I’d be interested to get the establishment feminist take on this case, in which a woman who cried rape is indicted for the death of her lover—even though it was her husband who shot him dead:
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.
In a case likely to reinforce the state’s reputation for don’t-mess-with-Texas justice, 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 today 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.’’
Tracy Roberson, 35, could get two to 20 years in prison in the slaying of Devin LaSalle, a 32-year-old UPS employee.
Assistant District Attorney Sean Colston declined to comment on specifics of the case or the grand jury proceedings but said 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.’’
Mark Osler, a Baylor University law school professor and a former federal prosecutor, said the grand jurors evidently put themselves in the husband’s place: ‘’I can see one of them saying, ‘I would have shot the guy, too. I was just protecting my wife.’’’
Given the facts as presented, it is pretty clear that Mrs Roberson—by misidentifying her lover as an attacker—placed him in grave danger, particularly were she aware her husband carries a gun.
What will be interesting at trial will be the defense: do they try to paint the husband as, say, drunk and prone to flying off the handle? —and so suggest that he overreacted? Do they paint Mrs Roberson as in fear for her own safety, given what they’d have to argue is her husband’s propensity for violence?
Because the fact is, Mr Roberson shot a man his wife had identified as a rapist—that is, he acted with lethal force to protect his wife—so trying to demonize him could backfire terribly. Conversely, it is Mr Roberson who pulled the trigger and killed Mr LaSalle.
Writes Kim du Toit:
There is so much right about this that I hardly know where to begin.
Yeah, our Angry Husband might possibly have thought a little more clearly before applying a little Smith & Wesson Justice to Loverboy. But that’s Monday-morning quarterbacking of the most egregious sort. You see your wife being screwed by some guy, she screams “Help! Help! I’m being raped!â€Ââ€â€you’re not going to stop and think a moment to ask yourself why she’s in her PJs, you’re going to take your gun and shoot Ronnie The Rapist in the back of the head.
Perhaps not—though he was at a late night poker game, so it will be interesting to see, if in fact it turns out Mr Roberson had had a few beers, if the defense points out that stopping to assess the situation more carefully before pulling the trigger is precisely what he should have done.
I don’t think such a defense will fly, frankly, but I am curious to see if the defense in fact hinges on preconceptions about male aggression, female fear, emotional estrangement, and other oft-argued feminist justifications for crimes committed in the domestic sphere. The facts of the case as we know them don’t appear to warrant such a defense; but that doesn’t mean that should this case go to trial, jurors won’t be treated to something along these lines anyway.
I’ve heard that the couple were in the dead guy’s truck, and that he attempted to drive away with her in the cab. If so, the husband wasn’t just reacting to a rapist, but a rapist/kidnapper.
Now, I think he’s justified either way, but the “thought it was a kidnapping” puts a little extra “oomph” into the “she’s liable” idea, IMHO.
A little while ago, there was a column by Linda Beyerstein who was appalled at the idea that one would use a weapon against a burglar.
I have to wonder: Would she consider it acceptable for someone else to use their gun to prevent her being raped? Or, when it came down to it, would she believe that her vagina was every bit as violable as her Stratocaster or her consumer electronics?
This isn’t the only failed case of asserted guilt by gender in recent memory … but it appears to be a potential poster child for finally turning the feminist-oriented political climate.
Feminists learned that assertions paid off and paid off very handsomely, now they should learn they won’t pay off forever.
Meanwhile this gal has something to live with forever.
needed76
Help, help! Rosie O’Donnell is raping me!
This has been deemed irrelevant by the indictment, and as such is a non-sequiter.
You rabble rouser, you.
It being Texas, I’m going on the assumption that no one in this story is a Lacrosse player.
One more thing: The lovely defendant just may invoke the rape-at-will rule. The one where she gets to say when consentual sex becomes his act of rape. I believe this was topical not too long ago.
In effect, the jury may decide the case purely on the basis of that whim. Probably regardless of when it occured, as in, in her attorney’s office.
I was going to make the point JHoward just did.
If she goes to prison for any charge based on the concept of unlawful death-causing, I’ll eat my own ass.
Ah
It became rape at the exact time she said it was.
