Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Woman kills husband; prevents mass shooting

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


I'm sure lack of irrefutable evidence happens all the time in self-defense cases - making it someone's word against another's.

I mean, it's her word against his. And since he cannot give his side of the story, what can you do?

This is possibly circumstantial:
-"He had become erratic, unstable, dangerous and suicidal."
-"she feared for her husband's safety and well being."

This is probable cause:
-"Gary Roberts threatened to shoot and kill any officers that entered his home."

What possible evidence could they gather against her? The article doesn't say whether or not he was armed when she shot him.

What if he was armed, would that change anything?

Supposing he wasn't armed, but he had placed weapons around the home in preparation for the confrontation, would that change anything?

What added information is needed to come to a verdict?

---

What if your neighbor said he was going to shoot you, while he was armed? Do you wait to see if he is telling the truth?




posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


That is what I'm thinking.

She very well could have set up the whole elaborate plot and intentionally planted the seed that he was unstable before hand.

What a bunch of tosh. It's just her word and he has been silenced.

Looks like he was demonized for his guns.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   

AshleyD
reply to post by GAOTU789
 


That is what I'm thinking.

She very well could have set up the whole elaborate plot and intentionally planted the seed that he was unstable before hand.

What a bunch of tosh. It's just her word and he has been silenced.

Looks like he was demonized for his guns.


Certainly a possibility , just as much a chance of being the truth as what she said.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   
This is a very strange story, and I'd be very surprised at anyone who didn't stop and take a minute to question this.

That first (WWLP?) article / vid was pretty crap with the details, though. The usatoday one was a little better.



To many oddities here, though, and vague claims. The husband supposedly recently made comments against himself and others. "Others?" Which others? And exactly what kind of stuff was he saying? People say stuff they don't mean sometimes, in the heat of the moment.

To compound that, the second article mentions drinking and prescription meds. Didn't specify the meds, but implied impairment from them. And of course drinking implies that as well. Which kind of reinforces my last point. Sometimes people say stuff they don't mean when they're sober, nevermind when they're messed up on booze and/or pills!


Let's say this guy was going through a bad stretch for whatever reason(s). We've all had them. Some of us much worse than others. And some people cope with these things in healthier ways than others. Any substance abuse counselor will tell you that when you self-medicate depression and anxiety with booze and depressants, it can mellow you out a bit, only to have a kind of rebound effect when you sober up-- making your pre-existing anxiety and/or depression even worse, and compounding it. In some people, this can lead to habitual use, making the problem worse.


So it could be, that this guy just went on a bender during a rough time in his life (which there is some evidence for in the article) ran off his mouth to his wife, aka "venting", with some stuff he really didn't mean, which then triggered this whole event. It really could have been that simple. At least with the amount of detail we have now.



I'm also curious about the exact nature of their relationship. How well did they generally get along? And did this guy have any prior history of anything? Mental illness? Violence? If he had that many guns, he had to be collecting for a while, and it would seem like this never alarmed the wife before.


Then there is the question of, why, if she was so concerned for his safety, did she not just go in and say "I'm worried my husband might harm himself," and then wait for the cops to show up for a psychiatric hold-- instead of first making him sound like a terrorist, then letting him know and potentially instigating a conflict with a man she claims she feared was unstable!?!?


I find that question really troubling. Unless this woman is dumb as a sack of rocks, she had to have realized that could be a bad idea, no?


And with how bad the wife made him sound, why did the police just let her go home? Alone? Why did they take more than 30 minutes or however long to show up? I've seen the police called on someone who supposedly threatened self harm, and they showed up pretty quickly.


And if she was so worried about his safety, why would she shoot him? In the chest, no less? Just too much weirdness.






posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

opethPA

bozzchem
Source

Apparently one can take the law into their own hands as long as it is done to protect LEOs.

This man had no due process, no trial, no voice, no chance to speak. His wife was Judge Dredd and apparently that's OK since she supposedly saved the lives of our oh so precious LEOs.

If she doesn't face trial for murder, the precedent being set here is substantial.



Wow, what a tough scenario.
It's a no win situation.

If she doesn't act and he goes on to kill multiple people, yes LEOs are people also, then she has that on her conscious.
She does act and starts what could be a slippery slope.

On one hand her actions appear to be justified on the information she was presented but I have to think that even though she "rolled a hard six (BSG ref)" she should face jail time.

Just a tough scenario overall.

Serve time? For what crime?



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


She doesn't indicate he threatened her. Even having firearms around the house isn't a reason to kill him.

This is basically saying preemptive killing is OK because a person believes someone might harm someone with the actual threat not being presented. This seems to go against our established law.

Really seems like she used it to remove him from her life. Sad if so.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I am having a lot of trouble with this one.

There definitely needs to be a thorough investigation by outside sources and a trial.

If what she said is true and it happen the way she said, hopefully, it will be a slam dunk.

But if I was shot or even punished for things I "said" I was going to do; well?????

Wish that worked for the lottery.

Open sesame!



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Bassago
 


yup, the whole story stinks to high heaven

mind-f**k I'm thinking, as well as litmus test.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 


Sounds to me like she knew the state law,went and gave herself an out by contacting police.Then shot and killed him in cold blood. Something tells me her story is BS. Not a once in that story did I read where he threatened her or she felt scared for HER life. What a crock of #.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I'm pretty sure that most state defense laws say that you must be in “imminent fear”. Shooting someone in advance of them acting is not “imminent” its “premeditated”.

