Prosecutors: Wife Responsible For Lover's Death At Hands Of Hus...

[just candid]

I bet her husband gets a harsher and longer sentence than she did

[Madd Citizen]

just candid wrote:

I think there is a possibility the lover did not know she was married. All she had to do was remove her ring.

Yes, he knew she was married just like she knew he was. No one is totally innocent here. They all did something wrong and they are all paying the price. Some more than others but they are paying it.

[Madd Citizen]

just candid wrote:

I bet her husband gets a harsher and longer sentence than she did

Do you know the story...I mean really. The grand jury didn't think he should go to trial for murder. He's free

[just candid]

Madd Citizen wrote:

<quoted text> Do you know the story...I mean really. The grand jury didn't think he should go to trial for murder. He's free

This has not been reported by the gender biased media here. Iread what was reported at the link to the story. I am kind of amazed, seeing as the prosecutors here in Nashville would have saught a life sentence or the death penalty for the husband. Do you mean there are prosecutors that are not thirsty for a msn'ds blood?

[Madd Citizen]

just candid wrote:

<quoted text>This has not been reported by the gender biased media here. Iread what was reported at the link to the story. I am kind of amazed, seeing as the prosecutors here in Nashville would have saught a life sentence or the death penalty for the husband. Do you mean there are prosecutors that are not thirsty for a msn'ds blood?

I'm sure there are but if the grand jury declines to indict him.....he's free. It would never be a death penalty case here in Texas. Those are reserves for rapist/murders, robbery/murders and flat out henious murders just because. The grand jury didn't see this as one of those. Just a husband trying to protect his wife (as he put it). There is too much evidence that shows otherwise. They are calling it an act of "rage" and that is somehow good enough to get him off.

[just candid]

It would not work here. Even if the man was defending himself, he would be jailed and the case sent to the grand jury who would more than likely indict him for murder. The laws here are crazy

[smoove102]

This is the problem with our justice sysytem. This woman should have been sentenced to the full twenty years for what she did,it seems that the only one suffering for this mess is the dead lover and his family ... Situations like this make you want to give-up on our system...

[just candid]

True. If the husband had shot her, he WOULD be looking at a long prison sentence, and the possibility of execution under state domestic violence/abuse laws that are based on the VAWA ( violence against women act)

[just candid]

Read the VAWA.http://en.wikipedia.org/w iki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

[just candid]

This sexist law hurts women and men. Women, imagine your dad,husband, brother or, any other male loved one you know and imagine them having to face false rape or assault charges and looking at going to prison for years or decades all because a woman simply accused them of such

[just candid]

The standard of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but merely "a preponderance of the evidence"

[just candid]

Here prosecutors believe the unjust punishment of innocent citizens is inconsequential so long as the guilty do not escape

[Drea]

I followed this case throughout the trial. No one will ever know the full story unless they were there. I think the husband should have shouldered some of the blame for the guys death. If I had been on the jury, I would have give her probation. Until you have experienced unbelievable passion you will never understand why people cheat. From what I understand the husband saw them and knew she wasn't being raped, her trying to keep from being shot by yelling rape, just gave him the excuse he needed to kill the guy and get off.

[just candid]

How did he know she was not being raped? You would have gave her probation? Let me guess, you would have given the husband the death penalty?

[just candid]

Madd Citizen wrote:

<quoted text> Do you know the story...I mean really. The grand jury didn't think he should go to trial for murder. He's free

They were going by what evidence was presented to them, right?

[just candid]

Just like they go by what evidence is presented to them in cases where the man is being falsely accused?

[Tiff]

Her husband was just defending her, he had every right to shoot, it's not his fault he trusted his slut of a wife. She'll get hers.

[Sam]

The grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if the police or the prosecutors told them it didn't have enought mayonaisse on it.

[Sam]

just candid wrote:

This sexist law hurts women and men. Women, imagine your dad,husband, brother or, any other male loved one you know and imagine them having to face false rape or assault charges and looking at going to prison for years or decades all because a woman simply accused them of such

This is because of feminist jurisprudence. Here is some info on jurisprudence.Jurisprudence is the theory and philosophy of law. Scholars of jurisprudence, or legal philosophers, hope to obtain a deeper understanding of the nature of law, of legal reasoning, legal systems and of legal institutions. As jurisprudence has developed, there are three main aspects with which scholarly writing engages:

Natural law
The idea that there are unchangeable laws of nature which govern us, and that our institutions should try to match this natural law.
Analytic jurisprudence
Asking questions like, "What is law?" "What are the criteria for legal validity?" or "What is the relationship between law and morality?" and other such questions that legal philosophers may engage.
Normative jurisprudence
Asking what law ought to be. It overlaps with moral and political philosophy, and includes questions of whether one ought to obey the law, on what grounds law-breakers might properly be punished, the proper uses and limits of regulation, how judges ought to decide cases.
Modern jurisprudence and philosophy of law is dominated today primarily by Western academics. The ideas of the Western legal tradition have become so pervasive throughout the world that it is tempting to see them as universal. Historically, however, many philosophers from other traditions have discussed the same questions, from Islamic scholars to the ancient Greeks.
Feminists love the normative jurisprudence, they have been telling judges how they ought to decide cases. Especially cases of domestic violence and domestic abuse. The courts are easier on women and harsher on men because of this; reference the name Mary Winkler who shot her sleeping husband in the back and because she used the "abuse excuse", she only got charged with voluntary manslaughter in stead of murder, as Matthew Winkler would have been if she shot her while she was sleeping.

[Sara]

Commenting on what has been shown by the media, I would have to say that this tramp should be sent to prison for the maximum sentence of 20 years. Come on now the husband knew what he left at home (hoe), he knew any decent woman would not answer the door in just a robe when a strange man in knocking. And if she was getting raped someone would have heard her screams or her kids would have heard her getting dragged out of the house and into the truck. She is a disgusting piece of **** and her and her husband deserve everything that comes their way!