Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[Mavorpen]

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.

So you DON'T know what an escort is.

[Mavorpen]

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.

Show us the ad and tell me it did.

[Ethel mermania]

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.

Did you see her ad? have you ever seen an escorts ad? I cant link to a post of one of them because it is clearly against site rules. again i gotta say arguing she was not a prostitute is absurd.

but lets go on

If she is not a prostitute, I agree you are right, what he did was murder.

I do ask you to remember in a criminal trial, the defense is suppose to get the benefit of the doubt, you have to KNOW she was not a prostitute, and i dont know how you get there. If she may have been a prostitute you have to give more credence to the defense

but lets go on

Even if you dont believe she was a prostitute, for the purpose of conversation play along for a second, just assume for a moment she was a prostitute, and it went down like the defense said. They admitted he shot her while she was leaving. Is what he did allowable? Neo says no, no amount of money is worth taking a life, his life was never put in danger.

My argument is you commit the crime that is the risk you take,

[Cameroi]

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.

the customer has no obligation to understand what is and is not, actually on the menu? that too has been mentioned as an aspect of this case.

[Esternial]

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.

You're really stubborn aren't you?

"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."

He believed it was included. If it was, he would have stated that the ad included sex. But he "believed" it was. He was wrong.

See, here I actually have some proof, a statement from the defendant himself.

What you have is your own disbelief and not even a single piece to even cast some doubt because you don't want to admit you might be wrong about something, which is incredibly infantile behaviour.

[The Batorys]

Who gives a shit.

It's his money and his sex, he paid for it.

No, no he did not.

He paid an escort. An escort is not (necessarily) the same as a prostitute, and is a legal profession. An escort is paid for his/her time, not for sex (though some do prostitution on the side and/or in addition). Basically, he/she is someone you pay to hang out with you at an event, or go on a date with you, or whatever.

This dude paid her and then took her back to his apartment, because he just assumed she was willing to do the prostitution thing. She spent some time hanging out there, and eventually made clear that no, sex was not part of her services for the evening, and left.

[Esternial]

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

the customer has no obligation to understand what is and is not, actually on the menu? that too has been mentioned as an aspect of this case.

You're saying he had no obligation to understand that what he wanted was actually illegal?

That's just beyond stupid.

[Greed and Death]

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.

I will reiterate again, I do not think the verdict in this case was just.

I was just clarifying what he alleged as justification is different than alleging someone screwed up your Taco Bell order.

[Des-Bal]

You're really stubborn aren't you?

"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."

He believed it was included. If it was, he would have stated that the ad included sex. But he "believed" it was. He was wrong.

See, here I actually have some proof, a statement from the defendant himself.

What you have is your own disbelief and not even a single piece to even cast some doubt because you don't want to admit you might be wrong about something, which is incredibly infantile behaviour.

Well you know how the legal system is sort of built around the idea that when conflict occurs there exists a formal system to determine whose right and whose wrong? That system appears to be on my side. The jury ruling in his favor suggests that either they decided the evidence suggested he was promised sex or the simple fact he believed he was promised sex was sufficient to render her taking his money as theft.

[Mavorpen]

You're really stubborn aren't you?

"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."

He believed it was included. If it was, he would have stated that the ad included sex. But he "believed" it was. He was wrong.

See, here I actually have some proof, a statement from the defendant himself.

What you have is your own disbelief and not even a single piece to even cast some doubt because you don't want to admit you might be wrong about something, which is incredibly infantile behaviour.

Let's go even further, actually. According to Gilbert's own words, he maintained that:

He testified that he called the escort service and asked Frago explicit questions prior to agreeing to pay her $150 for a visit to his apartment.

“'Are we going to be intimate?'” he said he asked. “'Are we going to have sex?' She said, ‘Yes, I’ll handle that.'”

Now, the obvious question is this: why would he need to explicitly ask her these questions himself if it was not explicitly stated so in the advertisement? Now, of course, we have utterly no way to verify that he ACTUALLY asked her these questions and that she ACTUALLY said that she would have sex with him, but that doesn't actually refute this point. Why? Because then he could have simply cited the ad without claiming he asked those questions directly.

It's pretty fucking obvious that the advertisement didn't explicitly guarantee sex, even if you accept that he isn't lying about asking her those questions and she replying with those answers.

