MetaChat - Boy meets married girl.

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

30 March 2007

Boy meets married girl. Boy and married girl have sex in front of married woman's house. Husband comes home, catches the two in the act. Wife cries "Rape!" Husband shoots and kills lover.

Wife charged with manslaughter. Husband not charged.→[More:] What a weird (and sad) story. I can't decide how I feel about this.

post by: mudpuppie at: 17:16 | 24 comments

I..... think this may be why carrying guns around is not a good idea.

The article very definitely gives the impression of macho bullshit going on -- wife as property to be protected -- but it would be so easy to spin it the other way, too -- man acting heroically to prevent abuse of woman -- that I just don't know.

I'm back to the Through the Looking Glass line: "Well, they were both very unpleasant characters."

posted by occhiblu 30 March | 17:29

Wow, hadn't heard about that case yet. I'll make sure and bring it up in my CJ class monday. I wouldn't want to be anyone involved in that case.

posted by puke & cry 30 March | 17:31

I think it makes sense. The husband had reason to believe that she was being raped (she said so), and so in order to protect someone who was being harmed, he shot the guy. There was no way for him to know anybetter. She knew she wasn't being raped, said that was the case, and that got the guy killed. Her fault.

Very sad indeed. I feel sorry for all involved.

posted by CitrusFreak12 30 March | 17:33

I guess what bothers me is that the wife was charged with a crime, when all she really did was try to (clumsily) cover up an affair.

And I can't help wondering -- even if the wife hadn't yelled 'rape,' would the husband have been sufficiently pissed off to shoot the guy anyway? I mean, he caught them in the act, and he had a gun on him. At the very least, wouldn't he have dragged the dude out of the truck and pounded on him? I just don't understand why the wife faces the possibility of jail.

But yeah, like P&C said, man. Glad it's not me.

posted by mudpuppie 30 March | 17:36

Also, this reminds me of a self-defense class I took in college. We were instructed that, if attacked, we should yell for help -- but that we should yell "Fire!" instead of "I'm being raped!" Why? Because people will rush to the scene of a flaming building just for the excitement, but no one wants to get involved in a situtation where they themselves might be injured, even if it's to save someone else. I don't think this has any real bearing here -- it just came back to me. Hadn't thought about it in 15 years, and now I think it smacks of bullshit.

posted by mudpuppie 30 March | 17:40

The husband had reason to believe that she was being raped (she said so), and so in order to protect someone who was being harmed, he shot the guy. There was no way for him to know any better.

Was the shooting necessary? No. How is the husband not charged? The truck was leaving the scene when the other man was shot. This is so sad.

posted by LoriFLA 30 March | 17:40

I would wonder, too, whether the husband actually believed the wife was being raped, but that's so murky. If he truly didn't suspect an affair, etc. etc., that seems a little different than if he thought something was going on, and used this as an excuse to kill the guy.

I don't know.

posted by occhiblu 30 March | 17:44

Here's an older and more detailed article that pretty much only makes the whole thing more confusing.

posted by mudpuppie 30 March | 17:50

Was the shooting necessary? No. How is the husband not charged?

Texas law allows a defendant to claim justification if he has "a reasonable belief that his actions are necessary, even though what they believe at the time turns out not to be true."

posted by CitrusFreak12 30 March | 17:52

Sheesh, that last story paints a very different story. That makes it sound like a heat-of-passion killing.

posted by puke & cry 30 March | 17:55

Yeah, that additional story would lead me more toward the "Wife as defendable property" interpretation, which I'm not real keen on.

posted by occhiblu 30 March | 18:27

I would assume that the latest story would be more up to date on all the details and what happened. The other story seems to have the same events, just out of order/in the wrong context.

posted by CitrusFreak12 30 March | 18:46

The updated story didn't include the 911 call, in which (the article claims) the husband said he didn't believe his wife when she claimed she was being raped.

posted by occhiblu 30 March | 19:01

"I..... think this may be why carrying guns around is not a good idea. ..."

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
--Robert A. Heinlein

More than 20 years after Kennesaw, GA passed its ordinance requiring residents to arm themselves, Part 1 crime in Kennesaw is half the U.S. national average. And now, other towns are looking for the same benefits.

posted by paulsc 30 March | 19:18

This space intentionally left blank.

posted by mudpuppie 30 March | 19:27

LaSalle tried to drive away and her husband drew the gun he happened to be carrying and fired several shots at the truck, authorities said.

Shut him from behind, in other words. Murderer and coward.

posted by drjimmy11 30 March | 19:28

paulsc, do you think it could be the optional aspect? Whether you are required to, or required not to carry arms, as opposed to being able to obtain a permit to carry arms?

And half the national average is how low compared to other countries that do not allow people to carry weapons?

posted by gaspode 30 March | 19:36

I'm not sure I understand your questions, gaspode. The Kennesaw, GA ordinance provides a number of reasonable exceptions to mandatory gun ownership and maintenance. And in my personal experience, pacifists are lousy shots, and slow on target selection. So, I think people who feel they shouldn't be armed, ought not to be made to be. I'm personally not all that big a fan of concealed carry laws, either, but I understand the reasons (largely historical) for them. I'd prefer unrestricted open carry, although that's unlikely to ever get political traction, in the current environment. However, with continuing technological improvements, such as frangible ammunition and shooter linked smart weapons, such a posture becomes more surely self-defensive, and may change perceptions.

As for the rest, per the Glenn Reynolds NYT piece:

"... Criminals, unsurprisingly, would rather break into a house where they aren’t at risk of being shot. As David Kopel noted in a 2001 article in The Arizona Law Review, burglars report that they try to avoid homes where armed residents are likely to be present. We see this phenomenon internationally, too, with the United States having a lower proportion of “hot” burglaries — break-ins where the burglars know the home to be occupied — than countries with restrictive gun laws. ..."

posted by paulsc 30 March | 21:06

Texas law allows a defendant to claim justification if he has "a reasonable belief that his actions are necessary, even though what they believe at the time turns out not to be true."

Also known as the "he needed killin'" statute.

posted by klangklangston 30 March | 21:12

gaspode: The national average rate of violent crime is lower in the U.S. than in the UK. The murder rate is higher.

posted by grouse 30 March | 21:15

How does it work in Texas then - does the jury choose the charge? That seems slightly incredible.

posted by greycap 31 March | 02:56

"An armed society is a polite society"
And a polite society is a not a free society.

The next time I want to murder somebody in cold blood and get away with it, Texas is definately the place to do it. (Since I am not a Celebrity with a few million to spend on defending myself; otherwise I'd lean more toward California)

posted by wendell 31 March | 03:42

greycap: Like in every state (so far as I know) a grand jury decides whether to make indictments, and a petit jury decides whether to convict. According to Wikipedia, this was done in the UK too before 1933 (for centuries), but now the decision is made by magistrates.

posted by grouse 31 March | 05:10

"...And a polite society is a not a free society."

Why not?

"The next time I want to murder somebody in cold blood and get away with it, Texas is definately the place to do it."

This wasn't murder, so saith the grand jury, possessed of the facts, which we may not be, given the poor quality of the news stories linked. The shooter may have felt he had a choice of himself soon being a hood ornament on a 3000 pound weapon, or taking his shot while he could, and he already had reason to believe the guy in the truck was violent, because his wife was yelling "Rape!" So he took his choice to be judged by twelve, rather than be carried by six.

Good call, on his part, I'd say. But more important, so did the grand jury.

posted by paulsc 31 March | 05:51

← Florida Wants a New State Song || Daddy! Tearful Surprise Homecoming →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN