Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[Des-Bal]

"Gilbert's defense argued that the shooting wasn't meant to kill, and that Gilbert's actions were justified, because he believed that sex was included as part of the fee."

Need some reading glasses?

Clearly says believed.

I believed my pack of fries came with a fork, boy was I disappointed.

I believed I left my car keys on the dresser and boy was I right.

[Ethel mermania]

Him, the defense, the jury. I can't really get any clearer picture without the actual craigslist post.

How about the woman? You're not gonna ask her what happened?

Oh, right, she's fucking dead. How convenient. Now you don't have to wrestle with the possibility that the man is just an asshole.

What about the prosecution, or don't they fucking count?

How self important do you have to be to decide you know more about the case than the defendant, the lawyers, and the jury involved in it based on a short article?

... How self important do YOU have to be you know more than the fucking prosecution?

Maybe you should read the fucking source before you comment instead of being willfully ignorant for no fucking reason.

Gilbert testified earlier Tuesday that he had found Frago's escort ad on Craigslist and BELIEVED sex was included in her $150 fee

I am curious, what word do you want instead of believed?

[Mavorpen]

1. Oh so you've read the ad? Great, if you could post it for the rest of us that would be swell.

Where did I say that?

2. Escort is how people who don't like the word prostitute say prostitute.

No it isn't. The two words have two distinct meanings. We all understand at this point that you enjoy making up your own definitions for words when you're backed into a corner, but it's painfully annoying at this point.

[Des-Bal]

Him, the defense, the jury. I can't really get any clearer picture without the actual craigslist post.

How about the woman? You're not gonna ask her what happened?

Oh, right, she's fucking dead. How convenient. Now you don't have to wrestle with the possibility that the man is just an asshole.

What about the prosecution, or don't they fucking count?

How self important do you have to be to decide you know more about the case than the defendant, the lawyers, and the jury involved in it based on a short article?

... How self important do YOU have to be you know more than the fucking prosecution?

Maybe you should read the fucking source before you comment instead of being willfully ignorant for no fucking reason.

Gilbert testified earlier Tuesday that he had found Frago's escort ad on Craigslist and BELIEVED sex was included in her $150 fee

Actually since a jury looked at the evidence we are not privy to and was not swayed by the prosecutions case they don't really count quite so much.

[The Nihilistic view]

That will teach her not to supply a product unfit for purpose!

[Esternial]

"Gilbert's defense argued that the shooting wasn't meant to kill, and that Gilbert's actions were justified, because he believed that sex was included as part of the fee."

Need some reading glasses?

Clearly says believed.

I believed my pack of fries came with a fork, boy was I disappointed.

I believed I left my car keys on the dresser and boy was I right.

Your analogy is crap.

Mine includes purchase of a product and my own misconception that something that wasn't included in the pre-determined agreement WOULD be included. Which we can compare to the man paying for the escort for her services as a legal escort, which doesn't include sex.

I can't even see how you could think that was even an analogy. Or was it just some...lame attempt at humour to ignore my arguments?

[Cameroi]

Actually you seem to be pulling that narrative out of your ass. Everything relevant to the case suggests he paid to have sex with her.

"Gilbert's defense argued that the shooting wasn't meant to kill, and that Gilbert's actions were justified, because he believed that sex was included as part of the fee."

Need some reading glasses?

Clearly says believed.

I believed my pack of fries came with a fork, boy was I disappointed.

does that mean in texas you could get away with shooting the fast food worker at the drive up window, if you didn't think you were shooting to kill?
by the same precedent of this case, apparently it does.

[The Rich Port]

How about the woman? You're not gonna ask her what happened?

Oh, right, she's fucking dead. How convenient. Now you don't have to wrestle with the possibility that the man is just an asshole.

What about the prosecution, or don't they fucking count?



... How self important do YOU have to be you know more than the fucking prosecution?

Maybe you should read the fucking source before you comment instead of being willfully ignorant for no fucking reason.

I am curious, what word do you want instead of believed?

"Read" would have been more appropriate, IMO.

Maybe "the ad implied sex".

Unfortunately for his dumb ass, that's not what he testified.

He testified he thought escort = prostitute, which is something only people who watch too many police procedurals claim.

[Mavorpen]

How about the woman? You're not gonna ask her what happened?

Oh, right, she's fucking dead. How convenient. Now you don't have to wrestle with the possibility that the man is just an asshole.

What about the prosecution, or don't they fucking count?



... How self important do YOU have to be you know more than the fucking prosecution?

Maybe you should read the fucking source before you comment instead of being willfully ignorant for no fucking reason.

I am curious, what word do you want instead of believed?

That isn't the problem. The problem is that if she REALLY advertised sex, then they simply need to say...that she actually advertised sex. It's not that complicated.

