More Detail On Texas "Rapist" Shooting Case

Dogstar sends this account of the story, which contains a detail I didn't notice in the other one. The detail seems to support the grand jury's refusal to indict the husband:

When he arrived, Roberson saw his wife, clad in a robe and underwear, with a man in a Chevrolet Silverado pickup, police have said. After Tracy Roberson claimed that the man was trying to rape her, her husband fired four shots at the vehicle as the man tried to drive away with his wife, police have said.

So, from his perspective, his wife was being raped and also abducted by her rapist. He believed he was stopping a serious crime (or several of them, actually) in progress. What else could he have done?

Sure, he could have fired warning shots or shouted for the man to stop driving and all that stuff, but that frankly strikes me as fantasy.

Given those facts, lawyers believe the grand jury's finding was perfectly reasonable and logical.

Legal experts said they have never heard of a case quite like this before but that the legal theory behind it seems sound.

"It certainly is different," said George E. Dix, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. "But the theory sounds perfectly acceptable to me. That is interesting."

Jason Gillmer, an associate professor at Texas Wesleyan School of Law in downtown Fort Worth, agreed.

"I've never heard of a case like this, but if you think about the theory behind it, it makes sense," Gillmer said. "He is entitled to defend his wife and his family against aggravated assault. If he believes that is what is happening, he is entitled to use force. She didn't intend for her husband to kill her lover, but she recklessly caused it.

"Whether or not a jury will be convinced remains to be seen."

It's basic law that a crime requires both an "bad act" and a "bad thought." Lacking either, you don't have a crime. We definitel have a bad outcome here -- an innocent (well, legally so) man was shot dead; that's definitely a "bad act" -- but we have no bad thought that caused it. From the husband's perspective, he was acting legally, justifiably, and, well, somewhat heroically in attempting to save his wife from her "rapist/kidnapper."

Posted by: Ace at 04:25 PM



Comments

1 yeah....but what if they were on a boat?

A boat called the USS Hypothetical?

What then smartguy?

Posted by: Red at April 01, 2007 04:43 PM (OEbrS)

2 "
It's basic law that a crime requires both an "bad act" and a "bad thought." Lacking either, you don't have a crime."

This is not always true. Strict liability crimes such as Statutory rape do not require a "bad thought" element. Even if you honestly think a willing female is 18, she has ID, and a Nun swears to it, you still go to jail if you have sex with her and she's below the legal age.

Posted by: dri at April 01, 2007 04:53 PM (koO9y)

3 "It's basic law that a crime requires both an "bad act" and a "bad thought." Lacking either, you don't have a crime."

That's not true.

Negligent Homicide is a crime and might be utterly thoughtless. (I suppose you can get into semantics arguing whether lack of thought is in itself a bad thought). Intent is an element of many crimes, but not all.

This is a very unusual case. Basically the guy is getting away with (un)justifiable homicide based on a theory of detrimental reliance. In that he relied to his, and the victim's detriment on the claims of the wife.

Essentially they have to charge her with a crime. Otherwise, they just created a murder loophole. The severity of the charge might come down to whether she knew, or reasonably should have known that her hubby could have been armed when she said it.

Posted by: seattle slough at April 01, 2007 04:57 PM (ARC3W)

4 Nuns will say anything.
So I wonder how this divorce is going to go.

Posted by: Iblis at April 01, 2007 04:57 PM (9221z)

5 I don't know what has happened, but I have this overwhelming need to suck a guy off. Anyone like to meet me this afternoon?

Posted by: Pole Smoking Amish at April 01, 2007 05:29 PM (v9Pkw)

6 Never mind manslaughter, book the wife for Felony Stupid.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at April 01, 2007 05:41 PM (L156v)

7 I think that most 'crimes of neglect' ie: underage sex, letting your child starve to death, dangerous behaviour etc, are based on the idea that you ought to have known better.
So that girl who claimed she was 18, but turns out to be 12? Like you couldn't tell? Or you didn't notice or care that your front steps were rotting out, so when the postman fell through it's not your fault? Bzzzt! Wrong answer!
However in this case the husband (who's black btw) had no possible way of knowing, in the 2-3 seconds he had to decide what to do, that it was NOT a rape/abduction but in fact a cheating wife. His wife screams rape, the guy tries to drive off, wife trapped in truck. Sounds like a shoot first situation to me!
I mention he's black because the media won't be covering this much since he's not a "gun toting redneck".

