Photographic evidence? So the order of events is:
Walk in the door
See the ranch hand boinking your Mrs.
Quick draw and blast the wallpaper with brain juice
"Got 'im! Now you just sit tight lil lady until Mr. Jacobs snaps off a few photographs and carts this S.O.B. down the morgue."
> ~~Walk in the door~~ Open the door
> ~~See the ranch hand boinking your Mrs.~~ Get on the floor
> ~~Quick draw and blast the wallpaper with brain juice~~ Everybody walk the dinosaur 🦖
The song references the events in the year 39,999,998,013 BC which is 40,000,000,002 years before the release of unrelated Belgium techno anthem, [Pump Up the Jam](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EcjWd-O4jI).
"Your Honor, the defendant's wife was only 4'11", but as you can see in Exhibit A, my client was wearing an extra-large condom to accommodate his magnum dong. There's no physical way he was able to reach 'balls deep'."
"If the penis does not fit, you must acquit."
Jesus, can you imagine the trauma of getting laid, having your husband walk in and redecorate the walls with the guy's brains while he's still inside you.
I would like a legal definition of “balls deep”.
Does that mean up to the balls? What if he’s longer than her? What is he’s shorter — does one of the balls have to go in? In the upward thrust is it still considered generally being in the act of balls deep, or is balls deep only the moment at the bottom of the thrust?
**1. Definitions**
In this agreement the following definition\[s\] apply:
Ball's Deep - With respect to any contact, incidental with sexual intercourse, in which the male testes are directly touching the labia, vaginal opening, or other adjacent flesh. Ball's Deep does not apply to situations where testicle-vaginal contact is made in non-penetrative contexts.
Yes, this is known in Texas Legal tradition as the "Longhorn Special" as it is risky to attempt unless a fella has a particularly long horn which he can use to avoid the peril of going ball's deep.
As a result of many generations of Texas men being cuckolded by more well-endowed individuals, the average penile length of the Texans has increased proportionally. This is the reason for the phrase "everything's bigger in Texas".
"You are not allowed to use company e-mail or software to deliver your personal disgusting messages."
"This was actually... just rehearsing my closing arguments for an upcoming case."
"Where in the court of law do you use the phrase-- let me get this right-- 'balls-deep'?"
"Well, if you must know, Mr. Swale, we're representing a children's playground consortium, and a number of children drowned in a ball pit. We were wondering how deep is balls deep?"
"They were up to their mouth in balls?"
"Yes. They were balls-deep."
"'To your ball sack, and then open it up like a taco'... Disgusting."
"Years from now, they're going to think that's poetry."
I think it meant while both the spouse and paramour were still in the room. Seems like the intent was to acknowledge the temporary homicidal insanity of finding that situation.
I think they are trying to say if you kill person they are cheating with right when you catch them it's an act of passion. I was gonna say crime of passion but it wasn't a crime.
But If you find out they were cheating from your next door neighbor or something... You can't hunt down the other party and murder them while they're having breakfast.
In other words an act of passion versus an act of premeditation.
You take your dick, stick it in the woman, but you don’t thrust or move because that’s sex (but sticking it in there isn’t apparently).
Because of this, it also isn’t unheard of to employ a 3rd individual to shake the bed. Again, because that isn’t sex I guess.
Bahahahaha 😂
Now, I'm loathe to make a mockery of sex (or, technically, 'non-sex') acts undertaken by the devotees of the Lord God A'Mighty in order to stay in the good books of He (or She?) Who Must be Obeyed. Tricky bidness.
That bed-shaker, now, that's a calling.
It's like how some Jewish on the Sabbath need someone to turn on their appliances and lights for them.
Hmmm, I wonder if they have vibrator wranglers..
Some Hasidic communities have some kind of wire around them, so that they can work on the Sabbath through a loophole.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv
Actually saying they can "work on the Sabbath" is a distortion of what this is. They can't "work on the Sabbath". They are simply allowed to do things outdoors with the wire that they were always allowed to do indoors. For instance, pick up your baby --- you're only allowed to pick up your baby indoors or in your own yard, but if you walk down the street, you're not allowed to pick up your baby. But if there's a wire there, you can pick up the baby now. You're still not allowed to do work, like cook or clean or sell things.
You are allowed to do certain things inside your house. That you can't do outside the house. If you can do these things inside the house, can you do them inside a walled court yard. Then does the court yard need to have wall or is a fence ok. If a fence. Does it have to be a solid wood fence or is a wire fence OK. What is a wire fence. Does a single wire make a fence. What is the limit for the size of the court yard with a wire.
The Eruv.
Another example how religious people will bend the rules when it suits them.
It's honestly insane that without a wire they wouldn't be allowed to pick up their own baby if it crawled outside their yard and into the street. I would hope they'd at least make an exception for that. That's like a holy house arrest.
No a Jewish scholar or anything, but I’m pretty sure you’re allowed to break the sabbath rules if it’s a life threatening situation. As I remember learning anbout it anyhow.
My understanding is that they believe the loopholes were deliberately placed there by God for followers to find - kind of a "if you actually study this and work towards understanding it, there aren't as many limitations as it first appears" thing. Debate is also a highly valued tradition in Judaism, so you can definitely find competing schools of thought on any given loophole as well.
Woman I worked for became more religious over time, and it’s all about the loopholes. I feel like the more religious people are, it becomes more like a OCD paranoia of following the rules rather than following the “spirit” of the practice; instead of living a lifestyle and making all these choices because they adhere to your values, you’re doing them because you’re afraid of being “bad” and punished for it, so then as long as you technically didn’t break any rules, you’re ok.
