Husband kills gun show host after catching him with wife

[Judi Lynn]

Source: The Age (Australia)

Husband kills gun show host after catching him with wife
Date March 9, 2013 - 11:25AM

A US man has shot and killed the host of a TV program about shooting - while the host was visiting his wife.

Police say 41-year-old Wayne Bengston then beat his wife, took his two-year-old son to a relative’s house and drove to his home about 40 kilometres away, where he apparently killed himself.

The victim was 43-year-old Gregory G. Rodriguez, host of the Sportsman Channel show A Rifleman’s Journal.

"It's pretty much an open-and-closed case. Homicide and suicide," US police said


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/husband-kills-gun-show-host-after-catching-him-with-wife-20130309-2fs0o.html#ixzz2N0B7W8B0

[Judi Lynn]

1. Clearly, it appears he may have jumped the gun. n/t

[mindwalker_i]

36. Hey, that's the kind of comment I would make

I'm suing for copyright violations.

You just think you're a barrel of laughs.

[brush]

44. If you live by the gun you die by the gun

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

[Heather MC]

69. heyyy i just said that

[ZombieHorde]

2. Sad. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Guns are shit multipliers.

Any shit that happens is multiplied many times if guns are available.

[Arctic Dave]

4. It seems he was using the wrong gun.

Sorry for the kid.

[pscot]

5. DUzy

[MrSlayer]

6. I always find it curious that one would kill the guy.

It's the wife's fault. Unless he was a friend or someone else that should know better, why blame the guy?

He could have killed them both and went with the crime of passion excuse. Dumb to kill yourself.

Bad all around.

[longship]

8. Wife's fault?

I think you have her confused with the murderer with a gun.

[Orrex]

23. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

[MrSlayer]

28. As opposed to the guy she was fucking?

Yes.

Some people won't stand for infidelity. I'm not saying what the cuckold did was right but one can certainly understand his justifiable rage.

[longship]

30. Somehow I can't see death is appropriate in this case.

Apparently you disagree.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[MrSlayer]

33. Aww, I'm going to cry.

I never said it was ok. Only that I get why someone might do it.

[wordpix]

35. "his justifiable rage"---maybe his anger issue was why she was with another man

"Infidelity" is not always just about someone screwing around behind a spouse's back b/c he/she wants a little fun. Sometimes there are deep-seated issues as to why infidelity is going on - like the husband is insane, out-of-control, abusive, intimidating and a gun nut to boot, and the wife is scared of him.

IOW, she may well have been "justified" in having another relationship.

[MrSlayer]

41. Well, if he was that scary why risk your life?

That excuse makes zero sense. This guy is controlling, abusive and scary, I know, I'll fuck some other guy in his bed. What could go wrong?

I'm betting it wasn't that way at all. This guy's actions are those of a person deeply in love and betrayed. He killed the other guy and himself, not her, even though she gave him the ultimate betrayal.

Sorry, there is no good excuse for whoring around on your husband or wife. End the previous relationship first. It's the right thing to do.

[Ian David]

52. Maybe he didn't like the TV show? n/t

[caseymoz]

65. There's nothing about murder-suicide that says love.

Period. You're reading from a script you wrote.

You say you "understand" why he would do it. I understand why he would do it as well and it's not the romantic, wronged, pining, unappreciated lover you've come up with.

One of us is wrong.

[Moosepoop]

68. Try reading the article.

Rodriguez and the woman, who works for a firearms manufacturer in the Flathead Valley, met at a trade show and struck up a casual relationship that police do not believe was romantic, Dial said.

She and Rodriguez were sitting at the kitchen table, talking over a glass of wine, when Bengston entered the house and shot Rodriguez, Dial said.

Now, where does it indicate that she was having an affair with the man who was killed?

Where does it indicate that she was "fucking some other guy in her husband's bed?"

Where does it indicate that she was "whoring around?"

What, exactly, was the "ultimate betrayal" that she gave him?

She was sitting at her kitchen table talking with a friend who happened to be of the opposite sex.

Apparently, that was not allowed in her husband's world, and perhaps not in yours.

It really doesn't make much difference, though. Even if the husband had walked in and found the other guy fucking his wife on the kitchen table, it still would not have justified killing anyone. Except maybe to you, but the opinion and judgement of someone who doesn't even bother to look at the facts of a matter are pretty much worthless, anyway.

Still, I recommend reading an article before making asinine statements about it, even if they are your true beliefs. It's the right thing to do.

[Paladin]

73. +1. (nt)

[IdaBriggs]

90. Drinking wine with a "friend" of the opposite sex while your husband isn't home @ 10:30 p.m.

I can read between the lines, and odds are good sex plays into this story in some fashion, because married women *always* have wine with "casual friends" from out of state when their husbands are around.



I'm going to assume the husband believed she was screwing around on him. Was he right? Don't know.

But if there hadn't been guns available, neither of the men involved would have been shot.

My husband annoyed me earlier today; I threw a snowball at him. He laughed (mostly because I missed - sigh).

I feel bad for the child.

[Moosepoop]

101. That sounds just like a few gossipy church ladies I know.

So tell me, oh line reader -- was it the wine that = sex? Would the tea leaves or lines or whatever had read differently if the beverage being served was coffee or milk?

Or was it the out of state factor that = sex? What if the visitor had lived in the same state, or even the same town? Would that have made the relationship more platonic?

Or was it the 10:30 p.m. factor that = sex? If the visit had taken place at noon, would that have meant no sex? How about 6 p.m? Or 8 a.m.?

Or was it the opposite sex factor that = sex? What if the visiting friend had been another female, drinking wine with the wife at 10:30 p.m. with the husband not around? Would that have made them lesbian lovers?

Married women don't always drink wine with opposite sex, out of state visitors at 10 p.m. without the supervision of their husbands, but sometimes they do. It gives people something to cluck about.

I feel bad for the dead man, the assaulted wife, and the child.

[IdaBriggs]

105. Good for you. If the wife was actually screwing around,

she isn't a nice person. Either way, her husband obviously suspected her behavior WASN'T innocent. It is sad for all involved.

At the end of the day, she either a) married a moronic whack-a-doodle who flipped out because of his crazy mental illness (which we can assume she had some prior knowledge of, so why let a whack-a-doodle husband have a gun when it can be made to disappear?), or b) she married a nice man who thought she was screwing around on him who couldn't cope without temporarily going nuts, meaning he was a paranoid nut-job, and again, she should have had a clue, or c) she was screwing around, and he couldn't cope.

My cynical side (which includes the wisdom to know some of this is cliche for a reason) leads me to think there WAS something going on, or that it was about to. When I have out of town people over, I usually want them to meet my spouse; then again, I don't cheat on him, so ...

Only she knows why her husband went homicidal. If she broke his heart, part of the blame does lie on her. If he was just whack-a-doodle from day one, again, she married him. If he was on drugs/she was trying to get away from him, well, that is a different scenario.

There really aren't any new stories out there - just new players.

[CTyankee]

115. Without knowing any of this stuff, you are blaming a dead victim. Nice.

[IdaBriggs]

140. The wife isn't dead. Her husband killed a man, then killed himself

After beating his wife up. Either a) whack-a-doodle off his meds (with a gun); b) suspected innocent wife of cheating (paranoid with a gun); or c) was correct in suspecting wife of infidelity/temporarily grief stricken insane with a gun.

As I said, there are no new stories. She will be living with her poor judgment. And yes, I hold her somewhat responsible for this mess - she knew him best. I feel sorry for the child.

[CTyankee]

141. He killed an innocent man and brutally beat his wife.

IOW, this is what is known as "domestic violence." I remember reading an article in Ms. Magazine entitled "Next Time He'll Kill You" and, shockingly for its day, displayed a front cover photo of a women with a blackened eye. This was way back before our society had yet "evolved" to a better understanding of what exactly this meant. It was in the context of the first debates we were having about the Violence Against Women Act. I remember an editorial from a then fairly mainstream newspaper saying that we didn't need a VAWA because it was a "personal matter" between married couples and not in the purview of federal law.

I would like you to quietly consider this incident in the context of what I just wrote, since I am old enough to see this issue play out in the context of the first stirrings of VAWA. I cannot accept that we have not evolved on DU to where we do not see this situation as being inherently dangerous to women's lives. This is both a domestic violence incident and a gun violence issue. It is irrelevant that it is "not new." So is racially based violence "not new" and we rightly condemned that. She was sitting at a kitchen table and not in bed with anyone. Even if she had been, when have we become a society that would countenance this type of violence? Why not just condone public stonings for adultery (which this wasn't based on the news report) as "oh well, that's understandable."

The person who is wholly responsible is the man who brought the gun, shot the innocent man and beat the innocent woman.

"She was asking for it" is not OK. It is not OK to say it with regard to rape and it is not OK to say it here.

In the interest of educating you and helping you to develop a deeper understanding of this issue, I will offer this article to you: http://assets.wne.edu/159/32_comm_Hall_of_.pdf

I hope you will seriously consider the implications of what you have written in terms of the debate about domestic violence (and gun violence as well).

[Paladin]

146. Thank You, CTyankee, for that much-needed comment. (nt)

[IdaBriggs]

147. Let me be candid: I am weary of "unsolvable domestic violence" at some level -

because we have experience with it in my family.

I have three sisters who all made "bad choices" in men that ended up in relationships where police were involved in their home situations.

For my eldest sister (now deceased), she finally left the abusive husband the SECOND time (not the first) that he put her in the hospital with broken ribs and a punctured lung. (Her death at age 39 was due to complications from MS.) Eventually he died from his drug issues. (I believe he started with cocaine, and ended with heroin.) The world is a better place for his not being in it.

A younger "baby sister" had her head put through a wall by the father of her first born, and went back to him anyway. He ended up in jail numerous times, but she kept "going back" because he "needed" her -- until she finally decided that she was done when my mom cut her off financially after the "last time" his drug habit lost the money saved for housing. (She and her infant daughter were sleeping on a floor because she was "loyal" to him, and since nobody would let him move in, she stayed with him until that "last time" when the money disappeared into his crack habit.) That man ended up spending over a decade in state prison facilities for sexually molesting one of his daughters by another "baby mamma." Sadly, he survived the experience.

With these sisters, my father (who was involved in law enforcement) used his contacts in every way possible; it did no good, as my sisters then blamed HIM for their woes, and bailed them out. My brothers moved furniture back and forth as they "broke it off forever" based on the latest outrages, and then "he's in counseling" moved back.

My young/middle sister picked one who didn't do drugs, but we knew he was a controlling scumbag. She kept it all hidden for as long as possible, then finally picked up and left when he assaulted her while she was holding their four month old son. She stayed with us for a while; my youngest sister punched him in the face when he attempted to intimidate her / get in her face, and all of us are still amused because he threatened to press charges on the 110 pound girl who stood up to him when he weighed 200 pounds and was used to bullying his wife. He is still involved in his son's life, who has now learned how to cope with being "homeless" when he is with his father. (He was instructed to hide the fact they were sleeping in a car from his mother - sigh.)

And then we have two "not related women" I know of: one took the rent money and bought herself a new car while her husband was in surgery with a 50/50 chance of recovering. While he was in the ICU, she "confessed" and still under drugs he said some "inappropriate" things. Based on that, she managed to get a restraining order, which she had served on him while he was attached to an "at home IV" / couldn't fight it, and - well, let's just say she is one of the worst human beings I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. She still owes me $7,000. (I was her landlord; she took me, and the next three as well. Sigh.) She played the system like a champ.

The most recent experience is a periphery one. When my business acquaintance mentioned she was moving in with a bi-polar man, I expressed some concern about his history of staying on his medication, and how difficult it can be for people with this condition during times of high stress. (NOTE: This conversation was only had because she has a young child; I am not advocating against relationships with people with this disability.) They had been dating for over a year, and she assured me they had discussed it. Shock of ages: one week after moving in, there was an "incident" and he spent the night in jail. She ended up getting a restraining order, and being a person who wants some of her own back, he's homeless while she lives in his place rent free for the next couple of months while this winds its way through the system. She has turned down numerous offers of housing where he *WON'T* know where she lives, because the restraining order will protect her. Insert eye roll here. The reality of her situation is that now that the "crisis" is over, she really isn't afraid, but she loves the idea of "getting even" with him, and sticking it to him by staying in his place makes her happy.

