Citing Stand Your Ground, Jury Acquits Man Who Killed Wife’s Lover

reply to post by butcherguy

Uh, I'm married. I call it a contract.

Your wife is a lucky girl...

only one thing more useless than a cheating spouse.
that's some one who sleeps with them knowing that they are married.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Uh, I'm married. I call it a contract.

Your wife is a lucky girl...

You have no idea.

Do you have some backing to prove that marriage is not a contract?

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


I have no idea if it's consensual or not. If I dont shoot the guy I'm going to least club him with something then call the cops.

Ego has nothing to do with it. She's totally free to bail on us and go her own way if she wants. Just dont waste my time with stupid affairs. We're either on or off. No half measure bull.

If she's being harmed, or if I think she's being harmed, I'm going to do what I have to do to stop the attack.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie

a cheating spouse

there are many reasons for spouses cheating. You could be a lousy husband...you could be a wife beater...maybe you neglected her for years? It's not always black and white. What is even more disgusting is men who cheat, but consider this to be their privilege. But when his women does it...than she is a whore and must be punished.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

If she's being harmed, or if I think she's being harmed, I'm going to do what I have to do to stop the attack.

of course you will. I have no problem with that. But the point is...he didn't know if it was consentual...he didn't even want to find out. He just shot the guy...and what's more...could have killed her too.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Walk me through it. You walk in on some guy on top of your daughter, wife, mother, son, whatever. You dont know anyone is there. You arent expecting anyone to be there.

How do you go about diagnosing the situation?

How about in a parking lot? The backyard?

All you know is there is someone you care about underneath an unidentified human form and you have no reasonable expectation that this event could be or should be conspiring.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

a cheating spouse

there are many reasons for spouses cheating. You could be a lousy husband...you could be a wife beater...maybe you neglected her for years? It's not always black and white. What is even more disgusting is men who cheat, but consider this to be their privilege. But when his women does it...than she is a whore and must be punished.

did you notice my keywords spouse, and someone. no where did i say woman or man.

the woman / man enter into the bond, women should keep their knees together and men should keep their pants zipped before they sleep around.

and women are just as bad if not worse than men . women can be lousy wives, or could be a husband beater, and yes they are some, maybe she neglected him for years. and women cheat just as much as men and try and play the poor ol pittful me, my husband is just a piece of crap.

women can't keep on crying, i want to be treated fair, but not be blamed for any of the things i do.



ETA: and none of the above that you or i mentioned is a good reason to cheat. if you want some strange, get a divorce, or better yet don't even get married.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Got to be honest and tell you if I came home from work and there was a man on top of my wife I'd definitely shoot first.

Jesus all mighty...so...if you find someone on top of your wife in your own house...the first instinct is to shoot on the spot, because she is most likely being..."attacked"??? Really...that is the most likely scenario??

My God...

Actually, yes. Most people would think that their spouse would never cheat so that is a reasonable first reaction to the situation.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

Walk me through it. You walk in on some guy on top of your daughter, wife, mother, son, whatever. You dont know anyone is there. You arent expecting anyone to be there.

How do you go about diagnosing the situation?

How about in a parking lot? The backyard?

All you know is there is someone you care about underneath an unidentified human form and you have no reasonable expectation that this event could be or should be conspiring.

that's really dependant on the sole situation and the environment. My first reaction would be to yell loudly to get the attention of whoever is there...and than act according to reaction to my shouting. I certainly wouldn't start shooting without knowing what is going on. That sounds dumb to me....and how tragedies happen. People acting without thinking.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

People acting without thinking.

That would fall upon the guy doing the raping.

You reap what you sow.

He was in the shooters home, screwing his wife and he knew she was married .

So I gotta tell you I think he got what he deserved.. Jesus at least go to your firkin house or a hotel

I mean what do you think is gonna happen if the husband walks in on you screwing his wife?

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


So essentially "it depends."

Doesnt every situation?

