Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[Des-Bal]

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.

She had no LEGAL right to take the money. That is the issue here.

[Saiwania]

Speaking as someone who wants prostitution to be safe and legal and put an end to most human trafficking, I think that what happened was an absolute travesty. No theft took place in my view, because once you hand over money to someone as a gift or "purchase" for something, that money is no longer physically yours. You can try to get a refund after the fact, but that is between the buyer and seller and is not guaranteed.

She did not coerce him into paying her, he did so of his own volition; and it is clear to me that he went too far. He should have at least gotten manslaughter but I guess the prosecution either did a lousy job, or the jury was incompetent. Even if she was a prostitute, she doesn't have to have sex with a potential client. If a prostitute rips you off, that doesn't give you any license to kill them. You persist for a refund or failing that, go to small claims court.

[Esternial]

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.

EXACTLY. We're arguing the verdict. Using the verdict as an argument makes no sense.

What I want to do is use actual evidence and arguments used and presented in the case, not the end result of the case itself.

I don't play Sudoku with the answer sheet next to me.

[Esternial]

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.

She had no LEGAL right to take the money. That is the issue here.

She did her job as an escort (not a prostitute). Sounds legal to me.

Plus she was given the money.

[Mavorpen]

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.

She had no LEGAL right to take the money. That is the issue here.

Of course she did. Being paid to have sex is ILLEGAL. It is therefore legal for her to take the money after it being GIVEN to her for her services as an escort. As it was already stated, there was NO legal contract between the two to have sex for money, because prostitution is an illegal act.

[Ethel mermania]

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.

the arguments in this thread kinda proves your point

[Des-Bal]

EXACTLY. We're arguing the verdict. Using the verdict as an argument makes no sense.

What I want to do is use actual evidence and arguments used and presented in the case, not the end result of the case itself.

I don't play Sudoku with the answer sheet next to me.

No it's not. The arguments I was addressing were specifically about the facts of the case not about the verdict.

What you need to understand is that you're playing Sudoku without the puzzle sheet next to you. We don't have the actual evidence and only a very limited view of the actual arguments presented.

[Des-Bal]

She did her job as an escort (not a prostitute). Sounds legal to me.

Plus she was given the money.

No, the agreement made over the phone was clearly for sex.

Of course she did. Being paid to have sex is ILLEGAL. It is therefore legal for her to take the money after it being GIVEN to her for her services as an escort. As it was already stated, there was NO legal contract between the two to have sex for money, because prostitution is an illegal act.

Except the only agreement made was to exchange money for sex.

[Esternial]

Potentially but I never bet against the stupidity of people.

the arguments in this thread kinda proves your point

That's clever.

EXACTLY. We're arguing the verdict. Using the verdict as an argument makes no sense.

What I want to do is use actual evidence and arguments used and presented in the case, not the end result of the case itself.

I don't play Sudoku with the answer sheet next to me.

No it's not. The arguments I was addressing were specifically about the facts of the case not about the verdict.

What you need to understand is that you're playing Sudoku without the puzzle sheet next to you. We don't have the actual evidence and only a very limited view of the actual arguments presented.

What I've been working with so far is the man's own statement, which gives me enough reason to believe that the ad didn't actually mention or imply sex.

[Mavorpen]

Except the only agreement made was to exchange money for sex.

Assuming this bullshit is true, then that's not a legal contract and she still could have taken the money anyway because it was GIVEN to her of his own free will.

This isn't complicated at all.

[Des-Bal]

What I've been working with so far is the man's own statement, which gives me enough reason to believe that the ad didn't actually mention or imply sex.

1. That's a hell of a take away from very little information.
2. The man's own statements also included specifically asking if she would be having sex with him and confirmation that it would be so.

[Des-Bal]

Assuming this bullshit is true, then that's not a legal contract and she still could have taken the money anyway because it was GIVEN to her of his own free will.

This isn't complicated at all.

Source?

[Ethel mermania]

Speaking as someone who wants prostitution to be safe and legal and put an end to most human trafficking, I think that what happened was an absolute travesty. No theft took place in my view, because once you hand over money to someone as a gift or "purchase" for something, that money is no longer physically yours. You can try to get a refund after the fact, but that is between the buyer and seller and is not guaranteed.

She did not coerce him into paying her, he did so of his own volition; and it is clear to me that he went too far. He should have at least gotten manslaughter but I guess the prosecution either did a lousy job, or the jury was incompetent. Even if she was a prostitute, she doesn't have to have sex with a potential client. If a prostitute rips you off, that doesn't give you any license to kill them. You persist for a refund or failing that, go to small claims court.

the way it works is the girl gets paid upfront. I would disagree that she "doesn't have to have sex with him" once she takes the money. This was a robbery. Otherwise everything you say is valid. I think your beef is with the law itself, i think the jury and judge applied it properly.

it is the same if you gave 150 dollars to someone for a bag of weed, and they did not deliver it. Can you go to small claims court or the police? what is your recourse?

