ForumGarden

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) -- A Texas woman who caused her lover's shooting death by falsely crying rape was convicted Friday of involuntary manslaughter.

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.

During her three-day trial, defense attorneys called no witnesses but blamed LaSalle's death on Darrell Roberson's jealousy and rage.

But prosecutors placed all the blame on Tracy Roberson, showing evidence of the affair with LaSalle, 32, and a text message in which she invited him to her house that evening.

waaaaaaait a minute, so the husband/shooter/killer gets off completely? That's nuts! Something tells me he'd have shot at that guy whether she cried rape or not, but that's not the matter here.........yeah, i agree she should serve time for instigating it, but no way should jealous hubby walk.

Redtail;855310 wrote: waaaaaaait a minute, so the husband/shooter/killer gets off completely? That's nuts! Something tells me he'd have shot at that guy whether she cried rape or not, but that's not the matter here.........yeah, i agree she should serve time for instigating it, but no way should jealous hubby walk.


agreed!!

The punishment for adultery is NOT death. The murderer was whoever pulled the trigger, although shes not entirely blameless in provoking a situation. Bloody hell.

Why was he carrying a gun anyway?

I can understand if someone kills someone else in self defense, but firing 4 shots in the back of someones head as they drive away is cold and premediated even if he was pissed off at him

I want the name of his lawyer ................ You never know when it might come in handy.

Accountable;855336 wrote: I want the name of his lawyer ................ You never know when it might come in handy.


I think it's the same lawyer who got me off on a dui that i was guilty as hell for. :-3

I'm pretty sure the article says she didn't call any witnesses. That being the case, we can no more assume he was simply a 'jealous' husband taking his anger out on someone in a fatal manner - then we could assume he was a 'purple' husband. There was no evidence presented of either of those possibilities so far as I can see here.

I have no problem with rapist getting shot for their efforts. At the same time, I have even less problem with folks that call 'rape' falsely getting shot.

Redtail;855342 wrote: got me off on a dui


What's a 'dui' ???

Joe;855462 wrote: What's a 'dui' ???
Driving Under the Influence of alcohol



Drunk Driving

Thanks, Accountable.

suzy_creamcheese;855327 wrote: agreed!!

The punishment for adultery is NOT death. The murderer was whoever pulled the trigger, although shes not entirely blameless in provoking a situation. Bloody hell.

Why was he carrying a gun anyway?

I can understand if someone kills someone else in self defense, but firing 4 shots in the back of someones head as they drive away is cold and premediated even if he was pissed off at him


Because over here, a lot of people carry a gun with them .... but don't get me started on that one

suzy_creamcheese;855327 wrote: agreed!!

The punishment for adultery is NOT death. The murderer was whoever pulled the trigger, although shes not entirely blameless in provoking a situation. Bloody hell.

Why was he carrying a gun anyway?

I can understand if someone kills someone else in self defense, but firing 4 shots in the back of someones head as they drive away is cold and premediated even if he was pissed off at him


I don't think so, Suzy. He thought the guy had just violated his wife, he was protecting her and I think he had every right to shoot the guy under that pretense. That was defense of his wife. I think what's colder than shooting him is the wrench in his gut when he found out his slut wife was cheating on him. He should have shot her too. Damn, I hate infidels.

RedGlitter;856123 wrote: I don't think so, Suzy. He thought the guy had just violated his wife, he was protecting her and I think he had every right to shoot the guy under that pretense. That was defense of his wife. I think what's colder than shooting him is the wrench in his gut when he found out his slut wife was cheating on him. He should have shot her too. Damn, I hate infidels.


:eek: I know what they were doing was wrong but I thinks that's very harsh.

DEATH TO THE INFIDELS!!

Accountable;856331 wrote:

DEATH TO THE INFIDELS!!


"SILENCE! I KILL YOU!":wah: :wah: :wah:

That puppet's a hoot.

It's called adultery which is actually illegal in many places but rarely if ever acted upon. As I said before, the guy *thought* his wife was being raped- under that pretense all bets are off. It took me a little time to come to this but I do feel the wife helped him pull that trigger. And it wasn't just "a man having sex with a woman" it was a woman breaking her vows she made presumably to God toward her man. Call me archaic or what have you but i don't take that stuff lightly.

