Quirk Life

Read about this a few days ago, and despite the tragic outcome I think the husband did the right thing. I mean, despite my aversion to guns I think chances are high that I would have done the same thing had I ended up in the same situation. Whatever the outcome, most of us would do mostly anything to protect those we love and in his eyes that was exactly what he was doing.
What the wife did was despicable no matter how you look at it. It's one thing that she had an affair, but her actions not only got her lover killed but I also see it as an insult to those out there that really have been raped. We don't know the whole story though, so it'll be interesting to see how this ends.

If you were going out with someone who's married, you got to be aware of the dangers and know that's the wrong thing...
But i think the full responsability goes to the wife, she accepted the affair, she was the cheater, and she was the triger to shot.
I hate cheaters, it's always unfair.

I think a large part of the blame goes to the wife...she's the one cheating and then trying to lie herself out the situation with tragic results. Having said that, the husband could ALSO have beaten the crap out of the lover instead of being so drastic as killing the guy. Easier said then done I suppose: if it would happen to my wife and I would have a gun around...who knows

How could the husband have beaten the crap out of his wifes lover when he tried to drive away with her in his car (if I understood the story correctly)? Given the situation, I don't think he felt he had much of a choice besides shooting.

Sorry, didn't read the link... Sure, I would probably also have used a gun, though not to kill just incapacitate ..What I don't understand is that the husband didn't see when he caught them in the act that the lover was in fact not a rapist (it would be pretty obvious I think).

Amy, what do you think?? I know you didn't have an opinion, but maybe you have now?

Jail for both !

Exactly!
It'll cost a man's life when you pulled the trigger.

Just one more case to make life a little harder for real rape victims.

Anyone who's read my post-Virignia shootings blog will know my take on guns, and this doesn't change it one iota. "Her husband drew the gun he happened to be carrying and fired several shots at the truck" so if he didn't have access to a gun he couldn't have 'just happened' to have it on him and an innocent man would still be alive. I would suggest that the correct course of action would have been for the husband to take the number of the fleeing truck and report the incident to the proper authorities.

As for the outcome of the court case "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.'" I don't see how a man fleeing the scene of a non-fatal crime constitutes making the action of shooting him dead 'necessary'. The husband lost his temper and killed a man. They're both guilty as hell. Get them both out of society right now.

And maybe make anger management courses a condition of getting a gun license...

Yes, it costs a mans life when you pull the trigger, but when that guy's raped your nearest n dearest you tend not to care. I feel for that poor husband so much. To kill a man in order to protect your family is hard enough to deal with. But finding out later that you've killed someone that wasn't actually doing that, and that your wife has been cheating on you... Poor guy.

I think the operative in that post was "You tend not to care." It's totally true, and is exactly why I don't think people should be allowed to own a means of killing another individual. If however, you do choose to own one, then I reckon you become responsible for its use. I somehow seriously doubt that when this guy was loosing off at the suspect rapist he bothered to check to see if there was anyone else in the general area who might accidentally get hit either by a stray bullet or an out of control car with a dead driver.

Ban guns.

Plenty of other ways to kill people, apart from guns. Banning them wont make the slightest difference.

It would have kept that guy from getting shot.

Would have lowered the death rate at one or two schools as well.

I'm thinking it would make a gigantic difference in Iraq.

Yup. I'm sticking with it.

Ban guns.

Without guns they'd have just nuked Iraq. Or possibly something that wouldn't have messed with the oil.

He didn't seem to mind starting a war that the UN had expressly forbade, and he's still in office. But that's another story and can only lead to arguments.

So, um, lovely weather we're having.

uh... really sad story...