Posted by: 5Cats at April 01, 2007 05:57 PM (cVijR)

8 Another reason I stay out of Texas.

Posted by: Bill Clinton at April 01, 2007 06:10 PM (ljoDE)

9 Test

Posted by: Dogstar at April 01, 2007 06:12 PM (Wdruj)

10 The poor guy will get justice in criminal court ,the civil lawyers will be waiting on the court house steps. Its the dubble tap on the public which pays the bills with the money of those found not guilty in criminal court. The ACLU will offer to help, since this is news worthy, and new ground for the legal system nation wide. Marks and friends might have got it right KILL ALL THE CIVIL LAWYERS, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. FACT: Lawyers have far less heart attacks then the public at large, research has proven this to be due to the findings that a small persentage of lawyers have no heart, just a hole in there chestfilled with greed.

Posted by: The Great Satans Sr, Intern at April 01, 2007 06:26 PM (ORiVn)

11 Lawyers have far less heart attacks then the public at large

No, they're just carriers, like rats and plague.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at April 01, 2007 06:34 PM (L156v)

12 Heres a fucked up story:


A Seattle area man who is an admitted pedophile has set up a web site that is a
virtual "how-to" manual, complete with the best places in western
Washington state to see little girls, and tips on how to avoid getting
caught by the police.

McClellan says his purpose is to promote
association, friendship and legal, consensual hugging and cuddling
between men and pre-pubescent girls.

"I guess the main thing is I just think they're
cute, a lot cuter than women. I admit there is kind of an erotic
arousal there," McClellan said.

"As disturbing and offensive as we find this,
there's no evidence of a crime, or even suspicion of illegal activity,"
said Rebecca Hover of the Snohomish County Sheriff's Department.

I found the story at JeffGs.


Posted by: Amish has a van full of candy and puppies at April 01, 2007 06:41 PM (OEbrS)

13 The guy is Black? I guess this explains why we have heard NOTHING about this in the MSM.
Gives a new meaning to my orginal post. "What has Brown done for you today?"
You go boy, hope the Ho get's life!
Kemp

Posted by: kempermanx at April 01, 2007 06:58 PM (+AlFt)

14 Sure, he could have fired warning shots or shouted for the man to stop driving and all that stuff, but that frankly strikes me as fantasy.
Somebody fires "warning shots" at me, I am going to get away from him as fast as I can.
Warning shots do not work on a speeding vehicle leaving.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 01, 2007 06:59 PM (W5xJB)

15 That was pretty much what Michael Jackson said about boys sleeping in his bed -- he was only showing them affection with cuddling.

Posted by: Bart at April 01, 2007 07:02 PM (z49RO)

16 How about we let the muslim from UCLA who got zapped shoot the wife and the husband and we'll call it even?

Posted by: Bart at April 01, 2007 07:07 PM (z49RO)

17 Bart,
Do you still dress up like Michael Jackson and sing "Beat It" every Wednesday night at The White Swallow karaoke bar?
I thought so.
NTTAWRT

Posted by: Rosetta at April 01, 2007 07:21 PM (0/BHZ)

18 Heh.
I meant to say NTTAWWT.
Stupid vodka....

Posted by: Rosetta at April 01, 2007 07:22 PM (0/BHZ)

19 Exactly why would her lover attempt to drive off with her if she'd accused him of rape??

Posted by: eightlgddj at April 01, 2007 07:31 PM (XqkEU)

20 If wearing one white glove counts as dressing uplike Michael Jackson, then the answer is yes.

Posted by: Bart at April 01, 2007 07:36 PM (z49RO)

21 Exactly why would her lover attempt to drive off with her if she'd accused him of rape??
To flee the scene. The first thought in that man's head when faced with an irate husband wielding a gun was to skeedaddle. He probably didn't even hear what the ho was saying at the time.

Posted by: Bart at April 01, 2007 07:39 PM (z49RO)

22 Maybe he thought she was screaming "CrÍpe! CrÍpe!" and wanted to get her to the nearest IHOP as fast as he could. His UPS instincts just kicked in and he floored it.

Posted by: Amish Express at April 01, 2007 07:43 PM (OEbrS)

23 Either that or he was trying to not get shot in the head by her husband who was standing beside his car with a gun.

I dont know. Flip a coin either guess could be right.

Thats what we have juries for.

Posted by: Amish is Hung at April 01, 2007 07:46 PM (OEbrS)

24 Pointfive.com web site has been hacked by some guy calling himself JOHN 3:16, something about insults to Christ, in english and hebrew. The Global Warming is effecting the far, far, left hackers, deflector shields up Scottie ,and stand by the protron lauchers Mt Zulu. Lt Ohorri, break out the Rummilan Bong and beam my ass out of here, ASAP. I wonder if Pointfive failed to surrender the bootie to Al Gore and pre pay for carbon offsets for all the bull chips expended on a military web site?. Must find the big roll of alum. foil and reinforce my combat hat.