What part of “NO!” don’t men understand!!
Husband shows up unexpectedly and the sex ceases to be consensual because she said the magic word.
At that point the husband sees a crime in progress… his wife is being forcibly raped and crying “rape”… so the husband gets his gun (thank God it was so close by) and kills the perpetrator…..
Of course the “what can Brown do for you?” slogan takes on a whole new meaning here…instead of being a rapist, it is possible that the guy was just delivering a very large package
I don’t really see why she has to be charged at all. Sometimes people just get dead in unfortunate ways. UPS guys can make people do crazy things, is the lesson here. God love em.
You’re quite right that the defense will be interesting. But you’re going in the wrong direction. Demonizing Roberson will “backfire” but for a much more straightforward reason…
Without getting too deep in the weeds on the elements of the offense, her guilt is going to rest largely on whether she should have known that her actions would put LaSalle in danger.
That being the case, her lawyers are going to move heaven and earth to show that Roberson was normally a meek, mild-mannered fellow who wouldn’t hurt a fly… that he wasn’t prone to being hot-tempered, drunk and packing heat.
Proving that he overreacted does nothing but hurt her case if she had reason to know he would overreact.
Claiming Roberson was meek allows her to say, “I just lied because I was caught and didn’t want to ruin my marriage. I never thought for a moment that Tracy could ever kill a person.”
There’s your defense.
Hold on a sec-
Since Teh Patriarchy is a “rape culture” and all, one which encourages rape, wouldn’t the husband have HELPED the rapist or poured him a beer or something?
Just askin’
Which may constitute a strategy for a pair of perps to bond in a unified defense based not on knowing what actually happened, but on not ever knowing how the other was motivated.
You almost couldn’t construct a better smokescreen. This would make a good Hollywood thriller where the acquitted slowly go nuts…
If she was really smart, she would have claimed the guy was trying to buy some uranium ore from Niger
BoZ, I might have only been an Assistant State’s Attorney for 5 years, but … I’d be very careful making absolute wagers on any result in the criminal justice system.
So, if necessary, A-1 or Lea & Perins?
This is a good ruling from what I understand: the man acted in good faith to protect his wife, and used lethal force in a justified situation as best he understood. It doesn’t matter if the situation turned out to be different than he understood it to be, all that matters is what he thought and what was reasonable at the time. Something leftists never want to admit regarding the President and Iraq, sadly.
Remember you can’t have manslaughter without man’s laughter!
Sorry.
The report said the dead guy was driving away in his truck when the other guy shot him in the head, Chris.
I don’t think we’ll let anyone with a Texas-style sense of justice run America for a very, very long time.
On the plus side, nobody was forcing the woman to wear a scarf.
The dead guy was driving?
how’d he do that?
Stone her to death and then she can put her own head scarf on.
Alphie, alphie, alphie…
He was driving away with the wife still in the truck…
Ace of Spades has done a couple of threads on this already.
alphie, you’re late for your TA (Threadjackers Anonymous) meeting.
Waah?
Are you saying this post is a rerun, GMG?
Heh.
God almighty, it’s nice to visit here and not see the page clogged up with Dan Collins posts.
Nothing against Dan personally. It just made the place feel like a different blog.
I guess it is still worth a chuckle, Pablo.
I’ll kinda miss him when he’s back clearin’ brush.
Jeff, you don’t understand the issues. What would Nancy Pelosi do? Think Dem criminal law.
Who made the truck? There are deep pockets here and, without a great deal of effort I am sure that we can make a connection between the truck builders and the death of the dear departed.
Was the woman wearing a headscarf? The lack thereof undoubtedly led to this end. The sight of loose hair drives men wild. Laws are needed for a universal head scarf policy; Nancy is the example for emancipated women everywhere!
I’m not even getting into the issue of trucks, sex and global warming. The carbon dioxide from sex alone is enough to warm the planet several degrees, not to mention the catastrophe of driving off while “plugged in.â€Â
Addition75 -too much!
No, alphie, just yours.
Looking at the original report from last year, it looks like the facts have been, er, modified on the way to the blogoshpere:
Mr. Roberson approached with a handgun and yelled at his wife to “get your [expletive] out of the car.” Mr. LaSalle tried to speed away – he hit the accelerator hard enough to leave tire marks on the pavement – and Mr. Roberson fired four shots into the truck, police said.
