Local Man Kills His Wife's Lover, but Wife is Convicted of Murder

[Yugure's Goddess]

In recent news a woman in Fort Worth Texas was indicted for murder... that she is responsible for but didn't commit.

Apparently, a man found his wife and her lover getting affectionate in the back of a truck, at home and upon the arrival of her husband claimed that she was raped. Her husband, enraged shot the woman's lover as he drove away, killing him.

When tried, however the man was sent free but the woman was indicted, still remains in court and could face up to 20 years in prison for the death of her lover.

Here's the full story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17874088/

So, what do you think of the subject?

I can see both sides of the argument being that sure, she lied and should be held responsible for her lover's murder, however at the same time, her husband pulled the trigger, not her.

And I of course can sympathize with her husband, I mean, there's not much of a difference of reaction that I would have had if placed in the same situation nor would most others that I know. He was trying to protect her after all, and all she was doing was stringing together lie after lie to satisfy her own selfish lust and save her own skin.

Any opinions? Was justice served? Or should her husband face murder charges?

love
dani
dude

[unspun]

I think they should both be tried for murder.

[Acnologia]

This is one confusing crime it seems.

[Myrra]

My humble opinion is that they should've indicted him for something be it manslaughter or murder in the whatever degree...(sorry, not versed in all the possible range of charges one can face). I fail to see how it can be argued as self-defense or trying to protect his family when the other man was fleeing and not waving a gun around. He could've easily called the police and gotten the license number of the car instead of firing his gun 4 times at the car.

She is the reason so many rapes go unreported. Her and others like her who cry rape to avoid getting into trouble for their actions should most assuredly be punished, but to charge her for murder, that's a bit extreme. Unless she knew her husband was that volatile, she couldn't have known her lover would die. I'm sure there are other charges they could file against her. Texas though has some crazy laws on the books, so I don't know.

[Yugure's Goddess]

My humble opinion is that they should've indicted him for something be it manslaughter or murder in the whatever degree...(sorry, not versed in all the possible range of charges one can face). I fail to see how it can be argued as self-defense or trying to protect his family when the other man was fleeing and not waving a gun around. He could've easily called the police and gotten the license number of the car instead of firing his gun 4 times at the car.

She is the reason so many rapes go unreported. Her and others like her who cry rape to avoid getting into trouble for their actions should most assuredly be punished, but to charge her for murder, that's a bit extreme. Unless she knew her husband was that volatile, she couldn't have known her lover would die. I'm sure there are other charges they could file against her. Texas though has some crazy laws on the books, so I don't know.

Yes, what you said is kinda along the lines of what I was thinking. I mean she should be punished but he did kill the man and should be held accountable for something instead of just being set free. She should be punished but she didn't kill the guy herself... at the most she should be sentenced for falsely accusing her lover of rape but not neccessarily for murder.

love
dani
dude

[unspun]

no. party to a crime, accessory to murder, and as much time as him. never friggin say someone raped you. I swore for about ten minutes when I first read that article.

[Katrina_Survivor2]

Yeah, rape is an INCREDIBLY serious crime. If someone was in danger of getting raped, I shooting them would be perfectly legal. However, since he was driving away, killing him was not the appropriate response. The husband should get time, but not life. The woman is shouldn't be tried for murder, but she's definately just as responsible as the man, if not more so.

And from a non-legal standpoint, she is a reprehensible person.

[ParaParaJMo]

Personally, I'm capable of doing the same thing for some things that are slightly less in less than hesitant to do. But yeah, I know there are some places here adultry could land you jail time but I forgot where. I know it's somewhere in the United States. But I think they should be charged for manslaughter or something if they can get a self defense case out of this.

[Luzifer]

The problem here is thus. The man believed he was acting in self-defense. His wife was being raped(as far as he knew) and if someone i loved was being raped I doubted i'd have the peace of mind to just let him drive off. The fact that she was not actually being raped chages neither his psycolgical state nor the fact he was acting in accordance with the law, which allows people to take violent action if they, or those they love are under direct and imminient threat of harm or death. He believed his wife was under threat, ergo he was acting in self defence.

And as to the part where he was driving away, I don't think that has much of an effect on the sentence. It probably took the man a minute for the man to run in to get his gun and the other man to get into the front seat to drive away. During that time the adreneline would not have lest his system and he would still be acting under a "self-defense" psycosis. I believe he is exempted from all charge as the law (as best i know it, i'm obviously no lawyer) stands.

The woman however, lied and should be tried for manslaughter (since this was obviously not premediated and its dubious that she intended the lover to die, she was just panicing and though of the quickest way to shift blame). My thought on the evidence as it stands is that the husband is innocent. And the wife is guilty of manslaughter possibley unintentional manslaughter.

