Controversial grand jury decision

[Mithrandir]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/30/texas.ma...r.ap/index.html

This story has been all over several forums I frequent and was curious about the Lounge's feelings about it.

Cliff Notes: Husband comes home, sees wife and another guy fooling around in a truck, wife cries rape falsely, and husband kills fleeing lover.

I think it's "fairly" obvious that the wife should be charged since she intentionally created a false situation which led to the death of an innocent man, but I am mildly startled by the number of people happy that the husband got off with no penalties. The husband discharged a firearm in a residential area, endangering the residents of their neighborhood and his own wife, and couldn't be bothered to take the instant required to assess the situation before he started blasting away. I understand that legally an individual's emotional and mental state can lead to diminished responsibility (obviously if you think your wife is being raped, you're certainly in a heightened emotional state), but it just seems as though this ruling comes much, much to close to promoting the ideology of "shoot first, ask questions later."

I am a proponent of the right to bear arms but I strongly feel that with the right to own and use a gun for self-defense and protection comes the responsibility to use the weapon like you're not an 8-year old. If the alleged rapist gets out of the truck and charges you with a knife, by all means defend yourself. If the alleged rapist tries to flee the scene in his truck try to get a clear look at his face, get the license plate/make/model, make sure your wife is okay, and call the police for #$%&s sake.

[Doc]

See, this is why I make it a policy never to shoot to kill. (Unless of course, I have to)

It would be far better to shoot the "alledged rapist" in the back of his knee as he flees, blowing his leg clean off. Or better yet, take very careful and shoot him in the ass, the exit wound will blow his package clean off. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the sort of thing they make .357s and hollow points for.

Either way, never rub another man's rhuebarb!

[Nystul]

It's in his own driveway, and the wife is presumably still in the truck claiming she is being raped? If that's how it went, the grand jury saved the jurisdiction some money, because any jury in the country is going to see that as justifiable homicide. If she was out of the truck, then he probably should have been indicted, although he probably still wouldn't be convicted.

This would have made one heck of a "Cheaters" episode.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It's in his own driveway, and the wife is presumably still in the truck claiming she is being raped? If that's how it went, the grand jury saved the jurisdiction some money, because any jury in the country is going to see that as justifiable homicide. If she was out of the truck, then he probably should have been indicted, although he probably still wouldn't be convicted.

Yep. Looks to me like justice all around, except maybe for the dead bastard. 'Course, one could say he got what he deserved, maybe not for for 'poaching', but surely for stupidity. I mean, in the driveway?

--Pete

[Mithrandir]

It's in his own driveway, and the wife is presumably still in the truck claiming she is being raped?

I'm not sure and every article I've read seems very ambiguous about this fact. My original interpretation was that the man was driving away and that the wife had exited the car at some point (since it said he was fleeing), but that does not seem to be specifically indicated. Even if the wife is still in the car though, why are you firing a gun into the car in which your wife is sitting (or in this case, laying?:blink:)?

This would have made one heck of a "Cheaters" episode.

That would certainly top even the episode where the host got stabbed...

[DeeBye]

That would certainly top even the episode where the host got stabbed...

Here's the clip if anyone is interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MidamUNy2Bg

[Jester]

If you believe guns are reasonable and useful for defense (and I don't), then that is what they are for: defense. To prevent greater harm from coming to pass through threat or use of force.

They are not for killing people because you think they did X or Y. That would make you a vigilante.

-Jester

edit: typo

[Lissa]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/30/texas.ma...r.ap/index.html

This story has been all over several forums I frequent and was curious about the Lounge's feelings about it.

Cliff Notes: Husband comes home, sees wife and another guy fooling around in a truck, wife cries rape falsely, and husband kills fleeing lover.

I think it's "fairly" obvious that the wife should be charged since she intentionally created a false situation which led to the death of an innocent man, but I am mildly startled by the number of people happy that the husband got off with no penalties. The husband discharged a firearm in a residential area, endangering the residents of their neighborhood and his own wife, and couldn't be bothered to take the instant required to assess the situation before he started blasting away. I understand that legally an individual's emotional and mental state can lead to diminished responsibility (obviously if you think your wife is being raped, you're certainly in a heightened emotional state), but it just seems as though this ruling comes much, much to close to promoting the ideology of "shoot first, ask questions later."

I am a proponent of the right to bear arms but I strongly feel that with the right to own and use a gun for self-defense and protection comes the responsibility to use the weapon like you're not an 8-year old. If the alleged rapist gets out of the truck and charges you with a knife, by all means defend yourself. If the alleged rapist tries to flee the scene in his truck try to get a clear look at his face, get the license plate/make/model, make sure your wife is okay, and call the police for #$%&s sake.

The Grand Jury's job is to determine if the government has enough evidence to take the case to trial. Evidently the GJ thought that there was not enough evidence to proceed with a Jury trial. I've served on a US GJ and I can remember one case were we had to tell the DEA that they didn't have enough evidence to connect the accused with the car filled with drugs because the officers trying to apprehend the accused did not know if the person driving the car was male or female (the accused was female) and when they found the accused, after the car had been rolled over, the accused was not with the car (was several hundred yards away, almost a quarter mile) and was unhurt, so they could not connect the accused to the vehicle and thus had no real evidence to show that the accused was the driver, so we had to vote down the indictment (it would have lost anyway as the accused's lawyers would have seen the same hole we did).

[Chesspiece_face]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/30/texas.ma...r.ap/index.html

This story has been all over several forums I frequent and was curious about the Lounge's feelings about it.

Cliff Notes: Husband comes home, sees wife and another guy fooling around in a truck, wife cries rape falsely, and husband kills fleeing lover.

I think it's "fairly" obvious that the wife should be charged since she intentionally created a false situation which led to the death of an innocent man, but I am mildly startled by the number of people happy that the husband got off with no penalties. The husband discharged a firearm in a residential area, endangering the residents of their neighborhood and his own wife, and couldn't be bothered to take the instant required to assess the situation before he started blasting away. I understand that legally an individual's emotional and mental state can lead to diminished responsibility (obviously if you think your wife is being raped, you're certainly in a heightened emotional state), but it just seems as though this ruling comes much, much to close to promoting the ideology of "shoot first, ask questions later."

I am a proponent of the right to bear arms but I strongly feel that with the right to own and use a gun for self-defense and protection comes the responsibility to use the weapon like you're not an 8-year old. If the alleged rapist gets out of the truck and charges you with a knife, by all means defend yourself. If the alleged rapist tries to flee the scene in his truck try to get a clear look at his face, get the license plate/make/model, make sure your wife is okay, and call the police for #$%&s sake.

legally the husband could have also been charged with manslaughter because his use of lethal force occured after the threat to his wife had abated. the man was fleeing and was no longer a possible danger. like others have said, however, the chances of a jury actually convicting him is a long shot and would end up costing the local county a pretty penny. The main reason that the wife was actually charged was because of the good police work done when the cops were able to dig up the text messages that incriminate her. if it weren't for that nicely done investigating she wouldn't have been charged and the poor sap that got shot would also be remembered as a rapist.

[[wcip]Angel]

I wonder how the husband feels. He's taken an innocent life (on the count of rape at least.) How do you go from avenging your wife, to being fooled by your wife into taking another human life.

I'd be pissed!

This feels like one of those scenarios you have to go through in junior high school. You sit in a group, listen to a story, and decide who should have the most blame. In this case

1. The guy who fooled around with another man's wife
2. The guy who shot an innocent man because he thought he'd raped his wife.
3. The wife who cried "The wolf raped me!" to her gun-toting husband.

The theme of acting without thinking seems to run through all these aspects of the case. Certainly, the killer could've pursued another course of action than firing a lethal shot at a fleeing man. Also, the wife could've come up with a better line than "RAPE!!" when she was caught with another man; especially if she had knowledge that her husband was walking around with a firearm and was capable of taking another life.

So whose fault is it really?

[Doc]

Simple.

Shoot the man. Brand the woman with a branding iron. The letter A on the forehead will do. This is Tejas, correct? Somebody is bound to have a branding iron.

Barbaric! you say...

Easy to avoid I say. Keep your got damn pants on and don't go tramping your ass around like a common harlot when your married.

That goes for men too.

[Nystul]

Angel' date='Apr 3 2007, 09:44 PM' post='126979']
I wonder how the husband feels. He's taken an innocent life (on the count of rape at least.) How do you go from avenging your wife, to being fooled by your wife into taking another human life.

Probably thinking he should have shot them both and gone to Mexico...