I realize we're not going to shoot everybody who does that or we'd be in population decline but my feeling is that the husband did right, only under false pretense. That's the kicker as I see it. he was protecting her and she pretty much ruined his life.

fuzzy butt;856552 wrote: Ummm call me a little more opened minded here but forget how he found her and foget that she cried rape.

He shot a man in the back ........no trial just the death penalty.

and for a husband to shoot someone in the back I'm wondering what kind of life that woman led?

So men are shot now for having sex with women?

the story doesn't make any sense. so women have to go to jail now because they have affairs? That just stupid, and very archaic.


Here's my problem with your logic. If I am to forget how he found her- forget she was crying rape- then I might just as well forget he shot the guy.

If he walked up to the guy in a bar and accused him of having sex with his wife and then shot him, okay i can see your argument. But you are factoring in a jealous rage, where there was no evidence that he was in a jealous rage at the time of the shooting.

Shooting someone you believe is fleeing the scene of a crime against your wife? If that man had broken in and raped the mans wife and he came upon it.... never would have convicted him, IMO. The fact that she lied, yep - nail her hide to the wall.

RedGlitter;856586 wrote: I realize we're not going to shoot everybody who does that or we'd be in population decline .




:wah:

Jester;857024 wrote: With the evidence presented in this thread I'd have convicted the shooter of murder... and not charged the woman under any law, sorry but there is no law of being an adulterer in the US except maybe divorce which is a civil and not criminal matter, but the shooter in this case fired as the suspected rapist was driving away, that is not self defense. The woman was a contributor to the mans death, but I dont know of a law that would make her an accomplice under those circumstances.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... ill31.html

....Assistant District Attorney Sean Colston declined to comment on specifics of the case or the grand-jury proceedings but said 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."

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

......When Darrell Roberson, 38, who works at a real-estate firm, arrived home, he saw his wife, clad in a robe and underwear, with a man in a Chevrolet pickup, police said.



When Tracy Roberson cried that she was being raped, LaSalle tried to drive away and Darrell Roberson drew the gun he was carrying and fired several shots at the truck, authorities said.

-----------------------------------------

there ya go..

Well I think it is a gun issue. Had the husband not had the gun so readily available, then (it is more likely) that this would have been resolved as it should of been done - by people how are trained in finding out the truth, oh and the divorce courts It is a gun issue!

rjwould;857115 wrote: Its disturbing to me because there had to be other activity that is yet to be revealed.

For instance, when the husband saw the two in the truck and the wife began yelling rape. Surely, the driver must have protested her accusations as she was leaving the vehicle. He then had to take the time to start the truck, engage the transmission and perhaps begin backing out of the driveway.

The person responsible in my view is the licensed gun owner who has the onus to be sure of what is happening before deciding on any action which could result in death. It is assumed that he would surely be the clearest thinking individual involved as he is the person permitted to carry and use the gun.

I wonder if the dead guy also had a gun and chose to leave rather than use the weapon.


Maybe we could also wonder if the wife was perhaps still in the truck? Maybe hubby thought she was being abducted? Maybe he was simply firing to disable the truck and a bullet veered tragically off course. Maybe a million other possible scenarios, who the heck knows. A jury listened to the evidence. I'm sure we all are missing a detail or two here.

I don't own a gun. But I certainly would not assume that anyone standing in front of me holding a gun is -by nature of being permitted to carry said gun- the clearest thinking individual involved in the confrontation with me.

Jester;857185 wrote: Nope, he had alegal right to carry a weapon, hence no chrage for using the gun illegally.



Its not a gun issue.

It's his fullright to kill to defend his family, no matter how slutty they are.


Ahhh we talked on slightly different paths I don't think he should own a gun legally or illegally. I also don't think he has the right to anothers life, or pass judgment.

Also he wasn't defending his family, the man was trying to leave.

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) -- A Texas woman who caused her lover's shooting death by falsely crying rape was convicted Friday of involuntary manslaughter.

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.

During her three-day trial, defense attorneys called no witnesses but blamed LaSalle's death on Darrell Roberson's jealousy and rage.

But prosecutors placed all the blame on Tracy Roberson, showing evidence of the affair with LaSalle, 32, and a text message in which she invited him to her house that evening.



Firstly she lied about the rape and was just having an affair and panicked when hubby came home. Poor bloke had no chance, a man with a gun and a liar, he had no bloody chance. They should both stand trial.

Feel sorry for the next bloke who pisses him off, the last got 4 bullets in him.

Jester;857214 wrote: I may agree with you on the last part, but if she was still in the car, or he tried to take off while she was in the car, he's totally justifed in shooting.

On the first part, I will never agree with you.


:wah: I know so its probably best not to go there, as I think I have seen that debate somewhere here before.

Can I have last word Ban guns

Jester;857214 wrote: I may agree with you on the last part, but if she was still in the car, or he tried to take off while she was in the car, he's totally justifed in shooting.

On the first part, I will never agree with you.


I have to disagree, no way is he totally justified in shooting another person, especially under these circumstances...

Take a look at the top 3 stories from a local news channel

http://www.wfmz.com/

Jester;857291 wrote: Your point?


I think the point is that cars are dangerous and need to be outlawed...

http://wfmz.com/view/?id=261935&title=C ... %20Crashes

Car Runs over Foot of Officer, Chased, Crashes

A routine traffic stop turned into a chase that ended with an accident in front of a popular restaurant in Berks County. It started around midnight when police say officers pulled over a car carrying three people on Route 222 in Cumru Township. Police say the driver took off and drove over an officer's foot in the process. He is expected to be okay. Police say they chased the car until it crashed in front of the GNA Restaurant on Penn Avenue in West Reading. Police say the three people inside the car got out and ran off. Police say they caught up to the driver and placed him under arrest. The two others in the car are still at large.

Jester;857291 wrote: Your point?


I guess Pheasys point was , she said take a look at the top 3 stories, all our murders, I guess she was agree'ing with your total ban on guns idea Jester.

Jester;857347 wrote: I think her point was that the top two of three stories involved guns. I have no problem with that.

Its not our use of Guns that makes them dangerous, its our failure to properly sentence criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime. Use a gun and be gunned down, is my phiolosophy... Use a gun and go to jail? for what? so you can learn how to use a gun and not get caught from other hardened criminals? I dont think so.

Kill the criminals and you wont have criminals.


So you dont see the killer of the criminals as "criminals"? What divides them if its done your way?

Jester;857369 wrote: Im sure I'm the bad guy to you and Spot.


Are you grinning right this minute??:D

Back to point:

This womans husband works in a real estate office according to the report I read. White collar worker, off gambling for the weekend with the guys. Calls home and can't reach the wife..19 calls... finally gets daughter.. the rest is history.

What's troubling to me is the number of false accusation stories that popped up when I was goggling to find info on this one. As a woman, I really hope that these women are made an example of. Every time these stories surface, the next real victim is less likely to be believed.

btw- is that the correct spelling of goggle- ing? lol someone find spot for me...

You scare me Jester ... I hope I never get mistakingly taken for someone who has committed a crime against you.

Does god share you views on this?

flopstock;857376 wrote: Are you grinning right this minute??:D

Back to point:

This womans husband works in a real estate office according to the report I read. White collar worker, off gambling for the weekend with the guys. Calls home and can't reach the wife..19 calls... finally gets daughter.. the rest is history.

What's troubling to me is the number of false accusation stories that popped up when I was goggling to find info on this one. As a woman, I really hope that these women are made an example of. Every time these stories surface, the next real victim is less likely to be believed.

btw- is that the correct spelling of goggle- ing? lol someone find spot for me...


hah hah I think the guy who got shot was goggle'ing....you where googling:-6

Jester;857024 wrote: With the evidence presented in this thread I'd have convicted the shooter of murder... and not charged the woman under any law, sorry but there is no law of being an adulterer in the US except maybe divorce which is a civil and not criminal matter, but the shooter in this case fired as the suspected rapist was driving away, that is not self defense. The woman was a contributor to the mans death, but I dont know of a law that would make her an accomplice under those circumstances.


Not to nitpick and you can let me know if I'm mistaken, but many of our states still have laws on the books against adultery. North Dakota was one until recently and if I'm not mistaken so is my state of AZ. And I also came across some information stating that in military law, under the military's Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) it is a felony offense that can result in a maximum punishment of 1 year in jail and a dishonorable discharge. Under Article 134 of the UCMJ. Is that accurate, Jester?

As for the states themselves, like a lot of other sexual situations (sodomy, oral, anal, bestiality, etc) the laws are old and rarely enforced.