Usually "adequate provocation in the heat of passion" is the reason for reducing a murder charge to a manslaughter charge. It doesn't mean "oh, okay, I guess you were right to shoot the guy in the head." Sheesh.

As for the woman facing a ranting mad & jealous husband, who happens to be brandishing a loaded gun and frothing at the mouth, pointing to the lover and saying "he raped me!" is pretty much the same as firing the loaded weapon yourself.

That doesn't mean that the husband wasn't guilty, but the wife was guilty as hell, too. She took a frothing pissed off, hell bore for murder madman, and directed his anger at the only innocent person on the scene. If she didn't know for sure that he'd get murdered, she should have known, and she at least acted with extreme indifference to her lover's life.

They both should definitely have been charged with manslaughter. A person was killed, and both the husband and wife contributed to that. Other than that, it would be unwise for people to draw larger conclusions without a full viewing of all the evidence. There is much more to this story, I'm sure, than what was presented here.

I don't believe the story. I think the husband shot the lover and the woman made up the "I said 'he raped me'" tale to protect the husband. His rant at the time makes more sense in that context.

...I also agree that that's at least manslaughter on the man's part.

I'm more sympathetic to the woman. If her story is true (and I don't even think it is) then she said it to protect her own life. Clearly a mortal threat was involved!

She took a frothing pissed off, hell bore for murder madman, and directed his anger at the only innocent person on the scene.

You can argue relative guilt all you please. But there were no innocent persons on the scene.

"I'm more sympathetic to the woman. If her story is true (and I don't even think it is) then she said it to protect her own life. Clearly a mortal threat was involved!"

Even if the woman did feel a mortal threat that does not meam she is justified and directing that threat to another party. That act would negate any self defense claim since her actions deliberately put someone else's life in mortal danger.

Yada yada, I agree with everyone who's posted here so far. The dead man, who wasn't married to the liar or the murderer, came the closest to being blameless. I guess I just don't think sleeping with someone's wife is a good enough reason to get shot in the head. And I guess I don't think it's ever okay to pretend that your consensual lover is a rapist. If I believe the woman was afraid for her life, it's understandable, at least, but not right. This is why I don't date violent assholes! Or cheat! Jesus.

Looks like she was trying to clear up all her problems at once: dump the now ex lover who's idea of a date was a quick hump in the truck, and send the hubby away for a long time for killing him. That is horseradish-bitter karma, ain't it?

what about the small child all alone in the house? that's at least a child neglect charge on the wife.

but yeah, I do think it's a revenge against Potiphar's wife kinda thing (it's biblical, look it up).

In the article, McEwan says "Of course the argument is that he never would have pulled that trigger without her lie, but why does that mean he should be exempt from punishment? If she had been telling the truth, and he had killed an actual rapist, it's still wrong."

Nonsense! If you catch someone raping your wife, and you got a shotgun, you gotta show the rapist you got it! Otherwise, the rapist could 1)charge at you and chop you to pieces or 2)run away and live another day to rape another person

It doesn't mean you shoot right away, but even if you do, the rapist should've seen it coming! Some call it viligante justice - I call it real justice! If more rapist know that they could get shot, they would think twice!

Sometimes you gotta threaten the bad ones. We wish it isn't that way, but it is that way!

... if I saw my wife actually being raped, you're damn right I'd kill the guy doing it. Is there anyone who seriously believes I should go to prison for that?

Rapists get their way because they make physical threats, up to and including death, if they don't get their way. Just as with anyone who threatens to kill, it doesn't bother me much that they die. If you threaten other people, you have to expect the same in return.

I am not talking eye for an eye here. but if someone makes a credible threat to kill someone else, as far as I can see it doesn't make much difference which one dies, there will still be one dead body, and I'd rather it were the one who broke society's rules first by making the first physical threat. This applies to robbers who wave or even claim to have a gun or knife.

So no, rapists dying doesn't bother me.

It's an entirely different question as to who set up whom. But to say it is wrong for rapists to die, well, you lost me, and it puts the rest of your article in dispute too.

While I don't endorse shooting anyone if it can be avoided, I certainly don't think anybody should go to prison for killing a man who's in the process of raping his wife -- and I'm astounded that Melissa McEwan apparently does.

Of course, this is entirely hypothetical, since there was no rape in progress here.

... if I saw my wife actually being raped, you're damn right I'd kill the guy doing it. Is there anyone who seriously believes I should go to prison for that?

Probably not. But not certainly.

For a jury to decide justly, it would be necessary to hear all the evidence in the case, including the full background story and the exact circumstances. No telling what sort of Gotcha might wait to be revealed, or what character witnesses might say.

It would also be necessary to hear the arguments on both sides, and to heed the instructions of the court, and to consider the opinions of other jurors.

Depending on the circumstances a juror might be inclined to beg the indulgence of the court and ask questions also.

If the case is as black-and-white as it would seem here, no, probably not. Reasonable doubt seems likely to prevail.

One never really knows. Does one?