Posted by: The Great Satans Sr, Intern at April 01, 2007 07:52 PM (ORiVn)

25 I'm surprised the local feminist moonbats aren't up in arms about this.

Posted by: Xoxotl at April 01, 2007 07:56 PM (F/ysA)

26 >>I'm surprised the local feminist moonbats aren't up in arms about this.

That is because the shooter husband is black. If he was white, the feminists would have been all over this like dogs on an ass-flavored biscuit.

Posted by: Tushar D at April 01, 2007 10:02 PM (9ULFg)

27 tush, I'm stealing that one.

Posted by: Mrs. Peel at April 01, 2007 10:16 PM (8gv6w)

28 "The guy is Black? I guess this explains why we have heard NOTHING about this in the MSM."

Which guy is black (I assume they both are)? I agree that the MSM doesn't give a shit about the dead black victim. Black victims never get the Laci Peterson treatment.

But since when has the media not gone out of their way to show black perpetrators? In this case the villainous (black?) woman who got her Lothario all shot up makes for a fine negative reinforcement.

As for the civil lawyer bashing:

Of course shooter is going to get sued. He is married to the woman who is responsible. He'd be getting a summons and complaint even if he was sitting at home eating Doritos when the shooting occurred. (imagine the woman cried rape in front of a cop). As the husband of the responsible party, he gets sued. Add to that he is the shooter and you have to name him as a party.

Scratch that: the victim's family MAY sue, but realistically, unless the shooter and his wife are wealthy, there will be nothing to go after. They are likely 'judgment proof.' Interestingly, in Washington, you cannot bankrupt out of an intentional tort. However, if he's innocent of negligence and she is only grossly negligent, there is no intentional tort (arguably) so they could bankrupt out of any potential wrongful death judgment anyway.

And no way does the ACLU get involved in this. The only way the ACLU gets involved is in potentially defending the woman from criminal charges for 'speech.' Though something tells me this gal gets no more than the public defender. No one would defend her right to falsely accuse someone of rape.

Posted by: seattle slough at April 02, 2007 02:45 AM (ARC3W)

29 You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about and you're STILL bending over backwardstryingto be an argumentative lefty douche bag.
Get the facts, dummy, and then you can offer your oh-so-valued opinion and snide remarks about social justice.

You're like a dog I used to own. Every time he'd hear a car, he'd bark for 5 straight minutes. I used to say, "Hey, fuckhead, what the fuck are you barking at? I KNOW that we have a visitor. I heard you the first time you barked."
But you can't blame a dog for doing what comes naturally. They have littlecontrol over their actions. You, on the other hand, get wound up and start yapping about the same shit over and over again. You click on Ace's url and you just can't wait to tell everyone they are wrong.

Posted by: bartwing plover at April 02, 2007 03:13 AM (swKsd)

30 In Florida, admitting to firing a "warning shot" sends you to jail. Reason being that if you didn't have a lethal threat situation (a rape/kidnap would qualify being forcible felonies) requiring immediate response to begin with, then you shouldn't have been squeezing the trigger.

Warning shots are for Hollywood, not real life.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 02, 2007 06:21 AM (yikpN)

31 It's almost impossible to collect on a civil judgement in Texas. Virtually everything is off limits.

Posted by: Dogstar at April 02, 2007 09:29 AM (dpudc)

32 Also in florida, if you shoot someone who is commiting a crime (and the shooting was justifiable), you cannot be sued by the "victim" or the vicitm's family.
A injured 3rd party can sue, but has to be at the place and time of the shooting.

Posted by: Vmaximus at April 02, 2007 10:21 AM (sA5Gz)

33 Purple Avenger has it right on Florida law, and the same is true for Texas as well.
Warning shots are an ulawful use of deadly force. Once that bullet leaves the barrel, it <i>is</i> considered deadly force, no matter the direction it might be aimed.
However, if the use of deadly force is justified, i.e; to prevent rape and kidnapping, the only legally responsible manner in which to employ said deadly force is to cause one's rounds to impact the source of the threat.
On the civil tort front, Gov. Perry just signed what's often called "Castle Doctrince" into law here, but that won't take effect until 1 Sep 07. So, in this case, our intrepid shooter may indeed avoide a true-bill by the grand jury.... but still be mauled in the civil courts.
Either way, it's good to see the wench get her due for the mess caused due to her irresponsibilty through the whole thing, from beginning to tragic end.

Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX

Posted by: Jim at April 02, 2007 12:11 PM (4ll9v)

34 No one would defend her right to falsely accuse someone of rape.

If we didn't have the Duke "rape" case, you might have a point. Or did your monthly memory archives just switch over and anything happening before April 1st can't be accessed?