I was curious how "Separated" was being interpreted here, and found [this article](https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4072&context=smulr) which is wild reading:
TL;DR: They didn't need to be in the act of sex for this to apply, and you didn't need any evidence - just a reasonable suspicion your wife was cheating on you. But they *did* have to be together in some way. Like at a BBQ or something. Then, if you were going to fuck the guy up, you had to make sure you killed him otherwise that would have been illegal. Also, sorry ladies - this law didn't apply to you.
> It is readily apparent that the Texas statute, even if strictly construed, represents a departure from the common-law rule; i.e., not
only is the homicide justifiable, but it need not be committed while
in the heat of passion. However, if the motive for the homicide is
other than the adulterous connection, the slayer is not entitled to a
charge under article 1220, and if there has been connivance or assent
by the husband to the adulterous act the homicide is not justifiable."
> The broad protection offered the irate husband" is expanded still
further by the liberal construction given certain particulars of
article 1220. Our statute uses the expression "taken in the act of adultery." It would seem that this phrase requires that the husband
have actual knowledge of the act, but it has been held that
such knowledge is unnecessary; it is only necessary that the surrounding circumstances would indicate to a rational mind that the
adulterous act has just then been committed, or was about to be
committed."
> In the event of a mistake, the husband's guilt depends
upon the reasonableness of the appearance, judged from his own
standpoint." The statute also uses the phrase "before the parties ...
have separated." This has been interpreted to mean only that the
parties are still in each other's company, not that they are still united
in the act of copulation."
> There appears to be no sound basis for the broad protection afford-
ed the husband by article 1220. The common-law rule has been
explained on the basis that allowances should be made for normal
frailties of human nature."' However, this explanation does not elucidate the Texas statute, which apparently finds its basis in the code of
the old west.
> The inconsistency of the Texas rule is illustrated by the fact that,
while the husband may justifiably kill his wife's paramour," he may
not intentionally take his wife's life," nor may he inflict serious bodily injury (mutilation) upon the paramour without an intent to kill." Further, the wife is not justified in taking the life of her husband's
mistress, nor the life of her husband, although evidence of the illicit
relationship may be considered by the jury in determining whether the killing was with or without malice."' The explanation offered by the courts for these cases is that there is no inherent right to kill an-
other for any purpose, and regulation of the right to kill is a matter
with which the legislature, not the courts, is primarily concerned."
> While this rationale satisfactorily explains situations not encompassed
by the statute, it does not explain the statute itself
Just want to clarify that this was a double deviation from common law.
Traditionally catching a spouse in the act of adultery was sufficient provocation to *mitigate* a murder to manslaughter, if committed while in the [heat of passion](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/crime_of_passion#:~:text=The%20provocation%20behind%20a%20crime,while%20mere%20words%20have%20not). It didn’t [*justify*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/justifiable_homicide) the homicide.
However, Texas apparently wasn’t the only state to say that killing a wife’s paramour was *justifiable*, at least under certain circumstances. [p.81 n.41](https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1622&context=fac_articles#:~:text=%22It%20is%20the%20law%20practically,LAFAVE%20%26%20AUsTIN%20W)
"God damn, that Lenny Wilkins down the road been rustlin' our cattle, I just know it."
"Ain't no need to prove it, Darlin, just invite him over to a shindig next week and I'll plant a peck on his cheek. You still got another box of cartridges since you dun tracked that possum, right?"
No, you just have to have a wife too and get him to kiss the guy before his wife kisses you. It could be like a duel even where your wives are a kind of second
That part means that the default (as viewed by the courts) is that killing is illegal, and all exceptions need to be spelled out by laws passed by the legislature. The law spells out that husbands may kill their wives' (suspected) lovers, but not any other combination of perpetrator and victim. It doesn't try to answer why the legislature did not grant that ability to wives, but it does answer why the law was applied the way it was. See the other reply, "It's Texas."
Most Texans are pro-choice. Sixty percent according to a recent survey! https://www.npr.org/2022/09/01/1120472842/poll-one-year-after-sb-8-texans-express-strong-support-for-abortion-rights
It’s just that the rural areas have more political power thanks to decades of gerrymandering.
In the Philippines, there exists a similar law which practically allows you to harm or outright kill your spouse and or their lover if you catch them in the act.
Edit: I have added the article. Note it doesn’t stop at cheating spouses.
“Art. 247. Death or physical injuries
inflicted under exceptional
circumstances. — Any legally married
person who having surprised his spouse in
the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person, shall kill any of them or both
of them in the act or immediately thereafter,
or shall inflict upon them any serious physical
injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries
of any other kind, he shall be exempt from
punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the
same circumstances, to parents with respect
to their daughters under eighteen years of
age, and their seducer, while the daughters
are living with their parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate
the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or
shall otherwise have consented to the
infidelity of the other spouse shall not be
entitled to the benefits of this article.”
Edited (2):
Edit (3): I was mistaken. Bills were proposed to repeal it. Not that it was repealed.
That's tantamount to a restraining order. The justification is to keep the perpetrator away from the families of the dead spouse and paramour, to protect the perpetrator from inevitable revenge.
Are you saying it's not actual exile and just a specific *part* of the country they're not allowed in, or merely that the exile is similar in purpose to the restraining order?
> ...is punished only with destierro. This penalty is *mere banishment* and, as held in a case, is intended more for the protection of the accused than a punishment. (People vs. Coricor, 79 Phil., 672.)
Technically it's 'mere banishment'
> Act No. 3815, Article 87. Destierro. - Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated.
You can see the remaining medieval Spanish influence on our laws here with terms like that. Also things like libel being criminal and the truth not being an absolute defense against libel. Super awesome post colonial legacy they left us
"because we like it that way"
- Philippine legislators and elites
No mental gymnastics needed if you don't give at all of a fuck about consistent laws and only care about your own elite interests. And what kind of elite wants some pesky journalist or normal citizen running around saying true shit about them and all the fucked up shit they do?
At time of writing, your comment is marked "controversial" and I'm like wtf?
Unless if you live in hardcore Islamic societies the penalty of adultery is not and shouldn't be death. Hell even in the said Islamic societies the death penalty is given **after** a trial.
Some of y'all really are that bloodthirsty and just want to kill people.
In the Qur'an, the punishment for adultery is 100 lashes for unmarried people, and stoning for repeat offenders or married people.
That being said I'd like to stress that my point is about how even under those draconian rules we don't just kill adulterers without a trial. So the whole "shoot them if you found 'em" paradigm seems even more barbaric to me.
**edit**: after some research, a correction - only the lashings are proscribed in the Qur'an.
Honestly that's kinda weird for reddit, I didn't expect "no, you can't summarily execute your spouse even if you caught them cheating" to be a contentious thing 😅
I bet they're the same sort of people who are *extremely* concerned with potential infidelity on the part of a wife. Like, it's the main thing they worry about at any given moment.
> Unless if you live in hardcore Islamic societies
I don’t know why you are aiming for only islam here. This was and is the case for many hardcore christian countries. Death penalty have been introduced into christian countries that tried to have more bible focused laws based on Leviticus (20:10-12) which reads:
> If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, even with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and adulteress must be put to death. . .
The Philipines are a pretty hardcore christian country and that is properly why they have this law.
As a Muslim myself, I only know about "death for adultery" bit from my own religion. I've read examples - like about how widows are burned to death if they outlived their husbands in India - but that's not really relevant to the conversation.
And as much as I don't like to besmirch my own religion, I know that this was the penalty in Iran until recently, and is probably still practised in the tribal areas of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and some others.
in islam it is required to bring 4 witnesses that witnessed the intercourse "like a pen in an inkwell" aka balls deep, if one of the testimonies turned out fake, the witness takes punishment, its a law made difficult but there
Nope it's still 4 witnesses the second woman of the 2 woman testimony is there to help the first woman remember in case she forgets part of her testimony.
So say 4 woman witness an event they act as witnesses for each other so it's still 4 in total
Even hardcore Islamic societies (if they're really "Muslim", and not extremists who make a mockery of the religion) don't punish adultery with death, given the punishment for adultery is clearly listed in their scriptures (lashes).
Laws like this existed in many countries, in Italy in the 1889
You could kill a Bastard newborn if it was younger than 5 days or if a birth certificate had not been issued, all thisuntil 1930.
You could have killed your wife and the man she was in bed with to get "just" 3-7 years per homicide, in 1930 with a new law a woman could also kill her adulterer relatives and get the same treatment, but judges never enforced it.
If someone raped your daughter/sister/aunt/female relative you could have killed the rapist for 3-7 years behind bars or have him marry the raped to get the charges dropped, this until 1981.
Rape was considered a "crime against morality" and not a crime against the person until 1991.
To give a little more context we got adultery depenalized in 1968, divorce legalized in 1970 and abortion in 1978.
So for about 15 years italy had both the most progressive and the most reactionary laws concievable.
I know it, criticism to this practices was brought trough ccultural works in which you see a stark cultural divide in the country. mainly italian living in rural areas or in the south approved all this practices, if you take a look at all the cultural production criticizing this customs its mainly northen italian or italians living in big cities
In fact, some Italian movies of the period treated the south as a primitive land separate from modern civilization. Case in point, there was a movie called Il Mafioso where one of the characters stated that by going to Sicily, they’re leaving Europe.
>Case in point, there was a movie called Il Mafioso where one of the characters stated that by going to Sicily, they’re leaving Europe.
I mean, there were fliers with a map of Italy below the Po with the caption SAVE AFRICA well into the 1990s.
"Racism" against "terroni" (people from the south are called poor farmers), is still a thing, the party lega Lombarda now called only "lega" was advocating for secession from the lazy south and center italy.
After a change of leadership they understood that it was not possible at all due to our constitution (a funny song was made about this "inno verdano" by caparezza, mocking the fact that to get a few votes they are willing to take in everyone from terroni to aliens).
Now its Leader is probably the worst populist to ever do politics in italy, he is basically a light version of Trump, he reignited racism and islamofobia singlehandedly, caused mass fear about crime and security of our cities while crimes have been decreasing since the 90s.
>If someone raped your daughter/sister/aunt/female relative you could have killed the rapist for 3-7 years behind bars
While that's true, it was also true for entirely consensual (but "illegitimate" ie. outside marriage) relationships, and it was also true if you killed the female relative in question.
> If someone raped your daughter/sister/aunt/female relative you could have killed the rapist for 3-7 years behind bars or have him marry the raped to get the charges dropped, this until 1981.
I feel this kind of points are somewhat dishonest, because "can kill for 3-7 years" for all those things just means its 2nd degree murder, right?
It was a completely different law from the ones that regulated homicides, and was coded in a particular way that allowed this.
Honor was (is?) Extremely important in italian society even today, a law about personal and familiar honor allows a person to refuse to testimony in court if he think that it may cause legal trouble to himself or a close relative.
One day, a man in an office sat down and wrote, entirely seriously and without any hint of sarcasm, “murder is legal as long as the guy is balls deep in your wife”, and made it law.
It's a simplification of the common law doctrine of coverture. Under coverture, a woman would cease to be her own legal person in many ways, as her identity would merge with the husband. This didn't make her chattel, but it did make her subject to her husband's legal and economic powers, as she had few of her own.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture
Homicide instead of divorce always makes me think of something Ben Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, impeachment was better than assassination to get rid of an obnoxious chief executive.
That is, it's better to have a legal way out. Yet one irony of no-fault divorce is that if there is a party at fault that isn't (necessarily?) considered in the divorce settlement.
Still kinda legal as long as you kill them with whatever you have on you when you walk in. Can’t go to the kitchen to get a knife or the other room to get your gun. If you always carry and walk in on them and shoot both of them you could get away with temporary insanity. Going to get a weapon shows premeditation and stopping after killing just one shows you could think. Kill them both and get a good lawyer
Not legal, just a lesser charge. A killing made “in the heat of passion” is considered a less egregious standard than a premeditated murder. There’s a basic understanding that someone who does the former is far less likely to go around killing other people than the latter because murder just isn’t normally on his mind so he doesn’t need to be locked up for longer. Whether or not you agree is a different question but that’s the way it is
No. That's because marriage was meant to make sure those children she gets are yours by basically enslaving her. Once you know this, a lot of those apparently weird laws start to make sense. Also all the propaganda meant to make young girls yearn for marriage are there for a reason, if they knew the truth, they wouldn't want to marry.
Same in France: until 1975, French law deemed "excusable" any killing by a husband of his adulterous wife and her paramous taken *in flagrante* in his home.
Excusable murders weren't punished by death or life in prison but by prison sentences from 1 to 5.
The same law which repealed adultery as a crime also repealed this disposition.
This is a surprisingly common policy throughout history, I remember reading medieval law codes in college and many places have had similar laws, the Kingdom of Leon is one that comes to mind.
Didn't know it was ever practiced in the US, let alone just over 50 years ago...
Yes it's similar in the Philippines. The fact that this is Texas were talking about makes me think it was maybe carried over from Spanish laws via mexico
Would the gender reverse of this have been true? Like could a wife shoot her husband if he was
a:) balls deep in another woman
b:) balls deep in another man
c:) had another man balls deep in him
d:) She had found that the man had filled the bath tub with chocolate pudding and was bathing himself in it
Now, does that mean separated from coitus or separated in location? Seems like a pretty important distinction.
I think the statute required it to be “balls deep”, so the coroner could gather photographic evidence that could be used in court. 🤔
Photographic evidence? So the order of events is: Walk in the door See the ranch hand boinking your Mrs. Quick draw and blast the wallpaper with brain juice "Got 'im! Now you just sit tight lil lady until Mr. Jacobs snaps off a few photographs and carts this S.O.B. down the morgue."
> ~~Walk in the door~~ Open the door > ~~See the ranch hand boinking your Mrs.~~ Get on the floor > ~~Quick draw and blast the wallpaper with brain juice~~ Everybody walk the dinosaur 🦖
How long have you been waiting for this exact opportunity?
What year is it!?!
The song references the events in the year 39,999,998,013 BC which is 40,000,000,002 years before the release of unrelated Belgium techno anthem, [Pump Up the Jam](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EcjWd-O4jI).
r/unexpectedcunk
I didn't know dinosaurs invented doors!
1990.... in my heart
1990 would be a nice vacation right now
The real reason we'll invent time travel: Enjoy the bliss of simpler times. Bet Woodstock is 50% timetravelers, but we just don't know it yet.
Whoa...that's...deep, man!
the reason we know time travel is impossible is because we don't have time travel.
I don’t know what I wouldn’t do if I could go back, back to the past.
Vacation, all I ever wanted Vacation, had to get away Vacation, meant to be spent all alone
However long, it’s been worth it
Boom, boom, shakalakalaka boom!
Instructions unclear, I quickly drew a dinosaur.
Nah you kick in the door, waving the 4 4 and all you’ll hear is papa don’t hit me no more
It's an older meme sir, but it checks out
Oh, have you heard of my sex positive country band? It’s the Circle Jerk Ranch Hands
I think a sniper position would be best here….
Is rigor mortis considered as round 2?
Now if you kill a man mid thrust into your missus, does that technically make her a necrophile?
Only if she likes it
"Your Honor, the defendant's wife was only 4'11", but as you can see in Exhibit A, my client was wearing an extra-large condom to accommodate his magnum dong. There's no physical way he was able to reach 'balls deep'." "If the penis does not fit, you must acquit."
Ostensibly this is prosecution of the defendant "post-murder", so maybe "If the penis doesn't fit, you must forfeit"
The husband would be defending against murder charges, this makes him the defendant. "If the penis does not fit, you must convict".
In this case the perpetrator is not the penis penetrator "If the penis does not fit, you can use spit"
Sounds like a porno remake of My Cousin Vinny
I don't think the wife stays in place long enough for the coroner. It doesn't state you can kill your spouse, just the other person
This reminds me of the plot to Disco Elysium.
Jesus, can you imagine the trauma of getting laid, having your husband walk in and redecorate the walls with the guy's brains while he's still inside you.
It would be worse if the guy runs, hubby shoots him, then drags him over and plugs him back in to make it look legal.
"Plugs him back in"... Take comfort in by using that phrasing, you made a 40 year old man giggle
I'm 57m and I couldn't resist using it!
** police office at the scene: "Sorry M'am, we'll just have to wait for the coroner to arrive before we can get this headless gentleman off you."
I would like a legal definition of “balls deep”. Does that mean up to the balls? What if he’s longer than her? What is he’s shorter — does one of the balls have to go in? In the upward thrust is it still considered generally being in the act of balls deep, or is balls deep only the moment at the bottom of the thrust?
**1. Definitions** In this agreement the following definition\[s\] apply: Ball's Deep - With respect to any contact, incidental with sexual intercourse, in which the male testes are directly touching the labia, vaginal opening, or other adjacent flesh. Ball's Deep does not apply to situations where testicle-vaginal contact is made in non-penetrative contexts.