Domestic violence is a challenge; it is one of the few crimes where the victim has to agree to participate at some level. They need to play stupid ("it won't happen again&quot , naive ("but my love will fix it&quot , helpless ("I don't have anywhere to turn!&quot and vulnerable. They have to sacrifice their self-respect to stay, insult relatives who warn, then swallow their pride when they finally have to admit that maybe THEY made some bad decisions by hooking their stars to idiots or assholes or criminals. They inevitably go back multiple times with a variety of reasons/excuses, and sometimes, they end up dead. Sadly, sometimes the people around them end up dead, too.

So, in reference to this "horrible crime" - damn right I blame the wife at a certain level, just like I blame the mom of the kid who shot up Newtown. If you are an innocent bystander in a drama where you *know* your husband is a whack-a-doodle paranoid nut-job, and you know he has a gun, Make the Gun Go Away. If you are a cheating whore whose husband has a gun, well, you just suck as a human being, and bad judgment sometimes comes at a terrible price; not every person copes well with discovering that. Again, he had a gun, and it didn't "disappear" - dumb.

You might think the wife was innocent; I have been with my husband for over twenty years, and I have *a lot* of male friends. I have never had one of them over for a glass of wine at 10:30 p.m. without my husband being present, let alone knowing about it. I don't know any happily married people who do that. Maybe it is just the crowd I run with, but if he wasn't crazy before he walked in the door at 10:30 p.m., odds are good what he saw put him in a "not making good judgment calls" for a few minutes. Him being from out of state, a glass of wine, no husband -- it doesn't pass the "innocent" smell test to me. But I don't carry a gun, so odds are good no one would end up dead because of a "misunderstanding" (like maybe his cell phone didn't work, so when she texted they were having company? - who knows).



You might find me cynical, and I am okay with that. The incidents of domestic violence don't seem to be going down, and honestly, if you can't get the men to stop hitting people, then it falls on the women to use one of the best tactics ever: NO BE THERE. But sadly, that would involve seeing women as either willing participants in their own damage, or demanding they demonstrate good judgment by NOT being with these guys in the first place (or after one "red flag" moment, BEFORE you are "committed" to them and all their "potential to do better&quot .

At the end of the day, if she was doing his laundry, she could have made the gun disappear. Women have a lot more power than they like to admit. She chose to pretend she didn't, and now two men are dead.

Yeah, I blame her for her part in it. She knows what she did - and didn't - do.

[CTyankee]

148. well, you know what you know. The thing is, we don't know what happened in this woman's life but we

do have people who spend their careers helping victims of domestic violence. They have probably seen more DV than even you have and certainly more than I have experienced. I would like to hear their take on the scenario you have presented. But absent that, in this case we don't what her motivation/experience with this man was and what transpired the night of the event. He could have come to see her and the husband, she might have said "He'll be home soon, please sit down. Can I get you something to drink?" And her husband was late. We just don't know.

Another thing we haven't considered: that maybe he had not been an abuser in the past and he just snapped. Having a gun just made it too easy in a moment of rage to kill.

But what if your judgment is 100% correct? My guess would be in that case that she was in denial about what could happen and had seen/experienced abuse growing up in an abusive household and she felt worthless or was convinced that she "deserved" to be hit. This plays out again and again in families, and your family appears to have this issue. They don't often just "cure" themselves before something like this happens. Drug addiction, as you point out in your own family, certainly doesn't help victims control their problems better.

Not every victim of family gun violence is in full control of the situation however. Case in point: when my niece was shot to death by her step-grandfather she was helping her mother take care of the grandmother who was dying of cancer. The nurse had the evening off that day. The step-grandfather legally owned a handgun, which he kept loaded to "protect his home." That night he learned that the grandmother had cut him out of her will and he got drunk and started shooting, killing my niece and wounding both the grandmother and the mother, then turned the gun on himself. Should my niece not have helped her mother and grandmother? Should she have somehow "known" that the guy would be a) angry in the first place, b) have a drinking problem? Since he was not a felon (until he was that night, an old, old story), he was legally able to own that gun. This is why I would never let my kids go to the house of a family that owned a gun, and nobody else in my family has ever possessed a gun.

Telling violent men that somehow it is "justifiable" to beat women and shoot others because he feels out of control is not acceptable. Ironically, you are all too willing to give this guy and "out" at the same time you hold scorn and contempt for victims' behavior in your own family. Why is that? If your sisters and their partners have been guilty, so is this guy....

[primavera]

150. Magnificent post, thank you for putting it so well - n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

162. Thanks CT...

there are a lot of discouraging posts in this thread.

[CTyankee]

163. but we're doing a pretty good job of rebutting, aren't we?

This thread allows us to elaborate on points we would like to make on gun violence and its intersection with violence against women. We just ALL have to speak up! Hold feet to fire!

We CAN fight back.

[KitSileya]

174. "If she broke his heart, part of the blame does lie on her."

Ummm...no. Just no. She may have treated him shittily (and he may have treated her even more shittily,) but that does not give the husband any right to shot anyone. And it certainly doesn't put any blame on her. The blame is on the shooter, and on no one else. This was not self defense. This was not in any defense, no one was in any danger, save from the husband who apparently was dangerous and unstable.

She doesn't know why he went homicidal, only he knows that. Seriously, are you actually reading what you are writing here? They are two autonomous people, who each bear responsibility for their own actions, and not for others' interpretation of those actions. The husband may have interpreted her actions to think that she was being unfaithful, but that doesn't give him the right to shoot anyone. It gives him the right to divorce her, and that's it. She is not responsible or to blame for his behavior.

[IdaBriggs]

175. Not sure why you are kicking a month old thread, but whatever.

You have your opinion of the situation, and I have mine.

I'll stick with it being a tragedy, with her bearing a portion of the responsibility if she was screwing around while married to an armed lunatic/someone who could be driven to such depths of rage/despair over someone he loved/trusted betraying him at such a core level.

(Lying and cheating matter to some people; not so much to others. Apparently this guy was one of those who couldn't cope with having his world destroyed with a divorce.)

