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”
As in, you can kill the guy if you catch them in the act?!
Yup, sounds like it. I think this is what the French call “a crime of passion”. The idea is that the moment is so enraging that one cannot be held accountable for one’s actions in that moment. It’s a kind of, “fuck around and find out,” law.
In the case of the law, it did not have to be done in the heat of the moment. You could all take a few minutes, put your clothes on, have some snacks and drinks while you talk it all over. A few hours later, tell everyone you’re getting up to go to the restroom so they don’t get suspicious. Get your rifle, and then go back to the dining room and shoot the guy in the face. All legal.
Does “separated” mean they’re no longer constantly fucking? Or does “separated” mean “his penis is still inside her”?
You have to cut his dick off while it’s inside her then allow him to bleed out. It’s the only way to keep it all above board.