One bullet hit Mr. LaSalle in the head. He was pronounced dead at 2:40 a.m. in front of the Robersons’ house. Mrs. Roberson tried to tell her husband that she was being raped, but he didn’t believe her story, according to a recording of the 911 call that police have not released.
Lt. Miller said it’s not clear whether any of the shots were intended for Mrs. Roberson. She told detectives that her husband was shooting at the truck “to hurt whomever.”
Oh, my.
Why did you delete the last line, alphie?
It is just pathological with you, huh?
I guess Lt. Miller was right, B Moe.
Can’t be remindin’ folks that handguns are used to murder over 10,000 Americans a year.
Specially seein’ as we’ve blown almost $500,000,000,000 trying to track down the people who murdered 3000 Americans.
Looks like the NRA has gotten this Tejas fairy tale just about where they want it.
Even if, as reports claim, it is to be believed that he didn’t think that his wife was telling the truth, shooting at someone driving off with your wife isn’t exactly unreasonable either. Nor is getting mad enough at someone sleeping with your wife to shoot them unreasonable. Either one is a justifiable homicide.
Sorry to disappoint.
Really? You have a link where this is mentioned or attributed to the NRA? Could you pass that along? Or are you full of shit and couldn’t resist a cheap slam?
If you can’t keep your wife satisfied, buy a gun, Chris?
I don’t know about the eating of ass, but it’s somehow nastier than the chewing of ass, which is even more particular.
In other news, Alphie is a low-grade shit-stirrer. When I myself try to [heighten the contradictions] elsewhere in the blogosphere, I do a far better job of it than this lame-ass. Proof? I keep on getting banned by filthy fucking hippies who really don’t believe in free speech.
That is to say, Alphie, your mediocrity is your ticket to ride here. Mind your place.
Ah…Toby, I do believe you’ve got it!
Too late, asshole. Unless by “very, very long time” you mean “12 years”, which is what the Bushes will have had by the time W leaves office.
Gawd. I’d almost vote for W again, just to see your head implode. Further.
began18, which is appropiate, since I appear to be addressing a pre-teen.
Let me guess, Toby.
Y’all hail from Texas?
Bush’s daddy isn’t from Texas, Randy.
He won his war, remember?
Ol’ H.W. is from Massachusetts.
And here’s to you, Mrs. Roberson
Jesus loves you more than you will know, wo wo wo
God bless you please, Mrs. Roberson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray, hey hey hey
Hey hey hey
We’d like to know a little bit about you for our files
We’d like to help you learn to help yourself
Look around you, all you see are sympathetic eyes
Stroll around the grounds until you feel at home
And here’s to you, Mrs. Roberson
Jesus loves you more than you will know, wo wo wo
God bless you please, Mrs. Roberson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray, hey hey hey
Hey hey hey
Hide it in a hiding place where no one ever goes
Put it in your pantry with your cupcakes
It’s a little secret, just the Robersons’ affair
Most of all you’ve got to hide it from the kids
Coo coo ca-choo, Mrs. Roberson
Jesus loves you more than you will know, wo wo wo
God bless you please, Mrs. Roberson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray, hey hey hey
Hey hey hey
Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday fternoon
Going to the candidate’s debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you’ve got to choose
Every way you look at it you lose
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you, woo woo woo
What’s that you say, Mrs. Roberson?
Joltin’ Joe has left and gone away, hey hey hey
Hey hey hey
[url=”http://sglyrics.myrmid.com/bookends.htm” target=”_blank”]Mrs. Robinson (4:05)
(From the motion picture The Graduate)
P. Simon, 1968[/url]
Do we know it wasn’t actually rape?
But as far as her prosecution it will depend on her state of mind—how much was it predictable that a death or serious injury would result from her exclamations.
The defense isn’t about shifting blame to the guy. Though i’m not so sure why he isn’t being indicted for something lessr, like manslaughter. Is heat of passion a complete defense?
“The one where she gets to say when consentual sex becomes his act of rape.”