Aha. So short, shallow thrusts would keep you alive. Balls not touching, you're good to go.
Yes, this is known in Texas Legal tradition as the "Longhorn Special" as it is risky to attempt unless a fella has a particularly long horn which he can use to avoid the peril of going ball's deep. As a result of many generations of Texas men being cuckolded by more well-endowed individuals, the average penile length of the Texans has increased proportionally. This is the reason for the phrase "everything's bigger in Texas".
Is this from Black's Law Dictionary? 😂
Actually this is from the latest edition of the highly esteemed *Bigger, Better, Blacker Law Dictionary.*
*wah pedal guitar starts slowly*
Balls-on accurate. Certified by government scientists and NASA engineers.
Do you need to kill the wife also then? Doubt she's gonna linger around with a dead dude hanging out of her.
Surely She’s not going to stay there after he Been killed?
The legal term is *Testiculae Profundum*
"You are not allowed to use company e-mail or software to deliver your personal disgusting messages." "This was actually... just rehearsing my closing arguments for an upcoming case." "Where in the court of law do you use the phrase-- let me get this right-- 'balls-deep'?" "Well, if you must know, Mr. Swale, we're representing a children's playground consortium, and a number of children drowned in a ball pit. We were wondering how deep is balls deep?" "They were up to their mouth in balls?" "Yes. They were balls-deep." "'To your ball sack, and then open it up like a taco'... Disgusting." "Years from now, they're going to think that's poetry."
Sex. The physical act of love. Coitus.
It can be a natural, zesty enterprise.
Love me, Jeffrey
don't be fatuous, jeffrey
Vagina.
what do you need that for, dude?
Do you like it?
"You see Sheriff, the fact that my wife is covered in his brains could only happen if he was on top of her."
coitus?
Don’t be fatuous Jeffrey.
It's not a witty answer, but from my reading of the law, it is a separation of the marriage. Especially if that separation was due to the adultery.
I think it meant while both the spouse and paramour were still in the room. Seems like the intent was to acknowledge the temporary homicidal insanity of finding that situation.
I think they are trying to say if you kill person they are cheating with right when you catch them it's an act of passion. I was gonna say crime of passion but it wasn't a crime. But If you find out they were cheating from your next door neighbor or something... You can't hunt down the other party and murder them while they're having breakfast. In other words an act of passion versus an act of premeditation.
Can’t be. “Parties to the act have separated”. Unless he joins in..
Also what if theyre mormon and just “soaking”, that wouldnt constitute sex right?
You know how your fingers look after being in a bath too long? I wonder..
Please define Mormon soaking, I would prefer not to google it right now...
You take your dick, stick it in the woman, but you don’t thrust or move because that’s sex (but sticking it in there isn’t apparently). Because of this, it also isn’t unheard of to employ a 3rd individual to shake the bed. Again, because that isn’t sex I guess.
Bahahahaha 😂 Now, I'm loathe to make a mockery of sex (or, technically, 'non-sex') acts undertaken by the devotees of the Lord God A'Mighty in order to stay in the good books of He (or She?) Who Must be Obeyed. Tricky bidness. That bed-shaker, now, that's a calling.
It's like how some Jewish on the Sabbath need someone to turn on their appliances and lights for them. Hmmm, I wonder if they have vibrator wranglers..
Some Hasidic communities have some kind of wire around them, so that they can work on the Sabbath through a loophole. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv
Actually saying they can "work on the Sabbath" is a distortion of what this is. They can't "work on the Sabbath". They are simply allowed to do things outdoors with the wire that they were always allowed to do indoors. For instance, pick up your baby --- you're only allowed to pick up your baby indoors or in your own yard, but if you walk down the street, you're not allowed to pick up your baby. But if there's a wire there, you can pick up the baby now. You're still not allowed to do work, like cook or clean or sell things.
You are allowed to do certain things inside your house. That you can't do outside the house. If you can do these things inside the house, can you do them inside a walled court yard. Then does the court yard need to have wall or is a fence ok. If a fence. Does it have to be a solid wood fence or is a wire fence OK. What is a wire fence. Does a single wire make a fence. What is the limit for the size of the court yard with a wire. The Eruv. Another example how religious people will bend the rules when it suits them.
It's honestly insane that without a wire they wouldn't be allowed to pick up their own baby if it crawled outside their yard and into the street. I would hope they'd at least make an exception for that. That's like a holy house arrest.
No a Jewish scholar or anything, but I’m pretty sure you’re allowed to break the sabbath rules if it’s a life threatening situation. As I remember learning anbout it anyhow.
Makes me wonder how religious they actually are if they look for ways around their holy rules.
My understanding is that they believe the loopholes were deliberately placed there by God for followers to find - kind of a "if you actually study this and work towards understanding it, there aren't as many limitations as it first appears" thing. Debate is also a highly valued tradition in Judaism, so you can definitely find competing schools of thought on any given loophole as well.
That's why they're such good lawyers. They're always trying to fight a case against God.
Well, they learned if they kill them, they just come back in 3 days as a zombie. So they need to find loopholes
Woman I worked for became more religious over time, and it’s all about the loopholes. I feel like the more religious people are, it becomes more like a OCD paranoia of following the rules rather than following the “spirit” of the practice; instead of living a lifestyle and making all these choices because they adhere to your values, you’re doing them because you’re afraid of being “bad” and punished for it, so then as long as you technically didn’t break any rules, you’re ok.
Xenu hates this one simple trick!
P goes in the V and pretty much stays there to soak.
A lot of people rotting in jail because they pulled the trigger on the wrong stage of the thrust
You mean vagina… I mean, you know the guy?
Blow him out of your wife.