Posted by: The War Unicorn at April 02, 2007 01:54 PM (p27vn)

35 bartwing plover,

Never have I seen a more pointless and flaccid response. You didn't even bother to explain or even note anything I got wrong. Here's a hint fuck nut: I am actually adding to the conversation here while at the same time defending baseless attacks on the MSM, the ACLU, and Civil Attorneys.

Yes, I was doing two things. You sir, were doing none. Now run along.

Posted by: seattle slough at April 02, 2007 02:35 PM (H5l9d)

36 The War Unicorn:

I think you could admit that an admitted and known false accusation is a different story than an accusation that appears to be false. And to the extent that we can prove that the Duke 'rapee' is a liar, no one would defend such a lie. Those that support her do not do so because they support her right to levy false rape charges. They do so because they believe her.

Posted by: seattle slough at April 02, 2007 02:52 PM (H5l9d)

37 They do so because they believe her.

Um, no. They do it because they are more racist than rational. Any reasonable person, after reading the details of the case, would agree that she cannot be believed.

Posted by: Dogstar at April 02, 2007 04:28 PM (dpudc)

38 >>Those that support her do not do so because they support her right to levy false rape charges. They do so because they believe her.

Wrong. Nobody believes her. She doesn't even believe herself.

What you are seeing by those who still stubbornly support her in light of all evidence and reason is the left's addiction to the new religion of truthiness. Dan Rather's attempt to throw an election with fake evidence that he defended despite knowing it to be false was the prime example of this dysfunction. It's now spreading into everything the left does.

Bush lied. Really? Where? You can't find a single incidence yet it is now accepted liberal think. That's how you guys work. You know how things should be so you change facts or worse, invent them, to support your outcomes.

Posted by: JackStraw at April 02, 2007 04:28 PM (t+mja)

39 JackStraw,

I'm pretty sure pharmacies are open the day after April Fools so there really isn't any excuse for you to be off your meds.

Posted by: seattle slough at April 02, 2007 04:34 PM (H5l9d)

40 I'm pretty sure pharmacies are open the day after April Fools so there really isn't any excuse for you to be off your meds.
Never have I seen a more pointless and flaccid response.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 02, 2007 04:58 PM (W5xJB)

41 Those that support her do not do so because they support her right to
levy false rape charges. They do so because they believe her.
Uh, actually, no. A lot of them believe the actual facts of the case are irrevelant. It's more important to promote the "privileged white boys raping a poor minority girl" meme.

When you have a spare moment, you really ought to bop on over to http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com and read the archived posts. There are a lot of juicy quotes from members of the Duke faculty and others that say precisely this.

Posted by: OregonMuse at April 02, 2007 04:59 PM (CkYzD)

42 Off topic, but kind of on at the same time: We had a girl here in Oklahoma claim to have been attacked by a couple of rednecks outraged at her being a lesbian. The story stunk from the beginning, but it didn't stop the gay protesters from accusing the police of complicity in the crime. Then when the girl finally admitted she was a whack job that made the whole story up, her supporters claimed that she only changed her story because of the immense pressure put on her by the police.
Truth doesn't matter. It's all about politics and agendas.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at April 02, 2007 05:11 PM (/rgAZ)

43 You mean like when NBC sends twogentlemen of Middle Eastern descent to the Texas Motor Speedway to see if any redneck NASCAR assholes give them shit?

Only nobody does.
I think the cowboys were all just drunk and feeling friendly myself.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 02, 2007 05:33 PM (W5xJB)

44 Good retort, seattle.

You must be a cracker jack lawyer.

Posted by: JackStraw at April 02, 2007 06:25 PM (t+mja)

45 Hard to say Jackstraw. He gives Bart shit for doing the same thing, a flippant remark instead of any basic address to the facts. Two hours later he makes a glib remark to you, without addressing any of your comments.
Most lawyers I know that do that haven't got the facts on their side.
Perhaps this is known in Washington litigation circlesas "pounding the law"?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 02, 2007 06:29 PM (W5xJB)

46 Pounding something, Dave. I don't mind devil's advocates, they can make you think and elevate the discussion.

seattle just likes to be a contrarian and defend the indefensible. There's a different word for that.

Posted by: JackStraw at April 02, 2007 06:38 PM (t+mja)

47 I coined the word "autocontrarian" for a guy who commented here prior to Seattle's tenure. Same kind of thing though, he just likes arguing.

