NationStates Jolt Archive

I´m a woman and I would never resort to this sort of behaviour just to escape my husband´s ire for cheating on him. This almost too funny yet sad for words...

FORT WORTH, Texas (May 3)
A Texas woman who caused her lover's shooting death by falsely crying rape was convicted Friday of involuntary manslaughter.
Tracy Denise Roberson, 37, cried a bit when the verdict was announced. The punishment phase was set for Monday, and she faces two to 20 years in prison.
In late 2006, Darrell Roberson came home from a late-night card game to find his scantily clad wife with another man in a pickup truck in the driveway. Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him.
Darrell Roberson initially was arrested, but a murder charge was later dropped and a grand jury indicted Tracy Roberson instead.
During her three-day trial, defense attorneys called no witnesses but blamed LaSalle's death on Darrell Roberson's jealousy and rage.
But prosecutors placed all the blame on Tracy Roberson, showing evidence of the affair with LaSalle, 32, and a text message in which she invited him to her house that evening.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/cry-of-rape-lands-cheating-wife-in-jail/20080503153909990001

Would anyone here resort to that tactic to get out of a ¨cheating my husband/wife¨ situation? And, what do you think about the judge´s veredict? We he right or wrong in sentencing the wife to prison? Or is the husband to blame for leading his wife to cheat on him and then killing the lover?

Wow...I really hope they make this into a Lifetime movie, it'd be the only thing on that channel I'd actually watch.

I´m a woman and I would never resort to this sort of behaviour just to escape my husband´s ire for cheating on him. This almost too funny yet sad for words...



http://news.aol.com/story/_a/cry-of-rape-lands-cheating-wife-in-jail/20080503153909990001

Would anyone here resort to that tactic to get out of a ¨cheating my husband/wife¨ situation? And, what do you think about the judge´s veredict? We he right or wrong in sentencing the wife to prison? Or is the husband to blame for leading his wife to cheat on him and then killing the lover?

dunno about manslaughter. but I guess it does fit the crime.

and no. I wouldn't lie IF I got caught cheating on my wife/GF... infact, I wouldn't cheat on her in the first place. dammit, I wouldn't want to ruin a good thing.

Wow...I really hope they make this into a Lifetime movie, it'd be the only thing on that channel I'd actually watch.

The woman could be played by Valerie Bertinelli, and the man by Val Kilmer (he needs some face time).

And Christopher Walken could be "Mike", the cool millionaire who hangs out at the local Arby's and delivers that critical piece of wisdom at the pivotal moment.

I would simply explain to my husband that its his fault for never as much as looking at me for all those years as I slaved away on my knees trying to make him happy!

*locks self in bedroom crying*

Would anyone here resort to that tactic to get out of a ¨cheating my husband/wife¨ situation?
No and I hope it is never used on me.
And, what do you think about the judge´s veredict? We he right or wrong in sentencing the wife to prison? Or is the husband to blame for leading his wife to cheat on him and then killing the lover?
Complicated. The husband did kill an 'innocent'(by law) man, but the wife sort of led him to the conclusion that he was a criminal involved in a severe crime.
Tracy Denise Roberson, 37, cried a bit when the verdict was announced. The punishment phase was set for Monday, and she faces two to 20 years in prison.
Heh. I might cry if I faced two to twenty years in prison. Huge span.

dunno about manslaughter. but I guess it does fit the crime.

and no. I wouldn't lie IF I got caught cheating on my wife/GF... infact, I wouldn't cheat on her in the first place. dammit, I wouldn't want to ruin a good thing.

I think the same. To cheat on the one you love has no point. Why ruin something that has always been good in the first place? She deserves the veredict.

Her sentence is too light.

Her sentence is too light.
If I read the article right... the Sentence will be given on Monday. ;)

Her sentence is too light.

If you were the judge, what would your sentence be?

Not to generalise an entire group of people... but how many front-lawn shootings have we had in the last few weeks in Texas?

I think the same. To cheat on the one you love has no point. Why ruin something that has always been good in the first place? She deserves the veredict.

Any woman who becomes my GF/Wife will be a GODSEND to me. so yeah, I wouldn't want to ruin it... unless she wanted me to cheat on her.

but then that wouldn't be cheating... would it? :confused:

Not to generalise an entire group of people... but how many front-lawn shootings have we had in the last few weeks in Texas?

http://objurgate.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/wtf-cat.jpg

Any woman who becomes my GF/Wife will be a GODSEND to me. so yeah, I wouldn't want to ruin it... unless she wanted me to cheat on her.

but then that wouldn't be cheating... would it? :confused:

No, that last part would be what I call gang-banging!:p

If you were the judge, what would your sentence be?

I would sentence her to work on the Innocence project until she actually learns about how damaging throwing round false accusations of rape are.

My view point is the cheating is a totally different crime then what she is being sentenced for.
She directly caused a man's death, by making her husband think she was being raped. It is sort of like those white girls pre civil rights era that if they got caught with/knocked up by a black man would cry rape to save their honor causing said black man to go to jail and or be lynched.

I would sentence her to work on the Innocence project until she actually learns about how damaging throwing round false accusations of rape are.

I am Wilgrove and I approve of this sentencing.

I would sentence her to work on the Innocence project until she actually learns about how damaging throwing round false accusations of rape are.

Hm... fair enough.

I would just throw her in jail for life. But then again, I´m a despot.

My view point is the cheating is a totally different crime then what she is being sentenced for.
She directly caused a man's death, by making her husband think she was being raped. It is sort of like those white girls pre civil rights era that if they got caught with/knocked up by a black man would cry rape to save their honor causing said black man to go to jail and or be lynched.

she was charged and convicted for Involuntary Manslaughter. do you agree with her conviction and possible sentence?

she was charged and convicted for Involuntary Manslaughter. do you agree with her conviction and possible sentence?

Yeah, give us your opinion, greed and death. We don´t want another anecdote.

so the husband wasnt charged but the wife was?

her lawyer must have sucked.

she was charged and convicted for Involuntary Manslaughter. do you agree with her conviction and possible sentence?

yes, her actions lead to the death of another human being, i am willing to bet she knew if her husband had a tendency to take his weapon with him.

Hm... fair enough.

I would just throw her in jail for life. But then again, I´m a despot.

My sentence is worse.

Hm... fair enough.

I would just throw her in jail for life. But then again, I´m a despot.

I wouldn't sentence her for life... not for manslaughter.

now if it was shown that she planned to have him killed and her unknowing husband to take the blame for killing him... then yeah, life.

so the husband wasnt charged but the wife was?

her lawyer must have sucked.
or her lawyer was totally blindsided by the new facts.

My sentence is worse.
your sentence would work only if she had a heart and a conscious. :p

I wouldn't sentence her for life... not for manslaughter.

now if it was shown that she planned to have him killed and her unknowing husband to take the blame for killing him... then yeah, life.

Yeah, but her actions still lead to the death of a seemingly innocent man. His only crime was having relations with a married woman. She must have known how choleric her husband was. Surely she knew that his reaction might have been close to what actually happened. And still she, in order to save herself, yelled ¨rape¨. Makes you wonder.

or her lawyer was totally blindsided by the new facts.



i didnt see any blindsiding mentioned. in most circumstances the prosecution isnt allowed to surprise the defense.

i didnt see any blindsiding mentioned. in most circumstances the prosecution isnt allowed to surprise the defense.

I think the judge did the correct thing.

Yeah, but her actions still lead to the death of a seemingly innocent man. His only crime was having relations with a married woman. She must have known how choleric her husband was. Surely she knew that his reaction might have been close to what actually happened. And still she, in order to save herself, yelled ¨rape¨. Makes you wonder.

which makes Manslaughter ok with me. of course, the actions she took would make me put it at 20 yrs with a minimum of 15 served before parole (if I could do such a thing) or even w/o parole.

which makes Manslaughter ok with me. of course, the actions she took would make me put it at 20 yrs with a minimum of 15 served before parole (if I could do such a thing) or even w/o parole.

Agreed. I would venture to say no parole. Let her serve the 20 years.

i didnt see any blindsiding mentioned. in most circumstances the prosecution isnt allowed to surprise the defense.

I can't see her admitting to having texted her lover, inviting him over for some fun and games to his/her lawyer.

and you have statements saying she cried rape from her husband to the police and possibly confirmed by her to said police.

If the husband is allowed to shoot another man dead just because he's angry ... then why shouldn't the woman have an equally strong defence, that she feared being killed by her husband in the situation she was caught in?

Heh, I bet the husband was a law-abiding gun owner, too. Up to the moment he murdered someone ...

your sentence would work only if she had a heart and a conscious. :p

I think everyone does except for the completely insane. And we can't very well hold them responsible for their actions anyway.

The problem is that most people are so insulated from the results of their actions that they never really accept responsibility for what they do. Even worse it allows a sort of group-think where people can self-reinforce and run free with their idiocy without ever being censured by their peers.

I imagine it would be very hard to work day in an day out with people who have been wrongly convicted (and have the evidence to hand that says so!) and not think about what you have done.

In any event locking her up won't really accomplish anything.

Of course that is not to say that some people shouldn't be locked up. Clearly their are individuals that present a clear and present danger to society at large, and therefore their really is very little choice in the matter. (Though we could argue about where the lines should be drawn).

I think the judge did the correct thing.

the judge just heard the case. he didnt decide to bring it. if her lawyer couldnt make a case for her being scared for her own life when her gun toting husband found her with her lover, he sucked.

not that she doesnt deserve conviction. she knew he was going to shoot. she probably made the quick calculation that her lover could get away and she couldnt.

I can't see her admitting to having texted her lover, inviting him over for some fun and games to his/her lawyer.

and you have statements saying she cried rape from her husband to the police and possibly confirmed by her to said police.

when the prosecution investigated it had to turn over everything they found out to the defense. that includes the text messages.

If the husband is allowed to shoot another man dead just because he's angry ... then why shouldn't the woman have an equally strong defence, that she feared being killed by her husband in the situation she was caught in?

Heh, I bet the husband was a law-abiding gun owner, too. Up to the moment he murdered someone ...

Well, he was, after all, responding to his wife´s ¨plea¨ for help. According to her, she was being raped. He´s guilty of killing the man, but so is she for crying wolf when she was fully responsible for cheating on her husband.

not that she doesnt deserve conviction. she knew he was going to shoot. she probably made the quick calculation that her lover could get away and she couldnt.

Actually she didn't know he was going to shoot. At least not for certain. (Unless she is a time lord or something).

And in any event, you'd have to look at what the law in texas is about this sort of thing. Maybe it's okay to shoot an escaping rapist. In which case the husband did nothing wrong.

the judge just heard the case. he didnt decide to bring it. if her lawyer couldnt make a case for her being scared for her own life when her gun toting husband found her with her lover, he sucked.

not that she doesnt deserve conviction. she knew he was going to shoot. she probably made the quick calculation that her lover could get away and she couldnt.

Be that as it may, she´s getting what she rightfully deserves. To serve jail for participating, however involuntarily it may seem, in the killing of a human being.

Agreed. I would venture to say no parole. Let her serve the 20 years.

And him?

Well, he was, after all, responding to his wife´s ¨plea¨ for help. According to her, she was being raped. He´s guilty of killing the man, but so is she for crying wolf when she was fully responsible for cheating on her husband.

Read you own damn article!

"Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him."

Actually she didn't know he was going to shoot. At least not for certain. (Unless she is a time lord or something).

And in any event, you'd have to look at what the law in texas is about this sort of thing. Maybe it's okay to shoot an escaping rapist. In which case the husband did nothing wrong.

she knew her husband.

Be that as it may, she´s getting what she rightfully deserves. To serve jail for participating, however involuntarily it may seem, in the killing of a human being.

you dont find it odd that the husband wasnt charged but she was?

i think the lower sentence of 2 years is appropriate. she's not the one who did the shooting.

And him?

No parole either. They´re both criminals.


Read you own damn article!

"Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him."

Mind your damn manners!! I read the article, otherwise I wouldn´t have posted it.

She cried wolf when it is obvious she wasn´t being raped at all. That was her lover. And her lover was killed on account of her cowardice.

I´m not liberating her husband from the blame. He, after all, lifted a gun and killed a man on the process. But he was helping his wife who let him to believe she was being sexually assaulted. Who´s more to blame here? The person who knowingly lied to save her skin or the person that shot another man because he was protecting his wife?

you dont find it odd that the husband wasnt charged but she was?

i think the lower sentence of 2 years is appropriate. she's not the one who did the shooting.

I do find it odd. The husband should´ve been charged too. They´re both guilty of man slaughter, each in different levels. They both deserve jail time.

If the husband is allowed to shoot another man dead just because he's angry ... then why shouldn't the woman have an equally strong defence, that she feared being killed by her husband in the situation she was caught in?

Heh, I bet the husband was a law-abiding gun owner, too. Up to the moment he murdered someone ...

The husband was acting in what he thought was the defense of his wife. For all he knew, the wife WAS raped, and he was defending her life. It just sucks that he married an unfaithful, manipulative, lying bitch.

She cried wolf when it is obvious she wasn´t being raped at all. That was her lover. And her lover was killed on account of her cowardice.

I´m not liberating her husband from the blame. He, after all, lifted a gun and killed a man on the process. But he was helping his wife who let him to believe she was being sexually assaulted. Who´s more to blame here? The person who knowingly lied to save her skin or the person that shot another man because he was protecting his wife?

I believe the point Nobel Hobos is making is that the man was not in the act when he was shot, but was fleeing the scene. I don't see how he was killed because the husband was attempting to protect his wife, as the deed was already done. What it seems more like is vengeance or something.
If he was attempting to 'rape' her when he was shot, it would make more sense.

I believe the point Nobel Hobos is making is that the man was not in the act when he was shot, but was fleeing the scene. I don't see how he was killed because the husband was attempting to protect his wife, as the deed was already done. What it seems more like is vengeance or something.
If he was attempting to 'rape' her when he was shot, it would make more sense.

I don´t know. I still see more in the wife to be blamed.

she knew her husband.

Oh well that's good. She can, in fact, tell the future. Amazing.

I´m a woman and I would never resort to this sort of behaviour just to escape my husband´s ire for cheating on him. This almost too funny yet sad for words...



http://news.aol.com/story/_a/cry-of-rape-lands-cheating-wife-in-jail/20080503153909990001

Would anyone here resort to that tactic to get out of a ¨cheating my husband/wife¨ situation? And, what do you think about the judge´s veredict? We he right or wrong in sentencing the wife to prison? Or is the husband to blame for leading his wife to cheat on him and then killing the lover?


I won't be cheating on my wife for two reasons: It is wrong in the context of my marriage, and I told my wife I wouldn't cheat on her when we got married.

She's getting off easy...Some people take adultery and false witness of rape very seriously.

I believe that the husband is blameless in this case, and in fact was responding to the act of two crimes (though he was probably only considering the one crime of rape, from his point of view).

Personally, I would find it a travesty of justice for any court to punish the husband for his part in this.

If the husband is allowed to shoot another man dead just because he's angry ... then why shouldn't the woman have an equally strong defence, that she feared being killed by her husband in the situation she was caught in?

Heh, I bet the husband was a law-abiding gun owner, too. Up to the moment he murdered someone ...

I don't know If i think someone is raping my daughter or wife I would likely shoot him too. If you wouldn't then more power to you, though I question your humanity.

Mind your damn manners!! I read the article, otherwise I wouldn´t have posted it.

She cried wolf when it is obvious she wasn´t being raped at all. That was her lover. And her lover was killed on account of her cowardice.

I´m not liberating her husband from the blame. He, after all, lifted a gun and killed a man on the process. But he was helping his wife who let him to believe she was being sexually assaulted. Who´s more to blame here? The person who knowingly lied to save her skin or the person that shot another man because he was protecting his wife?

Read this please:

"Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him."

The husband did not shoot to stop the rape, but as summary punishment.

That's murder in my book. Diminished responsibility would apply, but not to the level of reducing this to "manslaughter."

The husband did not shoot to stop the rape, but as summary punishment.

That's murder in my book. Diminished responsibility would apply, but not to the level of reducing this to "manslaughter."

The case then becomes whether or not he would have fired if he knew it wasn't rape.

I don't know If i think someone is raping my daughter or wife I would likely shoot him too. If you wouldn't then more power to you, though I question your humanity.

Questioning someone's humanity is ... fairly strong. Do try to think straight, dear.

I would do whatever it took to stop that rape, which I'm pretty sure putting the gun to the man's head would achieve. If not, I might shoot him but not fatally. I certainly would NOT take shots at the car containing him and my daughter/wife.

In this case, he didn't even do that.

"Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him."

As related, this has NOTHING to do with STOPPING a rape.

Read this please:

"Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him."

The husband did not shoot to stop the rape, but as summary punishment.

That's murder in my book. Diminished responsibility would apply, but not to the level of reducing this to "manslaughter."

As I already told you, NH, he´s not excused from guilt. He did kill another person.

But that doesn´t excuse the wife either. She cried rape. Wether the husband was acting on vengence is superfluous. They´re both guilty of inciting a murder.

The case then becomes whether or not he would have fired if he knew it wasn't rape.

... and who at. A competent lawyer should have made the case that the woman lied in self-defence.

... and who at. A competent lawyer should have made the case that the woman lied in self-defence.

Maybe the lawyer was a public defender.

We know for a fact this took place in Texas.

But I won't mess with Texas.

... and who at. A competent lawyer should have made the case that the woman lied in self-defence.

Might the husband be after the both of them? That perhaps, he knew she was cheating and wanted both dead? That creeps me out.:eek:

As I already told you, NH, he´s not excused from guilt. He did kill another person.

But that doesn´t excuse the wife either. She cried rape. Wether the husband was acting on vengence is superfluous. They´re both guilty of inciting a murder.

She's guilty of inciting a murder. He's guilty of committing a murder.

We could go to the actual case, if you like. The article is biased and has extremely little information in it.

She's guilty of inciting a murder. He's guilty of committing a murder.

We could go to the actual case, if you like. The article is biased and has extremely little information in it.

Link to the case. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1175550048.shtml)

This one seems to be more extensive.

Another article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-roberson_03met.ART0.West.Edition1.46871d9.html) on the case.

Questioning someone's humanity is ... fairly strong. Do try to think straight, dear.

I would do whatever it took to stop that rape, which I'm pretty sure putting the gun to the man's head would achieve. If not, I might shoot him but not fatally. I certainly would NOT take shots at the car containing him and my daughter/wife.

In this case, he didn't even do that.

"Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him."

As related, this has NOTHING to do with STOPPING a rape.

Yes instead he was shooting a fleeing rape suspect something we Texans consider very legal here.

Yes instead he was shooting a fleeing rape suspect something we Texans consider very legal here.

*looks at greed and death*
OMG! Hes got a gun!!
*tries not to flee or make eye contact*

They don't shoot if you look like a.... actually, they shoot at anything.

Yes instead he was shooting a fleeing rape suspect something we Texans consider very legal here.

Quoted for complete asshattery.

Quoted for complete asshattery.

Uhm... shoot first ask questions later?

Have a little faith in that system. It never fails.

Quoted for complete asshattery.

not to mention the article does not mention that she got out of the truck which would make the husband think it was rape and then kidnapping.

Uhm... shoot first ask questions later?

Have a little faith in that system. It never fails.

At least not for Texans.

Read this please:

"Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him."

The husband did not shoot to stop the rape, but as summary punishment.

That's murder in my book. Diminished responsibility would apply, but not to the level of reducing this to "manslaughter."

What sort of spouse, neighbor, or fellow humans do you wish to live with? She claimed rape, the husband had to act or not act...hardly a choice to take a poll or question the alleged rapist, not to mention thinking of any future ramifications his reaction would create. He acted as any responsible citizen should being at the scene of a rape, even more-so as a spouse.

Also, if the wife had some foreknowledge of how her husband would react, she then intentionally endangered her lover as well. (I'd put a big IF on that, though)

But hey, I'm supposedly a barbarian, so what do I know.

At least not for Texans.

At least not for the Texans behind the guns.

What sort of spouse, neighbor, or fellow humans do you wish to live with? She claimed rape, the husband had to act or not act...hardly a choice to take a poll or question the alleged rapist, not to mention thinking of any future ramifications his reaction would create. He acted as any responsible citizen should being at the scene of a rape, even more-so as a spouse.

Also, if the wife had some foreknowledge of how her husband would react, she then intentionally endangered her lover as well. (I'd put a big IF on that, though)

But hey, I'm supposedly a barbarian, so what do I know.

I am pretty certain that she knew he carried a gun.

Uhm... shoot first ask questions later?

Have a little faith in that system. It never fails.

For someone whose questions are so stupid that only a corpse can answer properly?

For someone whose questions are so stupid that only a corpse can answer properly?

Actually, the corpse is the answer.

I am pretty certain that she knew he carried a gun.

Oh, I agree, I'm pretty sure she would know that. Of course, I'm in a place where everyone is either presumed to be carrying or obviously are carrying. Anything presumed otherwise is just poor judgement if you are considering a capital crime.

This earlier article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/050308dnmetrobersontrial.bfe2be99.html) from the Dallas Morning News contains some other details, though they're from earlier in the trial. Still it is not clear whether the husband fired believing the man to be a rapist or a lover:

Mr. Roberson had come home unexpectedly from a gambling trip to Dallas the night of Dec. 11, 2006, and found his wife and Mr. LaSalle together in Mr. LaSalle's truck.

He started shooting as a horrified Mrs. Roberson began saying she was raped.

That tends to suggest that the wife claimed rape to avoid being shot herself (making her INNOCENT).

EDIT: From the same news site, featuring some of her defence: www.dallasnews.com (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-roberson_30met.ART.State.Edition1.468369d.html)

This earlier article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/050308dnmetrobersontrial.bfe2be99.html) from the Dallas Morning News contains some other details, though they're from earlier in the trial. Still it is not clear whether the husband fired believing the man to be a rapist or a lover:



That tends to suggest that the wife claimed rape to avoid being shot herself (making her INNOCENT).

Thank god you noticed that the press worded it that way. The man is clearly guilty and his wife innocent.

Thank god you noticed that the press worded it that way. The man is clearly guilty and his wife innocent.

I detect irony.

I'd be happy to not have to rely on the press, and on the reporters who may have sat in the court. I'd be happy to argue this from the best available information, the proceedings of the trial.

But I can't find those. Perhaps they are not released until the case is concluded with a sentence.

This earlier article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/050308dnmetrobersontrial.bfe2be99.html)
That tends to suggest that the wife claimed rape to avoid being shot herself (making her INNOCENT).

EDIT: From the same news site, featuring some of her defence: www.dallasnews.com (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-roberson_30met.ART.State.Edition1.468369d.html)

A jury of her peers disagreed with her defense so I would say case is closed.

A jury of her peers disagreed with her defense so I would say case is closed.

Given that the woman is an idiot, her husband a violent idiot, her boyfriend an idiot, the local police idiots, and her defence lawyer an idiot ...

I'm thinking that a jury of her peers wouldn't be worth much. :D

Also, if the wife had some foreknowledge of how her husband would react, she then intentionally endangered her lover as well. (I'd put a big IF on that, though)
I wouldn't make that IF that big. He is her husband. You should be able to assume that she would know exactly how he would respond when confronted with this sort of situation.
Regardless, he's a Texan. So of course he's going to shoot first, ask questions later. That's what all Texans do, don't they?


It's very probable she cried rape cause she thought it highly likely hubby would shoot both her lover and herself. She did this to save herself. This is probably why there's such a huge range given for possible sentencing. The judge has to decide whether her actions were from self-preservation at the expense of the lover or not.

I detect irony.

I'd be happy to not have to rely on the press, and on the reporters who may have sat in the court. I'd be happy to argue this from the best available information, the proceedings of the trial.

But I can't find those. Perhaps they are not released until the case is concluded with a sentence.

She still screamed rape (wrongly!) however. So it still puts her in the box, whatever the husband may, or may not, have done.

I wouldn't make that IF that big. He is her husband. You should be able to assume that she would know exactly how he would respond when confronted with this sort of situation.


That's the presumption underlying the conviction for manslaughter, in fact. She had to be able to see the killing of her boyfriend as a likely outcome of lying.

It's very probable she cried rape cause she thought it highly likely hubby would shoot both her lover and herself. She did this to save herself.

That's my feeling too. From one of the alternative articles (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/050308dnmetrobersontrial.bfe2be99.html) I linked to before:

On the night of the shooting, Mrs. Roberson invited Mr. LaSalle to her South Arlington home while her husband was in Dallas. Testimony showed that Mr. Roberson called his home 19 times while he was away. He finally got his young daughter, who told him his wife was outside.

Mr. Roberson headed for home, and when he found his wife and Mr. LaSalle together – Mrs. Roberson was clad in only a robe and underwear – he fired four rounds from a 10 mm Smith & Wesson at the truck. One of the bullets hit Mr. LaSalle in the head, killing him.

She still screamed rape (wrongly!) however. So it still puts her in the box, whatever the husband may, or may not, have done.

The question is when she "screamed rape."

All the sources seem to agree that she stuck to her story of being raped after mr LaSalle was dead. This to me indicates more than covering-up an affair, but actual fear of what her husband might do if he knew that is what it was. IE, fear for her own safety.

Surely you would agree that if, as one account has it, she "screamed rape" only after mr LaSalle was dead, that she could not possibly have been responsible for his death?

No and I hope it is never used on me.

Complicated. The husband did kill an 'innocent' (by law) man, but the wife sort of led him to the conclusion that he was a criminal involved in a severe crime.

Heh. I might cry if I faced two to twenty years in prison. Huge span.

Am I the only one who thinks that this whole mess is fishy? If I come home and my wife is in a vehicle not her own and it's parked in our driveway, there will be sufficient doubt in my mind as to whether a rape is taking place that I would perhaps brandish, but not use a gun and take the license plate number and call the police. Did she look disheveled or have the appearance of someone being taken against her will? He shot the other man fleeing from the scene without knowing what was really happening, and that makes him guilty of complete irresponsibility with a firearm.

