Clareified

Where does the good go

Back door slam

Darrell Roberson came home from a card game late one night to find his wife rolling around with another man in a pickup truck in the driveway.

Caught in the act with her lover, Tracy Denise Roberson — thinking quickly, if not clearly — cried rape, authorities say. Her husband pulled a gun and killed the other man with a shot to the head.

On Thursday, a grand jury handed up a manslaughter indictment — against the wife, not the husband.

The grand jury declined to charge the husband with murder, the charge on which he was arrested by police.

“If I found somebody with my wife or with my kids in my house, there’s no telling what I might do,” said Juan Muniz, 33, who was having lunch Friday with one of his two small children at a restaurant in the middle-class suburban Dallas neighborhood where the Robersons lived. “I probably would have done the same thing.”

Wife charged with killing-by-husband.

I love that Texas allows “shootings that are reasonable at the time.”

hahahahahhahaha

13 Responses to “Back door slam”

  1. April Says:

    Now you see why I find it so hard to leave a place where “He needed killing” is a valid defense!

  2. Mark Says:

    Soooo – hubby should have just let the guy finish “raping” his wife while doing nothing? Seems to me like this is a perfectly justifiable shooting based on what the wife said was happening.

  3. Concerned Says:

    It appears, the court is responding with reason and not emotion. Traditionally, the wife says he did it, and the rush to justice ensues against the husband. Notwithstanding, that violence in our society is not acceptable unless in defense of life.

    The husband still used unecessary violence and should be charged with a lesser crime than murder or manslaughter.

  4. Rick Blaine Says:

    Seems to me like this is a perfectly justifiable shooting based on
    what the wife said was happening.

    . . . which is why the wife, not the husband, is being charged.

  5. Eric Says:

    Concerned,

    “Unnecessary violence”? Believe me, buddy, I would never let you marry one of my sisters. If he thinks the guy is in the act of raping his wife it’s definitely necessary violence. I would have done the same thing, ‘cept I wouldn’t have shot him in the head.

    That woman deserves to spend a long time in jail. Presumably she knew her husband carries a gun, and she knew he would be returning that night. The whole thing looks like she set it up to get rid of both men (although the lover could be just a pawn).

  6. Jake Says:

    There is no jury in America that will convict a man who shoots another man to stop his wife’s rape.

  7. Chugarte Says:

    The DA would have to eliminate 50% of the jury pool right off the bat to keep the jury from acquitting a man from killing a guy that he didn’t think was raping his wife.

  8. Casca2 Says:

    Boy, don’t I wish that I had shot my wife! Until you’ve been married, and then found totally unfit as a husband, you can’t imagine just how badly you need to shoot a woman because she bleeds your soul in marriage and then bleeds your wallet in the aftermath.

    What?

  9. Casca Says:

    Ah, imitation… flattery, or lack of imagination? I’d never shoot my ex-wife. She’s one of the world’s worst drivers. Every time I hear that she’s totalled another car, why it’s like playing the lottery!

  10. Eric Says:

    Apparently there’s more to the story. The husband comes home to find his wife having sex with another man. She cries “rape” and the lover starts to drive away. So not only did he think she was being raped, he also thought she was being abducted. At this point the only thing to criticise is his shot grouping.

  11. Rebecca Says:

    It seems to me that we are still missing a lot of information. Are we sure that this woman wasn’t being raped? Just because she invited this man over doesn’t mean that everything that transpired was consentual. Do we know that her husband wasn’t abusive? We know that he ‘just happened” to be armed. Is it possible this woman was terrified of her armed husband? Was deadly force really necessary? Was this about protecting someone or was this about protecting your property? I’m not sure how to get my head around women as property, violence against women and women being held responsible for the violence of men. There are questions to be answered here, sources to be considered and reviewed. If we want to care for and protect women we need to consider women. We need to listen. We need to ask questions.

  12. Casca Says:

    That’s why the Twenty-sixth Amendment was such a mistake. With all these questions, how do you find your way home at the end of the day?

  13. Rick Blaine Says:

    Rebecca,

    Do you really think this was about women as property?

    Say the wife had come home to find her husband naked & tied to a chair and a strange man standing over him with a knife.

    Say the husband screams “he’s going to cut my dick off!”, and the wife pulls a pistol out of her purse and shoots the strange man in the head.

    Would you be concerned about why she “just happened” to have a pistol, or that she was treating her husband’s penis as “property”?

    If it turned out that the dead “stranger” was actually a guy the husband had invited over to engage in some S&M play, and he pretended to be the victim of an assault so his wife would not suspect that he was a gay masochist, would you be as eager to question why a man was being held responsible for the violence of his wife?

Leave a Reply