[Libertarian California]

lol wut

[Ethel mermania]

I am curious, what word do you want instead of believed?

That isn't the problem. The problem is that if she REALLY advertised sex, then they simply need to say...that she actually advertised sex. It's not that complicated.

foes list please.

[Esternial]

"Gilbert's defense argued that the shooting wasn't meant to kill, and that Gilbert's actions were justified, because he believed that sex was included as part of the fee."

Need some reading glasses?

Clearly says believed.

I believed my pack of fries came with a fork, boy was I disappointed.

does that mean in texas you could get away with shooting the fast food worker at the drive up window, if you didn't think you were shooting to kill?
by the same precedent of this case, apparently it does.

If the dude doesn't give you what you think you paid for, he's clearly stealing your hard-earned money.

[Greed and Death]

My apologies I stepped out for a bit.

I see it my bad.

It matters, and it doesn't. I don't think defense of property is ever a legitimate reason to take a life. I think he should have gone to jail for manslaughter, at minimum, regardless of the amount.

With that said, there's a sense of proportionality that raises the outrage here, because the amount was essentially trivial. When you take a life to defend property, you are placing the value of the property as greater than the value of the life taken. When the value of the property is essentially trivial, and you still decide to kill someone over it, that means the value of the life you took, in your eyes, was less than trivial.

So "does it matter" in my belief that what this man did was criminal and he should rot for it? No, it doesn't. "Does it matter" when gauging the extent of moral outrage of it? yes. Killing for property is never acceptable, but at least when the property holds some essential high value, we at least approach parity. Especially if the property is itself lifesaving, such as medicine. I could support taking a life in defense of property if the property was necessary to preserve life.

But it was a hundred and fifty dollars. Essentially trivial. And it's not like he needed it, considering he was willing to give it away just to get his cock wet. He killed a human being, over less than what it costs to buy a pair of Ray Bands.

Again reiterating I think the law was misapplied in this case and he should have been convicted of murder.

I disagree, I find defense of property to be valid. The majority of people involved with thefts are a drag on society they create little is anything and by virtue of relying on thefts consume more than they contribute. Never mind the burden they put on the legal system with trials, incarceration, and further investigations. I find incidents like this to be convenient for society overall.

I would not want the state to do this mind you, I feel government action needs to be constrained, but if a private actor defending his property elects to take it to that level I feel he can be excused from punishment.

[Des-Bal]

1. Oh so you've read the ad? Great, if you could post it for the rest of us that would be swell.

Where did I say that?

2. Escort is how people who don't like the word prostitute say prostitute.

No it isn't. The two words have two distinct meanings. We all understand at this point that you enjoy making up your own definitions for words when you're backed into a corner, but it's painfully annoying at this point.

You said nothing in her ad suggested she would have sex with him. I assumed you'd read the ad because otherwise that's a ridiculous assertion.

It's almost precious how unworldly you are. Just like one or two people may in fact buy those little glass rose tubes to give as gifts rather than smoke crack there may also be escorts who do not in fact exchange sex for money but I have never seen or heard of either.

[The Rich Port]

How about the woman? You're not gonna ask her what happened?

Oh, right, she's fucking dead. How convenient. Now you don't have to wrestle with the possibility that the man is just an asshole.

What about the prosecution, or don't they fucking count?



... How self important do YOU have to be you know more than the fucking prosecution?

Maybe you should read the fucking source before you comment instead of being willfully ignorant for no fucking reason.

Actually since a jury looked at the evidence we are not privy to and was not swayed by the prosecutions case they don't really count quite so much.

And juries are always right.

Do you have any real arguments?

On that note, I ask again whether there's a way to appeal this decision.

I dunno if the people of Texas will, but maybe we can get them angry enough to.

[Mavorpen]

You said nothing in her ad suggested she would have sex with him. I assumed you'd read the ad because otherwise that's a ridiculous assertion.

No, it isn't, since I actually read the source provided. It doesn't suggest in any manner that she actually presented something in the ad that guaranteed sex.

It's almost precious how unworldly you are. Just like one or two people may in fact buy those little glass rose tubes to give as gifts rather than smoke crack there may also be escorts who do not in fact exchange sex for money but I have never seen or heard of either.

Yes yes, we know you don't understand basic definitions.

[Des-Bal]

"Read" would have been more appropriate, IMO.

Maybe "the ad implied sex".

Unfortunately for his dumb ass, that's not what he testified.

He testified he thought escort = prostitute, which is something only people who watch too many police procedurals claim.

Okay I almost posted a craigslist ad for an escort but I can't imagine the mods would appreciate that but escort=prostitute.

[Mavorpen]

"Read" would have been more appropriate, IMO.

Maybe "the ad implied sex".

Unfortunately for his dumb ass, that's not what he testified.

He testified he thought escort = prostitute, which is something only people who watch too many police procedurals claim.

Okay I almost posted a craigslist ad for an escort but I can't imagine the mods would appreciate that but escort=prostitute.

Holy shit that bubble you live in is thick.

[Des-Bal]

And juries are always right.

Do you have any real arguments?

On that note, I ask again whether there's a way to appeal this decision.

I dunno if the people of Texas will, but maybe we can get them angry enough to.

I'm not saying juries are always right I'm saying several people looked at evidence you do not have access to and came to a rational conclusion. The fact that you think with your terrifyingly limited knowledge of the case you can preempt them is just absurd.

[Greed and Death]

does that mean in texas you could get away with shooting the fast food worker at the drive up window, if you didn't think you were shooting to kill?
by the same precedent of this case, apparently it does.

If the dude doesn't give you what you think you paid for, he's clearly stealing your hard-earned money.

Well there is a difference between criminal fraud and breach of contract. The latter is not criminal so could not be construed as theft. Criminal fraud would be those guys who get retirees to invest in ponzi schemes, screwing up your order would be a mere breach of contract.

[Des-Bal]

Holy shit that bubble you live in is thick.

Not really a bubble it's actually the opposite. Why don't you step into the world and notice the startling number of prostitutes.

[Esternial]

"Read" would have been more appropriate, IMO.

Maybe "the ad implied sex".

Unfortunately for his dumb ass, that's not what he testified.

He testified he thought escort = prostitute, which is something only people who watch too many police procedurals claim.

Okay I almost posted a craigslist ad for an escort but I can't imagine the mods would appreciate that but escort=prostitute.

Nope. Escorts are legal. Prostitutes are not. Why? Their contract doesn't guarantee sex, which - from the statement - is only reinforced in this case.

Yes, ethel (I think) brought up that craigslist had several of their advertisement pages removed for allowing ads for prostitution. Something along those lines. This would completely invalidate my argument, if only the defendant didn't use those vague words stating "he believed" that sex was implied. Why? Because just like you he wrongly assumed escorts are prostitutes.

Yes, I'm questioning your wise wordly knowledge.

Why? Because it's crap.

If escorts have sex with their clients, this is NOT included in the contractual agreement. Otherwise it'd be illegal. We KNOW (from what I mentioned earlier) that the woman didn't promise sex in her ad. She was an ESCORT (not the kind of escort you think she is, though).

IF there is sex, this is either by the woman's own choice OR she agrees for an extra fee - in which case she is doing something illegal BUT completely separate from her contract as an escort. If she wants to keep it at just being an escort, she can, and take the fee for her services.

[Caninope]

I think that you are mischaracterizing the case; I think that (instead) this man had a very good lawyer who exploited a loophole in the law.

No, even if it is technically legal to use potentially lethal force to recover stolen property, this is not a case of stolen property. He didn't pay for sex, regardless of what he thinks, and if he did, that'd be illegal, so he wouldn't have the right to recover the money. Furthermore, failing to give a service that someone paid for isn't theft, and chances are it'd be a boring small claims civil suit, not anything criminal.

At no point did I argue that this was legal. Instead, I argued that a loophole combined with a good lawyer and a fallible jury created a problem.

[Esternial]

If the dude doesn't give you what you think you paid for, he's clearly stealing your hard-earned money.

Well there is a difference between criminal fraud and breach of contract. The latter is not criminal so could not be construed as theft. Criminal fraud would be those guys who get retirees to invest in ponzi schemes, screwing up your order would be a mere breach of contract.

Two things the woman didn't even do. She held up her end of the deal. It's the man's problem for thinking he'd be getting some poontang, which wasn't promised. He just believed it was.

[Des-Bal]

Nope. Escorts are legal. Prostitutes are not. Why? Their contract doesn't guarantee sex, which - from the statement - is only reinforced in this case.

Yes, ethel (I think) brought up that craigslist had several of their advertisement pages removed for allowing ads for prostitution. Something along those lines. This would completely invalidate my argument, if only the defendant didn't use those vague words stating "he believed" that sex was implied. Why? Because just like you he wrongly assumed escorts are prostitutes.

Yes, I'm questioning your wise wordly knowledge.

Why? Because it's crap.

If escorts have sex with their clients, this is NOT included in the contractual agreement. Otherwise it'd be illegal. We KNOW (from what I mentioned earlier) that the woman didn't promise sex in her ad. She was an ESCORT (not the kind of escort you think she is, though).

IF there is sex, this is either by the woman's own choice OR she agrees for an extra fee - in which case she is doing something illegal BUT completely separate from her contract as an escort. If she wants to keep it at just being an escort, she can, and take the fee for her services.

Show me the ad and tell me it didn't promise sex.