It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Wife after being caught in the act and cryed rape, now charged with death of lover

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 3 2008 @ 03:57 AM
Well this is weird, i got nothing to say i just think no one should be charged. it was just unfortunate stuff.

from CNN

Tracy Denise Roberson, 37, cried a bit when the verdict was announced. The punishment phase was set for Monday, and she faces two to 20 years in prison.

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 truck 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 initially was arrested, but a murder charge was later dropped and a grand jury indicted Tracy Roberson instead.


[edit on 3-5-2008 by DuneKnight]

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:02 PM
I disagree. I think the authorities did the right thing. While the husband should, I believe, be charged with a lesser crime, the wife is obviously a callous, evil bitch and deserves to go to jail. I hope she gets the max penalty.

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:27 PM
Why should the husband be charged?

He was, as was the dead man, a victim of this wretched woman's deceit.

The husband thought he was protecting his wife from a rapist and the lover, well come to think of it, he got what he deserved, too.

She should be publicly hung for such treachery.

[edit on 2008/5/3 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 12:49 PM
reply to post by GradyPhilpott

I realize you are in the US and all, but firing off 3 or 4 rounds at moving car in a residential neighbourhood, even if it is late at night, is IMO reckless endangerment.

posted on May, 3 2008 @ 05:25 PM
A man kills another man and it's the woman's fault????!!!!

She was guilty of adultery. Last I heard, that's not a jailable offense. The husband who, admittedly was wronged, exercised extremely poor judgment. Firstly, who commits rape in the driveway truck? He probably should have taken a second or 2 to think that one over a bit. Secondly, who carries their gun to a card game? That's just asking for trouble, imho. Lastly, who shoots a weapon in a residential area?

Did he come home early because he suspected his wife of fooling around? Any woman who cries rape when it's not true deserves the same punishment the rapist would get if it were true but the husband is not entirely blameless in this case.

Firing a weapon in city limits.
Involuntary manslaughter (IF it was involuntary).
Wreckless endangerment
For all we know, the husband could have set the entire thing up; getting rid of his faithless wife and some enemy that wronged or offended him. Two birds with one stone. And he gets off scott free. This story stinks.

Why didn't the husband try to "save" his wife without shooting first and thinking later (if he was thinking at all)? If the guy tried to speed away, he could have gotten the license number or, at the most, shot out the tires. I think there's more to this story and that the woman was punished far more harshly than her crime warranted.

Let the flaming begin.

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 02:27 AM
reply to post by whitewave

I could be wrong but:

  1. Man comes home.

  2. Man sees wife with another man.

  3. Wife yells rape.

  4. Man thinks guy is raping his wife.

  5. Guy tries to run (which was his biggest mistake I believe)

  6. Husband shoots at the truck
    Tough one. The husband handled it wrong. He should definitely get manslaughter, maybe 5-10. She should get 2nd degree murder.

    Keep in mind, her yelling rape is like someone yelling "fire" in a movie theater. If you yell fire, and there isn't one, and someone gets trampled... expect a jail sentence.

    [edit on 4-5-2008 by Sublime620]


posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:27 PM
They're both guilty of manslaughter. Deadly force is justified in the prevention of rape. If you catch someone in the act of raping someone else, put a bullet in their head. But in this incident the "act" was concluded and the victim was driving away. The woman was no longer in any imminent perceived danger and there no longer existed the grounds for lethal action. I'm surprised they dropped the charges. Probably because they weren't confident they could convict. But the tramp wife though... piece of cake.

posted on May, 4 2008 @ 09:03 PM
reply to post by Sublime620

I agree that this situation is like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater but the one that does the trampling is as much of a moron as the one who caused the stampede. The victim in this case was not without some blame although he got the most severe punishment. This kind of story is exactly why I personally avoid crowded theaters and adulterous situations.

If you want to avoid the fruit of sin; stay out of the orchard.

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:28 PM
reply to post by apc

You said just what I was thinking!

Why shoot somebody who is fleeing and posing no danger to anybody or threatening anybody!

Use of deadly force is SUPPOSE to ONLY be used when your life or somebody elses life is in danger from another person.

Sounds like this guy runs around half-cocked all the time to have been able to produce a gun that quick and shoot at somebody!

Originally posted by whitewave

Involuntary manslaughter (IF it was involuntary).

Involuntary manslaughter would mean that he had no other choice than to have killed the person because he posed imminent danger to somebody, this was not the case!

Husband should have gotten manslaughter charges against him at the very least.

[edit on 5/5/2008 by Keyhole]

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:24 PM
Who is to say that he wouldn't have shot the guy anyways? A man killing the lover of his wife would not be anything new. I mean, he sounds like a man who is carrying a gun around for more than just protection if you ask me. I definatly think he should be charged with a crime as well.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:48 AM
You are all mad.

A man comes home finds his wife in her truck, apparently being raped. (just last week a young girl here was raped by a man who hid in th e back of her car and forced her to drive him somewhere he could rape her) and he pulls a gun. The guy "flees" to his car, a 2 ton weapon capable of moving at 40-50 miles and hour in a short timeframe.Do we know if the car was pointed at him? Did the bullets enter the "victim" from the front or the back? Even if he was fleeing, if it was your wife, and you thought she had just been raped, wouldn't you still fire? As to firing in a "residential neighborhood" did any of his shots hit anything other than the "victims" car?

It seems to me everyone is willing to convict the guy simply because he was armed and used it.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 07:09 PM
The point is, giving the circumstances, I think he would have fired his gun anyways. I also think there is enough reasonable doubt to prove that this guy knew there was no rape occurring in that vehicle. Why did he bring his gun to a game? Why did he come home early? I am willing to bet that there were clues of his wifes infidelity well before this incident.

If there is enough reasonable doubt that this guy was not acting in "self defence" then he should not be able to get away with "self-defence".

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 07:35 PM

Originally posted by snowflake_obsidian
The point is, giving the circumstances, I think he would have fired his gun anyways. I also think there is enough reasonable doubt to prove that this guy knew there was no rape occurring in that vehicle.

Thats not how reasonable doubt works. Its a principle used to acquit, not convict. See the problem is, despite his surprise visit, and his other actions, theres is more than enough room for a "reasonable doubt" that he didnt know. His wife on the other hand, knew she wasnt being raped.

Why did he bring his gun to a game? Why did he come home early? I am willing to bet that there were clues of his wifes infidelity well before this incident.

Maybe he has a CCP and caries everuwhere he goes. I do. So do many others.
Maybe he came home early because he lost his money quickly. See heres the thing, that you're "willing to bet", is irrelevent the question,legally, is, could a reasonable person beleive "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or beyond 'reasonable doubt" that he didnt know his wife wasnt being raped. So long as a reasonable person can look at the fact and not besure, the law requires he not be convicted. Msot likely the Da looked at the facts and decided that allthough there was a good chance the guy did it, the evidence wasn't compelling enough to meet the criteria and as such, not worht bringing charges.
However, given that his wife knew she was not being raped, she has no such defense.

[edit on 5/6/2008 by Shazam The Unbowed]

top topics


log in