Here's something worth debate

[sff_corgi_lj]

Gender politics + honour + possessiveness... or should those plusses be 'versus'es?

From Salon's Broadsheet:

Did "crying rape" lead to murder?

One night, while her husband played cards a couple towns over, Tracy Roberson text messaged her lover, Devin LaSalle: "Hi friend, come see me please! I need to feel your warm embrace!" He drove to her home in Fort Worth, Texas, and parked his pickup truck outside; she greeted him wearing a bathrobe and underwear, and climbed in his truck.

Meanwhile, her husband, Darrell Roberson, repeatedly called home without answer. When he finally got their 7-year-old daughter on the line, she told him that mommy wasn't in the house -- so, Mr. Roberson drove home early from his card game. He found the lovers kissing inside LaSalle's truck and whipped out a gun, ordering his wife outside. At one point, either before or after Mr. Roberson started shooting, Mrs. Roberson screamed that this was rape, not an illicit affair. As LaSalle tried to drive away, Mr. Roberson killed him with a shot to the head.

Mrs. Roberson frantically called 911 to report the shooting, while her husband shouted at her again and again in the background: "Why you do me like that?" In later interviews with police Mr. Roberson admitted that he had long held suspicions about his wife's infidelity; Mrs. Roberson told police that she made the false rape claim because she feared for her life, but that her husband didn't buy her lie for a second. However, last week, Mrs. Roberson was convicted of involuntary manslaughter; meanwhile, Mr. Roberson walks free.

Jacquielynn Floyd, a columnist for the Dallas Morning News, asks of the jury: "Did they blame her rape lie? Or did they blame her adultery?" Floyd continues, "The distinction may not have played much role in the end result, but it's an important one. Because if Darrell Roberson did not, in fact, believe at the moment he fired that his wife was being raped; if, instead, he was killing mad at catching the adulterous couple in the act, then this isn't a case about a lying woman."

But, even if Mr. Roberson shot at LaSalle only after she made the rape claim, the outcome of this case is incredibly unusual. Last year, a grand jury actually dismissed a murder charge against Mr. Roberson and instead indicted Mrs. Roberson. Fred Moss, an associate professor at the Southern Methodist University School of Law, told The Dallas Morning News, "You don't see people charged when they're accused of indirectly having someone commit the actual killing. Prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was aware that saying 'he raped me' created a substantial risk that her husband would shoot the guy ... That was a very forgiving grand jury."

Shakesville's Melissa McEwan argued that the ruling seems to rely on the stereotype of the hotheaded male who cannot be expected to control himself. "It suggests that women should be able to control their emotions, and are to be punished when they don't -- because, ultimately, what we have is a woman who (wrongly) told a lie in desperation, and a man who (wrongly) killed another man in anger, but it is her rash lie that is punished, not his rashly pulling the trigger." McEwan makes a great final point: "Of course the argument is that he never would have pulled that trigger without her lie, but why does that mean he should be exempt from punishment? If she had been telling the truth, and he had killed an actual rapist, it's still wrong."

-- Tracy Clark-Flory

So here's some questions: Making the rather insubstantial assumption that the husband actually believed, instantly, that his wife was being raped, OTHER than 'all murder is wrong', how would his defence of a family member being assaulted in an unspeakable manner be wrong? Do you agree with the jury, that once the wife pretended she was being assaulted instead of adulterous (oath-breaking, disloyal, etc.) the responsibility became hers? What would your reaction be if she had said, 'Don't shoot him, I love him!' and the husband had then killed a known rival instead of an unspeakable assailant?

Comments

[allah-sulu.livejournal.com]

If someone was raping or attempting to rape my wife, I would feel justified in using deadly force if necessary in her defense... but that's not the same as shooting someone in the back as they're driving away. At that point, she's no longer in danger (although, in some states, a police officer can shoot a fleeing felon if they pose a threat to society if they're not stopped). I don't think the husband should have walked free but, if he really believed that that guy was a rapist, I might have reduced the charges against him (maybe only second-degree murder, for instance, or some level of manslaughter); but if I were the prosecutor/jury, he would have definitely been charged with something.

As for the wife - yes, she definitely bears a lot of the blame for the situation... I have no problem with her also facing charges.

[badgermirlacca.livejournal.com]

The way you've phrased the question is certainly loaded all by itself!

This is how I see it, based on the quoted story:

Mr. Roberson did not shoot LaSalle in the act, no matter whether he believed it was rape or not. His wife was outside the truck, and LaSalle was driving away. So (imho) the argument that the shooting was "in defense of" anyone is without merit. If LaSalle was driving away, the threat had been dealt with and it was time to let the cops take care of it. Therefore, again imho, Mr. Roberson is guilty of murder; what specific degree I'm not sure. Not first, though.

If Mr. Roberson had shot LaSalle while his wife was still in the vehicle, he might be able to argue that he was defending his wife from a rapist. If that was the case, he could also legitimately claim that he was in fear for her life, and he should have been able to walk away. But that was not the case.

Indicting Mrs. Roberson is, yet again imho, jaw-droppingly absurd. Unless they could prove that she was trying to set LaSalle up for murder, there must have been more to the evidence before the grand jury than we're hearing about here... either that or the grand jury collectively needs their heads examined (always a possibility, in the American justice system...)

Just my two cents. (This is why I'm never picked for jury duty, dammit.)

[sff-corgi.livejournal.com]

Well, I wasn't re-considering so much this specific case - which yeah, has a LOT of fuzzy around the edges - as much as ideas behind it.

From the facts as presented, Mr. Roberson shot because he was ticked off at both of them - Mrs. Roberson's lucky in a way that she didn't get shot as well.

However, why would she take the cowardly route like that, blaming her lover for the whole situation, if she didn't expect retribution of some sort? Was it some sort of knee-jerk reaction? Is this the dark-side result of feminist insistence that those who are raped are never at fault for the assault on their persons?

[pauses, reads jenna_thorn's response]

Yeah... this is more of what I was trying to get at - perhaps a lack of caffeine on my part. :) I'm still working mids and recovering from Very Weird Sleep the other day.

[badgermirlacca.livejournal.com]

I don't think it has a damned thing to do with any "feminist insistence" on anything, really. I think it has to do with a woman who got caught screwing around, and she yelled the first thing she could think of to try to excuse herself. Of course she'd expect retribution--does anyone really think that a husband who walked in on his wife having sex with someone else is going to just politely excuse himself and go read a book until they're finished? Clearly she and her husband had a history of severe problems, and if he shows up and catches her getting it on with somebody else, she's going to panic even more. Especially if he starts waving a gun around. "Don't shoot me, it's his fault--he raped me!" Much like a little kid trying to blame somebody, anybody else for their own misdeeds.

Does that make her complicit in murder? I don't think so. The husband was the one with the gun in his hand, and he was the one who chose to keep shooting as the guy was driving away. She's a coward, and slimy, but I don't think she's a murderer.

Sometimes it isn't political so much as personal.

[jenna-thorn.livejournal.com]

I think that part of the difference (for me, at least, and given this case is in the local news, we have been watching it, though with a distance) is two fold.

...why does that mean he should be exempt from punishment? If she had been telling the truth, and he had killed an actual rapist, it's still wrong."

Call me bloodthirsty but if I were being raped (disreagrding the rest for the moment), if a man had me on the ground in or near my home and I screamed and my husband didn't shoot him, rescue me, defend me, I'd be more than irate. It's not that I'm his property, it's that I expect him to defend me, just as I would shoot an intruder in my home that posed a threat to my safety.

I know that I am capable of love, but I also am pretty usre that I'm capable, myself, my own weak, pale hands, of murder. Put a knife to my son's throat and I will do everything within my power to end you. Period. I don't see that as being posessive, I see it as being maternal. Similarly, if my husband or his best friend, or my best friend, saw that I was being assaulted, I'd certainly expect him, her, them to defend me. I expect the law to understand that my rights are not less than my assaulter's. In attempting to murder me, he lost his right to avoid murder/defense/self defense at the hands of me or mine. No, I don't advocate killing, but I fully support my right to defend myself and yes, on my property, I will extend that right to my family.

That does not make him exempt from punishment, it recognizes the valid legality of sef-defense.

Now, that being said, and in full knowledge that at this point I probably sound like a rabid gunslinging vigilante, chewing tobacco, ten gallon hat and all, I do share your concern (and, it sounds like, the original article) about the history of the couple in question and his awareness of the situation. My assumption in the scenario above is that I am truly being assaulted and that my husband (or son, or whoever is responding to my pleas for help) truly believes that I am being assaulted.

So the question then becomes, why didn't the prosecution point that out? that this was not in fact, a man protecting his wife, but a man taking a convenient excuse to kill an interloper. Why has the news (again, I'm local) downplayed the aspect?

Salon doesn't pretend to be unbiased.

So my thought is that the insubstantial assumption is pretty darn important in the court case. The jury is allowed to act on only the information given within court, iirc from jury duty a couple of years back.

If the prosecution had made clear to the jury that her lie was immediately recognized as a lie, then yeah, he shouldn't be off the hook and I'd give a hairy eyeball to the jury. But if he acted, and then thought, then he was misled, to horrifying effect. And she'll pay for a split second decision that was the culmination of multiple decisions, from choosing to stay married to a man she feared would injure her, to infidelity, to making her daughter an accomplice to that infidelity, to the one that she'll be punished for.

To me, it's not about being a hotheaded male...

[lunalovegoddess.livejournal.com]

I think that anyone would use deadly force if a loved one was perceived to be threatened. However, to me, there is a big difference between killing someone during the interruption of an alleged crime in progress and shooting them as they run or drive away.

Impassively, I'd say charge them both with manslaughter, because the woman was complicit in LaSalle's death even if she did not pull the trigger. Assuming that Mr. Roberson believed that his wife was being raped as he arrived, he still made the conscious decision to shoot a man while he was driving away, instead of ordering the man down on the ground and keeping his gun trained on the alleged perpetrator until police arrived. His wife was no longer "in danger" at that point, so the minimum charge should be assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill or maim. Intent is the key difference, regardless of motive. If he had, instead, shot out the tires on the truck, causing an accident which killed LaSalle, he'd be charged with manslaughter.

(Conversely, if LaSalle had been driving away and accidentally hit their daughter, for example, then LaSalle would be charged with involuntary manslaughter because of extenuating circumstances; i.e. he was fleeing in fear of his life.)

Mr. Roberson may have been lied to, but he still should have been charged with manslaughter. However, in my opinion, that does not let his wife off the hook. What did the wife expect would happen if she told her husband that she'd been raped? Surely Mrs. Roberson did not expect her husband react calmly to the accusation. While she might not have anticipated the use of firearms, she would have known that he'd at least try to beat the shit out of LaSalle. She should get involuntary manslaughter because, although he pulled the trigger, her actions led directly to a man's death.


Personally, as someone who had been raped, I was afraid to tell my brothers because I knew that they would retaliate, damn the consequences. I did not want to be responsible for them ruining their lives and ending up in jail for assault or worse. If my husband or brothers had gone after the bastard, they would have been charged with premeditated assault at the very least. While it might feel good to pound him into oblivion at the time, the repercussions would not be worth the effort. The better course of action would be to restrain him and call the police. Because I did not press charges against him at the time of the incident, though, it would be our word against his.

[lunalovegoddess.livejournal.com]

"ordering the man down on the ground and keeping his gun trained on the alleged perpetrator"

Of course, if the gun happened to go off while guarding the alleged rapist... *whistles innocently* but my point is that if the man was trying to escape, you kneecap the sonuvabitch and let the police sort it out.