Welcome to the wide world of the internet, where your opinion is worth the same as everyone else's, and we are allowed to think different thoughts.

[KitSileya]

179. Sorry - I am a serial thread opener, so I didn't see this was an old thread.

I was following links in threads, and when I do, I click open in new tab, so I often have 4-5 threads open at the same time. Your reply just infuriated me so much I answered it immediately, and noticed afterwards it was a month old. I'm sure we'll get to discuss the issue again on another, more recent thread. After all, most women are murdered by their partners, and as such, I'm sure we'll encounter a case where a guy kills his wife's friend in a rage of jealousy again.

[IdaBriggs]

181. I am sure we will meet again.

[Atman]

178. Bingo

Even if he caught them fucking, that's not justification to kill somebody. Grab your stuff and leave, be angry, hate your ex-wife...but to KILL somebody? There were other screws loose -- and other stuff going on -- before he ever picked up his gun.

[alcibiades_mystery]

75. Is this a Men's Rights post?

"...justifiable rage..."

Oy vey.

[MrSlayer]

107. Well, what then? Should he be happy about it?

Resigned? Indifferent? Accepting?

This sort of thing really pisses people off. Just because it would be just fine with you doesn't mean it's ok with everyone.

Fuckin A right it's justifiable rage. Most people don't enjoy being made an asshole of.

What are you a Vulcan or something?

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. What the FUCK? "Justifiable rage"?

No, of course it's not justifiable, you Neanderthal. For fuck's sake, we're trying to pull you into - I don't know - the Common Era, as opposed to BC? - by getting into your conservative brain that having a glass of wine with someone of the opposite sex is not 'justifiable' for any marital argument, let alone a violent and murderous one.

Can't you see that husbands do not have the right to veto who a wife talks to, or drinks with?

[MrSlayer]

134. What the fuck? Don't give a damn if you're being cheated on?

Doesn't commitment mean anything? I'm sure you'd be just fine with your spouse sitting in your house drinking wine with a stranger of the opposite sex. Right, because that happens everyday. "Oh hey honey, I just met this dude and we decided to come back to our house and drink wine together but nothing is going on other than that." Bullshit. There's a lot more going on here than a simple glass of wine. And yes, people get mad when they are being made a fool of. It absolutely is justifiable to be enraged, I'd think there was something wrong with you if you weren't.

Are you claiming that you're just an emotionless drone that reacts to every situation with cold logic and clinical detachment? I find that very hard to believe. Really, look at how upset you seem to be over an anonymous internet post.

I do have the right to veto my wife from drinking wine with strange men in my house. Just as she has the right to veto me from doing it with strange women. I don't know what sort of relationship you have but I don't know anyone that would be cool with it.

I generally don't care what people think but calling me a conservative is a cheap shot and a low blow. That sort of insult is out of bounds.

[muriel_volestrangler]

136. No, you don't have that right

Seriously, I don't know anyone who would fly into a rage on finding their spouse openly having a drink with someone at home. I'd expect a "hi honey, this is ...". It's not a requirement of a committed relationship for every visitor to a house to be pre-vetted by the man of the house (or by the woman). This is not the Victorian era. No, if you think that having a drink with someone is 'cheating' or breaking a commitment, then you are conservative. Extremely conservative. Like 100 years out of date.

[MrSlayer]

139. We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

I do indeed have that right and so does my wife, you don't get to decide that for us.

And I'm also saying that there is more to this story that we haven't heard yet. No one goes nuts like that over a simple glass of wine.

You are conjecturing on one side and I am on the other. We'll see who is right eventually. I have no problem with apologizing and admitting I'm wrong when I am.

[CTyankee]

143. "Shoot first and ask questions later."

Since when is that part of our system of American justice?

My son is a prosecutor in Brooklyn, New York. I think I'll ask him that question....I'll tell him I saw it as "understandable" on DEMOCRATIC Underground.com. and let you know what he says...

[MrSlayer]

144. Again, point out a single instance where I advocated that sort of behavior.

You cannot because I have not.

Show your prosecutor son the whole thread. Then come talk to me.

Shoot first indeed.

[CTyankee]

145. glad to do so. I know him better than you...

[Life Long Dem]

157. I don't think we know enough

We don't know if the husband knew his wife was cheating all along. Maybe this was the first time he caught her with him. We don't know if he was steaming mad about an affair up to the time he went into a rage when finding them together.

If this was building up in him, then his going into a rage at the time of finding the guy there, then his rage may not have been so crazy.

[primavera]

152. Well, now you do know people who would be cool with it

If I were to come home and found my spouse having a glass of wine with a friend of the opposite sex, I would not be upset by it. My first instinct would not be to assume that they were sleeping together. Because I trust my spouse. If I didn't, we wouldn't be married. If our marriage had deteriorated to the point that my spouse had taken a lover, I would assume that, as 50% of the marriage bearing 50% of the responsibility for its health and well-being, I bore 50% of the responsibility for her resorting to extramarital affairs. In no instance would I feel justified in assaulting her.

From the other posts offered in this thread, it sounds like there are a great many of us who would not feel so threatened by our partners sharing a glass of wine with a person of the opposite sex as to warrant violence. So, you see, you do indeed know people who would be cool with it.

[CTyankee]

165. This whole thing about the glass of wine at 10:30 at night is disturbing.

What if the guy came by to see the husband and the wife said he would be home a little later and offered him "something to drink"? Then, the husband got delayed and arrived late.

That could very well be the entire reason for that scenario. We just don't know. And all the blathering about the late hour and the wine is just so much , well, blather. But I do thank you for your contribution, in rebuttal of what others are assuming...

[Matariki]

167. No. He should either try to work it out with her, or leave her.

Not beat her up and murder some guy he *suspects* might be having sex with his wife.

What the hell is wrong with you. That should seem obvious. If your relationship isn't working out, those are your options - try and work things out or leave the asshole.

[MrSlayer]

169. So we agree then.

That's what she should have done before cheating. Why is the onus on this guy when she was the one doing the wrong thing?

If you're done with a relationship, the right and honorable thing to do is to tell the person and end it. You don't run around behind his/her back.

[Matariki]

171. The ONUS is on him for being a murdering asshole.

How hard is that to grasp?