Seriously, do you, and Ivan, honestly believe that the only reaction a gun owning person could or would have is to go uncontrolled Yosemite Sam in the room?

Because if we both agree every action is dependent on a situation then what are we even going on about?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

So essentially "it depends."

Doesnt every situation?

Seriously, do you, and Ivan, honestly believe that the only reaction a gun owning person could or would have is to go uncontrolled Yosemite Sam in the room?

Because if we both agree every action is dependent on a situation then what are we even going on about?

Simple projection. People who deep inside know they could not or would not behave in a reasonable and logical manner with a gun assume that everyone is like them.

When you REALLY love somebody, you want what is best for them, not what pleases you. If this man who could not please his wife in bed had really loved her, then he would have been happy that she was happy. Any person who professes to be in love with somebody would also joyfully give them a divorce, if that was their desire.

Obviously none of us red the link in the OP...I just did it.

Prosecutors argued that Wald, who suffered from erectile dysfunction, killed Conley in a jealous rage, pointing out that Wald used the word “fornicate” in reports to police, and never the word “rape.” To acquit Wald under the state’s Stand Your Ground law, Wald had to prove only that he believed his wife was being raped. It doesn’t matter that he shot immediately without taking time to assess the situation, nor that he could have likely taken other measures short of firing three shots into Conley’s head and back. Stand Your Ground laws authorize the unfettered use of deadly force where someone fears assault, without even a duty to first attempt to retreat.

Basically, guy couldn't get it up anymore, and a woman still desired sex. He killed the guy execution style...two in the back, one in the head, in a jealous rage ('Nam vet, surely knows how to handle a gun). Guilty as sin. Police report noted "fornicate". Later took on "I thought she was being raped" defense to beat the charge.


Case closed. This is so Hollywood.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

So essentially "it depends."

Doesnt every situation?

Seriously, do you, and Ivan, honestly believe that the only reaction a gun owning person could or would have is to go uncontrolled Yosemite Sam in the room?

Because if we both agree every action is dependent on a situation then what are we even going on about?

Simple projection. People who deep inside know they could not or would not behave in a reasonable and logical manner with a gun assume that everyone is like them.

I'm sorry...but I didn't understand your post. Could you explain? English is not my first language so I'm not sure I get what you're saying.

thanks

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


same as post above. Please explain. Now I'm not sure what you are saying...can you surmise?

thanks

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
Obviously none of us red the link in the OP...I just did it.

Prosecutors argued that Wald, who suffered from erectile dysfunction, killed Conley in a jealous rage, pointing out that Wald used the word “fornicate” in reports to police, and never the word “rape.” To acquit Wald under the state’s Stand Your Ground law, Wald had to prove only that he believed his wife was being raped. It doesn’t matter that he shot immediately without taking time to assess the situation, nor that he could have likely taken other measures short of firing three shots into Conley’s head and back. Stand Your Ground laws authorize the unfettered use of deadly force where someone fears assault, without even a duty to first attempt to retreat.

Basically, guy couldn't get it up anymore, and a woman still desired sex. He killed the guy execution style...two in the back, one in the head, in a jealous rage ('Nam vet, surely knows how to handle a gun). Guilty as sin. Police report noted "fornicate". Later took on "I thought she was being raped" defense to beat the charge.


Case closed. This is so Hollywood.

That is not how our judicial system works. The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the man acted outside the law. Just because their arguement was that he was jealous of his wife's lover and killed him because "he couldn't get it up" neither proves that this was in fact the truth nor indicates that the jury believed them. The prosecution failed to make their case.

reply to post by NavyDoc

That is not how our judicial system works. The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the man acted outside the law. Just because their arguement was that he was jealous of his wife's lover and killed him because "he couldn't get it up" neither proves that this was in fact the truth nor indicates that the jury believed them. The prosecution failed to make their case.

Of course...there is always that angle, but for the fact that we know that law doesn't always care for the truth, but is often hindered with technicalities (that are there for a reason I'm sure). Never the less, we respect court decisions, even if they aren't always about justice.