What a crazy situation:

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 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 was arrested, but a murder charge was dropped, and a grand jury indicted Tracy Roberson instead.

The wife has been convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and faces between 2 and 20 years in gaol.

Presumably when the charges were dropped against the husband this means that the prosecutors thought it was reasonable for him to unload four shots into the back of an alleged rapist? While it may be understandable to wish to kill someone whom you suspect raped your partner, surely this kind of vigilante behaviour should not be condoned.

If the wife knew that her husband carried a gun and was likely to shoot at a rapist, she should not have cried “rape”, because she ought to have known that would endanger the life of her lover. I presume it was just a spur-of-the moment decision made in horror when she saw her husband arrive home: no thought went into it at all.

However, the decision to drop charges against the husband but proceed against the wife reflects a sexist desire to blame the promiscuous and faithless wife, and condones the husband’s thoughtless act of violence. Presumably, he, too, acted without thought, but his behaviour was also unreasonable. I think that the husband also bears equal responsibility. In my opinion, you can’t just shoot and kill someone like that. It may lead to the death of an innocent man (as it did in this case). There’s no place in society for that kind of behaviour. Hmm, well, it appears maybe there is, if you’re in Texas.

(Via Jonestown)