[MrSlayer]

173. Yes, we know the "what?", we're talking about the "why?".

And I think this might have been avoided by simply being honest with the guy and not going behind his back.

You realize you're basically saying he should have tried work it out or he should have broken up with her when he found out but she had no responsibility to show him that same courtesy and tell him before moving on to the new person.

In what world is that fair? She was the one doing the wrong. She should have told him or broke up with him first.

I know that doesn't really fit the "All men are evil and women can do no wrong" philosophy that has taken hold on this site but I don't really care about that.

[Scootaloo]

133. Some on DU support "honor killings"

Offended men have a right to kill the offender, don'cha know.

[Paladin]

96. That's A Lot Of Heated Speculation You've Crammed Into 3 Short Paragraphs.

Let me try some speculation on you: I think you're carrying around a rather large misogynistic agenda, based on some bad shit that you've experienced. Here in the real world, it is NEVER alright for a man to beat a woman, no matter what the circumstances. And the death penalty is NOT called for as a result of an adulterous relationship, if that indeed was what was going on, in this instance. We're not living in the 19th century, anymore.....

[wordpix]

104. lots of reasons, crazy love for one

Those roaring hormones know no bounds sometimes

[Matariki]

166. Wow. You need therapy.

Seriously. If you think that news story is about someone "deeply in love" you really need to work out some issues and learn what love actually is.

[jmowreader]

60. If she was fucking another guy because her husband is a gun nut...

why would she choose to hook up with another gun nut?

[CTyankee]

114. Maybe this is why requiring anger management courses before letting people buy guns might just

be a great idea.

Oh, and your poor "cuckold" was also a wife abuser. He brutally beat her after he shot the guy. I just hope and pray their little child didn't witness any of his "justifiable rage."

[valerief]

56. Bingo! nt

[still_one]

11. WTF?

[MrSlayer]

27. Oh yeah.

I went there.

It's too boring around here when everyone agrees on everything.

[still_one]

51. Lol

[Phillip McCleod]

12. oh so he should've just shot HER? over the fucking top.

way over.

[MrSlayer]

24. I never said that.

You made that up yourself.

I'm not saying he should have shot anyone. But I do understand.

[Phillip McCleod]

34. right you said 'could' not 'should'. what an ass i've made of myself.

[MrSlayer]

37. Well, I wouldn't go that far.

You just got a little ahead of yourself in your rush to be outraged. It happens around here quite often.

[smirkymonkey]

112. +1000

Thank YOU!

[Skittles]

15. right

because there is no possible reason why that gal strayed from that guy

[MrSlayer]

21. Well.

Perhaps she should have broken it off with him before catting around. You know, like a decent person.

[Skittles]

22. something tells me this is personal with you

it would explain your "judgement"

done here

[MrSlayer]

32. Ok.

Just don't kick my ass and we're good.

[Xipe Totec]

17. I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there.

[MrSlayer]

19. Well enough.

No one has to agree with me.

[2pooped2pop]

70. I agree with you

What I think you are saying is "why do people always blame the other lover when it is the spouse who betrayed them?" Or something like that.

The lover may not even be aware that she is married. He has no obligation to the husband. The wife knows she is married and knows it carries obligations. She is the one committing adultery.

While no one should have been shot, yes he may have gotten off on temp. if he caught them in the act and shot him right then.

I'm just glad he took the kid to someones house before he finished his project.

[Paladin]

88. "....before he finished his project" ?

I think your post reveals a lot more about you than you intended, and that's not a compliment. You're not the only one on this thread who's done it.

[IdaBriggs]

91. He meant before the guy killed himself. Good that he made sure his child was safe before that. nt

[2pooped2pop]

95. thanks Ida

I am not able to express myself as well as I used to be able to do.

thanks

[2pooped2pop]

94. whatever you say works for me.

I mean, if you say so and all.

[JI7]

43. he was a wife beater

[MrSlayer]

46. Was he? I see no evidence of that so far,

But if he was then perhaps she should have left him before this happened.

[JI7]

47. it's in the article and quoted in the op

"Wayne Bengston then beat his wife"

[MrSlayer]

50. AFTER he caught her with the other guy.

Which is perfectly understandable given the heat of the moment and all.

There is no evidence of previous abuse so far.

If he was a super jealous, super controlling abusive guy why didn't he kill her too? It sounds to me like even in the face of ultimate betrayal, he still couldn't kill her. That's not the M.O. of the typical control freak type. They usually take the "if I can't have you, no one will" approach.

[JI7]

53. there are many men who don't beat their girlfriend/wife when they catch them

cheating. sorry but it's not understandable.

[MrSlayer]

58. And there are many that do.

Different people react differently to different things. Some guys might see it as a get out of jail free card and be happy about it. Others might be indifferent and still others might have the hearts torn out of their chest and go berserk. I find rage to be perfectly understandable.

Not everyone is an emotionless robot that coldly adheres to the law and allows it to dictate their actions.

[JI7]

59. yeah, if you don't beat or kill someone for cheating it makes you an emotionless robot

i could maybe understand in cases where the guy would have killed his wife or kids . but not over sex.

[Matariki]

168. Jeezus. I hope to hell there is no "Mrs. Slayer"

Because you should not be in a relationship until you work out your weird issues of anger, jealousy, and possessiveness.

[MrSlayer]

172. Mrs. Slayer is just fine, thanks.

Some of you guys take this shit way too seriously. I'm not the person in the story.

All I said was that I didn't get why you kill the guy when the wife is doing the cheating and that I can understand being infuriated by the infidelity, that's it. And now I have a bunch of armchair psychologists diagnosing me and other fools claiming I said things I never said. I don't understand why this is so controversial.

This thread is really in dead horse territory, I don't know why I'm bothering to respond anymore.

[notadmblnd]

77. Perfectly understandable after being caught talking to another guy?

Tell me, under what other circumstances do you think spousal abuse is acceptable?

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. You understand why someone beats up his wife for having a glass of wine with a man?

You are trolling this thread (that's what you admit to in #27), but behind that, I think you're exposing yourself as someone with a deep-seating feeling that a wife belongs to a man, and violence and murderous rage is "understandable" when the wife shows a sign of enjoying another man's company. With alcohol.

This is not Saudi Arabia, even if you think it is.

