I understand that she got 5yrs with a minimum of 2 & 1/2 yrs. She should appeal.

‘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…?

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.

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??

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.

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.

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.

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.