Well, I guess now she can write a book called; “How to win a 100% settlement in your divorce for under a dollar”.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 


Dude spend more then one million $$ on his gun arsenal? WTF what did he have in there a tank and rpg's, if not he got ripped off. That's one expensive hobby he had. Still it seems he married the right woman, or at least somebody more like him. Most others would of just slipped him a sleeping pill, then called the cops and made up some story about how he was threatening her and them they would have gotten him taken out on a stretcher, its not like they needed much of an excuse anyways since it seems since he actually said some words about shooting up cops, or so according to her.

And that would probably have been the least bloody outcome. Though yes the whole story does sound a bit fishy to say the least.

The funny part is that is like swatting a fly on your friends forehead with a hatchet. If she would have slipped him a sleeping pill and gone the other route, he probably would have gone to jail for some months, eventually gotten out, gone to some mandatory counseling. Eventually he would have snapped out of it and eventually maybe would have run for mayor or something, and used all that $$ he was spending on guns, to fund his campaign. And then? The limit is the sky.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Oh ya if by some chance it would have happened backwards, and he shot her to prevent her from going all crazy and shooting cops, or for any reason actually. Lets just say that story would not fly anywhere in any court of law. I mean who would believe that story? Nobody that's who. Its pretty hard to even conceive of such a scenario.

But apparently if you flip the roles around it becomes pretty dam not only believable, but down right plausible, no questions about it.



posted on Oct, 6 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   
If we were not talking about a stockpile of guns, or the threat to police... the investigation would have taken much longer. Were all these comments made in the initial media report? If so, how often does that happen?

This guy was on the police radar by the sounds of it, they knew about the weapons. I bet they didn't even investigate the scene, they knew enough. whether they are helping her avoid any charges by holding her hand through the questioning? who knows.

The police don't feel they need to investigate because it wasn't really a murder in their eyes, it was closure to previously opened case against the victim.

Case closed.

edit on 6-10-2013 by MALBOSIA because: spelling



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


WOW ... I mean just WOW. The perfect murder? I would sure like to know if this dude even had a record of any sort. I'm sure the cops were aware of him ... they're aware of any big time gun connoisseurs. Still doesn't mean chit. She is a calculating little thang now ... isn't she?



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by cprnicus
 


Seems possible, but not plausible. I mean, it is possible that she set him up to seem psychotic, but if she had the consensus of others, then she was almost too good at being manipulative - and that is what seems implausible.

But I couldn't argue that either way. I was just arguing against what could be learned in hindsight - I don't think there is much to learn, not with how it seems to have went down.

Morally, I can't see fault in her if what she said was 100% true. If he was being erratic and threatening to kill any who came through his door, I wouldn't say I would do the same as her, but I couldn't blame her either.



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by bozzchem
 


No ways man.

She should have said "honey, I forgot something at the shops. See you now" left the house, called the cops and allowed them to (hopefully) do their job (without killing the guy with unnecessary force). And maybe he would have been allowed due process and judged accordingly.

The article also does not seem to mention probable cause for concern towards his armory.
Albeit a substantial collection - if she had left the house and NOT warned him he may not have had any chance to use his weapons before police intervention. She should be on trial for murder. I'm sorry, but it almost sounds like she very cunningly planned to murder him.

"Hi mr police officer I'm worried about my husband...
... okay, 10:00 sounds fine, see you there
"

"Honey I'm home! BTW the cops are coming...
... *click* *bang*"



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Why do I have a feeling that in a year or two, she'll be married to one of the cops?

This story stinks to high heaven. She should be arrested and tried for murder.

She's probably going to collect the insurance and sell the weapons, which will also bring in some decent cash.

I hope that at least one decent cop is keeping a investigation going on here.
edit on 15-10-2013 by TDawgRex because: Just a ETA



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Possibly prevented a potential.....

Bush doctrine applies to law enforcement now?

Preemptive assaults are totally cool. Imagine a world where it was perfectly acceptable to murder anyone you feared. Your neighbors feared.

Worst part of it is she created the whole situation in the first place. Like some elaborate hit. She sent the police in. She then warned her husband. I've seen plenty of suicides by cop. This looks like homicide by cop by proxy since she killed him.

Other than his wife being paranoid what was this guys crime? Owning a gun collection? Having an opinion?
edit on 15-10-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   
We are going to hear more and more stories like this, so we will eventually accept this as the norm. After all, they can all ready take your children from your home, because of the potential of possibly being robbed.

I'm just not buying this story either, more going on than what she is claiming. And why didn't the police show up when they were suppose too?



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   

bozzchem
This seemed the most appropriate forum to me but I could be wrong. Move it as needed.

Source

Apparently one can take the law into their own hands as long as it is done to protect LEOs.

This man had no due process, no trial, no voice, no chance to speak. His wife was Judge Dredd and apparently that's OK since she supposedly saved the lives of our oh so precious LEOs.

If she doesn't face trial for murder, the precedent being set here is substantial.

edit on 5-10-2013 by bozzchem because: (no reason given)


I've read about this story before. It seems to me that the woman just wanted to off her husband and found an excuse to do it. She should be charged with murder.






top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join