[CTyankee]

164. I had that same feeling...women as "property" which of course they were for millenia.

Old patriarchal society rules die pretty slow deaths, it would appear. It is probably one of the reasons that we here in the U.S. have so few females in political leadership positions compared to more enlightened societies, such as Sweden.

[aquart]

63. Yes. Abusive husbands are so easy to leave.

[babylonsister]

45. WIFE'S FAULT???

Take it back.

[MrSlayer]

49. I'd like to.

But based on what we have here so far, I can't. I just look at it like this, if I come home and find my wife with another guy, I'm not blaming myself. I'm not blaming him if he's a stranger, what does he know? I have to blame her because it's her fault. She brought this dude in, he didn't force his way in and I certainly didn't invite him.

What other way can it be looked at based on the evidence presented so far?

Or is it just fine and dandy to cheat?

I may take it back when we get more info.

[babylonsister]

57. It's not fine and dandy to cheat, or kill.

I am divorced, but it was sorta civil.

[MrSlayer]

62. You're lucky then.

For many people it's a knock down, drag out fight to the death. I've seen my friends go through some ugly shit.

[Blandocyte]

66. Please stop using logic for your reasoning

and also clearly stating that you understand the emotion but don't condone the violence that was done. We are not getting it and I, for one, don't appreciate your persistent clear thinking. Just. Stop.

Sarcasm thingie, and

[Paladin]

71. And More Info Will Be Available.....

...since this gun person elected not to kill his wife, just to beat her. If I were you, I'd forgo any more blame assessment until her side of the story is available. I don't think that's too much to ask.

[sendero]

86. And of course..

... she would have every incentive to tell the whole truth.

[Fumesucker]

64. Maybe it's harder to kill someone you still love?

Maybe he knows how smooth operators work?

I note the guy didn't kill his son, probably loved him too. Killing their son would have hurt the wife the worst, after that killing the guy she was screwing would be the way to bring maximum anguish to the wife.

[MrSlayer]

109. Yes. I made that very point.

His actions seem more like those in a classic crime of passion scenario rather than those of a control freak abuser type.

[CTyankee]

116. Then he should never have had possession of a gun.

[MrSlayer]

123. Why?

On the off chance that he might catch his wife cheating and react badly?

How is one to know that this would happen ahead of time?

[CTyankee]

124. well, then let's hear YOUR solution...(altho you seem to know how "you" would react...)

[MrSlayer]

125. My solution is pretty simple.

Don't be a cheater. If you are no longer interested in your spouse, break up with them before starting something with another person. It's as simple as that. It's common decency. This whole tragic situation could have been avoided.

[CTyankee]

126. There is no proof that she was a cheater, first of all. Secondly, you seem to suggest that it is

a crime to be paid for by one's life, as with the so-called "cheater" (who wasn't, as it turned out). And the wife gets a brutal beating for a "crime" that has not even been committed.

This is pretty thin gruel, Slayer, for you to prosecute on. A man is dead and a woman has been brutally beaten over no crime, no evidence of "cheating" and you are blaming innocent people of doing NOTHING WRONG and saying it's all OK what has happened to them????

Geez, this is a FIRST for me. I have never, ever seen such a mysogynist post in my entire time on this board...NEVER...and I hope to god I never see another one...

[MrSlayer]

135. I'm sorry you see it that way.

At no point did I ever condone violence in any way, shape or form. Nor did I ever say it was OK that this happened. All I ever said was that I can see why a person would react the way the guy reacted.

Again, never said it right, just that it was understandable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

137. j"Fuckin A right it's justifiable rage" - reply #107

following on from #28 "justifiable rage".

[MrSlayer]

138. Yes.

The guy is justified in being enraged. How does saying it's ok to be mad about something translate into condoning violence?

You're reaching for something that isn't there.

[Exultant Democracy]

80. I find it curious how many people jumped on you for this post.

Obliviously your simple logic that the wife is at fault for the cheating doesn't make sense to people. Some idiots even think you are blaming the murders on the wife which of course you are not unless someone puts words into your mouth. We have a disgusting streak of incivility and intolerance on DU and a cadre of members whose miss placed rage is only outstripped by their ability to defy logic in their quest for outrage.

[IdaBriggs]

92. Most are recovering meta-posters.

They can't help themselves.

[MrSlayer]

108. Yeah well, that happens a lot around here.

Some people aren't happy unless they're unhappy.

You can't let it bother you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

118. SHE WASN'T CHEATING

It's not 'simple logic'; it's either extreme misogyny, or a complete failure to read the fucking article (or this thread). I'm going to be generous to you, and assume it's the latter with you. Slayer, on the other hand, has had it pointed out many times already, and has replied, so we know it's the misogyny with him.

People who don't bother reading articles before commenting on them shouldn't throw around concepts like 'logic'.

[Exultant Democracy]

122. Looks like you never even read the post I was replying too

because if you did you would of course know he was questioning the notion behind the general trend, and he was most definitely not suggesting that the wife should have been shot. Your argument is laughable at best and extremely disingenuous and jaded at the worst.

[muriel_volestrangler]

130. That's complete rubbish - he says "He could have killed them both"

and "Dumb to kill yourself". He is talking about this specific case. Elsewhere in the thread, he has called this man's reaction "justifiable rage". Your argument is based on you not reading the thread. And, as I said, that's giving you the benefit of the doubt. Even with you thinking he's talking about some generalised case, you are supporting his absolving a man from having an affair with a married woman, while blaming the woman - "It's the wife's fault. ...why blame the guy? ". You're the one who is jaded, if that's how you think.

[CTyankee]

127. there is no evidence that she cheated. So what the hell are you talking about?

[Matariki]

170. When murder is involved, who's at fault for cheating becomes irrelavant.

You BREAK UP with someone for cheating if you can't forgive them. You DON'T beat or murder them. Sheesh.

[roxy1234]

106. I agree with u

I say if you are going to kill anyone, kill the person who betrayed you. The way I see it, the man may not even know the woman was married.

[CTyankee]

142. You are advocating a society that stones women (and men) to death on suspicion of

adultery. Well, why not, based on your reasoning?

