Woman Shoots Husband to Protect Someone's Children From Puppy

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Jul 19, 2011.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Won't Someone Please Think of the Children?
    Because we all need to keep our families safe

    I know, I know. The first thing that comes to mind is a joke about the South. In this case, Mississippi. It's fun and easy to make those sorts of jokes.

    And this is one of those headlines that just, well, slays:

    Woman shoots at puppy, kills husband instead

    Right. Just let that sink in for a moment. And, no, we don't have to get all furious about the cute, little puppy. The whole thing is mind-boggling. Details are sparse at the moment, but according to the Associated Press:

    Police in Mississippi say a woman opened fire on a puppy that had threatened children, but wound up shooting and killing her husband.

    Witnesses tell police that the pit bull named "Cocaine" had lunged at some children and tried to attack them on Friday. The dead man's son says the children were taken inside and his father picked the dog up.

    It was then that police say Betty Walker fired twice, hitting the dog once and her husband once in the chest. Jackson police spokeswoman Colendula Green says the death of 53-year-old Robert Walker appears to have been accidental.

    I can't write fiction like this. Just sayin' ....

    Meanwhile, animal control is in possession of the dog, and a Hinds County grand jury has to decide whether or not to charge the shooter.


    Associated Press. "Woman shoots at puppy, kills husband instead". July 16, 2011. CBSNews.com. July 18, 2011. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/16/national/main20080085.shtml
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. superstring01 Moderator

    Puppy named Cocaine. 'Nuff said.

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    so she shot the dog while it was in her husband's arms?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    if you can charge someone with negligence in the death of someone because they forgot to wash there hands then surly you can charge someone with gross negligence for shooting at a dog which was a) not threatning anyone currently (because the children had been taken inside) and b) was in someone elses arms.
  8. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    They kill animals here all the time that aren't 'currently' threatening a person. If they attack a person, they can be put down. Preferably not while someone is holding it
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Notes Around

    Aye. One wonders how long Cocaine has to live.

    • • •​

    So it would seem.

    • • •​

    I don't disagree, despite your obsession with deadly lack of sanitation.

    However, this is Mississippi. I would say it's a coin toss whether or not the grand jury indicts. Well, okay. Hinds County is Jackson. I'll put it at 55-45%, leaning toward indictment.
  10. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    tiassa I should explain. You have posted heeps of cases like this where irrisponcible gun ownership or blantant stupidity have lead to deaths. Now i can quite easerly see someone being in a rush or distressed making a laps of omission and leading to a death. The "forgetting to wash hands" is an example i used because of the number of people here who were calling for the thoretical person to be lynched. Another example would be the pilots (forget which plane it was) who forgot to carry out a checklist because they got distracted and therefore forgot to extend there flaps and so the plane couldnt take off and it crashed (yes they wernt charged but from memory they were dead). There are heeps of other examples i could give where overlooking some critical proccess or step has lead to deaths and the person has been lynched for that.

    On the other hand firing a gun is not an act of ommission, its an action and there is no excuse for that kind of recklessness with a thing which is ONLY DESIGNED TO KILL. And yet though the lynch mob is quite happy to come out for people being distracted and forgetting something, it seems to be ok to kill in the US as long as its a gun used. It shouldnt be a coin toss as to wether this person is indited. If the guy lived the charge should be reckless endagerment, because he died it should be the equivilant of Australian manslaughter (which i think is a degree of murder in the US rather than manslaughter).

    I wonder, do people get charged with anything in the US if they kill someone with there car? (i dont mean delibratly trying to drive over your x, but rather being stupid on the roads leading to death)
  11. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    to clarify there are times when shooting someone shouldnt lead to charges, the cop who acidently shot his partner in the back in SA (i think) while in a shoot out with a suspect is definitly not responcible for the death. It was a tragity, not a crime. The same could even go for the women who acidently shots her husband who got home early from interstate thinking he was a burgler (think this one is an urban legend but *shrug*). But this doesnt fall under those cirumstances
  12. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Sadly they've already bred.....
  13. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    That is a yes . Man slaughter is typical charge for vehicular murder and if you have had D.U.I.'s associated with it from past charges and while you did the killing look out . You going to jail
    Sometimes if the circumstances are right you can get charges dropped to reckless driving

    Ban Cars there dangerous ! Driving cars is like having a loaded gun pointed at your head
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2011
  14. Bells Staff Member

    She saw an opportunity and she took it!
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    So what can I tell you, if life's the length of this play?

    Well, as long as he gets a theoretic fair trial. And counts his lucky stars he's not in China.

    I know the feeling. Adds a bit of a scary thrill back to trick-or-treating, though.

    Asguard, in the first place you're talking about the United States. The accused is entitled to a jury of her peers, and if the grand jury decides it was an "accident", she'll never actually go to trial—that will be the end of it. This is her constitutional right. Among the commentary in the first days after the Anthony acquittal was one CNN analyst who reminded that it's actually intended that it should be so hard to convict someone of a crime.

    A jury of your peers in Mississippi when you're trying to say you were frightened by the pit bull and not seeing things clearly when you "accidentally" shot your husband to death because you were so damn focused on the mortal threat posed by that little monster that managed to live through it anyway?

    Yeah, you're damn near a coin flip on that one.

    A King County, Washington jury? They would indict, most likely.

    Los Angeles County? An outside maybe on not indicting, depending on the specific attorney, the specific accused, the district in which the individual jurors come from; maybe someone hates blacks, or whites, or Mexicans; maybe someone hates the police or the DA's office; maybe someone has a thing for or against pit bulls specifically; maybe someone just doesn't like dogs. In a place like L.A., anything can happen.

    San Francisco County? Indict. Almost no question.

    Ada County, Idaho? 60-40% indict.

    And there are places, I'm certain, where they just wouldn't indict unless the DA could show evidence of an insurance scheme, ongoing extramarital affair, or some other bitch/slut/black-widow argument. In that case, she's likely headed to the death chamber in such counties.

    In this case, it's Hinds County, Mississippi. Indictment is by no means certain. And if she gets off, it will only go to show that there are places in this country where stupid people are better off than they would be otherwise.

Share This Page