Ah it’s different from what I originally assumed
https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4072&context=smulr
(See page 509)
-
knowledge isn’t necessary, just assumptions
-
“need not be committed while in the heat of passion”
-
“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”
-
“while the husband may justifiably kill his wife’s paramour," he may not […] inflict serious bodily injury (mutulation) upon the paramour without an intent to kill”
-
“Further, the wife is not justified in taking the life of her husband’s mistress”
Boy, rules for thee but not for me. The wife can’t kill a woman she finds sleeping with her husband?
“while the husband may justifiably kill his wife’s paramour," he may not […] inflict serious bodily injury (mutulation) upon the paramour without an intent to kill”
Always cool when the law’s like “yeah, you better be trying to kill him when you fuck him up”
