In Texas, you cannot legally expect sex in exchange for money. Therefore she wasn't stealing anything.
Better move to Tejas first, most states do not permit this, Oklahoma is one such state that bans using deadly force at night to 'protect' property.
How is the decision and interpretation by 12 people on a jury indicative of the whole 25+ million other people in the state?
lots of websites reporting the acquittal. Apparently in Texas it doesn't matter if you are attempting to get an illegal act with the 'property' that is money to the rest of us. It would be interesting to see if she actually promised sex for money, I didn't think ads could do that, the promise is time for money. (one website says he thought the money would get him sex but didn't say there was any proof she had promised it)
Then she should have given him his money back, otherwise she was robbing him. It is alright to shoot a robber if he takes your property.
Then she should have given him his money back, otherwise she was robbing him. It is alright to shoot a robber if he takes your property.
Another good reason for me to stay south of the Red River, as if I need a reason.
http://gawker.com/texas-says-its-ok-to-shoot-an-escort-if-she-wont-have-511636423
Words cannot adequately describe...
View attachment 67148564
Is there anyone with the balls to defend this?
I guess the jury disagrees with you. Juries actually make law.
No it's not. Not even in Texas. There is a significant caveat to that law which is that the shooter has to reasonably believes he has no other way to get his property back. If he had contact information for the woman - which seems likely - then he had other means of getting his property back.
Obviously the jury disagreed so there may be more to this picture.
I guess the jury disagrees with you. Juries actually make law.
I guess the jury disagrees with you. Juries actually make law.
She allegedly robbed him.....
The problem with letting people decide the guilt or innocence of another person without an understanding of all the facts ultimately will lead to mistakes. Laws like those in TX are guaranteed, on a long enough timeline, to lead to these types of cases.
We can judge her character as a prostitute and decide her guilt.....But the reality is we really don't know her situation.
While very unlikely, maybe her pimp told her to take the guys money without providing services or he'd hurt or kill her. I admit it's far fetched, but not impossible in this situation or another.
Texas lets you be judge and jury, they let you decide if you have the right to take another life in the defense of your property. So the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty fly's out the door.
I could see something like this being abused. Lets say I sold something to someone I didn't like and they came over to my house to pick it up....Upon driving away with it I shoot him and claim he stole it. Well, if he is dead, he can't defend himself....Now what? Again, unlikely? Perhaps, but not beyond belief.
What if she threw the money on the floor before he left and he didn't see it? Do you think that if he lost sight of her for 3 seconds he would assume that? Do you think he announced his intention to attempt to kill her if she didn't give him the money back? (maybe many not).
What about untrained people wielding guns in the defense of their property. What about stray bullets? Are we ok accepting that risk? Is it realistic in a culture that advocates the possession of a weapon with absolutely no training required that they should know, not only how to use it, but all the potential results of their actions under duress?
I think the thing that appalls the average person is that this 23 year old woman was, as the result of her stealing 1-3 days pay, was sentenced to life trapped inside her body for 50 more years (she was paralyzed) assuming she would have lived an average life. Was her freedom or her life only worth $150?
No it's not. Not even in Texas. There is a significant caveat to that law which is that the shooter has to reasonably believes he has no other way to get his property back. If he had contact information for the woman - which seems likely - then he had other means of getting his property back.
Obviously the jury disagreed so there may be more to this picture.
I guess the jury disagrees with you. Juries actually make law.
Vaya con Dios :2wave:
You have got to be kidding me. Thanks for posting up something we could all get our teeth into about what should be a slam-dunk "WTF?"
This is a disgusting finding. The only thing I can think of is that, since he was tried for murder, they found that he wasn't directly responsible for her death and were not allowed to find him guilty of a lesser charge. Other than that? Grave injustice done here.
We cannot -- must not -- allow people to use their guns in this way and then let them walk away. If someone isn't in reasonable fear for their life? (And I'm willing to stretch this quite a bit.) They shouldn't be able to shoot someone.
Who lives in Texas, me or you? I was born in Texas and have both taken the CCL course and carry a pistol regularly. I suggest you worry about the repressive gun laws you deal with in New York and leave us alone. We don't need or want your input.
Just a shot in the dark, but her actions were characterized as theft? So he shot her like he would a normal burglar. Shooting her was wrong, but I don't know what would've been the right course of action if I were in his shoes. Moral of the story: don't use escorts.
So what? I have a New York State pistol permit. BFD. I can read a statute as well as the next guy. I suggest you read it so you understand the laws of the state you live in.
Texas has a self-defense law based on the castle doctrine. The law has a “stand your ground” clause, meaning the person using physical or deadly force against an attacker does not have a duty to retreat. Deadly force is permissible under the law when a person is attempting to defend himself from deadly force of an attacker in his home, vehicle or place of employment, or against attackers who are committing crimes of kidnapping, murder, sexual assault or robbery.
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
You talk about not understanding all the facts, then you assume to know them and accuse this man of murder.
And you don't know his situation either. It looks like she attempted to rob the wrong man.
Did you just make this up? I guess it could be, or maybe she was in the process of beaming up to the mother ship and this was his only sure way to get his money back. I admit it's far-fetched but anythings possible, right?
Simple solution. Stay off of other's property unless invited. In this case, what flew out the door was this woman's right to steal his money.
More fiction I see, chapter 2. Chapter 3.
You assume a lot, don't you? Why assume this man or any other gun owner doesn't have any training, just because you don't.
Evidently, she didn't value her freedom enough to understand that robbing people can have bad consequences.
If you do something, anything with malice...Be it hit with a bat, throw a phone, cause someone to trip and bump their head, here are some questions.....
1) If the person you assaulted dies in the future, how far in the future do we have to go before you're not responsible for the death....
2) If they die as a result of defective care, that they are under because of what you did, are you responsible for the death?
She allegedly robbed him.....
The problem with letting people decide the guilt or innocence of another person without an understanding of all the facts ultimately will lead to mistakes. Laws like those in TX are guaranteed, on a long enough timeline, to lead to these types of cases.
We can judge her character as a prostitute and decide her guilt.....But the reality is we really don't know her situation. While very unlikely, maybe her pimp told her to take the guys money without providing services or he'd hurt or kill her. I admit it's far fetched, but not impossible in this situation or another.
Texas lets you be judge and jury, they let you decide if you have the right to take another life in the defense of your property. So the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty fly's out the door.
I could see something like this being abused. Lets say I sold something to someone I didn't like and they came over to my house to pick it up....Upon driving away with it I shoot him and claim he stole it. Well, if he is dead, he can't defend himself....Now what? Again, unlikely? Perhaps, but not beyond belief.
What if she threw the money on the floor before he left and he didn't see it? Do you think that if he lost sight of her for 3 seconds he would assume that? Do you think he announced his intention to attempt to kill her if she didn't give him the money back? (maybe many not).
What about untrained people wielding guns in the defense of their property. What about stray bullets? Are we ok accepting that risk? Is it realistic in a culture that advocates the possession of a weapon with absolutely no training required that they should know, not only how to use it, but all the potential results of their actions under duress?
I think the thing that appalls the average person is that this 23 year old woman was, as the result of her stealing 1-3 days pay, was sentenced to life trapped inside her body for 50 more years (she was paralyzed) assuming she would have lived an average life. Was her freedom or her life only worth $150?
I would have mailed the shooter his $150 if it meant saving her life....Even if she was a prostitute.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?