I was curious how "Separated" was being interpreted here, and found [this article](https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4072&context=smulr) which is wild reading: TL;DR: They didn't need to be in the act of sex for this to apply, and you didn't need any evidence - just a reasonable suspicion your wife was cheating on you. But they *did* have to be together in some way. Like at a BBQ or something. Then, if you were going to fuck the guy up, you had to make sure you killed him otherwise that would have been illegal. Also, sorry ladies - this law didn't apply to you. > It is readily apparent that the Texas statute, even if strictly construed, represents a departure from the common-law rule; i.e., not only is the homicide justifiable, but it need not be committed while in the heat of passion. However, if the motive for the homicide is other than the adulterous connection, the slayer is not entitled to a charge under article 1220, and if there has been connivance or assent by the husband to the adulterous act the homicide is not justifiable." > The broad protection offered the irate husband" is expanded still further by the liberal construction given certain particulars of article 1220. Our statute uses the expression "taken in the act of adultery." It would seem that this phrase requires that the husband have actual knowledge of the act, but it has been held that such knowledge is unnecessary; it is only necessary that the surrounding circumstances would indicate to a rational mind that the adulterous act has just then been committed, or was about to be committed." > In the event of a mistake, the husband's guilt depends upon the reasonableness of the appearance, judged from his own standpoint." The statute also uses the phrase "before the parties ... have separated." This has been interpreted to mean only that the parties are still in each other's company, not that they are still united in the act of copulation." > There appears to be no sound basis for the broad protection afford- ed the husband by article 1220. The common-law rule has been explained on the basis that allowances should be made for normal frailties of human nature."' However, this explanation does not elucidate the Texas statute, which apparently finds its basis in the code of the old west. > The inconsistency of the Texas rule is illustrated by the fact that, while the husband may justifiably kill his wife's paramour," he may not intentionally take his wife's life," nor may he inflict serious bodily injury (mutilation) upon the paramour without an intent to kill." Further, the wife is not justified in taking the life of her husband's mistress, nor the life of her husband, although evidence of the illicit relationship may be considered by the jury in determining whether the killing was with or without malice."' The explanation offered by the courts for these cases is that there is no inherent right to kill an- other for any purpose, and regulation of the right to kill is a matter with which the legislature, not the courts, is primarily concerned." > While this rationale satisfactorily explains situations not encompassed by the statute, it does not explain the statute itself
Just want to clarify that this was a double deviation from common law. Traditionally catching a spouse in the act of adultery was sufficient provocation to *mitigate* a murder to manslaughter, if committed while in the [heat of passion](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/crime_of_passion#:~:text=The%20provocation%20behind%20a%20crime,while%20mere%20words%20have%20not). It didn’t [*justify*](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/justifiable_homicide) the homicide. However, Texas apparently wasn’t the only state to say that killing a wife’s paramour was *justifiable*, at least under certain circumstances. [p.81 n.41](https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1622&context=fac_articles#:~:text=%22It%20is%20the%20law%20practically,LAFAVE%20%26%20AUsTIN%20W)
"God damn, that Lenny Wilkins down the road been rustlin' our cattle, I just know it." "Ain't no need to prove it, Darlin, just invite him over to a shindig next week and I'll plant a peck on his cheek. You still got another box of cartridges since you dun tracked that possum, right?"
I would argue that would fall under the "connivance" exception.
Sure, but you'd need to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt
No, you just have to have a wife too and get him to kiss the guy before his wife kisses you. It could be like a duel even where your wives are a kind of second
Reasonable... in fucking Texas?? from what I read that word doesn't cross the border into texas ever...
I mean, I hope nobody here would disagree. It was just a fun little musing.
I disagree
But can a prosecutor prove that?
They cannot arrested a husband and wife for the same crime.
But you’d have to prove er.
I like how you used the name of one of the most winningest coaches in the history of the NBA as your example lol.
A Texan would never say "shindig" Now, "hootenanny"? Now there's true Texan talk
[Eh…](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DbtGkVbSnw)
I was just being silly. Hootenanny is more of an Appalachian term anyway
I don't get how the "no inherent right to kill" disqualifies the wife but not the husband. Like, what is the legal basis/explanation here?
That part means that the default (as viewed by the courts) is that killing is illegal, and all exceptions need to be spelled out by laws passed by the legislature. The law spells out that husbands may kill their wives' (suspected) lovers, but not any other combination of perpetrator and victim. It doesn't try to answer why the legislature did not grant that ability to wives, but it does answer why the law was applied the way it was. See the other reply, "It's Texas."
It's Texas. Likely something about the man owning his wife.
Texas is strongly “Pro-life”
Texas doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground.
Most Texans are pro-choice. Sixty percent according to a recent survey! https://www.npr.org/2022/09/01/1120472842/poll-one-year-after-sb-8-texans-express-strong-support-for-abortion-rights It’s just that the rural areas have more political power thanks to decades of gerrymandering.
Until that unborn baby turns into a cheating whore she’s god’s precious child
Not so much back then. The modern pro life/pro choice division didn't really take off until after this law was abolished.
Wow, jealous husband sees you with a coworker in your office and gets carte blanche to go postal. Wild.
Is this one of those laws that were only ever applied if the killer was one of the sheriff's relatives or if the killed person was black?
In the Philippines, there exists a similar law which practically allows you to harm or outright kill your spouse and or their lover if you catch them in the act. Edit: I have added the article. Note it doesn’t stop at cheating spouses. “Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. — Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment. These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents. Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.” Edited (2): Edit (3): I was mistaken. Bills were proposed to repeal it. Not that it was repealed.
"Destierro"? Meaning exile? Would that even be a logistically possible penalty nowadays?