“yes” means “yes” till he’s done.
Alphie, you really can’t read can you? Here it is the grand jury that issued the indictments, not the NRA. Do try to grow up and shed some of your irrational kneejerks.
Upon reading alphie’s link, it mentioned the wife answering the door in skivvies, then the two of them heading to the truck. They went to the truck, presumably, because the kids were still in the house. They can’t question the kids?
In today’s legal system, if the husband had NOT shot the guy and instead called the cops, and it was indeed a real rape, the scumbag rapist would be put through “counseling” after a court battle. Then, after being let go early for “good behavior”, would be free to return and repeat said crime. The woman would have to live with the fear of him showing up and raping her again for the rest of her life.
We don’t have the luxury of making decisions from hindsight.
alphie, as a Texan I have some advice for you.
As Mr. Colston noted, in Texas it is perfectly legal for a grand jury to no-bill if the prosecution looks like a case of Monday-morning quarterbacking. It is also legal, and common, for juries to return verdicts of not guilty based on justification.
That being the case, if you should find it necessary to go to Texas, I strongly advise you to either not identify yourself, or to stay strictly within the airport security area and/or the city limits of Austin. Doing otherwise could be hazardous to your health, and not from me.
Regards,
Ric
alphie’s thread hijacking is lamer than usual, and that’s saying a lot.
I suppose his pet iguana ran away, and he’s lonely tonight.
Fight threadjacking.
IGNORE the ALPHTARD
Two things:
First of all, alphie is quoting a newspaper article from December–apparently some of the details of the case have changed since then, considering that the county district attorney has seen fit not to charge Darrel in the case.
Secondly, this caught my eye in the newspaper article, and was a key point of alphie’s rebuttal:
If the police hadn’t released the recording, how did the reporter know what was contained in the phone call?
alphie, were you actually making a serious argument, or just being contrarian for the sake of your own amusement? If the former, you failed miserably; if the latter, do you demonstrate such blatant intellectual laziness on a consistent basis?
I guess it really is intellectual laziness, since
four times that many Americans were killed in automobile accidents every year, yet nary a peep from alphie on the evils of driving a car.
At least we can take comfort in the fact that alphie’s arguments provide a nice reverse barometer for well-reasoned and contextual theses.
Chris,
Anyone who watches Cheaters knows that the cuckold always goes after the man, and the woman always lies.
Looks to me like the good citizens of Texas let Darrell Roberson get away with murder and they’re going to force his wife in a legal burqa.
Just another predictable episode of Little Mosque on the Prarie.
Chris, if you’re really new here, please be aware that alphie is a troll. He is beyond contrarian, he actively seeks to threadjack most threads, by engaging in the most puerile and asinine arguments.
Folks have tried to engage him in substantive debate, and he has shown no interest in doing so.
Hence, the request:
IGNORE THE ALPHTARD.
Sure, he’s a troll, I just wanted to address the points he brought up. I don’t know if they are accurate or not, I somehow doubt it for reasons people brought up here, but I thought it was a good springboard to point out that they didn’t really change the justice of the case.
I feel sorry for folks like alphie, who haunt message boards and blogs looking for attention and significance by the reactions they cause. It makes me wonder what small, empty lives they must have off the computer to compel them to do this.
Translation: My arguments go from zero to lame and irrelevant so fast they acutally break the sound barrier.
Not relevant, Chris?
You ever wonder why most Americans just laugh when you guys say our Rules of Engagement in Iraq are too strict?
Look no further than this sad story.
Right now I’m just wondering how you can stand the smell of all the red herrings littering your arguments. Please stop before the Osaka Seafood Concern investigates you for theft.
We all connect the dots in our own way, Chris.
I see that the gang that thinks it’s okay to gun down a fleeing unarmed man have, once again, failed to win the hearts & minds of a civilian population they’re in charge of.
And I think…no surprise there.
When playing connect-the-dots, it’s advisable to follow the numbering sequence. Randomly zig-zagging around like a spastic on speed is never illuminating.
What amazes me is alp*ie does it every day, sometimes all day long. I don’t feel sorry for him. He could go out and find a life if he wanted to.
