Man confesses to killing escort found not guilty

[Poker_Babe]

All I can do is shake my head in disappointment right now... :snooty:

 

[mynameisbob84]

Pathetic. Frightening to think that in some parts of the world $150 is worth more than the life of a 23 year old woman.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

Frightening, pathetic to think that a jury of his own peers agreed he did nothing wrong.

 

[emptiedglass]

I think this tweet sums it up nicely.



I mean, seriously, you could blow someone's brains out for stealing a loaf of bread? Some days I'm ashamed to be a member of the human race.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

Texas: Where "She was coming right for me!" and "She wasn't coming right for me!" are both viable reasons to kill someone.

 

[Sunny_Sue]

What sucks is what he did was illegal all the way around. Not just the fact that he killed a woman, but he did it over something that was illegal to begin with! And they said that she spent a specified amount of time with him. Which to me means she spent the time agreed upon with him, that he paid for. She just did not fuck his ass like he wanted. This is like taking someone out to dinner and saying that I paid for her dinner and expected sex, and when she wouldn't have sex with me I killed her because she stole my money by having me pay for dinner. What the hell is wrong with people?????

 

[Deleted member 8603]

There is a rule that many escorts have that makes it legal.
That the TIME is what the customer pays for, and if sex happens, it is incidental.

This should be overturned because
A. He could not legally expect sex from this woman
B. He fucking murdered a human being
C. Jesus, why didn't he just kill himself for being so pathetic.
and
D. How can you rob someone of something it isn't legal for them to buy?

 

[SweepTheLeg]

This reminds me of something I saw on COPS late one night at work:

A lady admitted to using money to buy crack, but never got the crack and wanted the cop on the scene to go get her money back. If only she took matters into her own hands and shot the drug dealer instead of getting the cops involved she'd have been a free woman with money...and crack.

 

[Sunny_Sue]

There is a rule that many escorts have that makes it legal.
That the TIME is what the customer pays for, and if sex happens, it is incidental.

This should be overturned because
A. He could not legally expect sex from this woman
B. He fucking murdered a human being
C. Jesus, why didn't he just kill himself for being so pathetic.
and
D. How can you rob someone of something it isn't legal for them to buy?

Yeah that was kind of the point I was trying to make. You just made it make a lot more sense. They said that in Texas they have a law that covers your property and being allowed to use lethal force to recover it. And since she did not have sex with him, she stole his money. But that is bull shit, because that is illegal! They also said that she did spend time with him, so he in turn got what he paid for. So how did she steal the money???

 

[emptiedglass]

This reminds me of something I saw on COPS late one night at work:

A lady admitted to using money to buy crack, but never got the crack and wanted the cop on the scene to go get her money back. If only she took matters into her own hands and shot the drug dealer instead of getting the cops involved she'd have been a free woman with money...and crack.

And then the dealer's, um, associates would come looking for her and their property.
An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.
On the other hand, maybe a few members of the Canadian Senate should vacation in Texas... along with a Canadian taxpayer or 2. :lol: (there's currently a scandal about one whose expense account was in the neighbourhood of $90,000!)

 

[Red7227]

D. How can you rob someone of something it isn't legal for them to buy?

He was trying to recover his rented vagina ?

There are no words for how beyond reasonable this whole thing is. At this point I'm thinking that hanging this douchbag, the entire jury, defence and the judge is the only possible response to such a ridiculous finding. Yes laws are sometimes badly worded, but to allow this in any allegedly civilised country is beyond my comprehension.

Lenora Frago and the douchbag

 

[Brad]

WTF? Come on Texas, you are better then that.

 

[emptiedglass]

There are no words for how beyond reasonable this whole thing is. At this point I'm thinking that hanging this douchbag, the entire jury, defence and the judge is the only possible response to such a ridiculous finding. ]

Well, if the trial was at night, it might be legal to shoot 'em all for robbing that woman of justice.

 

[bawksy]

A less inflammatory thread title would read "Man admits to killing thief; found not guilty per Texas state law." The fact that she stole sex or $150 from him and the fact that prostitution is illegal has nothing to do with the core of the story, except to sensationalize it.

It does seem quite odd that in Texas someone can legally use lethal force to stop a thief, but I suppose the law was written in the days before welfare where if someone stole something from you, like a horse, it could literally cost you your life or livelihood.

I'm not completely against such a law, but do I wonder how the law could be restricted to prevent its application in frivolous cases such as this. For example, I don't think it's worth killing someone over $150, but if I saw someone driving off in my car, it would be nice if the law allowed me to stop them with lethal force and not have to worry about me going to jail for it.

 

[Just Me]

The unintended and sad consequences of stupid laws that are supposedly tough on crime.