So whose fault is it really?

Maybe the whole lot of them. But the wife really takes the cake. OK, cheating on your spouse is never a great idea to begin with. Doing it at your own home really increases the stupidity factor. Coming up with the rape excuse after getting caught, though, is a true work of genius.

[Rhydderch Hael]

Angel' date='Apr 3 2007, 06:44 PM' post='126979']... Also, the wife could've come up with a better line than "RAPE!!" when she was caught with another man; especially if she had knowledge that her husband was walking around with a firearm and was capable of taking another life. ...

Perhaps this is the very reason why she lied, so she wouldn't get a bullet in the head.

It's factless speculation, but if one were to entertain that notion, it doesn't speak highly of the man's fire discipline (the fact that he plugged a fleeing man just adds fuel to that fire).

[Professor Frink]

I'm not sure and every article I've read seems very ambiguous about this fact. My original interpretation was that the man was driving away and that the wife had exited the car at some point (since it said he was fleeing), but that does not seem to be specifically indicated. Even if the wife is still in the car though, why are you firing a gun into the car in which your wife is sitting (or in this case, laying?:blink:)?
That would certainly top even the episode where the host got stabbed...

I think it is legal in Texas to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon, if that's the case it would make his case much easier to defend since he woundn't have to prove that the guy was an ongoing threat.

I don't think this is the case in most states.

-- frink

[wundergore]

I think it is legal in Texas to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon, if that's the case it would make his case much easier to defend since he woundn't have to prove that the guy was an ongoing threat.

-- frink

Actually, I don't think you can use deadly force to stop a runner in Texas. But as previously noted, good luck trying to get the GJ to indict if it was a righteous shoot......

However, you no longer have a "duty to retreat" thanks to a new bill. Starting in Sept, i believe, you no longer have to retreat in the face of someone threatening your life/property before using deadly force. Of course they are saying that this could be used by criminals as a defense as well ("I didn't know they were cops-I was just defedning myself.....).

W< (will be applying for CCW permit this year and needs to brush up on the laws)

[Occhidiangela]

If you believe guns are reasonable and useful for defense (and I don't), then that is what they are for: defense. To prevent greater harm from coming to pass through threat or use of force.

They are not for killing people because you think they did X or Y. That would make you a vigilante.

-Jester

edit: typo

Bath tubs are not made for drowning your five kids in, either. Andrea Yates pleas temp insanity.

I think this guy has a stronger plea.

@Pete: I can say that sometimes, in the driveway is a function of time, place, motivation, and overwhelming desire. No judgment involved, due to redirection of the bulk of blood flow. :whistling:

DR

[Jester]

Bath tubs are not made for drowning your five kids in, either. Andrea Yates pleas temp insanity.

I think this guy has a stronger plea.

@Pete: I can say that sometimes, in the driveway is a function of time, place, motivation, and overwhelming desire. No judgment involved, due to redirection of the bulk of blood flow. :whistling:

DR

Severe Post-Partum depression leading to psychosis is, I would hope, a much stronger insanity plea than "I was really freakin' mad."

If anger is insanity, then the whole foundation of the justice system (in either of our countries) is pretty much down the toilet. People do all sorts of things in anger. It doesn't mean they're crazy. Having suicidal depression leading to the obsession with the belief that your kids are better off dead, on the other hand, actually does mean you're crazy.

-Jester

[Doc]

I should apologise for the scarlet letter remark...

I watched some of those Cheaters clips.

Made me physically ill and filled me with loathing and contempt for humanity.

How could anybody do those things to another being? Ugh. Souless monsters.

[Gregorius]

I should apologise for the scarlet letter remark...

I watched some of those Cheaters clips.

Made me physically ill and filled me with loathing and contempt for humanity.

How could anybody do those things to another being? Ugh. Souless monsters.

Wait, do you mean *doing* those things, or the third party, recording them for a nation of sensationalists to gawk at?

[kandrathe]

I think it is legal in Texas to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon, if that's the case it would make his case much easier to defend since he woundn't have to prove that the guy was an ongoing threat.

I don't think this is the case in most states.

-- frink

I think it is legal in Texas to shoot a fleeing Republican... Wait, that was Cheney.

Another question: What would her life be like? She's never gonna "date" again, and her old man's gonna chain her to the stove.