My humble opinion is that they should've indicted him for something be it manslaughter or murder in the whatever degree...(sorry, not versed in all the possible range of charges one can face). I fail to see how it can be argued as self-defense or trying to protect his family when the other man was fleeing and not waving a gun around. He could've easily called the police and gotten the license number of the car instead of firing his gun 4 times at the car.

She is the reason so many rapes go unreported. Her and others like her who cry rape to avoid getting into trouble for their actions should most assuredly be punished, but to charge her for murder, that's a bit extreme. Unless she knew her husband was that volatile, she couldn't have known her lover would die. I'm sure there are other charges they could file against her. Texas though has some crazy laws on the books, so I don't know.

The problem with the first thought is that, like i mentioned, he is still under a heavy adreneline shock. The man cannot be expected to act rationally in that situation. Everything he does only maintains and amplifies his aggressive state. Seeing wife having sex. Adreneline. Hearing she was raped. Big Adreneline. running inside to grab a gun. Only amplifiies and further stimulates the reslease of adreneline. Culminating in the firing a series shots (not something that takes long to do). Your asking him to maintain commonsense in a situation where the body and the mind are programmed to throw commonsense out the window. He is innocent of any punishable action. And no he can't get murder as murder requires premeditation (he hadn't planned on killing him the most he could get was aggrevated manslaughter)

This is partially based on the "temporary insanity" defense which has been used to defend those far more guilty for their actions then this man was. The only possible way he could have been conveicted was if he performed the same action without her wife saying she was raped but that lies outside the confines of this case and falls prey to "resonable doubt".

So I cannot emphasize this enough the man is innocent and the judge here made the right call. He was placed in a situation where no one can be expected to act in a rational manner, and he acted in a manner that followed from thoughts of self-defense (or defense of his family) You might say something to the effect that 'there was no direct threat when he fired'. The problem is the only reason we can say that is because we have an objective and more rational perspective. However, in the heat of the moment, his actions followed a justifiable line of thought. Everything probably occured to fast for him to even connect the events together, and make an analysis of the situation that would cause him to hesitate. As such he is exempted from punishment and should not be held before the court

Similar to the woman, reprehensible but not punishable by murder because it was not premeditated. In addition, to manslaughter she should also probably recieve reckless endangerment and a few other less severe crimes to add to her sentence.

This is a confusing case one where doubt and uncertainty are rife. And in such times we must clutch close to our chests the maxim of reasonable doubt. There is VERY strong doubt that this man acted out of any other emotion then desire to protect his wife and to that extent we must let him go free. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said 'Better to let 100 guitly men go free than to send one innocent main to jail'

[Aleyna]

what goes around comes around, what goes up must come down, karma that is
moral of the story is don't lie & do something foolish that you know your going to get caught for

1st she cheated on her husband
and then lied to the court
and then tried to get her lover in trouble
i think she got what she deserved pretty much

but i think the husband shouldv'e been accounted for the same charges as her
he did something stupid that he knew he would be getting caught for
he pulled the trigger at his wife's lover
he couldv'e went after the guy, tried to fight him out or hold him down for self defense, yelled at him or told him that was his wife, or called the cops

[DarkRubberDuckyofDoom]

Its good that he wasn't charged. He was, as you said, protecting his wife! She cheated and then lied and what? She expected her husband to shake the guy's hand? Saying she was raped obviously turned out worse than if she had just told the truth, or better! Not cheated at all! Jeez, these peole that cheat get on my nerves!

[Yugure's Goddess]

Sorry for reviving this topic but I posted the same topic on another forum, of which my brother frequently traffics(who is majoring in criminal justice in college right now).

I thought his response interesting and worth reading by others just so long as I'm not breaking the rules by quoting a post from another forum. (it's ok as long I don't advertise, right?)

Ok ok ill solve this one for you guys ok?

Well as we know the woman lied witch led to the death of her lover. Now that actually doesnt realy have anythign to do with this. Realy the thing is that in Texas there is a law that says that if you tresspass the land owner can use deadly force. So on top of that the man was commiting adultry with his wife. His wife let the man on to the property, yes, but she let him on to the property to commit a crime which makes her ownership nule-void. She probably whont get charged with the murder but if she does its because she pretty much lured the man to his death. She also probably knew what her husband would do and did it on purpose. Another thing is that there is a law against falsley claiming something like this because of this kinda situation. There is actually a word for this but i dont exactly remember it right now.

There is your answer folks.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Criminal Justice Geek.

You'll have to forgive his spelling errors and what-not. He's not stupid (not entirely at least) he just types too fast for his own good and doesn't take the time to edit his posts... Hopefully some of that mumb-jumbo is understandable.

love
dani
dude