What a crazy situation:
In late 2006, Darrell Roberson came home from a late-night card game to find his scantily clad wife with another man in a pickup in the driveway. Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him.
Darrell Roberson was arrested, but a murder charge was dropped, and a grand jury indicted Tracy Roberson instead.
The wife has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and faces between 2 and 20 years in gaol.
Presumably when the charges were dropped against the husband this means that the prosecutors thought it was reasonable for him to unload four shots into the back of an alleged rapist? While it may be understandable to wish to kill someone whom you suspect raped your partner, surely this kind of vigilante behaviour should not be condoned.
If the wife knew that her husband carried a gun and was likely to shoot at a rapist, she should not have cried “rape”, because she ought to have known that would endanger the life of her lover. I presume it was just a spur-of-the moment decision made in horror when she saw her husband arrive home: no thought went into it at all.
However, the decision to drop charges against the husband but proceed against the wife reflects a sexist desire to blame the promiscuous and faithless wife, and condones the husband’s thoughtless act of violence. Presumably, he, too, acted without thought, but his behaviour was also unreasonable. I think that the husband also bears equal responsibility. In my opinion, you can’t just shoot and kill someone like that. It may lead to the death of an innocent man (as it did in this case). There’s no place in society for that kind of behaviour. Hmm, well, it appears maybe there is, if you’re in Texas.
(Via Jonestown)
10 Comments
It truly is pathetic, our “Justice System” that is.
I imagine if the victim were black, they’d both get off without being charged.
And although I didn’t write that post, thanks for the link.
“However, the decision to drop charges against the husband but proceed against the wife reflects a sexist desire to blame the promiscuous and faithless wife, and condones the husband’s thoughtless act of violence.”
Why the conspiracy? It seems the evidence led to the decision. The conviction I think unsound. Why was her allegation of rape wasn’t attributed to self-defense/duress as it can be fairly assumed that she was under the same threat of being shot.
This takes the idea of ‘inchoate offence’ and ‘accessory’ to new levels. Never seen the two combined like that before…
Involuntary manslaughter (recklessly causing death by crying rape) would have been the charge i guess. Of coarse, the husband had the perfect defenses of provocation & passion open to him. I would like to see the charge sheet.
Definitely - it would be easier to assess why the charges were dropped if one saw the charge sheet.
It just seems to me that her decision to shout “rape” is just as reasonable (or unreasonable) as his decision to shoot the lover.
I’ve never been that comfortable with provocation as a defence. Maybe that’s my fundamental problem with the way in which the husband’s charges were dropped - I see provocation as a defence which operates in a sexist manner because it tends to excuse men for acts of violence committed on the spur of the moment.
In so saying, I don’t think there’s a conspiracy against women or anything, despite my sarcastic comments in the post above. But provocation does operate in a way which tends to excuse the irrational behaviour of some men, whereas a woman doesn’t get a defence for the kind of irrational behaviour in this case.
From what I understand, he knew she wasn’t being raped, as there are reports of him asking her something to the effect of, “How could you do this to me?,” which implies he knew she was stepping out.
Texas also has a history of these kind of cases. When I was taking Sociology of Murder, we were discussing a case where a man in Texas came home, found his wife in bed with another man, and capped both of them.
At the sentencing, the judge gave him probation, and said, “I probably would have done the same thing.”
It’s not a “Conspiracy,” women remain chattel in this country.
I don’t know that it’s sexism, in the sense that a lot of women and feminists probably also think it not unreasonable to do serious harm to a rapist.
I don’t know that vigilantism really captures the situation either, with respect. I think temporary psychosis that might be expected to afflict a significant number of reasonable men and women, clapham omnibus riding or otherwise, is a better way to consider it.
Let’s look at another angle- a woman who has just been brutally raped sees a gun lying on the table and picks it up and kills the assailant. Who could morally make out the case for prosecuting her for murder??
First, let me correct myself. In my initial comment, I meant if only the victim was black, they’d both probably get off.
Second, Roberson was overhead on the 911 call vocalizing his doubt about his wife’s claims. “Why you do me like that?”
His wife also told the 911 operator Roberson didn’t believe she was raped.
He later said he believed, the entire time, that she was raped.
And this case does evoke the idea of “Vigilante Justice.” Where do you draw the line?
It says in the news reports that Roberson found them in an “Embrace.” I’ve never heard that word used in describing a rape (I used to teach seminars in conjunction with the FBI on rape prevention) , and I seriously doubt anyone raped would use that word. I know it’s just a “word,” but it’s a strange word to use in this situation.
The law, from what I understand, says you can’t kill another person unless your life or the life of someone else is in immediate danger.
And just because you’re enraged doesn’t mean you no longer know right from wrong, which is the definition of “Insane,” at least legally.
I’m a man, and there’s no doubt that this case reinforces the idea that women are the property of men, which is why, in my opinion, so many men are reaching for a way to rationalize the decision. They project themselves into the situation, “What if that were MY woman?”
Yes, if someone hurt or raped my girl, I’d be extremely angry, and there’s no doubt I’d want to cap them, but regardless of my feelings (Even if justified), I know it’s wrong, and illegal.
The “Temporary Insanity” excuse is dubious at best.
Hmm, curiouser and curiouser…and dodgier and dodgier. It seems to me that the husband should have stood trial and tried his luck with the provocation defence if he did not really believe his wife was being raped.
‘Gnac, as I have outlined in my post on provocation previously I think the law on provocation operates in a sexist way unintentionally. From all the cases I could see, the fact is that women just don’t tend to shoot a person in hot blood. I don’t know why - my only theory is that men tend to be more physical than women and women tend to be more verbal (gross generalisation, but there you go).
Of the only three cases in Australia where women have pleaded “provocation” and succeeded, the crime has in fact been premeditated (the women drugged the abusive men and killed them while they were sleeping). So while notionally the idea that a woman might equally well shoot a man in the heat of the moment seems fine, in actuality, for whatever reason, it just doesn’t seem to happen. Women tend to retaliate verbally rather than physically, or with premeditated and planned physical violence.
Consequently, I don’t think the provocation defence is intended to be sexist, but for whatever reason, it just doesn’t cover the behaviour exhibited by the vast majority of women, whereas it does cover behaviour exhibited by some men in moments of stress.
Like Fairlane, I just have a problem with the temporary insanity idea. Yeah, it’s understandable, perhaps, but should it be allowed legally? I tend to think that the law, and even defences, should be predicated on the idea that people should try to restrain themselves from killing others.
Perhaps in this particular case, from what Fairlane is saying, there may be grounds for a conspiracy theory, and my initial off-the-cuff sarcastic comments were on the mark…?
More I think about it in her case it was a question of a poor defense lawyer. In his case the incompetence of the prosecution before the Grand Jury.
I understand that she got 5yrs with a minimum of 2 & 1/2 yrs. She should appeal.