I'm pretty sure I coined the term first here, but if anyone else want to challenge on that,

it will most likely be Seattle.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 02, 2007 06:42 PM (W5xJB)

48 Well, whaddya know, Seattle Slough? I knew it was only a matter of time before we ran into each other.

Posted by: The Glue Factory at April 02, 2007 07:41 PM (ScVon)

49 Well Dave,

I didn't merely say "JackStraw, you are an idiot." which is essentially what Bartwing wasted three solid paragraphs on. I said he was off his meds because his comment was all over the fucking place. Bush lied? Dan Rather? This was a legal discussion about a criminal law case. Plus, my response was pithy and slightly humorous. Bartwing Plover's was long and dull.

Posted by: seattle slough at April 02, 2007 07:58 PM (H5l9d)

50 All over the place, seattle? I responded, as did two others, to your assertion that the Duke liar was indeed a liar and only those who are being obtuse or relying on truthiness would disagree. She lied. She has partially recanted. The evidence doesn't support her. Her dancing partner doesn't support her. Nifong is being brought up on charges.

I then gave you two other examples of how the left applies truthiness logic to everything you say and do. You only complain that I was all over the place because 1) it's true and 2) you have zero defense.

You are neither pity nor humorous. Seattle Slew was an amazing horse. You're just being a horse's ass.

Posted by: JackStraw at April 02, 2007 08:08 PM (t+mja)

51
seattle just likes to be a contrarian and defend the indefensible. There's a different word for that.
Yeah, and that word is "alancolmes"

Posted by: OregonMuse at April 02, 2007 08:30 PM (2g3cv)

52 Well JackStraw,

I never pretended to know wether the "Duke rape victim" was lying or not. I only know that those who supported her, did so because they believed her.

I only pointed this out because the reactions of those who believed this "Duke rape victim" (right or wrong) have very little to tell us about the baseless suggestions that feminists and the ACLU would support this "texas rapist" woman who's admitted lies got a guy killed. It fact it has nothing to tell us about it.

As for Dan Rather, who seemingly fell for a forgery and George W. Bush, who apparently is as honest as the love child of George Washington and Abe Lincoln (which interestingly you are on the Nifong side of in that the point seems to be that we Democrats are the ones falling for lies, when we are actually the ones questioning Bush's 'truths'), neither of those points has any bearing at all on the point at hand.

Whether or not Democrats believe things that Republicans do not or vice versa, no one, I repeat, no one believes that this woman was raped. That is what makes this story a tragedy and not a tale of heroism. Therefore, this mindless talking point parade of yours is totally off target.

Show me a democrat or liberal who thinks this "Texas rape" woman was telling the truth when she cried rape, and you will have a point to back up with your gullible Democrats meme. Otherwise, you are making a point in support of nothing. Nothing.

Just to leave you with some more of my pithy humor, I shall rephrase the great JackStraw for smiles and laughs:

"[T]he [President] was indeed a liar and only those who are being obtuse or
relying on truthiness would disagree. [He] lied. [He] has partially
recanted. The evidence doesn't support [him]. [Members of his own party don't]
support [him]. [Multiple members of his administration] [are] being brought up on charges."

See? Smiles and laughs.



Posted by: seattle slough at April 02, 2007 08:54 PM (H5l9d)

53 Plus, my response was pithy and slightly humorous. Bartwing Plover's was long and dull.
Don't quit your day job. Saying it's "different" when you do it does not make it so.
Oh, and this particular observation was inane, and par for the course as far as your preferred style of debate (i.e. take contrary position, run like retard with football).
Those that support her do not do so because they support her right to levy false rape charges. They do so because they believe her.
Why? It's apparent you've read none of the statements of the faculty wanting those boys heads on a pike. You've ignored the Marcotte nonsense documented here enough for you to have seen it, as you have the recent NYT article from that idiot who said the same thing we're all saying here; they deserved by a prosecutor who abused his authority to get elected even though it wasn't true because they're rich white boys.
State of NC Bar feels that way about it too, lawyer-fellow.

Enough facts for you?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 02, 2007 08:59 PM (W5xJB)

54 That is what makes this story a tragedy and not a tale of heroism.

FWIW, agree with your first point. Second one not relevant. If I missed it, is anyone arguing that, the shooter is a "hero"? I don't see that anywhere.
Bitch lied and got a man killed. Seems to me the grand jury and the prosecutor "get it" and did the right thing.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 02, 2007 09:11 PM (W5xJB)

55 Ok Dave, I'll admit it. I am too lazy to comb through those archives (I spent ten minutes or so looking at the Durhamwonderland blog someone cited). So you show me where someone admits that they understand that the so-called "Duke Rape Victim" was completely lying and still want to see these completely innocent lacrosse players convicted of rape. Show me that and I stand corrected.

Otherwise I do not.

It is just that simple isn't it? Either I am right and those who support the continued prosecution of these men believe they are guilty or they do not.

I've stated my position. You've stated yours. Prove me wrong, and you have my admission that I was wrong. Futhermore, you'd have my support in condemning such individuals in no uncertain terms.

