herenow1

Her defense attorney tried arguing that her husband started shooting BEFORE she cried rape, but I don't buy it.

Do you feel her sentence was "Harsh", or just about right?

An Arlington woman who caused her lover's shooting death by falsely crying rape was found guilty Friday of involuntary manslaughter.

Tracy Denise Roberson, 37, cried slightly when the verdict was announced after jurors had deliberated for more than a day. 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 was driving off, killing him.

Darrell Roberson initially was arrested, but the murder charge later was 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.

FOXNews.com - Woman Who Falsely Cried Rape Convicted of Manslaughter - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Kandahar

I don't think it's too harsh that she was convicted of this crime for what she did. But since it was a "heat of the moment" type of thing, I hope her sentence is toward the lower end of that range. After all, it wasn't her hand on the trigger and she probably didn't expect her husband to shoot the guy.

3-5 years in prison seems appropriate.

__________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams

rathi

This is an extreme sentence. Reasonably speaking, the only thing she is guilty of is conspiracy to commit battery. Claiming rape in that situation would have reasonably made her husband physically attack her lover given the circumstances. However, she could not have known that he husband would grab a gun and kill the man. Making that kind of claim in that situation would reasonably cause physical violence, but not death.

Second of all, how the hell did her husband escape prosecution? He is guilty of second degree murder and the charges were dropped? He killed an innocent man who was trying to drive away. His only reasoning were that his wife claimed to have been raped, which even if it were hypothetically true, would not have given him the justification to kill the man. Although it clearly was in the heat of the moment, he murdered an innocent man using completely unreasonable amounts of force.

The defense was correct in that she would not guilty of murder (thats not to say wasn't guilty of other charges) and that the true fault lies in her husbands inability to control his anger. There is a damn good reason why we don't allow vigilantism, and this is precisely the kinds of results in can bring.

What justification did the court use to drop the charges?

__________________
He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an axe into somebody's face.

unbekannte

According to the news reports, When Darrell Roberson found his wife in the truck nearly naked with a strange man, she cried rape. After she cried rape, the man tried to drive off with her still in the truck. Darrell Roberson had grounds to believe his wife was being abducted. The court did not drop the charges. A grand jury did not indict him. When a woman is raped, then abducted, usually the next occurrence is that she is killed. The Grand Jury believed that this was not an act of vigilantism but that Darrell Roberson had justification to believe his wife was in mortal danger.

Tracy Roberson was involved in an adulterous affair with another man. She invited her lover to her house for a tryst. When discovered in a compromising situation with her lover, she tried to cover her improprieties by falsely accusing her lover of raping her. Her lover is dead solely because of her machinations. Let's cut this hypocrisy that a cuckolded husband must be blamed for the despicable acts of his adulterous wife.

1069

I agree with most of what you said (so I thanked your post), but honestly if I walked into a room and saw some guy on top of somebody I cared about, and my loved one screamed, "Help! Rape!"... I'd try to defend them. I'd try to defend their life.
If I ended up killing the alleged assailant in the process, it wouldn't be because I couldn't control my temper. If it turned out my family member had lied and wasn't being raped after all, it would still be an honest mistake. It would be because I had believed that person was sexually attacking my family member, and might kill them.
I think one has the right to use lethal force to defend a family member against sexual assault, or to end a sexual assault.

Do you think rape victims who manage to kill their attackers during the assault and escape are guilty of vigilanteism and ought to be arrested for murder?

Now, no, a husband doesn't have a right to hunt down the alleged rapist after the fact and kill him in revenge... but to stop a rape in progress?
I would think anybody would have the right to act to stop a rape in progress, even if their action resulted in the death of the attacker.

__________________
"Almost nobody dances sober, unless they happen to be insane."
~ HP Lovecraft

rathi

Can you source this? The fox article didn't mention that rather crucial bit of information.

Of course, thats allowed by law. However, I was under the impression that the guy was trying to drive away in his truck alone. Shooting someone in defense does not involve shooting a man trying to flee.

It seems the real question is what the true circumstances of the case were. I inferred from the articles wording and the general idea that you don't shoot a car with your wife in it, that the other man was alone in the vehicle. However, I have nothing solid to back it up and could certainly be wrong. I will try and find more details about the specifics.

__________________
He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an axe into somebody's face.

rathi

Star-Telegram.com: | 04/29/2008 | Jurors hear 911 call in Arlington manslaughter case

This accurately explains the story. I was wrong, the wife was in the car as the la salle attempted to drive off. Given the circumstances, the husband believed he was protecting his wife. If she knew he was carrying a gun, its quite reasonable to charge her with manslaughter. I wish the fox article hadn't omitted that rather crucial detail.

__________________
He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an axe into somebody's face.

CaptainCourtesy

The woman should be prosecuted and sentenced to the full extent of the law. Not only did her false cry of rape directly lead to her lover's death, but false rape accusations can make it more difficult to believe those who have really been raped, especially when a case gets media exposure.

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

Kandahar

Well, I think there's a distinction to be drawn between making a split-second decision to cry rape when caught in a bad situation, and maliciously going to the police and falsely accusing someone of rape. And by the time this case received media exposure, there wasn't really any doubt that she had not been raped.

So yes, she should be convicted of involuntary manslaughter. But I wouldn't say to the "full extent of the law" (meaning the maximum penalty), because she didn't personally kill him and she had no way of knowing that it would result in his death.

__________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams

CaptainCourtesy

I agree that there is a distinction between the split-second decision and malicious intent, but, as the second article that rathi posted showed, there was a direct connection between what she did and what happened. Her husband, with the information he had, was attempting to prevent her from being abducted, and, appropriately, was not prosecuted. The situation, seems to me, to match the criteria for involuntary manslaughter which is of what she was convicted. Whatever the sentence for that is, should be the sentence levied, IMO. And since she met the criteria, pulling the trigger or not, I have no problem with the maximum penalty being levied.

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D