[Libertarian California]

I guess she forgot his Alamo.

[Mavorpen]

No, the agreement made over the phone was clearly for sex.

He believed that the sex was a PART of the $150 fee. He wasn't calling only for sex from what has been reported.

[Neutraligon]

What I've been working with so far is the man's own statement, which gives me enough reason to believe that the ad didn't actually mention or imply sex.

1. That's a hell of a take away from very little information.
2. The man's own statements also included specifically asking if she would be having sex with him and confirmation that it would be so.

Which was not for the money. The money was for her job as an escort. if she was paid to be a prostitute, then the court cannot uphold that contract as it is an illegal contract. As such the man gifted her with money.

[Mavorpen]

Assuming this bullshit is true, then that's not a legal contract and she still could have taken the money anyway because it was GIVEN to her of his own free will.

This isn't complicated at all.

Source?

Source for what?

[Greed and Death]

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?

There is not much to do about a Jury Verdict. A Jury could have acquitted even if the law did not recognize any defense for murder.

What concerns me is the issuance of jury instructions in this case. The Jury was given an instruction on how to consider the justification "theft at night". How do we know they were given this instruction well a jury nullification typically does not pull a legal doctrine out of air and normally the the judge gives instructions on how the jury is to decide facts in relation to legal doctrines.

[Des-Bal]

Source for what?

You just claimed that money offered as part of an illegal transaction is considered a gift of sorts. The laws surrounding that sound fascinating and I'd like to hear more about them.

[Mavorpen]

Source for what?

You just claimed that money offered as part of an illegal transaction is considered a gift of sorts. The laws surrounding that sound fascinating and I'd like to hear more about them.

Holy shit, I can't believe such a basic concept is so foreign to you.

[Ethel mermania]

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?

There is not much to do about a Jury Verdict. A Jury could have acquitted even if the law did not recognize any defense for murder.

What concerns me is the issuance of jury instructions in this case. The Jury was given an instruction on how to consider the justification "theft at night". How do we know they were given this instruction well a jury nullification typically does not pull a legal doctrine out of air and normally the the judge gives instructions on how the jury is to decide facts in relation to legal doctrines.

they jury was clearly convinced she was a prostitute. why is the theft at night instruction wrong?

[Mavorpen]

they jury was clearly convinced she was a prostitute. why is the theft at night instruction wrong?

Because even if she WAS a prostitute, that would mean this was an illegal contract or agreement, and thus the jury can't/shouldn't enforce said contract.

In other words, her taking the money was perfectly legal because the man was asking for an illegal contract.

[Des-Bal]

Holy shit, I can't believe such a basic concept is so foreign to you.

That at no point substantiates what you're saying. Your claim is that since it was an illegal transaction the money became hers. I'd like to see the specific laws you're citing.

[Greed and Death]

There is not much to do about a Jury Verdict. A Jury could have acquitted even if the law did not recognize any defense for murder.

What concerns me is the issuance of jury instructions in this case. The Jury was given an instruction on how to consider the justification "theft at night". How do we know they were given this instruction well a jury nullification typically does not pull a legal doctrine out of air and normally the the judge gives instructions on how the jury is to decide facts in relation to legal doctrines.

they jury was clearly convinced she was a prostitute. why is the theft at night instruction wrong?

Because on the facts the defendant alleged in his affirmative defense it was impossible to determine there was contract or theft.

[Great Empire of Gamilus]

... says Texas.

A jury in Bexar County, Texas just acquitted Ezekiel Gilbert of charges that he murdered a 23-year-old Craigslist escort—agreeing that because he was attempting to retrieve the $150 he'd paid to Frago, who wouldn't have sex with him, his actions were justified.

Gilbert had admitted to shooting Lenora Ivie Frago in the neck on Christmas Eve 2009, when she accepted $150 from Gilbert and left his home without having sex with him. Frago, who was paralyzed by the shooting, died several months later.

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. Texas law allows people "to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft."

The 30-year-old hugged his defense attorneys after the "not guilty" verdict was read by the judge. If convicted, he could have faced life in prison. He thanked God, his lawyers, and the jury for being able to "see what wasn't the truth."

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php

http://gawker.com/texas-says-its-ok-to-shoot-an-escort-if-she-wont-have-511636423

Nighttime theft?

This news almost makes me physically ill. He shot her in the neck but didn't mean to kill her? Granted she took his money, but a life over $150?

ladies and gents welcome to america!

glad i don't live there... really crappy health care as well. at least Obama is doing something about that.