Posted by: seattle slough at April 02, 2007 09:14 PM (H5l9d)

56 Dave,

No one is arguing that Shooter is a hero. That's my point. If people believed that the woman was actually being raped, then they would naturally conclude that the guy was a hero for shooting the rapist/kidnapper. They don't. So my point is made.

No one disagrees with what happened here. So why are we talking about cases where the subject is a disagreement as to facts (Rather, Bush, Nifong)?

This is a legal argument. People were using this purely legal argument to baselessly slam Civil lawyers, the ACLU, feminists, and the MSM. I tried to dismiss these claims to pull it back into the purely legal realm (go back and read it if you don't believe me) and in walks JackStraw with a healthy dose of Rather, Bush, and Nifong.

Pointless.

This is a topic that is ripe for discussions on gun control, criminal law, and tort law. It is not a partisan issue at all, yet people here wanted to go there. I am hardly an autocontrarian for defending the 'ACLU' or 'feminists' from such ill-aimed attacks.

Posted by: seattle slough at April 02, 2007 09:27 PM (H5l9d)

57
>>It is just that simple isn't it? Either I am right and those who support the continued prosecution of these men believe they are guilty or they do not.

No, it's not that simple. You are.

>>"A dismissal doesnít mean forget everything. Amnesia would be a poor defense to the next act of athlete privilege."

Selena Roberts New York Times.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11644

None of this is news. There are various people on the left, from the loony Marcotte to the supposedly sane NYT to administrators at Duke who are saying that even though no rape, no crime actually occured that night, letting this go would be wrong.

Well, they are partially correct. The lacrosse players hired two dancers who advertised their services and were compensated for what they did. They did nothing wrong. The accuser, the DA, Duke, the entire PC left, the MSM did. They convicted the lacrosse players on trumped up charges for something they never did and put them and their families through over a year of hell. And morons like Selena Roberts want to continue to punish them for doing nothing wrong. Truthiness.

I don't know where you got your law degree but if you don't understand the basic facts behind one of the most heavily pimped stories of the last 2 years I would suggest you get the number off the matchbook and call them for a refund.

Posted by: JackStraw at April 02, 2007 09:36 PM (t+mja)

58 If people believed that the woman was actually being raped, then they would naturally conclude that the guy was a hero for shooting the rapist/kidnapper. They don't. So my point is made.
No, not really. I'd argue his state of mind was that he was defending his wife, and preventing a man from commiting aggravated sexual assault and kidnapping.
I find his actions under the circumstances reasonable. Heroic is simply an irrelevant point, and I don't know why you feel it must be made.
Jackstraw has found the references you asked for so condemn them for their words and we'll all go to bed now.

Oh, and to hell with the ACLU. You do recall lawsuits filed on behalf of municipalites against gun manufacturers?
Not relevant, just to hell with them. Do I have to look those up too? I'm tired.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 02, 2007 09:41 PM (W5xJB)

59 And to the extent that we can prove that the Duke 'rapee' is a liar, no one would defend such a lie. Those that support her do not do so because they support her right to levy false rape charges. They do so because they believe her.

Posted by: seattle slough at April 02, 2007 02:52 PM (H5l9d)

Wrong. Nobody believes her. She doesn't even believe herself.

Posted by: JackStraw at April 02, 2007 04:28 PM (t+mja)

Wrong again, fuck nut. Only by an hour and a half.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Posted by: JackStraw at April 02, 2007 09:43 PM (t+mja)

60 JackStraw,

First off, I used the term "fuck nut" back at 2:35. So unless you were reusing it as an ironic callback, weak.

If that newsbusters article is the best ya got, I stand uncorrected. Tell me where she says that she wants innocent men to go to jail. Seriously.

I see that a year ago she thought the accusations have merit. I see that currently she is leaning the other way but still thinks there is a larger issue that is worth addressing which involves the way campuses treat sexual misconduct by athletes. And I think her point isn't that this was worth it or right, but that just because these guys may be innocent doesn't mean the problem of sexual misconduct by star athletes isn't still a problem. But I digress, we weren't talking about the Duke Rape case.

Someone wrongheadedly brought it up, and I said, apples and oranges, but you are the one who is really into it.

I mainly like how the best you can do is go back to the Duke Rape case, while ignoring my main point - that none of your examples, the Duke case included, have anything to do with the topic at hand.

And help me out. I say x at time y. You say not x at time y + 1.5 hours. How does that make me wrong again by an hour and a half? That doesn't even make any sense. Not to mention that you're saying something doesn't make it true.

Sure any time charges are falsely filed against people it is a travesty. Unfortunately, it happens all the time. The real travesty is that people like you only seem get worked up about it when it happens to "rich white guys."