There should be no justification to take another human beings life other than an imminent threat to your own or another persons life. No amount of money or property should be justification to use deadly force. Also, the logic some people are using that if could not be a crime since other illegal activity was taking place makes no sense. Otherwise escorts etc would have no recourse if they were raped because it was illegal activity. In most places, if another crime is committed, like murder, when committing a crime, like robbery, the penalties are much more strict.

 

[camstory]

Again I feel I am putting myself possibly in the line of crossfire, so before you shoot... I think this is a fucking crazy happening, and I understand the sentiment of wanting to use lethal force to stop your car from being stolen, but killing what might be a drunk 15 year old kid because he is major stupid does not work for me, or anyone over a thing for that matter. I guess I would have to think about someone using what they intended to be only enough force to try to stop the thief but clearly had no intent to kill or even seriously maim, and I guess that seems reasonable. and if that turned out to result in death, I guess that is reasonable also, if there was no obvious/provable intent to kill.

But here's what I came to say (the other just happened haha), that in Ca. and I think is probable the case everywhere else, the fact that the item stolen was not a legal item is irrelevant as it relates to the theft. That is, a drug dealer who is robbed of his illegal drugs can rightfully request that the person who robbed him be arrested, and if there is reason to believe he was robbed by an identifiable person/s the police are bound to arrest that person/s. They will almost surly arrest the vic for possession too but it is no less a crime because what was stolen was not legal.

 

[Sevrin]

It does seem quite odd that in Texas someone can legally use lethal force to stop a thief, but I suppose the law was written in the days before welfare where if someone stole something from you, like a horse, it could literally cost you your life or livelihood.

Too lazy too google. Too lazy to think.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.42

Last amended in 1993. I hear horse-theft was rampant 20 years ago.

 

[SaffronBurke]

This reminds me of something I saw on COPS late one night at work:

A lady admitted to using money to buy crack, but never got the crack and wanted the cop on the scene to go get her money back. If only she took matters into her own hands and shot the drug dealer instead of getting the cops involved she'd have been a free woman with money...and crack.

I'm not sure if it's the same one or not, but I saw one where a lady called the police because someone sold her fake crack, and she wanted a refund, but they wouldn't give her money back.

I've also been told there's one where someone calls the cops about their weed being stolen.

 

[Red7227]

It does seem quite odd that in Texas someone can legally use lethal force to stop a thief, but I suppose the law was written in the days before welfare where if someone stole something from you, like a horse, it could literally cost you your life or livelihood.

Too lazy too google. Too lazy to think.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.42

Last amended in 1993. I hear horse-theft was rampant 20 years ago.

Its older than I expected. I was thinking it was part of the "home is a castle" legislation that dubya supported

 

[JordanBlack]

2013, in a "democratic country"?!

*breath*just try to breath...**can you..* :icon-cry:

You know when the execution of journalists by a military chopper came out, I cried, but everybody said ..."hey it's a war zone, it's Iraq"...

When whistle-blowers are being threatened and thrown in jail because they dared to question the morality of a chosen government's actions, they said they should be thrown in jail because they threatened national security.

But...if it happens on that same nation's soil for a "perverted" girl to be murdered by a sick fuck because she asked for money for a service rendered ...oh dear ...how could we send to jail a poor soul that has been tempted by a working girl to sin, he did a "good" christian thing to murder and kill the temptress.

Innit now...

 

[SweepTheLeg]

This reminds me of something I saw on COPS late one night at work:

A lady admitted to using money to buy crack, but never got the crack and wanted the cop on the scene to go get her money back. If only she took matters into her own hands and shot the drug dealer instead of getting the cops involved she'd have been a free woman with money...and crack.

I'm not sure if it's the same one or not, but I saw one where a lady called the police because someone sold her fake crack, and she wanted a refund, but they wouldn't give her money back.

I've also been told there's one where someone calls the cops about their weed being stolen.

It very well might be it, it's been a long time since I saw the episode to remember all the facts other than everyone involved was incredibly honest. Even the crack dealer, she didn't try denying that she was a crack dealer or anything.

 

[VenPerv2]

kinda reminds me of Jamie Leigh Jones



she was gang raped in Iraq by Halliburton employees, she was raped so viciously her breast implants were torn out


oh yeah it did go to trial eventually and the sex was deemed consensual

*slow clap*

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Kind of figured the first report of this case was sensational bullshit. Just didn't sound right. So I've been waiting for someone to either release transcripts of the case or at least give better details of the case. I'm thinking this sounds more realistic.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2...-can-shoot-an-escort-who-refuses-to-have-sex/

 

[Red7227]

Kind of figured the first report of this case was sensational bullshit. Just didn't sound right. So I've been waiting for someone to either release transcripts of the case or at least give better details of the case. I'm thinking this sounds more realistic.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2...-can-shoot-an-escort-who-refuses-to-have-sex/

Right. That makes more sense. They should still hang the lawyer for suggesting it.

