Woman kills husband; prevents mass shooting

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.

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.

reply to post by opethPA


You're assuming that her story is true. There needs to be more to back up her story.

Smells like a set-up to me.

FlapdoodleStork
reply to post by opethPA

 

You're assuming that her story is true. There needs to be more to back up her story.

Smells like a set-up to me.

You're assuming her story is fake thus making it a setup.

All we have to go on is what is reported so that is all I can speak to and in looking at that, she was in a no win situation.

reply to post by bozzchem


This is pathetic.

Court documents suggest Gary Roberts was in a tailspin prior to his death. He had become erratic, unstable, dangerous and suicidal.

Apparently now some can suggest that you are unstable and execute you. Welcome to Stalin's dream world.

ETA - I say this because it now appears that summary execution in defense of the brownshirts is acceptable.

included in the collection were .50 caliber machine guns. A Youtube video shows you the size and power of the weapon. The army uses them to stop vehicles and shoot through brick walls.

Can't leave out the "guns that shoot through walls" bit can we. And look there's even a Youtube vid to prove how dangerous he and it are.

If I could I'd move to Antarctica.

reply to post by bozzchem


Well i feel there will be a lot more of this and now people can make up stuff of this nature and get away with it I'm not sure how to feel about it I'm glad she did it but then again how do i know she wasn't juust a jelouse wife and planted stuff to back up her story it wouldn't b hard to do

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 am 100% pro-gun ownership in America.

I also cannot find fault in what she did. Perhaps had she been trained, and a better shot, she might have shot him in a decapacitating manner instead of killing him. Perhaps she might have been able to simply hold him at bay and prevent him from accessing his other weapons.

We can shoot (pardon the pun) this full of what-ifs an I-would-a-s all we want, the fact is, we were not there. Whether you are in favor of LEO's or not, they are still living beings, and I cannot help but feel that the greater good was served here.

One way or the other, the situation is still a shame.


-SN

I think this is first degree murder. In defense of someone is not even near by? Will others with a spouse with weapons now be able to use this as a defense.

From reading the report her life wasn't in danger and therefore she cant claim self defence.

He could have changed his mind when the cops showed up, it could have played out in a number of ways.

She chose to shoot him dead instead. She committed premeditated murder and should do serious time.

reply to post by justwokeup

Her life definitely appears not to have been in danger to me either. How do we know, because she went home and waited for the police. If she were really in danger, she would have gone back after the police hauled him off.

They better check the mans body for an accurate time of death, you know, just in case she shot him and then needed a cover story. I hope his life insurance doesn't pay if he had it until they determine the full story.

She broke the law.

This is the law she should have followed.

www.ai.org...

reply to post by bozzchem


What if this very same logic was applied to a government attempting to go to war that the majority of the populace disagreed with...

reply to post by bozzchem



I don’t understand? Did this man threaten this woman? Did she claim that he threatened her?
How can anyone shoot you because they think you are going to shoot the police unless he threatened this and even if he did what right does she have to shoot him? By what law?

If he was dangerous she should have gotten out of the house and merely called the police.

If she did this she is not merely her becoming police, judge and jury--she became God!

Can you really say you prevented something just because it didn't happen?

I don't think so. No such thing as prevention really.

reply to post by opethPA


And I'm pretty comfortable with my assumption, considering the details from this story in USA Today.

Indiana man told his wife to shoot him, documents say

A marriage on the rocks, a domestic dispute, and an opportunity to capitalize on the police's paranoia about armed citizens.

The right thing for her to do would have been to leave the home, and to warn police of the situation.

Then Mr. Roberts may have been given a chance to surrender and tell his side of the story.

This is insane!!

No charges, released and no conditions that the story speaks of and none of the weapons were purchased or owned illegally, according to the story.

Everything, according to this version of the story, is completely her word and nothing else. What kind of crazy justice is this.

"Ma'am, did you kill this man?

Ya, I shot the bastard.

Why?

Oh because he said that he would shoot people.

Oh that's cool, have a nice day.

I'm not charged with anything and am not going to have to go to trail and defend myself? That's awesome! I think I heard a few more people say they were going to shoot people too. I'll see you guys later."

Seriously, that's essentially what this story is saying. And why the hell did she go to the cops if she feared for her husbands saftey and well being? Because he owned a bunch of legal weapons?

Sorry, but there is NO logic in this story at all.

She doesn't even have to go to a court of law and defend herself. They just took her word.

reply to post by bozzchem


I couldn't begin to judge this.

What if, instead of it being police officers, it was trick-or-treaters?

Would you wait for a knock on the door, and for hubby an acquaintance to shoot, before you shot?

Technically, the roll changes shouldn't change your judgement, it could only possibly change her emotional state and her motive. Lets say her intent was what she actually said it was - to stop the killing of others.

Would that change you guys mind?

No one was there, police, trick or treater or neighbor. Can one neighbor shoot another because the first said he is 'going to get the other' one day? Don't think that is going to fly.

Had this preemptive shooting not named the police, I bet she is charged.

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)

So she goes to police claiming she fears for her husbands safety and mental well-being...

She then goes home and tells this same supposedly suicidal husband that the police are coming...

Then she shoots her husband, you know, the same one she was so worried about...point blank.

All of this without any proof other than her word.

What I see in this is a woman who wanted to murder her husband. He didn't do anything illegal.

FlapdoodleStork
reply to post by opethPA

 

And I'm pretty comfortable with my assumption, considering the details from this story in USA Today.

Indiana man told his wife to shoot him, documents say

A marriage on the rocks, a domestic dispute, and an opportunity to capitalize on the police's paranoia about armed citizens.

The right thing for her to do would have been to leave the home, and to warn police of the situation.

Then Mr. Roberts may have been given a chance to surrender and tell his side of the story.

Fair enough and at this point, your assumption is as accurate or inaccurate as mine.