[Des-Bal]

He testified that he called the escort service and asked Frago explicit questions prior to agreeing to pay her $150 for a visit to his apartment.

“'Are we going to be intimate?'” he said he asked. “'Are we going to have sex?' She said, ‘Yes, I’ll handle that.'”

Now, the obvious question is this: why would he need to explicitly ask her these questions himself if it was not explicitly stated so in the advertisement? Now, of course, we have utterly no way to verify that he ACTUALLY asked her these questions and that she ACTUALLY said that she would have sex with him, but that doesn't actually refute this point. Why? Because then he could have simply cited the ad without claiming he asked those questions directly.

It's pretty fucking obvious that the advertisement didn't explicitly guarantee sex, even if you accept that he isn't lying about asking her those questions and she replying with those answers.

Uh so to prove she didn't agree to have sex with him you added testimony that she agreed to have sex with him? If you'd ever actually seen an escort ad you'd know they tend to be rife with jargon. Sometimes things such as random emphasis are supposed to inform the initiated that yes sex is totally going to happen without getting the advertisement immediately shut down. If her ad said for example

BBBJTC OR 1/2&1/2
$150

Then he might need clarification as to what the hell that means.

[Greed and Death]

He testified that he called the escort service and asked Frago explicit questions prior to agreeing to pay her $150 for a visit to his apartment.

“'Are we going to be intimate?'” he said he asked. “'Are we going to have sex?' She said, ‘Yes, I’ll handle that.'”

Now, the obvious question is this: why would he need to explicitly ask her these questions himself if it was not explicitly stated so in the advertisement? Now, of course, we have utterly no way to verify that he ACTUALLY asked her these questions and that she ACTUALLY said that she would have sex with him, but that doesn't actually refute this point. Why? Because then he could have simply cited the ad without claiming he asked those questions directly.

It's pretty fucking obvious that the advertisement didn't explicitly guarantee sex, even if you accept that he isn't lying about asking her those questions and she replying with those answers.

Uh so to prove she didn't agree to have sex with him you added testimony that she agreed to have sex with him? If you'd ever actually seen an escort ad you'd know they tend to be rife with jargon. Sometimes things such as random emphasis are supposed to inform the initiated that yes sex is totally going to happen without getting the advertisement immediately shut down. If her ad said for example

BBBJTC OR 1/2&1/2
$150

Then he might need clarification as to what the hell that means.

That goes to the weight of his Testimony, obviously he convinced a Jury of the truthfulness of his statements.

[Mavorpen]

Uh so to prove she didn't agree to have sex with him you added testimony that she agreed to have sex with him? If you'd ever actually seen an escort ad you'd know they tend to be rife with jargon.

Can you demonstrate for us that her advertisement was "rife with jargon" or that he isn't lying through is teeth?

Sometimes things such as random emphasis are supposed to inform the initiated that yes sex is totally going to happen without getting the advertisement immediately shut down. If her ad said for example

BBBJTC OR 1/2&1/2
$150

Then he might need clarification as to what the hell that means.

Again, can you verify this even applies?

[Ethel mermania]

He testified that he called the escort service and asked Frago explicit questions prior to agreeing to pay her $150 for a visit to his apartment.

“'Are we going to be intimate?'” he said he asked. “'Are we going to have sex?' She said, ‘Yes, I’ll handle that.'”

Now, the obvious question is this: why would he need to explicitly ask her these questions himself if it was not explicitly stated so in the advertisement? Now, of course, we have utterly no way to verify that he ACTUALLY asked her these questions and that she ACTUALLY said that she would have sex with him, but that doesn't actually refute this point. Why? Because then he could have simply cited the ad without claiming he asked those questions directly.

It's pretty fucking obvious that the advertisement didn't explicitly guarantee sex, even if you accept that he isn't lying about asking her those questions and she replying with those answers.

Uh so to prove she didn't agree to have sex with him you added testimony that she agreed to have sex with him? If you'd ever actually seen an escort ad you'd know they tend to be rife with jargon. Sometimes things such as random emphasis are supposed to inform the initiated that yes sex is totally going to happen without getting the advertisement immediately shut down. If her ad said for example

BBBJTC OR 1/2&1/2
$150

Then he might need clarification as to what the hell that means.

Bare back blow job to completion or half covered half uncovered, pretty obvious actually

[Des-Bal]

Can you demonstrate for us that her advertisement was "rife with jargon" or that he isn't lying through is teeth?

Again, can you verify this even applies?

You are calling him a liar you prove it.

You're arguing that despite having already been found innocent the burden of proof is on the defendant. That's not how it works. You're saying her ad did not suggest she would be offering sex it falls on you to prove that.

[Esternial]

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.

I will reiterate again, I do not think the verdict in this case was just.

I was just clarifying what he alleged as justification is different than alleging someone screwed up your Taco Bell order.

Uhu, that much I had gathered.

And I was bringing that analogy back and applied it to the case.

You're really stubborn aren't you?

"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."

He believed it was included. If it was, he would have stated that the ad included sex. But he "believed" it was. He was wrong.

See, here I actually have some proof, a statement from the defendant himself.

What you have is your own disbelief and not even a single piece to even cast some doubt because you don't want to admit you might be wrong about something, which is incredibly infantile behaviour.

Well you know how the legal system is sort of built around the idea that when conflict occurs there exists a formal system to determine whose right and whose wrong? That system appears to be on my side. The jury ruling in his favor suggests that either they decided the evidence suggested he was promised sex or the simple fact he believed he was promised sex was sufficient to render her taking his money as theft.

We're arguing about whether or not their ruling is justified. This whole discussion is about their verdict.

What you just did is just tell me their ruling, which I already know, believe it or not. You're good at repeating things, but when it comes down to some new arguments I find myself disappointed.

So, have you got some actual arguments aside from "the court said it was okey" to raise me with or are you going to stay with what you have?

[Libertarian California]

Typical for San Antonio

[Des-Bal]

Bare back blow job to completion or half covered half uncovered, pretty obvious actually

Obvious suggests at a glance an uninformed observer could discern it's meaning, while it's not necessarily complex I wouldn't go as far to call it common sense.

[Mavorpen]

You are calling him a liar you prove it.

No, I'm not. I have done no such thing.

You're arguing that despite having already been found innocent the burden of proof is on the defendant.

No, the burden of proof is on YOU.

That's not how it works. You're saying her ad did not suggest she would be offering sex it falls on you to prove that.

I already did. It's not my fault you haven't been paying attention.

[Des-Bal]

We're arguing about whether or not their ruling is justified. This whole discussion is about their verdict.

What you just did is just tell me their ruling, which I already know, believe it or not. You're good at repeating things, but when it comes down to some new arguments I find myself disappointed.

So, have you got some actual arguments aside from "the court said it was okey" to raise me with or are you going to stay with what you have?

No, you're arguing the facts of the case. There the ruling absolutely comes into play. If you want to talk about the ethics of shooting someone for not providing services that have already been paid for I'd be happy to have that discussion.

[Des-Bal]

You are calling him a liar you prove it.

No, I'm not. I have done no such thing.

Great, so you agree that sex was part of the deal.

[Ethel mermania]

Bare back blow job to completion or half covered half uncovered, pretty obvious actually

Obvious suggests at a glance an uninformed observer could discern it's meaning, while it's not necessarily complex I wouldn't go as far to call it common sense.

ok, hows this; pretty obvious to one who would place or use an add for an escort

[Mavorpen]

No, I'm not. I have done no such thing.

Great, so you agree that sex was part of the deal.

No. See, that's the thing. Sex could have been agreed upon without it being a part of the LEGAL CONTRACT between the two. In other words, she could have AGREED to have sex with him OUTSIDE of being compensated for it with the $150, due to the nature of what an escort is versus a prostitute. She had no LEGAL obligation to have sex with him as compensation for the $150. THAT'S the key problem here.

[Des-Bal]

ok, hows this; pretty obvious to one who would place or use an add for an escort

Potentially but I never bet against the stupidity of people.

[Cameroi]

the customer has no obligation to understand what is and is not, actually on the menu? that too has been mentioned as an aspect of this case.

You're saying he had no obligation to understand that what he wanted was actually illegal?

That's just beyond stupid.

or just beyond texas. somewhere around oklahoma or kansas or somewhere.

i also sill don't see how a jury was expect to believe, as apparently they did, that a shot to the neck was not intended to be fatal.