 

[Bocefish]

Remember reporting? People used to get paid to go find facts and tell the public about them.

I vaguely remember those days. Sometimes the most exercise people get these days is jumping to conclusions with emotional knee jerk reactions without exerting one ounce of effort to find the facts.

 

[Sevrin]

One would expect the jury to find that shooting at a car with an AK-47 is at least “reckless,” in which case he could have been convicted of manslaughter. But the prosecution didn’t charge him with manslaughter, only murder. Manslaughter is a “lesser included offense” of murder and the judge is entitled to instruct the jury if the evidence supports that charge, but it appears she did not. The jury can’t convict on a charge that isn’t before them.

Why did the judge not instruct the jury that they could find Gilbert guilty of manslaughter if they believed the evidence supported it? Was she prejudicing the case in doing so? Would that be grounds for appeal? There are no facts in dispute, but a judge's faulty or inadequate instructions to a jury have been accepted as grounds for appeal on this side of the border, at least. Would double jeopardy apply?

 

[Alana Cruise]

How in the world could someone's possessions be worth a human life??????? Even if she stole from him it should not be ok to take her life. Things can be replaced. Jail for theifs yes but you shouldnt be able to use deadly force unless your life is in danger :twocents-02cents:

 

[Nordling]

Kind of figured the first report of this case was sensational bullshit. Just didn't sound right. So I've been waiting for someone to either release transcripts of the case or at least give better details of the case. I'm thinking this sounds more realistic.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2...-can-shoot-an-escort-who-refuses-to-have-sex/

Except that the Gawker story didn't say "Texas Law," it said "Texas," which as an angry statement pretty much fits what went down in trial. Justice was not done. Later, various blogs and other sites have translated that to "Texas law." This is why there are journalists...and then hacks and ordinary dopes playing virtual "telephone."

 

[bawksy]

How in the world could someone's possessions be worth a human life??????? Even if she stole from him it should not be ok to take her life. Things can be replaced. Jail for theifs yes but you shouldnt be able to use deadly force unless your life is in danger

That's a noble, but naive sentiment. People have been killing to defend their possessions since the dawn of time. Maybe you're principled enough (or broke enough) to not care if someone robs you blind, but plenty of people would. And there are some things that can't actually just be replaced. To make an extreme example, let's say you're a security guard at the Louvre Museum, and some crazed lunatic with a knife runs straight at the Mona Lisa, intending to slash it to bits. Let's also say the only way to stop the lunatic before he does the deed is to shoot him. Would you fire? I would.

There's a relevant quote in the (fictional) game Fallout 3, talking about the Brotherhood [Outcasts] who value the preservation of technology over the loss of human life.

After all, they say, everyone knows how to make another human, but the secrets to making a P94 plasma rifle are all but lost.

 

[bob]

2013, in a "democratic country"?!

*breath*just try to breath...**can you..* :icon-cry:

You know when the execution of journalists by a military chopper came out, I cried, but everybody said ..."hey it's a war zone, it's Iraq"...

When whistle-blowers are being threatened and thrown in jail because they dared to question the morality of a chosen government's actions, they said they should be thrown in jail because they threatened national security.

But...if it happens on that same nation's soil for a "perverted" girl to be murdered by a sick fuck because she asked for money for a service rendered ...oh dear ...how could we send to jail a poor soul that has been tempted by a working girl to sin, he did a "good" christian thing to murder and kill the temptress.

Innit now...

heh...yah....
actually....all that's needed is to bring back stoning women....then it all makes perfect sense, because the free use of a gun to "defend your interests" isn't really the issue, nor the legality of the transaction

this is about whose perception has validity, and its a knee jerk reaction that condones men's expectations surrounding money and lust, discounting any attempt to allow the woman's business model as a sex worker to stand separate from those expectations.....the only difference between this ruling and something similar surrounding a woman's "morality" in any fundamental muslim community is the method used to turn the guys frustration...into satisfaction.

it's ironic that the guy might not have faired so well if he'd just gone ahead and raped the escort. Tho it's been challenged lately by fundamentalist politicos, we still have managed to condemn that kind violence towards women.

this ruling just raises the question of what kind of violent penetration is ok.....and we learned that in TX, bullets are a lawful way to fuck her.

there's a word for this...misogyny...and most legal systems have in them laws that reflect the religious morality supporting it.

:angry4: