

i dont think id lose any sleep over shooting that guy. however, to find out your wife was cheating on you and lied to you and you ended up killing her lover is a crazy situation. not to mention shes going to prison now. its a bad situation but i think its getting straightened out. i would feel much worse about the situation if that guy would be the one going to prison.
 
RavenVT your missing the point of the story. The husband didn't just fire on the "rapist" as he was trying to escape. The "rapist" was driving off with the husbands wife in the truck. IE kidnapping.....see where Im going here. Now if the wife had been out of the truck...different story but the point is, She is screaming rape, and is in the truck as its driving off.

Excerpt from: Bradenton Herald story 30 Mar 2007

Police have said that, in the early morning hours of Dec. 11, Darrell Roberson called his Arlington home trying to reach his wife more than a dozen times before his 7-year-old daughter finally answered.

A short time later, Darrell Roberson, who had been playing cards in Dallas, headed to his home in the 6100 block of Ivy Glen Drive, police have said.

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.
Click to expand...

get it now?
 
Echo Tango: I believe you missed where I said I had gotten that part of the story.

The third post was my response to individuals who said that they would shoot a fleeing rapist anyway.
 
Am I the only one here who would not shoot someone in the back who is trying to run away?
Click to expand...

I guess the straight answer to that is
"Depends what they're running away from."

That being answered, it warms my heart to see justice served.
 
All crazy talk about fleeing rapists aside, I smiled big time when I read this story. It's rare that justice is served so completely in such a complex case. I'm really glad about that. Not glad about the situation though. I'll have to say that she was right about one thing... she is still alive. IMHO She should have got more time than a possible 2 years. It's sad to say or even think but I'm glad he hit the guy. If not, who knows what would have happened. Probably more deceit. Serves her right.
 
RavenVT100, what is there to say? I guess some things are more important to me than to you. In your world all a violent criminal has to do is run away after his deed and you're done. Lol, really can't say much more without stepping off the high road....
 
said it before...

...and i"ll say it again.

I love a happy ending!

And let's not forget...

God Bless Texas.
 
all macho rhetoric aside

The wife yelled "Rape!"

The "perpetrator" attempted to drive away with
the wife in the car (additional kidnapping, and a
continuation of the status of threat and danger.)

The husband acting in good faith belief fired to
stop the threat and danger.
 
RavenVT100, what is there to say? I guess some things are more important to me than to you. In your world all a violent criminal has to do is run away after his deed and you're done. Lol, really can't say much more without stepping off the high road....
Click to expand...
You might as well just come out and say it, because you have already stepped off the High Road by insinuating that I would do nothing. That is not what I said. What I said is that I would not shoot a fleeing person. There are other options, such as detaining the person, aiding the police in finding the person, and so on and so forth.

What exactly do you think is going to happen if you shoot someone who is running away from you? A medal?

Several members of this board seem intent on turning this discussion into a macho pissing contest, and that's too bad. It seems incredulous that adults would admit in a public venue to being ready to shoot someone in the back after the fact and after the crime has ended. It will not prevent the crime from having occurred if it is already over. At worst it will put you in jail on suspicion of a worse offense than rape, at a time when your wife needs you the most. Exactly what is so manly about that?

There are more options in this world than shooting someone. I guess it all comes down to whether one wishes justice, or revenge.
The husband acting in good faith belief fired to
stop the threat and danger.
Click to expand...
Indeed, he made the decision with the only information available to him at the time. It is absolutely the wife's fault that someone died, and I agree wholeheartedly with her being charged.
 
Just my .02, but it seems to me that evrything workrd out pretty well. The wife is going to prison, the other guy is taking a dirt nap, and the husband is a free man. Plus I doubt she'll get to clean him out in the divorce.:D
 
It will not prevent the crime from having occurred if it is already over.
Click to expand...

This part is true, but it WILL prevent a future rape from occurring if you stop the rapist from getting away. In this case, the point was moot b/c the guy wasn't a rapist--but the husband didn't know that.

All of this is, of course, assuming you can think in a level-headed fashion after witnessing what you believe is the rape and attempted kidnapping of your wife. I imagine adrenaline & emotions would be high, and a lot of people would probably shoot on that basis alone. I think most people would believe they're justified either way in this situation.

Am I the only one here who would not shoot someone in the back who is trying to run away?
Click to expand...

This is where I take issue with people who say they would never shoot a fleeing criminal. I understand their point that the immediate threat may be over, but future threats are not. The person has proven themselves to be a violent criminal, and they know where you live and what your wife looks like.

If we change the scenario & the guy had mugged you or your wife & stolen your wallet and car keys, sure all those items are replaceable, but the information inside leads him to your house, lets him into your house/car, maybe contains pictures of your wife/kids, your SSN, your DL#, etc. So my view is that the potential for future crimes is very high, despite the immediate threat of danger being over when he flees. Normally, I disagree with treating people as potential criminals (as gun owners are treated), but in this case the person is a PROVEN violent criminal. Also, presumably if you're mugged/robbed/raped/whatever, your life was in danger during the process, which would warrant use of force to defend it. It is a valid concern to fear for your life at a later date if you let the person get away. They've already proven they can & will get to you and harm you, so how can you be certain they won't do it again? They gave up their rights when they committed a violent crime, IMO.

The issue of legal defense is true, but it's a testament to problems with our legal system that we need to change.

Just my $.02
 
Depending on which paper you read, there are multiple versions of the events. However, the basics that everyone (mostly) can agree on are:

- Husband went out for an evening of cards.
- Husband leaves, wife sends SMS message inviting guy over.
- Husband attempts to call home and there is no answer, husband starts on way home.
- Husband attempts a second call home and daughter answers, stating she doesn't know where the mother/wife is.
- Husband arrives on scene....

And things get sketchy. Some papers reported that as the husband arrived, the wife got out of the vehicle, claimed raped, and the husband began shooting as the guy was trying to get away. However, a few other papers realy the events as the husband arrived on scene, the wife was in the vehicle, the husband told the wife to get out of the vehicle and at that time she claimed rape. While approaching the vehicle and while the wife is getting out, the suspect begins to drive off at high speed as the husband opens fire.

Now, speaking for myself, either way you slice the shady details, if someone is raping my wife OR I have REASONABLE belief that someone is raping my wife, that someone is going to catch a hot one. PERIOD.

I for one think the initial investigation played out perfectly. For one, there is no precendent for this type of case. Everything was methodically dissected. What she was charged with was appropriate as when you read the statute, the wording is along the lines of (paraphrasing) "...reckless actions leading to the death of another individual". IMO, had she not been reckless by claiming rape, this would have been an entirely different situation.

I love Texas!!!
 
This is where I take issue with people who say they would never shoot a fleeing criminal. I understand their point that the immediate threat may be over, but future threats are not. The person has proven themselves to be a violent criminal, and they know where you live and what your wife looks like.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that future threats are not over. In fact I would go so far as to say that there are very few things more dangerous than a man who is being hunted by the police after having committed a violent crime.

However, from the material that Ayoob teaches (which is what I'm basing my knowledge off of), the defense in the vast majority of jurisdictions to murder in a deadly force scenario is immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. A criminal at large presents a threat, but not an immediate one. Which is why I would presume that the police do not just roll up and kill known criminals on sight.

The intricacies of Texas law notwithstanding (since I am not a TX resident, although I like TX very much), from what I understand of the law in general, it does not make much of a distinction between you shooting someone who is running from the scene of the crime they just committed and you sitting down, drinking a cup of coffee, and then hunting those who raped your wife down like Chuck Bronson. In both cases the immediate threat was over, you knew it, but you went ahead and killed the person anyway. I understand that there are some exemptions for defense to shooting a fleeing felon, but these are jurisdiction specific. None of those appear to have happened in the purely hypothetical scenarios outlined so far.

I don't want to give anyone the impression that I am judging them personally--we all have our respective beliefs in these cases. It is an emotionally charged issue. And of course, I am not an attorney.
 
I totally agree on the judgement of this case. She should be held responsible for her action's of crying wolf. Her husband now has to pay the price of living with this on his mind.He should sue her. Good article thanks for posting it.
 
From Here.
Deadly force may be used to prevent a violent felon from escaping apprehension if allowing the escape of said felon will expose others to serious physical injury or death or if the felon is using or is threatening to use deadly force to escape or prevent apprehension.

The correct articulation of this scenario from a L.E. standpoint should be:

The felon was a violent sexual predator who presented a clear and immediate danger to the general public if he was allowed to elude apprehension. The subject was observed engaged in the commission of a violent felony to wit rape and attempted to evade capture. In order to protect the community and public from this violent felon, I used force necessary to stop this subjects actions.
Click to expand...

I post this because use of deadly force in a law enforcement situation is much more restrictive than from a civilian situation. Good shoot.
 
lacoochee said:
RavenVT100, what is there to say? I guess some things are more important to me than to you. In your world all a violent criminal has to do is run away after his deed and you're done. Lol, really can't say much more without stepping off the high road....
Click to expand...

What the heck? Haven't you read the entire thread? Raven has stated multiple times that he misread the article to mean the perp has dumped the wife and was making a quick getaway.

I happen to agree with Raven, at least analytically. If he had dumped said wife and bolted I might let him go, that is if I also had a sane head on me. If he had been fleeing with wife in tow, which appears to be the case here, I likewise would have emptied my firearm into the guy.
 
I never stepped off the high road Raventhing.

In Florida,

Florida Deadly Force Laws

2006 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter

CHAPTER 776

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.

776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.

776.051 Use of force in resisting or making an arrest; prohibition.

776.06 Deadly force.

776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.

776.08 Forcible felony.

776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.


776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.--

(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.

(2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.
 
(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.
Click to expand...
Where does it explicitly say here that lethal force is authorized to prevent someone who has not yet been arrested from running away?

If you shot someone in the back after witnessing them commit a crime, it would be my guess that your defense using this argument would be very thin indeed. And that does not even get into the area of what could happen to you civilly or the fact that not every jursidiction is Florida or Texas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Follow up: Wife convicted after husband fatally shoots lover
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Don Gwinn
D
T
  • Locked
Strange "Defense of Others" Shooting in TX....
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
October
O
george29
  • Locked
Jury VS Grand Jury
Replies
10
Views
730
chilie
C
O
  • Locked
legal rationale for manslaughter charge in this case?
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
9K
JohnKSa
JohnKSa
A
  • Locked
Husband stabs wife to death, had to wait
Replies
9
Views
1K
Pilgrim
P
Back
Top