You probably have no idea how many innocent poor people not only get charged with bogus crimes, but get convicted. It is a huge problem. The energy you people put into this case, while commendable, is strangely absent from the

Don't believe me? Go to your local law school, see if they have an innocence project, then ask the members of that project or clinic if they are Federalist Society people or ACLU people. Seriously, do it.

Where were you guys when DNA evidence was first being used to exonerate convicted criminals? Standing in our way that's where.

Nifong is sadly not that unusual. Too many prosecutors only look as to whether they can get a conviction. The police investigate until they can make probable cause and stop there. I know cops lie. I had a client who was accused of 'dragging' a cop '20 feet' through a parking lot. Funny thing it happened in a casino parking lot and the security guard got me a copy of the surveillance tape which showed the cop was flat making shit up. Really funny thing? The security lead at the casino said the police already got a copy of the tape. AND THEY DIDN"T GIVE IT TO THE PROSECUTOR.

Yes, it happens all the time. Why the Fox Nation only gets up in arms when the victim is a rich white dude or pretty white girl is the sad fact of it.

Posted by: seattle slough at April 03, 2007 12:07 AM (ARC3W)

61 We definitel have a bad outcome here -- an innocent (well, legally so) man was shot dead; that's definitely a "bad act" -- posted by ace. "Bad act"? No way-- he shot the guy dead. The only unfair part about this killing was that the family of the dead guy hasn't reimbursed the husband for the cost of the ammo. You've got to admit that was Damn fine shooting for a pistol shot. Killed him deader than a nit. As for the "victim": hey you diddle someone else's wife, you takes your chances on getting shot or killed. I have no sympathy at all for this "victim".

Posted by: pendelton at April 03, 2007 12:28 AM (83kFr)

62 Tell me where she says that she wants innocent men to go to jail. Seriously.
Strawman. She never comes right out and says they should go to jail, she excoriates the players for their privilege, asserts that hiring blacks strippersmakes them abusers, and attacks the culture of privilege for student atheletes in general, implying they deserve all the shit they had to endure for a year, even though it was all a lie.
She excuses Nifong's behavior.
This is all on the record in thew NYT, not just Newsbusters, and ace's recent posts regarding her don't cite NB, they cite the times. Go look it up. I don't feel like wasting my time over something every regular here already knows.
If you just want to say "Newsbusters, HA", fine, but in light of the Duke 88, the Times, Marcotte et al. (who are the sources that have been cited here at AoS), then your argument is pretty much skewered.
Incidentally, someone mentioned your total lack of intellectual curiosity about a legal matter that has been in the top of the news for 2 years. I find it remarkable that a person who works in the legal profession could be so ignorant of these points.
Until I remember it's you.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 03, 2007 09:12 AM (pzen5)

63 The real travesty is that people like you only seem get worked up about it when it happens to "rich white guys."
That's enlightening too. Certainly helps us all understand why these things don't seem to bother you.
Curious (not really). What about Nifong suppressing the DNA evidence?
It that a, what do you lawyers call it, a bad thing?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 03, 2007 09:14 AM (pzen5)

64 seattle-

You are boring beyond belief. Yes, I knew you used the term fuck nut. I decided to call you fuck nut to demonstrate how stupid it sounds. Once again, you missed the point.

You have no idea who I am or what I get worked up about and yet you attribute motives and make conclusions based on your bias. I'm well aware of project innocence and I believe there are a number of people who have been found guilty erroneously.

In fact, in college I was taken for questioning as a suspect in a fight that took place on campus where two students were beaten by a gang of guys. I was possitively ID'ed by one of the victims and had I not had an iron tight alibi with a bunch of witnesses I bet I would have been convicted with the others. Even so, I was involved in the case much longer than I should have been, had to hire a lawyer, it sucked and it was pretty scary even knowing I was innocent. So don't presume to lecture me about what I know.

The reason the Duke case stayed so long in the press and became such a big deal was not because of those who were determined to make the case a cause celebre for rich white guys exploiting minority women. It was the liberal press, the Gang of 88, liberal bloggers, etc., who tried and convicted these guys in the press before anyone knew any facts. The backlash and outrage they justifiably recieved should have shamed them. Predictably, many of them continue to assert, as I showed you, that these kids should still be punished for some patriarchical mumbo jumbo. Deal with it.

A final point to your insistence that guys like me only care about rich white guys. I sent Ace a link to this story some months ago at the height of the Duke travesty

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=wilson

It's absurd that this kid every spent a day in jail. It bothers the hell out of me and I continue to follow it. Last I looked, this kid is neither rich nor white.

Check your own prejudices and stereotypes.