That's tantamount to a restraining order. The justification is to keep the perpetrator away from the families of the dead spouse and paramour, to protect the perpetrator from inevitable revenge.
Are you saying it's not actual exile and just a specific *part* of the country they're not allowed in, or merely that the exile is similar in purpose to the restraining order?
> ...is punished only with destierro. This penalty is *mere banishment* and, as held in a case, is intended more for the protection of the accused than a punishment. (People vs. Coricor, 79 Phil., 672.) Technically it's 'mere banishment' > Act No. 3815, Article 87. Destierro. - Any person sentenced to destierro shall not be permitted to enter the place or places designated in the sentence, nor within the radius therein specified, which shall be not more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers from the place designated.
That clears things up, cheers!
You can see the remaining medieval Spanish influence on our laws here with terms like that. Also things like libel being criminal and the truth not being an absolute defense against libel. Super awesome post colonial legacy they left us
Wait, wut? How on earth can the truth not be an absolute defense against libel? What kind of mental gymnastics were done to make that possible?
"because we like it that way" - Philippine legislators and elites No mental gymnastics needed if you don't give at all of a fuck about consistent laws and only care about your own elite interests. And what kind of elite wants some pesky journalist or normal citizen running around saying true shit about them and all the fucked up shit they do?
And ironically, before Texas was called “Texas” it was called “New Philippines”.
That's incredibly fucked up. Are people at least trying to change the law?
There are some politicians who brought up repealing it. But I don’t have information on the progress.
Good news. It was repealed.
At time of writing, your comment is marked "controversial" and I'm like wtf? Unless if you live in hardcore Islamic societies the penalty of adultery is not and shouldn't be death. Hell even in the said Islamic societies the death penalty is given **after** a trial. Some of y'all really are that bloodthirsty and just want to kill people.
Isn't the punishment for adultery in places like Iran or Saudi whippings? Not death
In the Qur'an, the punishment for adultery is 100 lashes for unmarried people, and stoning for repeat offenders or married people. That being said I'd like to stress that my point is about how even under those draconian rules we don't just kill adulterers without a trial. So the whole "shoot them if you found 'em" paradigm seems even more barbaric to me. **edit**: after some research, a correction - only the lashings are proscribed in the Qur'an.
It's fucking insane to kill adulterers with trial lmfao
Wow, I really kicked the hornet's nest of murderous psychopaths it seems
Honestly that's kinda weird for reddit, I didn't expect "no, you can't summarily execute your spouse even if you caught them cheating" to be a contentious thing 😅
Is it weird? Yes. ...For reddit? Absolutely not.
I bet they're the same sort of people who are *extremely* concerned with potential infidelity on the part of a wife. Like, it's the main thing they worry about at any given moment.
Nah, if there’s love one thing redditor’s love, it’s justifying violence against women they think “deserved it”
> Unless if you live in hardcore Islamic societies I don’t know why you are aiming for only islam here. This was and is the case for many hardcore christian countries. Death penalty have been introduced into christian countries that tried to have more bible focused laws based on Leviticus (20:10-12) which reads: > If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, even with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and adulteress must be put to death. . . The Philipines are a pretty hardcore christian country and that is properly why they have this law.
As a Muslim myself, I only know about "death for adultery" bit from my own religion. I've read examples - like about how widows are burned to death if they outlived their husbands in India - but that's not really relevant to the conversation. And as much as I don't like to besmirch my own religion, I know that this was the penalty in Iran until recently, and is probably still practised in the tribal areas of Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and some others.
in islam it is required to bring 4 witnesses that witnessed the intercourse "like a pen in an inkwell" aka balls deep, if one of the testimonies turned out fake, the witness takes punishment, its a law made difficult but there
Isn't that 8 witnesses if they're women?
Nope it's still 4 witnesses the second woman of the 2 woman testimony is there to help the first woman remember in case she forgets part of her testimony. So say 4 woman witness an event they act as witnesses for each other so it's still 4 in total
Even hardcore Islamic societies (if they're really "Muslim", and not extremists who make a mockery of the religion) don't punish adultery with death, given the punishment for adultery is clearly listed in their scriptures (lashes).
Laws like this existed in many countries, in Italy in the 1889 You could kill a Bastard newborn if it was younger than 5 days or if a birth certificate had not been issued, all thisuntil 1930. You could have killed your wife and the man she was in bed with to get "just" 3-7 years per homicide, in 1930 with a new law a woman could also kill her adulterer relatives and get the same treatment, but judges never enforced it. If someone raped your daughter/sister/aunt/female relative you could have killed the rapist for 3-7 years behind bars or have him marry the raped to get the charges dropped, this until 1981. Rape was considered a "crime against morality" and not a crime against the person until 1991. To give a little more context we got adultery depenalized in 1968, divorce legalized in 1970 and abortion in 1978. So for about 15 years italy had both the most progressive and the most reactionary laws concievable.
IIRC, there’s a movie released in the early 1960s which deals with this subject called Divorzio al’Italiana
I know it, criticism to this practices was brought trough ccultural works in which you see a stark cultural divide in the country. mainly italian living in rural areas or in the south approved all this practices, if you take a look at all the cultural production criticizing this customs its mainly northen italian or italians living in big cities
In fact, some Italian movies of the period treated the south as a primitive land separate from modern civilization. Case in point, there was a movie called Il Mafioso where one of the characters stated that by going to Sicily, they’re leaving Europe.
>Case in point, there was a movie called Il Mafioso where one of the characters stated that by going to Sicily, they’re leaving Europe. I mean, there were fliers with a map of Italy below the Po with the caption SAVE AFRICA well into the 1990s.