I submit the use of this phrase tends to indicates alp*ie is not a woman and may never have known one. In the Biblical sense.
tw: why21? I don’t know. To be fair?
You’re assuming he’s not paid to do this.
aphid, has anyone recently told you that you’re an obnoxious, ignorant twat?
Right, I’m assuming he’s not paid because he’s so incompetent at it. Who would pay for that crap?* Also if you go to any left wing site you find a thousand alp*ies giving it away for free.
*Now that I think about it the Democratic Party is not known for being results oriented. So maybe, I guess.
In al’ph***head’s case, with the crayon he was just snacking on.
If I have reason to believe he is a rapist abducting my wive, you goddamn right. Would you just let a rapist drive off with your old lady, alph?
He’d have to have and old lady, B Moe.
Alphoid: a curiously idiotic commenter!
Re: Chris’ question to Alphie:
…do you demonstrate such blatant intellectual laziness on a consistent basis?
Answer: Yes.
I think the “reason” came after the shooting here, B Moe.
Even Darrell Roberson admitted he didn’t believe his wife was being raped at the time he shot an unarmed man backing away from him in the head.
But, he appears to have been operating within the Rules of Engagement for Texas.
Kinda nice, cause you can say what you want and your victim has no way to challenge your story, can they?
PSA:
Responding to alphie is like putting sugar in front of ants. They just keep coming back.
Fight threadjacking and stupidity.
IGNORE THE ALPHTARD.
And that’s as good an argument for superior marksmanship as I’ve ever heard. So, everyone, take alphie’s advice and get to the range to practice!
Alphie,
I think the “reason†came after the shooting here, B Moe.
Even Darrell Roberson admitted he didn’t believe his wife was being raped at the time he shot an unarmed man backing away from him in the head.
But, he appears to have been operating within the Rules of Engagement for Texas.
Kinda nice, cause you can say what you want and your victim has no way to challenge your story, can they?
so, the grand jury was wrong in their failure to indict? It’s not like this guy was just let off on his story, the DA apparently tried to get an indictment and failed.
I doubt we know all the facts of the story at this point. If it was a case of the guy never actually believed his wife was being raped and still shot the victim, then it is murder – and a defense could possibly be “crime of passion” type of insanity defense.
However, it appears that the Grand Jury bought the claim that the guy believed his wife was being raped and shot in an effort to protect her.
And, it looks like the DA believes that story too, since they are prosecuting the wife.
Those facts lead me to believe that the story is not quite as you describe it, but I am willing to admit that we probably have not seen all the evidence.
And, finally, more children die from swimming pools each year than from handguns. Should we ban swimming pools? At least in that instance there is no constitutional right to a swimming pool.
Great Banana:
Actually, there is a better argument for banning swimming pools from a public health perspective and saving children’s lives.
How many private swimming pools are there in this country? I’m sure the stats are out there, but let’s round it off to one million.
And let’s, for the ease of math, figure 1000 kids die from drowning every year in private swimming pool.
How many guns are there in this country? Quite probably there are 100 million guns. Suffice to say that there are at least an order of magnitude more guns than swimming pools?
But there are MORE deaths by swimming pool than by gun in this country. So, even if there were EXACTLY the same number of deaths, 1000 children, due to guns, guns would nonetheless be 10-100X safer than swimming pools (depending on whehter you think there are 10 million guns or 100 million guns).
But the proper PSA remains:
IGNORE THE ALPHTARD.
I know it’s a sentiment that’s out of fashion, but I always figured getting shot was just one of the potential hazards you live with when you’re sleeping with another man’s wife. It’s not just immoral, it’s stupid.
By the way, am I the only one who thinks the wife watched one too many episodes of Law & Order? The whole thing seems like a setup: The husband carries a gun and is a known hothead, she and Mr. UPS are playing hide the salami in the driveway at 3:00 AM. To me it looks like Mr. UPS is a patsy in the plan to get rid of hubbie for good.
Will he to be like a moslem martyr and get the 72 virgins + hangover free wine in Paradise??.. Wud you like to die in the arms of a cheating beloved??? Be Rash and Dash yr opinion to the
Or wud the Pope cannonise for this soul or Mrs Bobbit who bobbitised one hopping dick