And before anyone says it again, I read the article, I know the wife was yelling "rape". But before I execute anyone, I'd like to be damned sure I've got the right person, and that he is guilty of the crime. I know that this presupposes reason on the part of someone who some in this thread would argue was justifiably abandoning it, but when you're talking the end of another's life, reason had better be a part of your plan.

the judge just heard the case. he didnt decide to bring it. if her lawyer couldnt make a case for her being scared for her own life when her gun toting husband found her with her lover, he sucked.

not that she doesnt deserve conviction. she knew he was going to shoot. she probably made the quick calculation that her lover could get away and she couldnt.

An absolutely fair point. The wife bears responsibility for this death, too. Just not as much as the asshole at the trigger. The other guy's driving away in a truck, and without knowing the circumstances, you're going to kill him. That means you assumed that your wife took a ride home in the truck of a complete stranger who then raped her in the truck in front of the house. You have to assume that -- otherwise, she's going to know who her "rapist" was, and they'll be able to track him down, and Bubba doesn't get to pop a cap in another redneck's ass.

Some cases of justifiable homicide are easy to spot, and this is not one of them. There are too many things out of place for this to be a cut-and-dried defense shooting.

The husband was acting in what he thought was the defense of his wife. For all he knew, the wife WAS raped, and he was defending her life. It just sucks that he married an unfaithful, manipulative, lying bitch.

It also sucks that he couldn't be bothered to see that 2 + 2 =/= 4 in this case.

Read this please:

"Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him."

The husband did not shoot to stop the rape, but as summary punishment.

That's murder in my book. Diminished responsibility would apply, but not to the level of reducing this to "manslaughter."

^ This.

Uhm... shoot first ask questions later?

Have a little faith in that system. It never fails.

Except always.

Given that the woman is an idiot, her husband a violent idiot, her boyfriend an idiot, the local police idiots, and her defence lawyer an idiot ...

I'm thinking that a jury of her peers wouldn't be worth much. :D

Bingo.

I would love to have seen the husband whip out the gun and perhaps shoot for the tires -- apprehend the guy himself and await the police's arrival. The look of "oh shit" on the wife's face when confronted with having to perpetrate her deception with the "rapist" alive and able to speak would have been priceless.

She's selfish and stupid, he's violent and stupid. I can see why they were right for each other (and yet idiots marrying isn't as big a concern as gay people marrying).

The question is when she "screamed rape."

All the sources seem to agree that she stuck to her story of being raped after mr LaSalle was dead. This to me indicates more than covering-up an affair, but actual fear of what her husband might do if he knew that is what it was. IE, fear for her own safety.

Surely you would agree that if, as one account has it, she "screamed rape" only after mr LaSalle was dead, that she could not possibly have been responsible for his death?

thats not all the sources, that was the defense's testimony. the prosecution held that she screamed rape before the shooting. which is backed up by the fact she told the police after wards she was raped. wait for sentencing and lets look at the trial transcripts.

That's the presumption underlying the conviction for manslaughter, in fact. She had to be able to see the killing of her boyfriend as a likely outcome of lying.



That's my feeling too. From one of the alternative articles (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/050308dnmetrobersontrial.bfe2be99.html) I linked to before:


On the night of the shooting, Mrs. Roberson invited Mr. LaSalle to her South Arlington home while her husband was in Dallas. Testimony showed that Mr. Roberson called his home 19 times while he was away. He finally got his young daughter, who told him his wife was outside.

Mr. Roberson headed for home, and when he found his wife and Mr. LaSalle together – Mrs. Roberson was clad in only a robe and underwear – he fired four rounds from a 10 mm Smith & Wesson at the truck. One of the bullets hit Mr. LaSalle in the head, killing him.

!!!

Still not enough detail there, but the call ("mommy's outside") coupled with the wife being undressed not by the "rapist" but clearly of her own volition?

He's the one who's guilty, no matter what this idiot screamed.

The question is when she "screamed rape."

All the sources seem to agree that she stuck to her story of being raped after mr LaSalle was dead. This to me indicates more than covering-up an affair, but actual fear of what her husband might do if he knew that is what it was. IE, fear for her own safety.

Surely you would agree that if, as one account has it, she "screamed rape" only after mr LaSalle was dead, that she could not possibly have been responsible for his death?

AFTER?!? LMFAO!

Can you imagine that scene? It's like a Saturday Night Live sketch!

HUSBAND sees WIFE and MAN in flagrante dilecto. HUSBAND shoots MAN dead. HUSBAND (still holding gun) walks up to WIFE. WIFE notices look of murderous rage on HUSBAND's face and smoke from pistol.

WIFE (uncertainly): Rape?

thats not all the sources, that was the defense's testimony. the prosecution held that she screamed rape before the shooting. which is backed up by the fact she told the police after wards she was raped.

If she'd stuck to that story right through the trials, she'd be free now. Her husband too.

wait for sentencing and lets look at the trial transcripts.

I absolutely agree. :)

!!!

Still not enough detail there, but the call ("mommy's outside") coupled with the wife being undressed not by the "rapist" but clearly of her own volition?

He's the one who's guilty, no matter what this idiot screamed.

thats the thing the article also mentions she is in his truck. so how dressed she is would be pretty hard to tell. and thats even assuming the husband got close enough to talk before she screamed rape and he drove off.

I for one if i hear my wife scream rape and a guy driving off with her in a truck I would likely shoot.

Surely you would agree that if, as one account has it, she "screamed rape" only after mr LaSalle was dead, that she could not possibly have been responsible for his death?

But I am not arguing for her responsibility in respect of LaSalles death. I am arguing for her culpability for wrongly screaming rape.

!!!

Still not enough detail there, but the call ("mommy's outside") coupled with the wife being undressed not by the "rapist" but clearly of her own volition?

He's the one who's guilty, no matter what this idiot screamed.

They can be both guilty of something you know. It's him walking free and her doing time I find impossible to accept.

I do allow for diminished responsibility in both cases. I'm not of the "give 'em 20 years" persuasion, but I think that as it stands they should both be punished.

Let's revisit it when we have the court records.

They can be both guilty of something you know. It's him walking free and her doing time I find impossible to accept.

I do allow for diminished responsibility in both cases. I'm not of the "give 'em 20 years" persuasion, but I think that as it stands they should both be punished.

Let's revisit it when we have the court records.

Oh, they both are guilty -- I never claimed otherwise. I agree with you completely.

Surely you would agree that if, as one account has it, she "screamed rape" only after mr LaSalle was dead, that she could not possibly have been responsible for his death?

that was only her account as she was trying to avoid going to jail.

before that she said to the police she screamed rape and her husband shot the guy.

that was only her account as she was trying to avoid going to jail.

before that she said to the police she screamed rape and her husband shot the guy.

Since you're answering questions which weren't addressed to you, I'll ask you the same question.

IF the woman had screamed rape only after the husband had started shooting, surely you would agree that she could not have been responsible for the killing?

!!!

Still not enough detail there, but the call ("mommy's outside") coupled with the wife being undressed not by the "rapist" but clearly of her own volition?

He's the one who's guilty, no matter what this idiot screamed.
Not all rapes are the cliched insane sexed-craze beast beating the woman to a pulp then raping her.
It's entirely possible to imagine a situation where a man could confront a woman in her own home, while she is alone, and through just the threat of possible violence (to her or her children), force her to partially undress and accompany him to his pickup truck. Because she wasn't beaten black-and-blue or screaming rape while it was happening doesn't mean it couldn't possibly be rape.

So when hubby came home and caught the two together, and then had his wife yell to him that she's being raped, it's entirely reasonable to think he would react in the manner he did.

possible scenario:

1. wife sees hubby, yells "rape!"

2. Hubby shoots

3. Loverboy hits the gas, possibly driving toward/past Hubby

4. Hubby continues to shoot as loverboy flees, fearing he will turn around and run him down.

Don't be too quick to jump to the conclusion that "omg! teh husband had a gun! he must have been looking for trouble!" We don't have all the details, and I suspect that if the jury found her guilty, she was probably guilty. It's no crime to use force against someone who appears to be endangering you or your family.

I'm of the mind that both of them should be charged with a crime.

Regardless of his emotional state the husband should not have killed the man and should be charged with Murder 3 as the man was no threat to his well being or life (well his married life was most certainly threatend possibly killed but thats not legal grounds). However Texas is the state where you can shoot your repo-man...

The wife was charged with manslaughter for lying to her husband and causing him to murder her lover in a blind rage, and justly so. When she is out of prison she should not have any rights to alamony either.

I'm of the mind that both of them should be charged with a crime.

Regardless of his emotional state the husband should not have killed the man and should be charged with Murder 3 as the man was no threat to his well being or life (well his married life was most certainly threatend possibly killed but thats not legal grounds). However Texas is the state where you can shoot your repo-man...

Texas also allows lethal force to stop a rape occurring, or to stop a rape which is in progress.

I don't entirely disagree with that. There would definitely be circumstances where lethal force would be the only way to prevent a rape (eg, an armed woman defending herself against several attackers -- shooting one in the leg isn't going to make things better.)

It's when people's minds just flip to "extreme crime, massive over-response" and start thinking that cutting a rape a few seconds shorter justifies killing instead of threatening with a gun, or advocating killing for suspects, that I disagree.

The husband had no reason to believe that a rape was taking place, other than his wife's word. If it's OK for the woman to be expected to know her husband's reaction that well, shouldn't we also expect that the husband should be aware of his wife's very good reason to lie in this situation?

The wife was charged with manslaughter for lying to her husband and causing him to murder her lover in a blind rage, and justly so. When she is out of prison she should not have any rights to alimony either.

You're assuming they will separate. Why?

Texas also allows lethal force to stop a rape occurring, or to stop a rape which is in progress.

I don't entirely disagree with that. There would definitely be circumstances where lethal force would be the only way to prevent a rape (eg, an armed woman defending herself against several attackers -- shooting one in the leg isn't going to make things better.)

It's when people's minds just flip to "extreme crime, massive over-response" and start thinking that cutting a rape a few seconds shorter justifies killing instead of threatening with a gun, or advocating killing for suspects, that I disagree.

The husband had no reason to believe that a rape was taking place, other than his wife's word. If it's OK for the woman to be expected to know her husband's reaction that well, shouldn't we also expect that the husband should be aware of his wife's very good reason to lie in this situation?



You're assuming they will separate. Why?

Infidelety, and up to 20 years incarceration seem like pretty safe reasons for such an assumption.

I´m a woman and I would never resort to this sort of behaviour just to escape my husband´s ire for cheating on him. This almost too funny yet sad for words...



http://news.aol.com/story/_a/cry-of-rape-lands-cheating-wife-in-jail/20080503153909990001

Would anyone here resort to that tactic to get out of a ¨cheating my husband/wife¨ situation? And, what do you think about the judge´s veredict? We he right or wrong in sentencing the wife to prison? Or is the husband to blame for leading his wife to cheat on him and then killing the lover?

I wouldn't cheat, personally. And for using a shit tactic like that, I'd say she deserves what she got. I'm not painting the husband as a saint, for sure, but I'd say the wife deserves it.

I'm of the mind that both of them should be charged with a crime.

Regardless of his emotional state the husband should not have killed the man and should be charged with Murder 3 as the man was no threat to his well being or life (well his married life was most certainly threatend possibly killed but thats not legal grounds). However Texas is the state where you can shoot your repo-man...

The wife was charged with manslaughter for lying to her husband and causing him to murder her lover in a blind rage, and justly so. When she is out of prison she should not have any rights to alamony either.

Texas is a no Alimony state. so regardless of the circumstances Alimony is never awarded during a divorce.

They're not, really.

"How much do you love me, Darrell?"
*Bang bang bang*
"OMG, Darrell, you killed a man for me!"
*Bang*
"OMG, OMG, Darrell, you'll go to jail!!"
"Quick, baby, think of something. We gotta feed the kids."

They'd be reason enough for me, thats all I'm saying really.

Texas is a no Alimony state. so regardless of the circumstances Alimony is never awarded during a divorce.

In my lifetime I spent a total of maybe 2 hours in Texas, like I would know that.

Since you're answering questions which weren't addressed to you, I'll ask you the same question.

IF the woman had screamed rape only after the husband had started shooting, surely you would agree that she could not have been responsible for the killing?

Of course not. lying under duress is not lying.

But as said before she was convicted so i am willing to bet evidence points to her screaming rape Before the shooting took place.

Please continue.

Texas is already below Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe as places I'm considering emigrating to, so don't worry about me coming on over.

You act like alimony is a good thing ?

It is a backwards practice from before women were expected to work. the only time I really support alimony is for military wives since all the moving around of the military is a career destroyer for a spouse. And the military already takes care of that.

You act like alimony is a good thing ?

It is a backwards practice from before women were expected to work. the only time I really support alimony is for military wives since all the moving around of the military is a career destroyer for a spouse. And the military already takes care of that.

Until children are completely supported by the state, and therefore free to choose their parents, yes damn right it's a good thing.

The second paragraph is so offensive I dare not reply. I am rarely lost for words, but that speaks so clearly to your character that I cannot reply without getting personal, and offensively personal to the extent I might get a two day ban.

You're just not worth it. Goodbye.

Of course not. lying under duress is not lying.

But as said before she was convicted so i am willing to bet evidence points to her screaming rape Before the shooting took place.

which is why her lawyer must have sucked. if he couldnt convince the jury that the poor frightened woman, shocked at the gunfire that was already taking place, elected to save her own life by crying rape before the husband turned the gun on her, was within the realm of reasonable doubt, he wasnt very good.

im not saying that is what happened. im saying that it was her lawyer's job to convince the jury that it was a distinct possibility. no matter WHAT statements they made to the cops at the scene.

Until children are completely supported by the state, and therefore free to choose their parents, yes damn right it's a good thing.

The second paragraph is so offensive I dare not reply. I am rarely lost for words, but that speaks so clearly to your character that I cannot reply without getting personal, and offensively personal to the extent I might get a two day ban.

You're just not worth it. Goodbye.

There's a difference between child support payments and alimony payments. My uncle pays both, as his son is 8 and his ex-wife is lazy and lives with her parents (she's in her 40's).

There's a difference between child support payments and alimony payments. My uncle pays both, as his son is 8 and his ex-wife is lazy and lives with her parents (she's in her 40's).

What the crap?

Just to get it straight. The woman faces serious jailtime and the husband who murdered the guy she was having an affair with is free?

Before the yelling starts. No, I don't agree with her lying one bit, no, she shouldn't have told the husband who probably has a temper from hades that she was raped. But he gets away with killing another human being because it's legal to carry a gun and use it to stop a crime? *Shakes head* strange , strange country.

There's a difference between child support payments and alimony payments. My uncle pays both, as his son is 8 and his ex-wife is lazy and lives with her parents (she's in her 40's).

Well, thanks for that. I was thinking that "alimony" and "child support" were the same thing, now I see they're not.

It's decent of you to point that out. Still, I think I'll avoid gad for a while, there's some kind of personality conflict there which won't help anybody with anything.

Not all rapes are the cliched insane sexed-crazed beast beating the woman to a pulp then raping her.
It's entirely possible to imagine a situation where a man could confront a woman in her own home, while she is alone, and through just the threat of possible violence (to her or her children), force her to partially undress and accompany him to his pickup truck. Because she wasn't beaten black-and-blue or screaming rape while it was happening doesn't mean it couldn't possibly be rape.

So when hubby came home and caught the two together, and then had his wife yell to him that she's being raped, it's entirely reasonable to think he would react in the manner he did.

No. Not really. That's a tissue-thin justification using a Hollywood-style scenario. He shot without having any real information. I'd agree with wielding the gun, but not using it.

possible scenario:

1. wife sees hubby, yells "rape!"

2. Hubby shoots

3. Loverboy hits the gas, possibly driving toward/past Hubby

4. Hubby continues to shoot as loverboy flees, fearing he will turn around and run him down.

Don't be too quick to jump to the conclusion that "omg! teh husband had a gun! he must have been looking for trouble!" We don't have all the details, and I suspect that if the jury found her guilty, she was probably guilty. It's no crime to use force against someone who appears to be endangering you or your family.

Oh, come on. Really? "fearing he will turn around and run him down?" That "fear" would have been simple to alleviate by getting out of the street.

And perhaps is isn't a crime to defend your family, but it's indicative of a violent and horribly reactive personality to shoot without really knowing if it's necessary.

Texas also allows lethal force to stop a rape occurring, or to stop a rape which is in progress.

I don't entirely disagree with that. There would definitely be circumstances where lethal force would be the only way to prevent a rape (eg, an armed woman defending herself against several attackers -- shooting one in the leg isn't going to make things better.)

It's when people's minds just flip to "extreme crime, massive over-response" and start thinking that cutting a rape a few seconds shorter justifies killing instead of threatening with a gun, or advocating killing for suspects, that I disagree.

The husband had no reason to believe that a rape was taking place, other than his wife's word. If it's OK for the woman to be expected to know her husband's reaction that well, shouldn't we also expect that the husband should be aware of his wife's very good reason to lie in this situation?


This.

Brilliantly put -- I was trying to type something like that and couldn't find the words.

which is why her lawyer must have sucked. if he couldnt convince the jury that the poor frightened woman, shocked at the gunfire that was already taking place, elected to save her own life by crying rape before the husband turned the gun on her, was within the realm of reasonable doubt, he wasnt very good.

im not saying that is what happened. im saying that it was her lawyer's job to convince the jury that it was a distinct possibility. no matter WHAT statements they made to the cops at the scene.

Do we know that as a fact now? I ask 'cause I hadn't read that anywhere yet.

Do we know that as a fact now? I ask 'cause I hadn't read that anywhere yet.

no we do not. it probably didnt happen that way.

what does that have to do with it?

Do we know that as a fact now? I ask 'cause I hadn't read that anywhere yet.

no we do not. it probably didnt happen that way.

It's in one of the versions, which reported the woman's lawyer's case as fact.
www.dallasnews.com (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/050308dnmetrobersontrial.bfe2be99.html)
He started shooting as a horrified Mrs. Roberson began saying she was raped

It's poor journalism, but hell. Reporters should report, which is to say "write what they see," and interviewing suspects is pushing that envelope. They really aren't trained or competent to judge testimony in a court, where words are carefully chosen and taken in the vast context of a trial.

The instant someone posts a link to a court transcript, I'll retract just about any opinion I've posted to this thread. In the meantime, we rely on the journalists.

What the crap?

As I said, she's lazy. She works part time, probably not making much more than minimum wage, at the school my cousin attends. Her parents provide her and my cousin with a roof over their heads and other essentials, and she's been living there ever since she moved out of my uncle's house (he owned the house long before they met, which is how he ended up with it).

Until children are completely supported by the state, and therefore free to choose their parents, yes damn right it's a good thing.

The second paragraph is so offensive I dare not reply. I am rarely lost for words, but that speaks so clearly to your character that I cannot reply without getting personal, and offensively personal to the extent I might get a two day ban.

You're just not worth it. Goodbye.

Child support and alimony are two different things.

alimony is support of the (ex)wife.

Child support is support of the kids.
Texas has pretty tough child support laws I think 5% higher then the national average in regards as a % of the dad income.

which is why her lawyer must have sucked. if he couldnt convince the jury that the poor frightened woman, shocked at the gunfire that was already taking place, elected to save her own life by crying rape before the husband turned the gun on her, was within the realm of reasonable doubt, he wasnt very good.

im not saying that is what happened. im saying that it was her lawyer's job to convince the jury that it was a distinct possibility. no matter WHAT statements they made to the cops at the scene.

Or perhaps some of the neighbors heard the cry of rape before the gun shots were fired. which makes it highly unlikely that her story is correct.

As I said, she's lazy. She works part time, probably not making much more than minimum wage, at the school my cousin attends. Her parents provide her and my cousin with a roof over their heads and other essentials, and she's been living there ever since she moved out of my uncle's house (he owned the house long before they met, which is how he ended up with it).

Wow. That's gonna tell me what not to do.

Oh, come on. Really? "fearing he will turn around and run him down?" That "fear" would have been simple to alleviate by getting out of the street.

And perhaps is isn't a crime to defend your family, but it's indicative of a violent and horribly reactive personality to shoot without really knowing if it's necessary.
.

the Wife Did not get out of the truck. so if she cried rape it would appear as though the wife was being kidnapped to the husband which would justify lethal force.

no we do not. it probably didnt happen that way.

what does that have to do with it?

No idea. I was just curious, 'cause I hadn't read that anywhere yet. Y'know, I like I said in the post you quoted?

the Wife Did not get out of the truck. so if she cried rape it would appear as though the wife was being kidnapped to the husband which would justify lethal force.

Not really. We have no idea how any of it "appeared". The whole ball of wax reads very suspiciously all 'round. Regardless, the shoot first mentality is to blame here, along with a conniving woman.

No idea. I was just curious, 'cause I hadn't read that anywhere yet. Y'know, I like I said in the post you quoted?


the thing is that the husband wasnt charged because he is the wronged man who was defending his whorish woman.

SHE is the lying bitch who was fucking another man in a pickup truck while her daughter was in the house alone.

its the lawyers job to give the jury a different picture of this woman so that they WANT to aquit her then to give them the reasonable doubt to do so.

he obviously didnt do that.

No idea. I was just curious, 'cause I hadn't read that anywhere yet. Y'know, I like I said in the post you quoted?



Not really. We have no idea how any of it "appeared". The whole ball of wax reads very suspiciously all 'round. Regardless, the shoot first mentality is to blame here, along with a conniving woman.

even the defense said she was laying on the floor board of the truck after the shooting which means so long as the cry of rape happened before the shooting it would look like a rape kidnapping to the husband.

Now if there was no cry of rape until after the shooting it would just be a my wife is going off with some other guy, in which case the homicide was unjustifiable.

Given the verdict it seems like evidence points to the cry of rape being before the shooting.

Not really. We have no idea how any of it "appeared". The whole ball of wax reads very suspiciously all 'round. Regardless, the shoot first mentality is to blame here, along with a conniving woman.

I agree news reports have been very spurious on this matter so my conclusions are solely based off of the hope the jury and judge acted fairly.

the thing is that the husband wasnt charged because he is the wronged man who was defending his whorish woman.

SHE is the lying bitch who was fucking another man in a pickup truck while her daughter was in the house alone.

its the lawyers job to give the jury a different picture of this woman so that they WANT to aquit her then to give them the reasonable doubt to do so.

he obviously didnt do that.

At the end of the day it was him that pulled the trigger and ended an innocent mans' life. That should earn him some kind of punishment, even if it is just a ban on firearm ownership for being irresponsible.

At the end of the day it was him that pulled the trigger and ended an innocent mans' life. That should earn him some kind of punishment, even if it is just a ban on firearm ownership for being irresponsible.

of course he should have.

not that the jury would have convicted him.

of course he should have.

not that the jury would have convicted him.

I'm sorry if I'm being dense here but in the post I quoted you said he was the wronged party but now you agree he should be punished?

At the end of the day it was him that pulled the trigger and ended an innocent mans' life. That should earn him some kind of punishment, even if it is just a ban on firearm ownership for being irresponsible.

If this had been a real case of Rape and kidnap. and the man who had shot the person had been a police officer he would have likely gotten a medal for saving a woman's life.
The situation appeared to be oh!!! my wife is being raped and kidnapped if i do not act now she may very well end up dead somewhere.

If this had been a real case of Rape and kidnap. and the man who had shot the person had been a police officer he would have likely gotten a medal for saving a woman's life.
The situation appeared to be oh!!! my wife is being raped and kidnapped if i do not act now she may very well end up dead somewhere.

How? He fired 4 rounds at the truck as it was driving away.

How? He fired 4 rounds at the truck as it was driving away.

Maybe she was still in the truck?

Hence 'being kidnapped'.

I don't know if shooting out tires works in real life, so I guess he figured the best way would be to shoot at the guy.

It would be nice if we knew exactly what happened.

How? He fired 4 rounds at the truck as it was driving away.

With the man's wife in the car, yes? Who had said she was being raped?

1+1=2

Put it together.

With the man's wife in the car, yes? Who had said she was being raped?

1+1=2

Put it together.

So you think the chap planted 4 10mm round in a truck containing his wife?

So you think the chap planted 4 10mm round in a truck containing his wife?

Obviously he was a good shot and fired at the driver's side.

How? He fired 4 rounds at the truck as it was driving away.

his wife was still in the truck hence the assumption of kidnapping on the man's part. Even the defense says she was on the floor board of the truck after the shooting. the man and the prosecution contend that she screamed raped fired a shot then the victim drove off with the man's wife still in the truck before he was shot at 4 more times. the prosecutions story is likely backed up by additional evidence hence the conviction.

So in essence woman in truck screaming rape while being drove off.
Husband near by with gun. your the husband what would you do ?

So you think the chap planted 4 10mm round in a truck containing his wife?

Depends on if i have a clear shot. my wife is on the other side of the truck or on the floor board then yes I will take the shot, It is not like he was using a smooth bore pistol.

his wife was still in the truck hence the assumption of kidnapping on the man's part. Even the defense says she was on the floor board of the truck after the shooting. the man and the prosecution contend that she screamed raped fired a shot then the victim drove off with the man's wife still in the truck before he was shot at 4 more times. the prosecutions story is likely backed up by additional evidence hence the conviction.

So in essence woman in truck screaming rape while being drove off.
Husband near by with gun. your the husband what would you do ?

Quoting that slightly out of context are we? The only reference I've seen in this thread is:

Darrell Roberson "immediately jumps out of his SUV and starts firing," Ms. Davis said. "He's aiming to shoot anyone because he's angry and jealous. She hasn't said anything about rape yet. She could have been hit. Darrell didn't care who got it."

Mr. Roberson yanked his wife off of the floorboard of the truck where she had sought cover, Ms. Davis said.

"That's when she yells rape," Ms. Davis said. "She is scared. He never believed that she was being raped. This allegation of her causing him to pull the trigger is absolutely untrue."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-roberson_30met.ART.State.Edition1.468369d.html

Unless you have it from another source then you are agreeing that the husband was a bit of a murderous bastard.

Quoting that slightly out of context are we? The only reference I've seen in this thread is:

Darrell Roberson "immediately jumps out of his SUV and starts firing," Ms. Davis said. "He's aiming to shoot anyone because he's angry and jealous. She hasn't said anything about rape yet. She could have been hit. Darrell didn't care who got it."

Mr. Roberson yanked his wife off of the floorboard of the truck where she had sought cover, Ms. Davis said.

"That's when she yells rape," Ms. Davis said. "She is scared. He never believed that she was being raped. This allegation of her causing him to pull the trigger is absolutely untrue."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-roberson_30met.ART.State.Edition1.468369d.html

Unless you have it from another source then you are agreeing that the husband was a bit of a murderous bastard.

Ms. Davis is the woman's defence counsel. So that is very much one side of the story.

Quoting that slightly out of context are we? The only reference I've seen in this thread is:



http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-roberson_30met.ART.State.Edition1.468369d.html

Unless you have it from another source then you are agreeing that the husband was a bit of a murderous bastard.

yes so that means after the shooting according to the defense she was still in the truck.
I willing to bet thats what the prosecution, the man with the gun, and witnesses if any said it as well.

yes so that means after the shooting according to the defense she was still in the truck.
I willing to bet thats what the prosecution, the man with the gun, and witnesses if any said it as well.

So you're basing you point on an argument tossed out by the jury in the case?

So you're basing you point on an argument tossed out by the jury in the case?

the argument tossed out by the jury was not where the defendant was, the argument tossed out was when she yelled Rape.
By all accounts that fact she was in the truck until after the shooting seems to be agreed upon.

the argument tossed out by the jury was not where the defendant was, the argument tossed out was when she yelled Rape.
By all accounts that fact she was in the truck until after the shooting seems to be agreed upon.

What accounts? The only one I've seen in this thread came from a statement by the defence attorney who couldn't keep her out of prison. If you have another source then please share, details are fairly sparse at the moment.

What accounts? The only one I've seen in this thread came from a statement by the defence attorney who couldn't keep her out of prison. If you have another source then please share, details are fairly sparse at the moment.

It is the lack of a rebuttal by the prosecution.

I would sentence her to work on the Innocence project until she actually learns about how damaging throwing round false accusations of rape are.

She's directly caused someone to die with this. If that didn't drive the point home...

At least not for the Texans behind the guns.

Ditto!

Ditto!

Wee. (http://faqsmedia.ign.com/faqs/image/ani132.gif)

I went on google images to search 'ditto' and find that endearing little fellow.

I AM FRICKIN' TRAUMATIZED NOW.

Don't do it.

Don't walk down that path..

I'm sorry if I'm being dense here but in the post I quoted you said he was the wronged party but now you agree he should be punished?

no you misunderstood what i wrote.

he was not indicted because he was the man who was defending his whorish woman from a rapist.

thats the reason why not the facts of the case. a more just outcome would have seen him indicted for voluntary manslaughter or maybe 2nd degree murder.

but he would never have been convicted because its too easy to sell the story that as far as he was concerned it was justifiable homicde--he was shooting the man who had just raped his wife.

so the grand jury refused to indict him.

SHE was charged because she is a whore who was fucking another man in a pickup truck in the driveway while her child was alone in the house. no one sympathizes with a whore.

I would sentence her to work on the Innocence project until she actually learns about how damaging throwing round false accusations of rape are.

I can agree with this ... probably would want more than just that but as part of it for sure

I would sentence her to work on the Innocence project until she actually learns about how damaging throwing round false accusations of rape are.

yeah she should definitely do that while in prison.

the thing is that the husband wasnt charged because he is the wronged man who was defending his whorish woman.

SHE is the lying bitch who was fucking another man in a pickup truck while her daughter was in the house alone.

its the lawyers job to give the jury a different picture of this woman so that they WANT to aquit her then to give them the reasonable doubt to do so.

he obviously didnt do that.

Fair enough.

even the defense said she was laying on the floor board of the truck after the shooting which means so long as the cry of rape happened before the shooting it would look like a rape kidnapping to the husband.

Now if there was no cry of rape until after the shooting it would just be a my wife is going off with some other guy, in which case the homicide was unjustifiable.

Given the verdict it seems like evidence points to the cry of rape being before the shooting.

We may never know for sure.

I agree news reports have been very spurious on this matter so my conclusions are solely based off of the hope the jury and judge acted fairly.

I hope so too.

Ermarian;13668414']She's directly caused someone to die with this. If that didn't drive the point home...

no she indirectly caused the murder of.
Direct murder would involve her pulling the trigger and a murder charge.
Man slaughter is indirect and/or unintentional however it is used when your actions have in fact lead to or contributing to someone's death.
Drunk driving is one of the most common charges where manslaughter is applied.
Normally falsely accusing someone of rape is minor crime I think 6 months max jail time and a fine. But in this case it lead to someone's death hence the charge of manslaughter.

Wee. (http://faqsmedia.ign.com/faqs/image/ani132.gif)

I went on google images to search 'ditto' and find that endearing little fellow.

I AM FRICKIN' TRAUMATIZED NOW.

Don't do it.

Don't walk down that path..

Awww, that's a cute blob. I like it!:D

Do not be traumatized, that blob looks hugable.:p

Awww, that's a cute blob. I like it!:D

Do not be traumatized, that blob looks hugable.:p

... you do know that was a Poke-mon... right?

Im really glad that she got convicted and her husband didnt.

but he would never have been convicted because its too easy to sell the story that as far as he was concerned it was justifiable homicde--he was shooting the man who had just raped his wife.

Point of clarification. In most states, a homicide is justifiable not just when it was necessary to protect the life of yourself or someone else, but when you reasonably believed it to be necessary.

Not only would it been a case of "well the jury wouldn't acquit out of sympathy" but in fact, if he did reasonably believe it was justified, it would have been a legal defense of others killing.

Man slaughter is indirect and/or unintentional however it is used when your negligent actions have in fact lead to or contributing to someone's death.

Fixed

Point of clarification. In most states, a homicide is justifiable not just when it was necessary to protect the life of yourself or someone else, but when you reasonably believed it to be necessary.

Not only would it been a case of "well the jury wouldn't acquit out of sympathy" but in fact, if he did reasonably believe it was justified, it would have been a legal defense of others killing.

yes.

supposing that is what actually happened and it wasnt a case of shoot first and ask questions later.

I have more of a problem with the husband's lack of punishment than the wife's sentance. I'm no legal expert, so maybe she bears some culpabillity, but he shot an unarmed man who was no longer any threat. Isn't that second degree murdur? He should not get a free pass, and the judge should be fired for that, I think.

I have more of a problem with the husband's lack of punishment than the wife's sentance. I'm no legal expert, so maybe she bears some culpabillity, but he shot an unarmed man who was no longer any threat. Isn't that second degree murdur? He should not get a free pass, and the judge should be fired for that, I think.

it was the grand jury that refused to indict him.

He should not get a free pass, and the judge should be fired for that, I think.

*sigh* people and the law..

I have more of a problem with the husband's lack of punishment than the wife's sentance. I'm no legal expert, so maybe she bears some culpabillity, but he shot an unarmed man who was no longer any threat.

I agree with this. Punish the wife, but also the husband.

I have more of a problem with the husband's lack of punishment than the wife's sentance. I'm no legal expert, so maybe she bears some culpabillity, but he shot an unarmed man who was no longer any threat. Isn't that second degree murdur? He should not get a free pass, and the judge should be fired for that, I think.One could argue that he was attempting to stop someone who was attempting to get away with raping his wife. Legally it would be a form of self-defense, if I'm not much mistaken.

One could argue that he was attempting to stop someone who was attempting to get away with raping his wife. Legally it would be a form of self-defense, if I'm not much mistaken.

defense of other, actually.

Hmmm...

Did she cry rape to save herself?

Article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-roberson_30met.ART.State.Edition1.468369d.html)
Darrell Roberson "immediately jumps out of his SUV and starts firing," Ms. Davis said. "He's aiming to shoot anyone because he's angry and jealous. She hasn't said anything about rape yet. She could have been hit. Darrell didn't care who got it."

Mr. Roberson yanked his wife off of the floorboard of the truck where she had sought cover, Ms. Davis said.

"That's when she yells rape," Ms. Davis said. "She is scared. He never believed that she was being raped. This allegation of her causing him to pull the trigger is absolutely untrue."

Sounds like it. but if that was true, then why...
Jurors listened to the 911 tape in which Ms. Roberson is heard telling her husband, "He was raping me."

"She tells the police there was a knock at her door and this man takes her out of the house and rapes her. She stays on the story, 'I was being raped.' ... She denies even knowing Devin LaSalle."

Sorry, but she could've easily told the truth to officers to put the nail in the husbands legal coffin. but she didn't. that gave her Husband a lifeline in avoiding the murder charge and unfortunatly, it sunk her.

Lesson here boys and girls... DON'T LIE TO INVESTIGATING POLICE OFFICERS!

so far, I would've handed out the same verdict. she put in the resonable doubt to the murder charge.

defense of other, actually.I sit corrected. :D

defense of other, actually.

Out of curiosity, would it depend on whether or not the wife was out of any more possible harm's way?

If the guy was already running and the wife was no longer in the vehicle, would that make a difference?

its the lawyers job to give the jury a different picture of this woman so that they WANT to aquit her then to give them the reasonable doubt to do so.

he obviously didnt do that.
The lawyer DID give them a different picture of the woman. However, the jurors didn't buy it. As far as I can tell, the jurors were quite right not to buy it.

Out of curiosity, would it depend on whether or not the wife was out of any more possible harm's way?

If the guy was already running and the wife was no longer in the vehicle, would that make a difference?

sure. Generally it's as I said "reasonable belief". Did the circumstances, in the time, place, and state of mind of the individual, as he believed them to be, create a reasonable presumption that she was in danger.

everything factors into that.

Out of curiosity, would it depend on whether or not the wife was out of any more possible harm's way?

If the guy was already running and the wife was no longer in the vehicle, would that make a difference?

If the wife had gotten out of harms way and the husband still shot him it would be manslaughter with mitigating circumstances I.E. he thought his wife had just been raped. likely 2 year sentence with parole in 6 months, or by the time it went to trial parole after time served waiting for trial.

The reason she was found guilty is her testimony could not be trusted because she lied to the police. Once the police arrived and taken her husband into custody she no longer was under threat and she would at best lying to save her marriage not lying due to a vengeful husband.

My guess is since she said she was raped the police talked her into going to the hospital, while there she had a rape kit done. My guess the lack of vaginal tearing made investigators question her more about the alleged rape.
thats when she changed her story to I cried rape to save my life when she realized it would get her in jail.

The lawyer DID give them a different picture of the woman. However, the jurors didn't buy it. As far as I can tell, the jurors were quite right not to buy it.

the lawyer TRIED to give them a different picture of the woman. she didnt succeed

Wait, so now the husband just jumped out firing, and the wife pannicked and screamed rape to keep from having her head blown off? And a Grand Jury refused to indict the basterd?:eek: So the court blames the wife instead. I smell a jury full of fundimentalists. They probably sided with the husband because in the Bible, women are the tempters of men, so it was the woman's fault or some such BS.:mad:

(Checked the OP and yes, its a Texas Jury, just as I suspected. No doubt it helped the husband's case that this is a state where a lot of people would probably have been fine with him shooting an unarmed tresspasser).:headbang::upyours:

Well, this will hopefully get apealed and over turned at a higher and more competant level of the justice system.

Wait, so now the husband just jumped out firing, and the wife pannicked and screamed rape to keep from having her head blown off? And a Grand Jury refused to indict the basterd?:eek: So the court blames the wife instead. I smell a jury full of fundimentalists. They probably sided with the husband because in the Bible, women are the tempters of men, so it was the woman's fault or some such BS.:mad:

(Checked the OP and yes, its a Texas Jury, just as I suspected. No doubt it helped the husband's case that this is a state where a lot of people would probably have been fine with him shooting an unarmed tresspasser).:headbang::upyours:

Well, this will hopefully get apealed and over turned at a higher and more competant level of the justice system.

that is her defense that she said rape after the fact and is the contention of the defense.
The prosecution and the husband contend that she cried rape before hand leading to the man's death.

the contention of the Defense was very doubtful to the Jury because she continued to lie after she was in the safety of the police. which would indicate she was not lying to save her life, but was lying to save her marriage or image in the church.

... you do know that was a Poke-mon... right?

It was? Awwww, :fluffle: Pokémon!!
:fluffle:

The sentencing was supposedly today Kansas time. Still waiting ...

The sentencing was supposedly today Kansas time. Still waiting ...

I found these:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/050608dnmetroberson.ceeccaf0.html
http://www.tdcaa.com/node/2469

I found these:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/050608dnmetroberson.ceeccaf0.html
http://www.tdcaa.com/node/2469

The first one I linked to before. Dallas Morning News seem to have covered it several times, but the reports conflict on the most vital details.

The second link is interesting. After clicking to read the whole article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-roberson_29met.ART.State.Edition1.466d88c.html), it includes this (apparently from police sources) :

Mr. Roberson called his home repeatedly but got no answer. When the couple's then 7-year-old daughter finally answered the phone, she told her father she could not find Mrs. Roberson inside the house.

Mr. Roberson drove home. When he reached his house in a South Arlington subdivision, he saw his wife and Mr. LaSalle kissing inside Mr. LaSalle's truck, police said.

Mr. Roberson drew his gun and ordered his wife to get out of the truck. At some point, Mrs. Roberson, who has no criminal record, told her husband that she was being raped, officials said.

Mr. LaSalle, 32, tried to drive away but was struck in the head by one of Mr. Roberson's bullets, officials said.

If true, it's almost inconceivable that an appeal wouldn't succeed. If she doesn't appeal ... there's a very good chance she's taking the rap for her husband.

However, we don't have the conviction yet.

My guess is the minimum (2 years) and she doesn't appeal.

Let's see. :)

The first one I linked to before. Dallas Morning News seem to have covered it several times, but the reports conflict on the most vital details.

The second link is interesting. After clicking to read the whole article (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-roberson_29met.ART.State.Edition1.466d88c.html), it includes this (apparently from police sources) :



If true, it's almost inconceivable that an appeal wouldn't succeed. If she doesn't appeal ... there's a very good chance she's taking the rap for her husband.

However, we don't have the conviction yet.

My guess is the minimum (2 years) and she doesn't appeal.

Let's see. :)

Yeah. That´s what may happen. We´ll just have to keep watching and see what transpires.

Tracy Roberson, 37, tried to convince the jury to give her probabtion rather than a prison sentence that could carry up to 20 years.

Roberson was found guilty after jurors deliberated for nearly two days. The punishment phase of the trial began Monday morning.

She described in great detail how she was involved in a controlling relationship with her husband of 21 years, Darrell Roberson.

Prosecutors claimed Roberson falsely cried rape to cover up an extramarital affair, resulting in the shooting of her lover, Devin LaSalle, 32.

The jury decided that it was her reckless behavior that caused her husband to shoot and kill LaSalle when she falsely cried rape in December 2006.

Defense attorneys had argued that Darrell Roberson never believed she was being raped when he caught her in a compromising situation with LaSalle.

"The evidence -- and you'll know it after you hear it -- is that he pulled that trigger because he was mad, and he was jealous, and he couldn't have heard her cry rape," defense attorney Jill Davis said.

Defense attorneys said that putting Roberson on stand might help the jury see the human side. She still faces cross-examination by prosecutors. It will likely be Tuesday before a verdict in the punishment phase is reached.

Deliberations began Thursday afternoon and the jury reached a decision at about 5:30 p.m. Friday.

Roberson burst into tears when the guilty verdict was announced before she was taken into custody on Friday, NBC 5 reported.

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/16165120/detail.html

so probation is a possibility.

but she is still "a lying whore" so its hard to imagine that the jury will be sympathetic unless she has successfully tossed her husband under the bus--which, i suppose, might get his case sent back to the grand jury.

I´m a woman and I would never resort to this sort of behaviour just to escape my husband´s ire for cheating on him. This almost too funny yet sad for words...



http://news.aol.com/story/_a/cry-of-rape-lands-cheating-wife-in-jail/20080503153909990001

Would anyone here resort to that tactic to get out of a ¨cheating my husband/wife¨ situation? And, what do you think about the judge´s veredict? We he right or wrong in sentencing the wife to prison? Or is the husband to blame for leading his wife to cheat on him and then killing the lover?

How the hell could the husband be to blame for "leading his wife to cheat on him"?

She cheated. She lied. She did the wrong thing and should be punished.

He, on the other hand, tried to save his wife from harm. While shooting him 4 times wasn't neccessarily the best way to handle the situation, his reaction is certainly understandable.

How the hell could the husband be to blame for "leading his wife to cheat on him"?

He was out gambling, while she was left home with the kids?

She cheated. She lied. She did the wrong thing and should be punished.

"Cheated" is a moral judgement of her behaviour within marriage. A civilized society does not jail people for that.

"Lying" could mean anything, in this case it could well be to save her own life.

The lie may have had consequences, a wrongful death. That, precisely, is the issue of the case.

He, on the other hand, tried to save his wife from harm. While shooting him 4 times wasn't neccessarily the best way to handle the situation, his reaction is certainly understandable.

... and, he should go to jail.

If a woman is expected to speak responsibly, surely a man is expected to use a firearm responsibly ?

By what kind of twisted, wild-west ethics, does the man "do what he gotta do" like a mindless automaton, then throw up his hands and say "but, but, she said?" while the woman, who had no power to kill anyone without the gun there, bears the entire blame?

It's fucking sick. And if you go back and see the start of the thread, you'll see Nanatsu firmly on your side, blaming the woman and exculpating the man.

He was out gambling, while she was left home with the kids?

not your fault for not knowing this but gambling is illegal in Texas and Dallas(I am from Dallas area). He would have to go to an Oklahoma Indian casino to gamble like all other people from Dallas.
The exception is that churches and fund raiser host a casino night where you pay a few hundred bucks get a set amount of chips and get prizes at the end of the night. So while saying gambling trip is technically correct, I am willing to bet(given the reporting of the family as being devout) it was closer to a church fund raiser then a gambling trip. Besides everyone husbands and wives deserves a night out.


"Cheated" is a moral judgement of her behaviour within marriage. A civilized society does not jail people for that.

This I agree with, penalties if any should remain civil and in a divorce court. However a civilized society also does pass blame for cheating. Both partners were free to dissolve the relationship at anytime

"Lying" could mean anything, in this case it could well be to save her own life.

The lie may have had consequences, a wrongful death. That, precisely, is the issue of the case.

The jury and myself do not agree that the lying was to save her life.
If she was truly scared of her husband would not the best time to come clean have been right after the shooting when police took him into custody?
If it was to save her life then she does not deserve one second in jail.

... and, he should go to jail.

If a woman is expected to speak responsibly, surely a man is expected to use a firearm responsibly ?

Depends on who's story you buy
If you buy the man's story using a fire arm to save your wife from kidnapping and rape seems very responsible. in which case the wife bears most of the responsibility.
If you buy the wife's story, then the husband is at fault for shooting first asking questions later.

By what kind of twisted, wild-west ethics, does the man "do what he gotta do" like a mindless automaton, then throw up his hands and say "but, but, she said?" while the woman, who had no power to kill anyone without the gun there, bears the entire blame?

It's fucking sick. And if you go back and see the start of the thread, you'll see Nanatsu firmly on your side, blaming the woman and exculpating the man.
If what she said had been the truth(provided it occurred before hand) it would have justified the man shooting.
To be perfectly honest there is not enough evidence to convict either with what has been presented in the papers. I am waiting for the court transcripts after sentencing, as I am curious about the other evidence in this case.

He was out gambling, while she was left home with the kids?

So? He didn't physically force her to cheat on him. She made the decision.



"Cheated" is a moral judgement of her behaviour within marriage. A civilized society does not jail people for that.

I'm not suggesting she should be jailed for the cheating aspect.

"Lying" could mean anything, in this case it could well be to save her own life.

But it didn't save her life: she lied to her husband and said she was being RAPED, which resulted in the death of her lover. She lied about a very serious allegation, and it resulted in death.

The lie may have had consequences, a wrongful death. That, precisely, is the issue of the case.



... and, he should go to jail.

He may have overreacted: killing the man was probably not the first step required, however, he was protecting his wife, who screamed "rape"!

If a woman is expected to speak responsibly, surely a man is expected to use a firearm responsibly ?

Yes.

By what kind of twisted, wild-west ethics, does the man "do what he gotta do" like a mindless automaton, then throw up his hands and say "but, but, she said?" while the woman, who had no power to kill anyone without the gun there, bears the entire blame?

Oh, puhlease, it's nothing to do with wild-west ethics, and you're clearly blind if you can't see where I'm coming from. She screamed "rape" and he protected her. I am not justifying his actions - he shouldn't have killed the guy - but he did shoot him because of what she said. She should go to jail, and perhaps he should suffer some sort of consequences for not responsibly handling a fire arm.

It's fucking sick. And if you go back and see the start of the thread, you'll see Nanatsu firmly on your side, blaming the woman and exculpating the man.

It's fucking sick that this slut screamed "rape" when she wasn't being raped.
I'm not blaming the woman and exculpating the man: he played his part too. And if Nanatsu is on my side, it's because she's intelligent enough to see it that way.

Oh, yeh, she, so it's not like we're taking the "feminazi" "the man did the wrong thing" stance either.

Can we say Law and Order???

OH YES I WOULD!!!!

but being 6'5" and nearly 200 pounds I dont think my girl would believe me if I acuse another girl of raping me :D

anyone know what the sentence was?

anyone know what the sentence was?

Not yet. Let me check.

According to this (http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/tv/stories/wfaa080505_wz_roberson.cf4900fe.html):

Robertson got 5 years jail time for the death of her lover.

OH YES I WOULD!!!!

but being 6'5" and nearly 200 pounds I dont think my girl would believe me if I acuse another girl of raping me :D

maybe you wife will believe if it is her
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/blacksheep101/female-bodybuilder.gif

:eek:

I would never cheat my wife with something like that

Not yet. Let me check.

According to this (http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/tv/stories/wfaa080505_wz_roberson.cf4900fe.html):

Robertson got 5 years jail time for the death of her lover.

with 2 years before parole... Damn!

added benefit is your wife would never think you would cheat on her with something like that. see a very provable rape defense for you.

with 2 years before parole... Damn!

Yup. Don´t mess with Texas law, they say.

Not yet. Let me check.

According to this (http://www.txcn.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/tv/stories/wfaa080505_wz_roberson.cf4900fe.html):

Robertson got 5 years jail time for the death of her lover.

justice has been served it seems.

justice has been served it seems.

So it seems.

So? He didn't physically force her to cheat on him. She made the decision.

Your choice of words is telling.

For the man, the use of force.
For the woman, a decision.

Don't hide behind men. You will only be stabbed in the back.

5 years?

She won't cop that.

Appeal.

just talked to one the district clerks.
Apparently it cost a good bit of money to get court transcripts.
If your interested in getting said transcripts let me know and i will get you the information to get these transcripts. Hopefully someone who is not a poor college student scans them and puts them on line.
however by pretending to be apart of the school news paper I got a few details out of her.
1. four witnesses say the wife screamed rape first.
2 three of the four said the lover began driving off before the shooting took place. (4th said she didn't know).
3. the witnesses say they did not hear anything before the scream of rape (which suggest the husband asked her to get out in quite and rational voice)
4.character witnessed described the husband as a calm and caring family man.
5. the "gambling trip" was a church sponsored casino night to raise money as i thought.

the reporting in this case I feel boarders on yellow journalism, as it only stated the defenses case, and did not mention clearly enough that this was the defense's case, and that their were other sides to the case.

The facts support the verdict.

Appeal.

And she'll lose.

And she'll lose.

Um, OK?

To the question of court transcripts, this was an open trial, wasn't it?

The public were admitted. Obviously. There were reporters there.

WTF with paying for transcripts?

Shouldn't they be public ?

Um, OK?

She will. Appeals courts almost never overturn a valid jury verdit, unless there was actual grounds for an appeal. Improper evidence, jury tampering, etc etc.

But if all that was proper, and the jury considered the evidence, and made their decision, well...that's pretty much it.

WTF with paying for transcripts?

Court reporters have to do some hard work to get everything transcribed. Witnesses mumble, talk too fast, doctors go off into strange jargon, etc. They expect to be paid for their work.

Um, OK?

To the question of court transcripts, this was an open trial, wasn't it?

The public were admitted. Obviously. There were reporters there.

WTF with paying for transcripts?

Shouldn't they be public ?

they are public. you pay to have copies made and have them mailed you + goverment overhead. the goverment overhead fee is pretty high in the state of Texas because we don't have a state income tax, this coupled with the fact there are a large number of pages in a court transcript(I think several hundred). I could if so willing go drive 4 hours to Tarrant county and read them for free during business hours. Public however does not equal free.

Yes I know reporters were there, which is why I called the reporting of the trial yellow journalism. likely they realized she was going to be found guilty so built up the defenses case in the paper just so the shock of her being guilty would sell more papers.

Um, OK?

To the question of court transcripts, this was an open trial, wasn't it?

The public were admitted. Obviously. There were reporters there.

WTF with paying for transcripts?

Shouldn't they be public ?

Having open attendance is not the same thing as a free product of a service performed at this open attendance event

Concerts are sometimes open to the public but you still have to pay for concert albums as there are time and material costs to produce (discounting the profit of a private enterprise)

just talked to one the district clerks.
Apparently it cost a good bit of money to get court transcripts.

That sucks.

If your interested in getting said transcripts let me know and i will get you the information to get these transcripts. Hopefully someone who is not a poor college student scans them and puts them on line.

!

however by pretending to be apart of the school news paper I got a few details out of her.
1. four witnesses say the wife screamed rape first.
2 three of the four said the lover began driving off before the shooting took place. (4th said she didn't know).
3. the witnesses say they did not hear anything before the scream of rape (which suggest the husband asked her to get out in quite and rational voice)
4.character witnessed described the husband as a calm and caring family man.
5. the "gambling trip" was a church sponsored casino night to raise money as i thought.

If I implied that by going out gambling the man was "of bad character" in the same way the woman was painted as being "of bad character" by taking a lover, I retract that. It's wrong, and has nothing to do with the killing.

2 is damning, if true. If the woman was out of the truck, and the lover driving away, it is inconcievable that anyone could shoot to "interrupt a rape in progress"

the reporting in this case I feel boarders on yellow journalism, as it only stated the defenses case, and did not mention clearly enough that this was the defense's case, and that their were other sides to the case.

The facts support the verdict.

I appreciate your efforts to do the investigative journalism yourself, but after all, you spoke to one person (and that under false pretences yourself, kudos btw) and are now reporting your investigations as "fact."

You should probably be careful of accusing journalists (er, other journalists?) of bias ...

Nah, never mind that. All is grist which comes to the mill, and thanks for helping.

EDIT: Not particularly to you, but "Yellow Journalism" is a term from britain, and the colour is a reference to the cheap paper on which such journalism is printed. It means "media for the proles" rather than "cowardly journalism."

Having open attendance is not the same thing as a free product of a service performed at this open attendance event

Concerts are sometimes open to the public but you still have to pay for concert albums as there are time and material costs to produce (discounting the profit of a private enterprise)

Information is free, unless someone claims and can prove ownership of it.

We aren't asking for a leather bound volume with gold leaf tooling, and a county court bookmark, we're asking for the content of the transcript. Which would not cost the court ONE CENT to provide.

Court reporters have to do some hard work to get everything transcribed. Witnesses mumble, talk too fast, doctors go off into strange jargon, etc. They expect to be paid for their work.

Bullshit.

I'm going to bed now.

EDIT: Transcripts have to be made anyway, as part of the functioning of the court. They're essential for the legal system -- what would be the use of studying cases as precedents (as law students up to judges must) if the cases were stripped of their recorded evidence? Even during the course of the trial, transcripts (including video/audio of the courtroom) are referred to. If the trial wasn't recorded, wouldn't every trial degenerate into "yeah, but you said before ..."?

The only credit I grant to your point is the extremely scanty "formatting" point Demp'1 makes below.

Information is free, unless someone claims and can prove ownership of it.

We aren't asking for a leather bound volume with gold leaf tooling, and a county court bookmark, we're asking for the content of the transcript. Which would not cost the court ONE CENT to provide.

Of course it would cost money.

Let's say you wanted a paper copy (usually the way you get transcripts of this sort). There would be a cost associated with the paper, the copier or printer, the shipping, and the labor of the person doing all of that.

Even if you wanted an electronic copy, there would be a cost associated with making such a copy available (formatting it, and the like) and then paying labor costs for the administrative person in charge of sending it out.


Now, my guess is that you could go down to the courthouse and look at a copy for free. But you wouldn't be able to remove it from the building.

That sucks.

!

If I implied that by going out gambling the man was "of bad character" in the same way the woman was painted as being "of bad character" by taking a lover, I retract that. It's wrong, and has nothing to do with the killing.

my question of her character stems from the fact she lied and continued to lie after she was safe.

2 is damning, if true. If the woman was out of the truck, and the lover driving away, it is inconcievable that anyone could shoot to "interrupt a rape in progress"

both sides had stated the woman was in the truck while it was driving away, though the news papers lack of reporting made have to infer this about the prosecution. Also I had a unfair advantage I grew up in the Dallas Fort Wroth Area and know it well.


I appreciate your efforts to do the investigative journalism yourself, but after all, you spoke to one person (and that under false pretences yourself, kudos btw) and are now reporting your investigations as "fact."

You should probably be careful of accusing journalists (er, other journalists?) of bias ...

Nah, never mind that. All is grist which comes to the mill, and thanks for helping.

I don't think it is bias so much as they want to make a buck by shocking people. It gets people to buy the article read the articles and debate them online.

Your choice of words is telling.

For the man, the use of force.
For the woman, a decision.

Don't hide behind men. You will only be stabbed in the back.

Umm, no, my choice of words is not telling.

I said "He didn't physically force her to cheat on him. She made the decision", which is true. It's not a selective choice of words - it's what actually happened. Unless he DID physically put the other guy inside of her, it's not HIS fault that she cheated.

And, I'm not hiding behind men, in fact, this is far from it. I'm just judging the situation fairly, without eyes that are blinded by sexist bullshit.

Information is free, unless someone claims and can prove ownership of it.

We aren't asking for a leather bound volume with gold leaf tooling, and a county court bookmark, we're asking for the content of the transcript. Which would not cost the court ONE CENT to provide.

Photo-copies cost money. And if there is indeed hundreds of pages of court transcripts, it will cost a pretty penny to duplicate them. Not only that, but the person doing the duplicating must be paid as well. Then if the transcripts are to be mailed, that's an additional cost (the post office doesn't do anything for free, believe me).

Information is free, unless someone claims and can prove ownership of it.

We aren't asking for a leather bound volume with gold leaf tooling, and a county court bookmark, we're asking for the content of the transcript. Which would not cost the court ONE CENT to provide.

Except that they had to pay someone to put it in a form that you wish to consume

And what medium would you like the content transmitted that would have 0 cost? I cant think of one.

Except that they had to pay someone to put it in a form that you wish to consume

And what medium would you like the content transmitted that would have 0 cost? I cant think of one.

How about bittorrent?

Note, I said:
"not one cent."
By that I meant,
less than one half cent
per head.

Photo-copies cost money. And if there is indeed hundreds of pages of court transcripts, it will cost a pretty penny to duplicate them. Not only that, but the person doing the duplicating must be paid as well. Then if the transcripts are to be mailed, that's an additional cost (the post office doesn't do anything for free, believe me).

Look, it's not my state and it's not my country and really not my problem.

If the transcripts are on public display AND ANYONE IS ALLOWED TO COPY THEM, then I consider that "making available at no cost."

my question of her character stems from the fact she lied and continued to lie after she was safe.

Lied to police. *nod*

both sides had stated the woman was in the truck while it was driving away, though the news papers lack of reporting made have to infer this about the prosecution.

Somewhere in there I must have missed a page.
I saw a direct quote from Ms. Davis , who led the defence, stating that the woman was out of the truck. Here.

Darrell Roberson "immediately jumps out of his SUV and starts firing," Ms. Davis said. "He's aiming to shoot anyone because he's angry and jealous. She hasn't said anything about rape yet. She could have been hit. Darrell didn't care who got it."

Mr. Roberson yanked his wife off of the floorboard of the truck where she had sought cover, Ms. Davis said.

"That's when she yells rape," Ms. Davis said. "She is scared. He never believed that she was being raped. This allegation of her causing him to pull the trigger is absolutely untrue."

So, are you saying that the above report (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-roberson_30met.ART.State.Edition1.468369d.html) from the Dallas Morning News fabricates the words of a defence attorney, in a direct quote, or that the defence story changed during the trial ?

What kind of paper is the DMN anyway? Is it even a paper?

Also I had a unfair advantage I grew up in the Dallas Fort Wroth Area and know it well.

Sorry, how's that an advantage?

I don't think it is bias so much as they want to make a buck by shocking people. It gets people to buy the article read the articles and debate them online.

Oh, great. Make it OUR fault. :rolleyes:

Lied to police. *nod*



Somewhere in there I must have missed a page.
I saw a direct quote from Ms. Davis , who led the defence, stating that the woman was out of the truck. Here.


Mr. Roberson yanked his wife off of the floorboard of the truck where she had sought cover, Ms. Davis said.

being on the floor board until after the shooting means in the truck

So, are you saying that the above report (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-roberson_30met.ART.State.Edition1.468369d.html) from the Dallas Morning News fabricates the words of a defence attorney, in a direct quote, or that the defence story changed during the trial ?

No I am saying they under reported things like witnesses, and other evidence of the prosecution that would have made things clear that a conviction was likely and justified, While repeating the defense's version of events several times.

What kind of paper is the DMN anyway? Is it even a paper?

It leans left, Id rank it along the lines of the Washington post. about 500,000 daily circulation.

Sorry, how's that an advantage?

Because I am familiar with how the news papers report court cases here, and I know the trial was held in a metropolitan area making it unlikely for a jury of "country gun nut Texans" to be involved.


Oh, great. Make it OUR fault. :rolleyes:

Yes it is your fault now go make me some food Woman.

Of course it would cost money.

Let's say you wanted a paper copy (usually the way you get transcripts of this sort). There would be a cost associated with the paper, the copier or printer, the shipping, and the labor of the person doing all of that.

Even if you wanted an electronic copy, there would be a cost associated with making such a copy available (formatting it, and the like) and then paying labor costs for the administrative person in charge of sending it out.


Now, my guess is that you could go down to the courthouse and look at a copy for free. But you wouldn't be able to remove it from the building.

Tarrant county only does paper transcripts.
Only accepts mailed in request.
and only mails the request in return.

I´m a woman and I would never resort to this sort of behaviour just to escape my husband´s ire for cheating on him. This almost too funny yet sad for words...



http://news.aol.com/story/_a/cry-of-rape-lands-cheating-wife-in-jail/20080503153909990001

Would anyone here resort to that tactic to get out of a ¨cheating my husband/wife¨ situation? And, what do you think about the judge´s veredict? We he right or wrong in sentencing the wife to prison? Or is the husband to blame for leading his wife to cheat on him and then killing the lover?

No, I wouldn't resort to that. Mostly cause I don't cheat, my BF knows of my lovers.
Regarding the sentencing, I think both ought to be trialed for manslaughter, but his sentence ought to be more severe.

No, I wouldn't resort to that. Mostly cause I don't cheat, my BF knows of my lovers.
Regarding the sentencing, I think both ought to be trialed for manslaughter, but his sentence ought to be more severe.

Defense of another isn't manslaughter. That's what the husband thought he was doing, because the wife yelled rape. This is according to the article in the original post.

Defense of another isn't manslaughter. That's what the husband thought he was doing, because the wife yelled rape. This is according to the article in the original post.

That's basically my opinion.

Now, he probably shouldn't have killed the guy, but perhaps if firearms were illegal in his country, it wouldn't have been an issue.

That's basically my opinion.

Now, he probably shouldn't have killed the guy, but perhaps if firearms were illegal in his country, it wouldn't have been an issue.

It would have been nice if the boyfriend lived, but I can understand why the husband shot to kill. He thought he was defending his wife's life.

As to the firearms comment, that's a debate that should go into one of the other gun control threads we had in the past few weeks. Oh wait, it WAS in those threads. :p

Defense of another isn't manslaughter. That's what the husband thought he was doing, because the wife yelled rape. This is according to the article in the original post.

FORT WORTH, Texas (May 3)
A Texas woman who caused her lover's shooting death by falsely crying rape was convicted Friday of involuntary manslaughter.
Tracy Denise Roberson, 37, cried a bit when the verdict was announced. The punishment phase was set for Monday, and she faces two to 20 years in prison.
In late 2006, Darrell Roberson came home from a late-night card game to find his scantily clad wife with another man in a pickup truck in the driveway. Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him.
Darrell Roberson initially was arrested, but a murder charge was later dropped and a grand jury indicted Tracy Roberson instead.
During her three-day trial, defense attorneys called no witnesses but blamed LaSalle's death on Darrell Roberson's jealousy and rage.
But prosecutors placed all the blame on Tracy Roberson, showing evidence of the affair with LaSalle, 32, and a text message in which she invited him to her house that evening.

Firing four shots at someone running away from you is not defense of another, it's manslaughter.

Firing four shots at someone running away from you is not defense of another, it's manslaughter.

From this case, the last I read was that the wife got 5 years prison time. I think the husband, although being the one who fired the shots, was not sent to jail. I'll keep checking for updates on this.

Firing four shots at someone running away from you is not defense of another, it's manslaughter.

it is when the one your trying to defend is still in the truck.

it is when the one your trying to defend is still in the truck.

He fired those 4 shots knowing his wife was still on the truck. He could've hit her too. I don't think anymore that he was trying to defend her...

it is when the one your trying to defend is still in the truck.

That would make it an even stronger case, actually. It was manslaughter in the case of the lover, and attempted manslaughter of his wife.

That would make it an even stronger case, actually. It was manslaughter in the case of the lover, and attempted manslaughter of his wife.

the charge would then be Assault with deadly.

however, it's confusing (by the articles) as to when she was pulled out of the truck, when the shooting took place.

was he fleeing (driving away) when the shots were fired, was she in the truck as it was fleeing or was she pulled out before the truck drove off.

it could also be said the he expected the bed and back of the cab to protect her as she was 'laying down'.

I would like to see the court transcription...

Firing four shots at someone running away from you is not defense of another, it's manslaughter.

When the person you are defending is still in the truck it can be.

That would make it an even stronger case, actually. It was manslaughter in the case of the lover, and attempted manslaughter of his wife.

There is no such thing as "attempted manslaughter", it's an oxymoron. Manslaughter is negligently (or by jurisdiction, recklessly) taking the life of another.

You can not attempt to do something negligently.

Would anyone here resort to that tactic to get out of a ¨cheating my husband/wife¨ situation? And, what do you think about the judge´s veredict? We he right or wrong in sentencing the wife to prison? Or is the husband to blame for leading his wife to cheat on him and then killing the lover?

I can't blame the husband for his reaction. I can't imagine any man who wouldn't wanna kill some bastard he catches raping his wife, it's one of those things that no matter how sane and collected you are you'd still loose it anyway.
The woman should've first known better than to cheat, that's just wrong no matter how you look at it. Then she shouldn't have decided to be further retarded in claiming rape instead of just owning up to what she did. So I do place the blame entirely with her.
I'm not generally one to stand up for someone who killed someone else outside of self defense, but when I imagine myself in that situation I'd shoot the bastard too if he got away too fast for me to castrate him.

There is no such thing as "attempted manslaughter", it's an oxymoron. Manslaughter is negligently (or by jurisdiction, recklessly) taking the life of another.

You can not attempt to do something negligently.

You can in German legal terminology...

That would make it an even stronger case, actually. It was manslaughter in the case of the lover, and attempted manslaughter of his wife.

you live in europe so your not familiar with pistol, or familiar with American trucks. rifling in modern pistol make shooting fairly accurate. the victim and the wife if sitting on opposite ends of the cab would likely have been 2 meter apart.
Even a mediocre shooter will miss by less then 2 meters, so this actually strengths the case that he was not shooting out of anger since if he wanted to shoot his wife he would have.

You can in German legal terminology...

well ok, you can attempt manslaughter, but a "different kind" of manslaughter. Recklessly firing into a vehicle with your wife isn't really "attempted manslaughter" since it would be a matter of recklessness

You can in German legal terminology...

This didn't happen in Germany, so your point is moot.

This didn't happen in Germany, so your point is moot.

My point was that I don't really know what the correct USAmerican legal terminology for the circumstance is.
How is that moot? :confused:

you live in europe so your not familiar with pistol, or familiar with American trucks. rifling in modern pistol make shooting fairly accurate. the victim and the wife if sitting on opposite ends of the cab would likely have been 2 meter apart.
Even a mediocre shooter will miss by less then 2 meters, so this actually strengths the case that he was not shooting out of anger since if he wanted to shoot his wife he would have.

He was - I would assume - fairly emotional at the time, which will affect everybody's accuracy. And he was shooting at a randomly moving target.
I think his behaviour was reckless in the extreme, and he is in fact guilty of manslaughter and whatever the USAmercian lingo is for dangerous behaviour that could have resulted in manslaughter.

well ok, you can attempt manslaughter, but a "different kind" of manslaughter. Recklessly firing into a vehicle with your wife isn't really "attempted manslaughter" since it would be a matter of recklessness

Well, call it "willfully and knowingly endangering a person's life"

My point was that I don't really know what the correct USAmerican legal terminology for the circumstance is.
How is that moot? :confused:

hence my post about it being Assault with deady (dunno if intent or weapon would fit tho.)

Well, call it "willfully and knowingly endangering a person's life"

reckless endangerment. Which, fine, I could see that, but I don't believe the grand jury was asked to indict on that.

reckless endangerment. Which, fine, I could see that, but I don't believe the grand jury was asked to indict on that.

It could be that they, and this is speculation only, felt that had she not cried rape, he wouldn't have fired the shots and thus not recklessly endangered anyone.

basically, her crying rape couldd've pushed him (I guess by passion or by reason of temporary insanity) to fire upon her lover.

as I said, this is only speculation.

It could be that they, and this is speculation only, felt that had she not cried rape, he wouldn't have fired the shots and thus not recklessly endangered anyone.

basically, her crying rape couldd've pushed him (I guess by passion or by reason of temporary insanity) to fire upon her lover.

as I said, this is only speculation.

I think that's a jury question, mainly one of mitigating circumstances. We're talking grand jury indictment, which has a sufficiently lower threshold. I'm unsure if they even sought indictment on a reckless endangerment theory.

I think that's a jury question, mainly one of mitigating circumstances. We're talking grand jury indictment, which has a sufficiently lower threshold. I'm unsure if they even sought indictment on a reckless endangerment theory.

that's also possible.

EDIT: he was charged with Manslaughter. could the jury find him guilty for a charge that wasn't levied on him? I mean, they did the wife, but the wife herself wasn't charged with anything before...

It could be that they, and this is speculation only, felt that had she not cried rape, he wouldn't have fired the shots and thus not recklessly endangered anyone.

basically, her crying rape couldd've pushed him (I guess by passion or by reason of temporary insanity) to fire upon her lover.

as I said, this is only speculation.

I thought the husband was trying to save her from the rapist.

I thought the husband was trying to save her from the rapist.

In the husband's mind it was trying to save his wife from rape and kidnap.
However for these jokers thats not justification to shoot.

Bullshit.

I'm going to bed now.

EDIT: Transcripts have to be made anyway, as part of the functioning of the court. They're essential for the legal system -- what would be the use of studying cases as precedents (as law students up to judges must) if the cases were stripped of their recorded evidence? Even during the course of the trial, transcripts (including video/audio of the courtroom) are referred to. If the trial wasn't recorded, wouldn't every trial degenerate into "yeah, but you said before ..."?

The only credit I grant to your point is the extremely scanty "formatting" point Demp'1 makes below.
Every lawyer involved in the cases has to pay the court reporter for a copy of the transcripts, extra if they want "rush" transcripts. That is how the court reporters make their living, and no-one in the court system begrudges them their living.

He was - I would assume - fairly emotional at the time, which will affect everybody's accuracy. And he was shooting at a randomly moving target.
I think his behaviour was reckless in the extreme, and he is in fact guilty of manslaughter and whatever the USAmercian lingo is for dangerous behaviour that could have resulted in manslaughter.

there was no news paper statement that the truck was swerving, so if you call a straight line down the road randomly moving. and Even if it was a truck is not very nimble. In fact it doesn't sound like the truck got very far, or moving very fast.
No proof that he was being emotional, a large number of people become fairly calm in these situations and become emotional afterwards.

It is not reckless endangerment because he perceived the wife was in greater danger, of kidnapping and murder if driver was allowed to escape, then the relatively negligible chance that he would miss what looks like an easy shot.

I thought the husband was trying to save her from the rapist.

1) it wasn't rape, she just said it was. she and her 'rapist' were long time lovers.
2) the husband suspected something when he called home many times and when his daughter finally answered, she said "Mommy was outside" and this was late at night.
3) it's unclear when the cry of rape was made, in relation to when the shots were fired and the actions of all involved.

there was no news paper statement that the truck was swerving, so if you call a straight line down the road randomly moving. and Even if it was a truck is not very nimble. In fact it doesn't sound like the truck got very far, or moving very fast.
No proof that he was being emotional, a large number of people become fairly calm in these situations and become emotional afterwards.

It is not reckless endangerment because he perceived the wife was in greater danger, of kidnapping and murder if driver was allowed to escape, then the relatively negligible chance that he would miss what looks like an easy shot.

The truck had to pull out of the driveway, and was then moving down the street. Unless it was going down the street in reverse, it must have turned at one point. Hardly a straight line.

Too bad if he wasn't emotional, as that would have been the only halfway credible defense he could have brought up for killing somebody and endangering the life of his wife.

Every lawyer involved in the cases has to pay the court reporter for a copy of the transcripts, extra if they want "rush" transcripts. That is how the court reporters make their living, and no-one in the court system begrudges them their living.

Well that's terrible. They're an essential of the functioning of the court and the price should be absorbed by the court, at least to provide transcripts to parties to the case.

I am troubled to discover that at least in the Federal courts of Australia the same applies.

They're an essential of the functioning of the court. It shouldn't be like tipping the waitress. :(

How about the first trial, the one where the grand jury indicted the wife?

Has anyone got records from that? (Not more news stories, I'm sick of them.)

I don't like this source, but it says the wife will appeal, and she's out on bail pending that.

She has gone back to her husband and their kid(s) it seems.

Some Fox crap. (http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=6500403&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1)

EDIT: About six hours later: Fort Worth Star Telegram. (http://www.star-telegram.com/arlington_news/story/632941.html) New details and pic of Mrs Roberson.

The truck had to pull out of the driveway, and was then moving down the street. Unless it was going down the street in reverse, it must have turned at one point. Hardly a straight line.

Too bad if he wasn't emotional, as that would have been the only halfway credible defense he could have brought up for killing somebody and endangering the life of his wife.

thats assuming the truck got that far in the 1 or 2 seconds it would take to aim and fire 4 shots. more likely he had just backed out of the driveway by the time he was dead. Backing out of the drive way is not something you can do at speed in a pick up truck well with out going into the neighbor's house.

It is not endangerment if it is an action you view as saving their life. If this had been a police officer who had walk to within I am guessing 3 meters of a vehicle and the passenger yells rape as the vehicle is started and begins driving away Id expect him to shoot to rather then allowing the woman to be kidnapped and killed. The only difference is the police officer might yell freeze first.

think like this a truck raises the person inside off the ground a bit correct ?
the body of the person driving the truck is going to be a level or close to level shot and will be the easier shot. If the shooting took place from the drivers side the wife was not endanger because any missed bullets will exit the roof of the truck before reaching the passenger area. because in this case would have angled up taking a harder shot at his head.

if he was shooting from the back of the truck maybe a 15 degree difference in angel from driver to passenger.
From the front it would be about a 30 degree angle(closer due not not having to shoot over bed).

the only way you'd miss by 15 or 30 degrees is if you do something dumb like turn the gun sideways, and then you likely miss the truck altogether. Or use a smooth bore dueling pistol.

the only side that would really endanger his wife is passenger side.

It is not endangerment if it is an action you view as saving their life. If this had been a police officer who had walk to within I am guessing 3 meters of a vehicle and the passenger yells rape as the vehicle is started and begins driving away Id expect him to shoot to rather then allowing the woman to be kidnapped and killed.

You mean raped. Why would the man kill her, given the presumption he was already raping her and also meant to kidnap her?

Why should the presumption be that he would kill her?

The only difference is the police officer might yell freeze first.

So why shouldn't the husband have done that?

You mean raped. Why would the man kill her, given the presumption he was already raping her and also meant to kidnap her?

Why should the presumption be that he would kill her?



So why shouldn't the husband have done that?

driving off with someone yelling no/rape/help/stop him/her is normally considered kidnapping or the start of it at least.
most kidnapping victims do not survive because said kidnapper wishes to protect his/her identity.

maybe he did yell freeze who knows, until we get the transcripts, police pretty much yell it as a reaction as soon as they draw their weapon due to it being ingrained in training.

thats assuming the truck got that far in the 1 or 2 seconds it would take to aim and fire 4 shots. more likely he had just backed out of the driveway by the time he was dead. Backing out of the drive way is not something you can do at speed in a pick up truck well with out going into the neighbor's house.

The husband came home with the gun already aimed, then?
Otherwise he would have to get it from somewhere, giving the other guy plenty of time to reverse and turn...


It is not endangerment if it is an action you view as saving their life. If this had been a police officer who had walk to within I am guessing 3 meters of a vehicle and the passenger yells rape as the vehicle is started and begins driving away Id expect him to shoot to rather then allowing the woman to be kidnapped and killed. The only difference is the police officer might yell freeze first.

No, I would not. I would expect the police officer to yell "stop", maybe try and get into the car, and if he can't advise the number plate so the car can be stopped by another police unit down the line.
Where I live, police do not carry guns, and I have to say I feel a lot safer for it.

driving off with someone yelling no/rape/help/stop him/her is normally considered kidnapping or the start of it at least.
most kidnapping victims do not survive because said kidnapper wishes to protect his/her identity.

That's wrong, actually. I'm calling you on it. Prove that.

The man's identity was less secret than that of the average kidnapper anyway. He'd been SEEN by Mr. Roberson, and was about to attempt a drive through the city in a vehicle, which Mr Roberson could easily take the license number of and description for the police.

Mrs Roberson was in even less danger of being killed to conceal evidence, than the average kidnap victim.

maybe he did yell freeze who knows, police pretty much yell it as a reaction as soon as they draw their weapon due to it being ingrained in training.

If he had yelled "freeze" surely that would have been raised in his defense.

The husband came home with the gun already aimed, then?
Otherwise he would have to get it from somewhere, giving the other guy plenty of time to reverse and turn...



No, I would not. I would expect the police officer to yell "stop", maybe try and get into the car, and if he can't advise the number plate so the car can be stopped by another police unit down the line.
Where I live, police do not carry guns, and I have to say I feel a lot safer for it.

The husband could have been carrying the pistol at the time. They do allow that in Texas. And if someone is proficient in shooting, it won't that that long to aim. So the other guy may not have had plenty of time, as you suggest.

The husband could have been carrying the pistol at the time.

Yes, pistol. *nod*

They're an essential of the functioning of the court. It shouldn't be like tipping the waitress. :(
I totally agree. But that's how it is.