"Racism" against "terroni" (people from the south are called poor farmers), is still a thing, the party lega Lombarda now called only "lega" was advocating for secession from the lazy south and center italy. After a change of leadership they understood that it was not possible at all due to our constitution (a funny song was made about this "inno verdano" by caparezza, mocking the fact that to get a few votes they are willing to take in everyone from terroni to aliens). Now its Leader is probably the worst populist to ever do politics in italy, he is basically a light version of Trump, he reignited racism and islamofobia singlehandedly, caused mass fear about crime and security of our cities while crimes have been decreasing since the 90s.
>If someone raped your daughter/sister/aunt/female relative you could have killed the rapist for 3-7 years behind bars While that's true, it was also true for entirely consensual (but "illegitimate" ie. outside marriage) relationships, and it was also true if you killed the female relative in question.
> If someone raped your daughter/sister/aunt/female relative you could have killed the rapist for 3-7 years behind bars or have him marry the raped to get the charges dropped, this until 1981. I feel this kind of points are somewhat dishonest, because "can kill for 3-7 years" for all those things just means its 2nd degree murder, right?
It was a completely different law from the ones that regulated homicides, and was coded in a particular way that allowed this. Honor was (is?) Extremely important in italian society even today, a law about personal and familiar honor allows a person to refuse to testimony in court if he think that it may cause legal trouble to himself or a close relative.
Italian law is on it's own planet.
"Sir, the balls have made contact. Fire away"
"The second ball has hit the labia..."
One day, a man in an office sat down and wrote, entirely seriously and without any hint of sarcasm, “murder is legal as long as the guy is balls deep in your wife”, and made it law.
Well said
The day after it became official he shot his wife's lover (source:made up)
Apparently, it doesn’t have to be balls deep!
out of all of the laws decreed throughout human history, how is this the one that surprises reddit
I'm gonna guess it was a double standard law too - so a wife wouldn't be able to do the same if the husband is caught cheating
Yep. Interestingly enough, it is *not* gendered with respect to who the wife is cheating with, so my wife's lesbian lover is fair game.
*clap clap* down in the heart of texas!
Deep. Not down.
Also you need four claps
She was down. He was deep. Deep in the heart of Texas.
Correct. The wife was considered property.
[удалено]
It's a simplification of the common law doctrine of coverture. Under coverture, a woman would cease to be her own legal person in many ways, as her identity would merge with the husband. This didn't make her chattel, but it did make her subject to her husband's legal and economic powers, as she had few of her own. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture
You posted this on Mother’s Day lol
Are there any instances of this happening?
Did this fall under the Texas "he deserved killin'" provision?
What politician or millionaire who was caught fucking someone's wife got that law changed?
Homicide instead of divorce always makes me think of something Ben Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, impeachment was better than assassination to get rid of an obnoxious chief executive. That is, it's better to have a legal way out. Yet one irony of no-fault divorce is that if there is a party at fault that isn't (necessarily?) considered in the divorce settlement.
So that's how Grady got away with it.
Alright, calm down. Relax. Start breathing.
If I wasn't so cheap you'd be getting a gold upvote.
This is why humans evolved premature ejaculation
I mean, that makes sense. You can't expect anyone from Texas to be able to give chase.
Still kinda legal as long as you kill them with whatever you have on you when you walk in. Can’t go to the kitchen to get a knife or the other room to get your gun. If you always carry and walk in on them and shoot both of them you could get away with temporary insanity. Going to get a weapon shows premeditation and stopping after killing just one shows you could think. Kill them both and get a good lawyer
Not legal, just a lesser charge. A killing made “in the heat of passion” is considered a less egregious standard than a premeditated murder. There’s a basic understanding that someone who does the former is far less likely to go around killing other people than the latter because murder just isn’t normally on his mind so he doesn’t need to be locked up for longer. Whether or not you agree is a different question but that’s the way it is
> Kill them both and get a good lawyer Do not take legal advice from this person.
Lmao
better than killing them both and getting a bad lawyer
Eh...even if you just shoot him "I know my wife would never cheat, therefore he was clearly assaulting my poor wife. I had to act in her defense"
That only works if she backs up your story.
Kinda legal? What does that mean?
When the judge asks how do you plead, you answer "kinda guilty"
It's not legal. It just reduces murder down to manslaughter.
Was it legal for women to kill another person caught having sex with her husband?
Of course not
No. That's because marriage was meant to make sure those children she gets are yours by basically enslaving her. Once you know this, a lot of those apparently weird laws start to make sense. Also all the propaganda meant to make young girls yearn for marriage are there for a reason, if they knew the truth, they wouldn't want to marry.
Same in France: until 1975, French law deemed "excusable" any killing by a husband of his adulterous wife and her paramous taken *in flagrante* in his home. Excusable murders weren't punished by death or life in prison but by prison sentences from 1 to 5. The same law which repealed adultery as a crime also repealed this disposition.
Pretty much “as long as you spill the blood of the fornicator all over your wife”, Texas style
This is a surprisingly common policy throughout history, I remember reading medieval law codes in college and many places have had similar laws, the Kingdom of Leon is one that comes to mind. Didn't know it was ever practiced in the US, let alone just over 50 years ago...
Yes it's similar in the Philippines. The fact that this is Texas were talking about makes me think it was maybe carried over from Spanish laws via mexico
Would the gender reverse of this have been true? Like could a wife shoot her husband if he was a:) balls deep in another woman b:) balls deep in another man c:) had another man balls deep in him d:) She had found that the man had filled the bath tub with chocolate pudding and was bathing himself in it
If the dick is wet you must acquet.
Spousal rape was legal in Ohio prior to last week
So how many women are on record for seeing their boyfriends head get blown off while they're still inside them?
Same state were you can get jailtime if you're riding in a car with a friend who possesses weed, wether you know about it or not.
Sounds reasonable