[roxy1234]

149. I am sure you can point to me

where I said adulterers should be stoned. What I said is "if" you are going to kill

[CTyankee]

155. Yes, I know what you said. Prescribing a "death penalty" for adultery, carried out by the

cuckolded party who is acting as judge and jury, as well as executioner. Sounds like a plan...

[roxy1234]

156. You dont know anything

Its like saying if you must rob a bank, rob the bank you have an account with. The statement is not advocating anyone to rob a bank instead its just giving a guideline.

Just to put it on the record, crimes of passion are wrong. Crimes in general are wrong

[CTyankee]

160. thank you for clarifying. We agree!

[prayin4rain]

180. Totally agree, he should have thrown acid in her face....

that would learn her.

[onehandle]

7. Guns are handy. nt

[bubbayugga]

9. Two more men killed by a cheatin' woman. When will this insanity end?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. Not funny, even in "jest". Especially poor taste on International Women's Day. nt

[October]

42. They're bored and just want to stir things up

You can tell by how they have to respond/reply to everything. Attention mongers abound.

[otohara]

10. Sportsman Channel & NRA

do a lot of co-sponsorships, promotions, etc...

I had quite the e-mail correspondence with TSC over "The Secret War on Guns" the NRA infomercial AKA 30 minutes of Obama hate. Oh the irony of this.

[Historic NY]

13. Gunners killing off each other...interesting.

[Doctor_J]

111. Every cloud has a silver lining

If we could somehow keep school children safe, and have the gunsters kill only each other, the debate would die quickly, methinks.

[CTyankee]

128. It seems that this is already the case, doesn't it? I mean, one gun nut kills another gun nut and

on and on.

It's only when they go out in into the public square that we have problems. We need some kind of 'cage match."

[hack89]

154. It is very seldom gunster killing gunster

usually it is a suicide. Or a criminal killing some innocent victim.

[kestrel91316]

14. Another Second Amendment Solution (TM). I assume the gun nutters

will be happy.

[Canoe52]

16. See I've been telling ya...

gunz don't kill people, a wife just talking to another man kills people...

[Fire Walk With Me]

18. What would have prevented this tragedy is a good gun show host with a gun. Um...

[Trascoli]

25. Marital betrayal

sometimes feels like a knife in the back

[longship]

29. Death penalty for marital betrayal!!!!

Ya know. I think if we let the NRA have its way, they just may solve the gun problem between themselves, like this incident.


Then there's the guy who says it's the wife's fault...

Sheesh!

[CTyankee]

131. When I was a kid in Dallas, our neighbor shot and killed her husband in their driveway...

he had been cheating on her. She had a handgun in the glove compartment, took it out and shot him in the chest. As he fell, he said "you bitch," and died right there.

She was tough and had a bad temper. But she also had money. A lot of money crossed the palm of Gov. Allan Shivers and she was pardoned...after spending her entire prison sentence in a hospital for a heart ailment. I loved it....this woman had the world's worst temper...according to my parents who had heard some of her rants...

Here is a kind of whitewashing of this woman: http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/1981/07/01/The_Prosecution_Cant_Rest.aspx

[Warren Stupidity]

26. More "good guys with guns" gone suddenly bad.

[mindwalker_i]

38. Without knowing anything else about this dude

Except that he blew his top and shot another dude, I'm thinking the wife might have had a reason to cheat on him. The host dude was an asshole though.

[ThatPoetGuy]

39. Two more racist pieces of shit added to the shitpile.

America's kids are a tiny bit safer now.

[Ian David]

54. How do we know either of them were racists?

Not everyone who owns a gun is a racist.

Granted, every gun show seems to have at least one table set aside for the openly racist, but not all gun owners go to gun shows, or patronize those tables.

[thelordofhell]

40. Now go watch Silver Linings Playbook folks..............

[jsr]

48. Oh well.

[valerief]

55. If only it was raining guns, this never would have happened. nt

[primavera]

89. Nah, that can't be it

Because, when the good guys with guns have encounters with the bad guys with guns, the good guys keeping getting shot and killed, so it's not enough to have just a gun. Maybe if it were raining bazookas, then everything would be better. Or flamethrowers. Or maybe a tank, yeah, then we'd all be safe as houses. I know! An aircraft carrier! That's what every homeowner needs to defend his home! Let's just see those pesky burglars try to get in when you launch a few F-15s at them!

[jmowreader]

61. New rule, philanderers...

Don't fuck gun nuts' wives. Just don't.

[tabasco]

67. The well-regulated militia deals with infidelity harshly!

Thank God they all had guns!

[primavera]

72. I'd like to see those regulations sometime

If they're well regulated, as the constitution requires, surely there must be some regulations regulating the militia's conduct, right? So which reg authorizes them to commit murder? I don't seem to recall seeing that reg when I was in law school, perhaps I just missed it.

[Paladin]

74. Incoming Gun Enthusiasts With Militia Boilerplate In 3---2---1--- (nt)

[primavera]

76. Lol!

Better take cover - they're armed to the teeth and fire indiscriminately!

[demwing]

78. The idea that a bad guy w/ a gun can be stopped by a good guy w/ a gun got slapped in the face

Gun enthusiast gets gunned down...gunman = bad guy with a gun, enthusiast = good guy with a gun.

What the fuck happened? Why didn't the good guy w/ a gun win? He was a pro. A "rifleman!"

Oh wait... he was shtooping the gunman's wife?

Sudden role reversal. Good guy becomes bad guy and the bad guy...well, the bad guy doesn't really become a good guy, but he is certainly a more sympathetic character.

So NRA, who was I supposed to support here? Which death should I mourn?

I'll mourn the fact that these won't be the last people that become statistics in this insane game of guns.

[Ruby the Liberal]

83. Darwin's Law in action

Karma for killing all of those animals for no reason. They are thinning their own herd...

[tularetom]

84. Goddamnit I hate it when people won't conform to my stereotypes

The guy who shot the other guy had to be the good guy because he had a gun and was in his own home.

No, wait. The guy who may have been screwing his wife was the good guy because he was the host of a TV show about shooting.

No, that can't be. He was the bad guy because he was an intruder and got shot.

I'm so fucking confused. I'm gonna have to call the NRA and find out how I'm supposed to think.

[Ruby the Liberal]

85. They are ALL the good guys

And it was the house of the mother-in-law of the guy who shot the other guy. Now if SHE only had a weapon, none of this would have happened. See?

[Cosmocat]

110. WE are the "bad guy"

We being the evil liberal boogeyman.

See, because of our ungodliness, we establish a society with no respect for marriage.

The gun show guy was simply a victim to the lack of values we have that projected on to him, and the guy who shot him a victim by extension.

[The Straight Story]

100. Feel the same way about our soldiers going to war. Remove their guns

Let the good guys fight the bad ones without guns because, well, that makes sooooo much since to some here.

And if you have to ask which to mourn that is sad because you have made this about guns and not people, way to dehumanize events for a personal hatred.

I'll mourn the fact that humans have been killing each other since we came on to the planet, and taking away guns and only let a few have them won't solve anything (although we will give guns to our kids when we need to them to kill others for us).

Humans have been, and always will be the cause and the problem. Hard for some people to accept that.

[demwing]

102. You wrote: "if you have to ask which to mourn that is sad"

I know some things that more sad.

1. Being a "rifleman" didn't do shit to save the TV host from a gunman
2. Two people are dead who should be alive
3. If you think that what I wrote (asking the NRA to tell me for whom I should morn) was serious and not sarcastic, then that's pretty sad as well...

[randr]

81. Is this what the NRA means by "the right to protect ones property"??

[jsr]

82. Rodriguez family pic:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290400/Gregory-Rodriguez-Host-TV-A-Riflemans-Journal-shot-dead-visited-gunmans-wife.html
http://www.kxlf.com/news/investigation-continues-into-murder-of-tv-host-in-whitefish/

[Eleanors38]

87. Thanx for that bracing homage to culture war. The morning looks bright, JL!

[harmonicon]

97. Man, guns sure are good for killing people.

It's almost like they were designed for it... oh, what's that you say? I bet it didn't even occur to him to use a car.

[Paladin]

98. Available On Greg Rodriguez' "Global Adventure Outfitters" On-line Store:

T-shirts and stickers reading "WE KILL SHIT!"

Really. I'm not making it up......

[jsr]

120. Well, he was killed

[apocalypsehow]

99. What the problem here was the lack of guns. More guns were needed, many more. You see,

Last edited Sat Mar 9, 2013, 11:10 PM - Edit history (1)

if the wife had just been packing both a primary and a backup piece, and the gun show host had just kept his shooting iron's handier, they could have had a three-way shootout and affirmed freedom, liberty, and "enumerated rights" guaranteed them by the NRA!!!11






Though it shouldn't be needed (as it is obvious), compelled to add:

[Judi Lynn]

103. Outpouring of sympathy follows death of Sportsman Channel host shot in Montana

Outpouring of sympathy follows death of Sportsman Channel host shot in Montana
By Keith Ridler, The Associated Press March 9, 2013 6:03 PM

The Sportsman Channel says it's deeply saddened by the death of one of its TV hosts who travelled the world in search of big game and shared his adventures on his program "A Rifleman's Journal."

The company in a statement early Saturday said it will miss Gregory G. Rodriguez's "thoughtfulness, candour and dedication to encourage a safe and enjoyable outdoor experience for all."

Police said Rodriguez, 43, of Sugar Land, Texas, died Thursday in Whitefish in northwestern Montana when he was shot by another man in an apparent jealous rage while the TV personality visited the shooter's wife.

An outpouring on social media has followed the death of Rodriguez, who combined his comfort in front of the camera and travels to exotic locations with his hunting and shooting expertise into a popular cable TV program. The Sportsman Channel said that in January "A Rifleman's Journal" won "Best Instructional/Educational Program" at the Sportsman Channel's Sportsman Choice Awards.

More: http://www.canada.com/news/Outpouring+sympathy+follows+death+Sportsman+Channel+host+shot/8074864/story.html

[jpak]

113. Proving once again - Guns Are The Answer

yup

[CTyankee]

119. But where are the pix of guns? this thread is useless without pictures!

Come on you guys. You know you wanna do it...

[jpak]

121. Let's hope no holy guns were hurt in this incident

That would be a REAL tragedy.

Yup

[Ken Burch]

129. You'd have thought the host would realize that could happen.

Wonder why he wasn't "packing" at the time?

[HockeyMom]

132. Live by the gun,

die by the gun. Poetic justice.

[MillennialDem]

151. Live by the gun, die by the gun

[BlueStreak]

153. 2 more gun nuts gone. That's progress. But the poor child.

Maybe the child will have a better chance in life now.

[Jenoch]

158. Why the hell would you use an AUSTRAILIAN website as the source for your thread?

[sofa king]

159. That's not legal anymore?

That started as a joke, but curiosity got the better of me, and sure enough, I present to you the Annotated Texas Penal Code of 1925, article 1220 (.pdf):

Adultery as justification--Homicide is justifiable when committed by the husband upon one taken in the act of adultery with the wife, provided the killing take place before the parties to the act have separated. Such circumstance cannot justify a homicide where it appears that there has been, on the part of the husband, any connivance in or assent to the adulterous connection.

http://www.sll.state.tx.us/library-resources/collections/historical-texas-statutes-%281879-1925%29/1925/
http://www.sll.state.tx.us/assets/pdf/historical-codes/1925/1925pen5.pdf

Note that the code applies only to husbands. A wife who murdered her husband attempted to argue the reverse in 1974, and rather than allow that to happen, Texas hastily re-wrote the code and did a pretty good job of pretending the original never existed for about twenty-five years.

Texas. I wish I could send every Texas Democrat a cookie, 'cause y'all have a lifetime of work ahead of you.

[Blue_Tires]

161. That was the case in many states in the past

I can't find the name, but there was a high-profile case in the 1930s(?) where some wealthy, well-known businessman killed his wife and her lover in the act, and got off for that justification...

[Sunlei]

176. the woman was a SALES REP who went to all the trade shows. It's your job to meet with contacts!

[liberal N proud]

177. No, we don't need background checks for gun shows

Because those gun sellers can tell if someone is not stable and might use a weapon to kill.

Besides, if people are doing the concealed carry thing, they are responsible adults who would never shoot anyone, RIGHT?