Posted by: JackStraw at April 03, 2007 09:25 AM (t+mja)

65 I only know that those who supported her, did so because they believed her.

Well, actually, they supported her because their hatred of rich, white, male college atheletes blinded them to the point that it became impossible for them to rationally process and analyze the facts of the case.

I also find it amusing that you defend people with a "belief" so contradicted by factual evidence, while simultaneously denigrating people who like to celebrate Christmas.

Posted by: Dogstar at April 03, 2007 10:02 AM (dpudc)

66 I didn't defend them Dogstar, beyond not wanting to impugn them with the motive of wanting to put innocent people in jail.

Dave, Jack,

As I said, I don't see the need to discuss the details of this case because there are already, literally, millions of people doing so. I'll freely admit that certain cases become so media and attention saturated that I am turned off by the over emphesis. This holds true for a Laci Petersen or that girl in Aruba. Not that those aren't tragic cases, but they are local news at best and should not dominate the media.

For what its worth, I think the initial furor over the Duke rape case and the subsequent discussions about it are less about race and more about misogyny. The article cited talks about how star athletes treat women. Not about how white people treat blacks. Campus whitewashing of sexual misconduct by athletes is pretty colorblind.

I don't believe I ever defended Nifong. Ever. Obviously if he cheated, he should be disbarred. Unfortunately, as an attorney, I am not at all surprised.

I wasn't even talking about this case. We were talking about the Texas case. Why you keep coming back to the Duke case (where I don't think we disagree all that much) and you only argument seems to be I don't care enough about it, is a mystery.

Let's get back to the stupid comparisons made by AoS posters using this Texas case as a reason to bash Liberals. That's what I was responding to. No one has yet defended any of these stupid comments and all you guys want to do is pounce on me about Duke. What the fuck? All I ever said about the Duke case was that it didn't have anything to tell us about the Texas Rape case.

No one has disagreed with that as far as I can see. So what are you all still yammering on about? Are you still trying to 'win' or something?

Posted by: seattle slough at April 03, 2007 01:51 PM (H5l9d)

67 Don't need to win.

Just need to make you dig in your heels and refuse to even acknowledge your own statements. I'm using you as an example, I'm not debating you. What a waste of time that would be.
It's called "exposition".
Let's get back to the stupid comparisons made by AoS posters using this Texas case as a reason to bash Liberals.
All one of them? Number 10 up above? That's the "AoS posters", plural?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 03, 2007 03:49 PM (pzen5)

68 13, 25, 34, 38 . . .


Posted by: seattle slough at April 03, 2007 04:11 PM (H5l9d)

69 13 MSM (are you saying they're liberal? I can accept that if you're conceding it)
25 agreed. but why aren't they?
34 Duke rape case comment. You don't get that one
38 same same. sorry. You can't use those if your complaint was "Let's get back to the stupid comparisons made by AoS posters using this Texas case as a reason to bash Liberals"
So that's 2. Maybe 2.5.
You're trying to paint with a brush that's just too wide for your examples to bear.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 03, 2007 04:38 PM (pzen5)

70 What do you mean I don't get to use the Duke case?!? I responded to that comment for the same reason I responded to the ACLU comment. BECAUSE IT WAS A BAD EXAMPLE. Because someone was supporting the absurd suggestion that the ACLU was going to get involved in the Texas case (to which I responded that no one would support admittedly false rape charges) by bringing up Duke. It is part and parcel of the same discussion.

38 was a continuation of 34. 34 was a continuation of the ACLU comment. They are all the same. Stupid stupid comparisons suggesting that Liberals would be wrong on this issue about which there appears to be no disagreement based on the fact that liberals are apparently wrong about these other wholly unrelated things.

I don' t think the MSM is liberal. But I know that conservatives do. So I was defending the MSM is liberal meme while defending the baseless accusation that the MSM isn't interested in this because there isn't a white person to make look bad. My comment, that the MSM isn't interested in a black victim, is no more or less offensive and far more true statistically.

I think we've pretty much gone around on this as much as can be done. I'm out.

Posted by: seattle slough at April 03, 2007 06:36 PM (H5l9d)

71 Look, SS, you're a big turd. Sorry, but you are. And as long as you remain turdish, turdlike, turdific and/or turdariffic, you will be our whipping boy.
Sorry, but that's just the way we roll.

Posted by: Dogstar at April 03, 2007 08:17 PM (Wdruj)

72 If you don't think the MSM is liberal, you don't get 13 either.

That takes you down to 1.5 dude. A half comment higher than our argument started over.

Do you like, litigate?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 03, 2007 08:52 PM (W5xJB)






Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0272 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0171 seconds, 81 records returned.
Page size 72 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat