Interesting.
________________________________________________
A woman is on trial in Texas for
This is what happened, according to the article:
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.
The husband already had his gun out when he confronted his wife and Mr LaSalle. That's when she said she was being raped.
He already had his gun out before she said she was being raped, and yet a jury would not indict him. He was prepared for violence. He was in control.
But she has been charged with involuntary manslaughter because she "should have known, that her rape claim could have deadly consequences."
The fact that her own life may have been in danger is of no importance, apparently. Not justification enough in the minds of the grand jury who indicted her, or the officials who charged her. The husband was not responsible for his actions even though he went into the situation armed and angry. The woman is responsible for the man's actions because he went into the situation armed and angry.
18 comments:
Wow-- just wow. I hadn't heard about this but now I feel sick.
I guess it's all this little hussy's fault that her husband shot a man to death??
~tobestalks.blogspot.com
When she cried rape, she effectively let her husband off the hook for murder. If she hadn't made that false accusation, and he'd gone ahead and killed them both, he'd be in prison, and facing the electric chair. But as soon as she said "rape," she gave him a free pass to shoot the guy as a fleeing criminal. In New York State, attempted rape is one of four situations in which a person may preventatively intercede with deadly force: in Texas, a person can be shot on sight, without warning, for MISTAKENLY TRESPASSING. Sad to say, but she's the reason her husband is not in jail.
This is a very murky case. But in any case, I'm afraid I find it hard to sympathize with the woman. It seems quite likely that somebody was getting shot that night, either the lover and her or just the lover: but to save herself, she virtually GUARANTEED the other man's death, and gave the shooter a free pass to boot.
What if it hadn't been her husband who happened upon them, but some third party who knew him, and would presumably have told the man about this liason? If she'd chosen to extricate herself in the same way, with the same results, I don't think anyone would be rushing to condemn the bystander for his attempt to stop what he believed to be a rape-in-progress. That's just what someone should try to do: stop it from happening and apprehend the culprit! But the lover was innocent, and his death under such circumstances would have been even more senseless. I don't see a defence for the woman there.
As things stand, faced with her murderous, gun-toting husband, she may well have saved her own life. MAY have; maybe no one needed to die. But when she cried "rape", and gave her husband carte blanche, she threw her lover under a bus. Well, being alive, she can enjoy that experience and reflect upon that fact in prison, which is presumably better than being dead.
Anonymous - your entire comment is based on the fact that the husband was going to kill someone, and yet the woman is still to blame? Let me repeat that - THE HUSBAND WAS GOING TO KILL SOMEONE. That makes him a MURDERER. Not his wife, not her lover, not a mystery acquaintance, not the neighbour, not the dog, THE MAN WITH THE GUN WHO WAS PLANNING ON KILLING PEOPLE.
Pardon my use of all-caps, but cripes, someone who says that cries of "rape" gives a man a free pass to commit murder needs a) an introductory law class and b) a freakin' clue.
I had a lengthy response in the works that comes down to: what Floyd said.
Even after admitting the woman may have been threatened you feel no sympathy for her?
This is exactly the problem with the framing of this story in the news, and probably a good part of the reason the woman was just convicted. Women are expected to sacrifice themselves. Women are held to a higher standard of responibility than men.
Anonymous' response demonstrates the double standard well. While making every excuse for the husband (ignoring the fact that he was armed with a loaded gun and threatening before the woman said she was raped, ignoring the fact that the man was shot while driving AWAY, not in the middle of a perceived rape), the woman is responsible for what happens even when she is trying to save her life. She very well may have panicked. She may have thought there was no danger to the man. (Recent news articles make it sound like she said it was rape after the man was already leaving). But NO benefit of the doubt is given to her. She "got her lover killed" is the framing.
Oh, and anon, NY law is irrelevant here, and you're wrong about Texas. it is not legal to kill a mistaken trespasser unless that trespasser has actually entered by force. You can't kill someone for being on the driveway.
The only reason the woman was charged is because the grand jury refused to indict the husband and they had to find someone to blame.
How in the hell do you people know the husband was going to kill someone before the wife cried "rape?" You don't. The fact is -- HE DIDN'T. Rape is second only to murder in terms of the worst things that can happen to someone. If a woman cries "rape," why shouldn't her own husband believe her? And why shouldn't her own husband be permitted to react the same as most husbands would react? I suspect most wives would react with similar rage if their husbands were being subjected to something so brutal.
This is not a good case to fit into the feminist sexual assault tableau. Too messy, too strange. Look at it as a recognition that society does, indeed, regard rape as a terrible thing, and be thankful for that.
We don't know what he was going to do. Nor do you, Anon. Yet the man who brought the gun into the situation in the first place is the one to whom you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt. while not extending the same to the woman.
"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."
That is not a rape in progress. That's just cold, hard murder...vengeance, not help.
That being said, besides the husband obviously deserving to be charged and judged, the woman that did that also has her share of responsibility. I don't know the US laws that well, but involuntary manslaughter seems likely ridiculous.
Obviously she's not the victim in this story though, that's, without a doubt, the guy with a bullet in his head.
"We don't know what he was going to do. Nor do you, Anon. Yet the man who brought the gun into the situation in the first place is the one to whom you are willing to give the benefit of the doubt. while not extending the same to the woman."
Actually if we give the woman the benefit of doubt, then in a sense the husband is off the hook. He was presented with a situation where he finds his wife in a stranger's car, wearing only her underwear and a coat, and visibly upset to see him. When she cries Rape at that point, is he not justified in trying to prevent it? Isnt he justified in using deadly force if necessary? So when it turns out that she in fact lied about the crime being committed does she not bear some of the responsibility for the death of another? While I may personally not agree with the grand jury letting the husband off the hook completely, there is some logic to the decision, if you give her the benefit of the doubt. The husband, it can be argued, had a reasonable belief that either his wife was raped, and that the perpetrator was trying to escape after committing a rape. Given those facts, the use of deadly force could be justified, IF THE WIFE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH. However since the wife KNEW there was no rape, and in fact made a conscious choice to direct her husband's rage away from herself and onto another, the only question then is to what degree is she responsible for setting the act of killing the lover in motion.
You're misunderstanding, Anon. Giving the woman the benefit of the doubt doesn't mean believing she was being raped. Giving the wife the benefit of the doubt means acknowledging that she may have been in fear for her life. It means reading the timeline as bardock42 has: that she said she was raped after the other man was already leaving.
She doesn't win citizen of the year for what she did, but if she was afraid of her husband, she might have felt she had to do something to save herself.
The story is not completely clear, but one thing we DO know is that the man was shot while driving away. Your benefit of the doubt requires chaning the facts to make the husband a hero for saving his wife from a rapist. Now, while I may give leniency to a man for shooting a rapist even as he is escaping, that is not the same as actually intervening when a woman is in imminent danger.
Also, I am now requesting that no one describe this as "crying rape." That is a phrase that is used to trivialize rape claims, and is inappropriate even when a woman has falsely alleged that she was raped.
Actually it is unclear that the man was shot while fleeing the scene. However, both stories do mention that the husband confronted the woman and the victim while they were both in the car, and that sometime during this confrontation the woman stated that she was raped. What I was stating earlier was that given those set of facts it is possible for a jury to conclude the shooting as justifiable.
However since we know now that the woman lied about it being in fact a rape, then we can see how the jury may have concluded that her actions contributed to the killing. Now since you want to give the woman the benefit of the doubt about her claim of being in fear of her life from a jealous husband, then does that justify redirecting the husband's rage away from herself and onto another party? I dont believe it does. I can understand her fear, and the confusion of the circumstances, but I do not think this totally absolves her of any crime. She may have been in fear of her life, but I do not believe this alone justifies putting someone else in danger of their life. Maybe she felt the man could get away in his car, or maybe she thought that her husband would only wound the man, or that she could calm him down, nonetheless, the result was that a man is dead by her choice of words as well as by her husband's actions. So while I can accept her wanting to save herself, once she, knowing that her husband was in a murderous rage, pointed at someone else and said the word RAPE, her claim of self defense becomes moot and she has to accept responsibility for the results of her action.
My apologies if this is a double post, as I tried to leave my name and it doesn't appear to have worked. Just to clarify, I was the FIRST Anonymous poster. Lol. The other two may be two seperate individuals, or the same twice again, but I myself have only posted ONCE. Anonymity is both an advantage and a disadvantage of the internet I suppose, in that while I can avoid the vituperation of a poster like Floyd, I may also be misunderstood as supporting the position of the husband.
I do NOT support the position of the husband (in this case), and as astrea pointed out, giving the woman "the benefit of the doubt" in this case is NOT believing that she was raped, as she subsequently admitted that to be untrue.
I do not support the position of the husband because I highly doubt that he genuinely believed she was being raped. Under the circumstances, her allegation probably appeared for what it was, a transparent attempt to extricate herself from the situation. My point is that ONCE THE ALLEGATION WAS MADE, under Texas law, the husband became legally entitled to shoot the "rapist," whereas, coming upon two people engaged in consensual sex, he was without justification to shoot anyone.
Had he simply killed his wife and her lover for adultery, Floyd, he would certainly have been a murderer. If he didn't believe her cry of "rape" yet went ahead and shot the "rapist" anyway, as I suspect was most likely the case, he is still a murderer: but it is practically impossible to prove or disprove his belief in the allegation at the time, so he's a muderer with no real chance of being convicted. If he BELIEVED his wife, then he's not a murderer at all (even if the suspect was fleeing, as it is acceptable to use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing rapist).
And if, just if, despite the INCREDIBLE odds against it, we have all horribly misjudged him, and he would NEVER have shot at anyone, but for his wife proclaiming her lover to be a dangerous criminal, then SHE is a murderer, without question. If this is the premise upon which she was tried, I think it an injustice, as it gives the husband far too much credit.
But even IF the husband had approached the scene with murder in his heart, he might have thought better of it, and backed away from fear of the consequences... HAD SHE NOT ABSOLVED HIM OF THOSE CONSEQUENCES with regard to the lover. Seeing the perfect excuse to revenge himself, he then took it. His freedom would then be an injustice, but one made possible only by HER actions. To my mind, then, her incarceration is NOT an injustice. In all likelihood, the husband's actions were much more despicable then the wife's... but one can't prove it. The despicableness of what SHE did, however, is a measurable quantity: A man is dead.
Yes, she panicked. But a person's true character is often revealed by decisions made in the blink of an eye, and they can be harshly judged for it. Just ask the marines at My Lai or Haditha, or the careless driver who runs over a little girl in the centre of the road. S**t happens, and unfortunately for this woman, sometimes it sticks.
"Also, I am now requesting that no one describe this as "crying rape." That is a phrase that is used to trivialize rape claims, and is inappropriate even when a woman has falsely alleged that she was raped."
Why do you feel it is not appropriate when a woman falsely accused someone of rape?
Ah, and about the trespassing thing: the case I was thinking of was Yoshihiro Hattori, but it turns out that was in Louisiana, and you were right, astraea, it seems that in that case Hattori entered the Peairs home before being shot (I'd previously heard that he was just shot for stepping onto the lawn).
But for this case, that's neither here nor there. Texan gun laws are certainly no more restrictive than Louisiana's, and I'm quite positive one has recourse to firearms to stop a fleeing rapist (and quite rightly so, in my opinion).
Saying a woman "cried rape" is a loaded phrase. While it may seem to fit this particular situation, it's the kind of language that can't be used without invoking it's more common use. It's always disparaging.
Well, I am not sure if it is applicable in this case. Obviously the woman was fearing for her life. I don't see why it wouldn't be applicable to call it in a case where a woman wrongly accused a man of rape in less charged situations.
karel's posted a long comment on the post at Shakespeare's Sister, blah blah blah, done with feminism, you bitches are crazy, blah blah, full bingo card ahoy! Just FYI.
Thanks, Gin. Definitely won't be giving any more benefit of the doubt that direction!
Seriously, you have to read it to believe it. It's hysterical. It's worth scrolling through all the other stuff.
Post a Comment