Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[Mavorpen]

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.

I'm not citing a specific law. Where did I say I was? I'm abiding by basic jurisprudence. In this specific case, courts shouldn't enforce contracts that are illegal, such as prostitution. Thus, they have utterly no grounds whatsoever to claim that a person who broke an illegal contract is in the wrong and is guilty.

[Des-Bal]

I'm not citing a specific law. Where did I say I was? I'm abiding by basic jurisprudence. In this specific case, courts shouldn't enforce contracts that are illegal, such as prostitution. Thus, they have utterly no grounds whatsoever to claim that a person who broke an illegal contract is in the wrong and is guilty.

It wasn't about breach of contract it was about her taking the money. The money he gave her was contingent on her preforming an illegal act you're saying that in that instance the money legally becomes hers please provide a source for that claim.

[The Rich Port]

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.

I'm not citing a specific law. Where did I say I was? I'm abiding by basic jurisprudence. In this specific case, courts shouldn't enforce contracts that are illegal, such as prostitution. Thus, they have utterly no grounds whatsoever to claim that a person who broke an illegal contract is in the wrong and is guilty.

Hey... You're right.

Isn't this the court over-stepping it's boundaries and creating laws?

Courts can't do that.

Can they?

[Ethel mermania]

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.

thats the first reasonable thing you said, no moving goal posts, no name calling, so i will answer (though i do have to go to bed soon) She offered the illegal contract, he accepted.

Assume for a moment she was a prostitute and ripping him off, do you believe he was justified in shooting her?

[Mavorpen]

I'm not citing a specific law. Where did I say I was? I'm abiding by basic jurisprudence. In this specific case, courts shouldn't enforce contracts that are illegal, such as prostitution. Thus, they have utterly no grounds whatsoever to claim that a person who broke an illegal contract is in the wrong and is guilty.

It wasn't about breach of contract it was about her taking the money.

Taking money and then not fulfilling your side of the contract is breaching the contract. And since he's complaining that she didn't fulfill her side, this is ENTIRELY about the breach of contract.

The money he gave her was contingent on her preforming an illegal act you're saying that in that instance the money legally becomes hers please provide a source for that claim.

I already did. Again, it's not my fault you aren't paying attention and that you aren't comprehending basic jurisprudence.

[Ethel mermania]

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.

how so? the jury believed she was a prostitute her ad was the offer

[Mavorpen]

Assume for a moment she was a prostitute and ripping him off, do you believe he was justified in shooting her?

Assuming this was a legal contract? Then yes, under this specific law, he's legally justified.

Morally, absolutely not.

[Esternial]

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.

thats the first reasonable thing you said, no moving goal posts, no name calling, so i will answer (though i do have to go to bed soon) She offered the illegal contract, he accepted.

Assume for a moment she was a prostitute and ripping him off, do you believe he was justified in shooting her?

That's not what happened.

He ASKED for the illegal contract. That's a second grade felony.

[Des-Bal]

Taking money and then not fulfilling your side of the contract is breaching the contract. And since he's complaining that she didn't fulfill her side, this is ENTIRELY about the breach of contract.
I already did. Again, it's not my fault you aren't paying attention and that you aren't comprehending basic jurisprudence.

You say that money offered to one party in exchange for an illegal service belongs to that party. Please deliver the specific laws supporting your claim.

[Mavorpen]

thats the first reasonable thing you said, no moving goal posts, no name calling, so i will answer (though i do have to go to bed soon) She offered the illegal contract, he accepted.

Assume for a moment she was a prostitute and ripping him off, do you believe he was justified in shooting her?

That's not what happened.

He ASKED for the illegal contract. That's a second grade felony.

I think Ethel forgot to include that if prostitution was legal.

[Esternial]

That's not what happened.

He ASKED for the illegal contract. That's a second grade felony.

I think Ethel forgot to include that if prostitution was legal.

If it were a legal contract, then his actions would be justified by that Crazy Texas Law^TM.

[Ethel mermania]

Assume for a moment she was a prostitute and ripping him off, do you believe he was justified in shooting her?

Assuming this was a legal contract? Then yes, under this specific law, he's legally justified.

Morally, absolutely not.

That is fair, in NY he would have been convicted of manslaughter as he never thought his life was in danger

[Mavorpen]

You say that money offered to one party in exchange for an illegal service belongs to that party. Please deliver the specific laws supporting your claim.

No, what I'm saying is that if you engage in an illegal contract and one of the parties breaks the contract, then courts cannot and should not be enforcing this contract in the first place. This means that legally she had every right to take money that was GIVEN to her. If SHE took it from HIS hands without his consent, then you'd have a better point.

[Ethel mermania]

thats the first reasonable thing you said, no moving goal posts, no name calling, so i will answer (though i do have to go to bed soon) She offered the illegal contract, he accepted.

Assume for a moment she was a prostitute and ripping him off, do you believe he was justified in shooting her?

That's not what happened.

He ASKED for the illegal contract. That's a second grade felony.

the ad was the offer. She placed the ad

[Mavorpen]

Assuming this was a legal contract? Then yes, under this specific law, he's legally justified.

Morally, absolutely not.

That is fair, in NY he would have been convicted of manslaughter as he never thought his life was in danger

Precisely.

[Des-Bal]

You say that money offered to one party in exchange for an illegal service belongs to that party. Please deliver the specific laws supporting your claim.

No, what I'm saying is that if you engage in an illegal contract and one of the parties breaks the contract, then courts cannot and should not be enforcing this contract in the first place. This means that legally she had every right to take money that was GIVEN to her. If SHE took it from HIS hands without his consent, then you'd have a better point.

You know what's weird? How none of that was a source.

[Mavorpen]

No, what I'm saying is that if you engage in an illegal contract and one of the parties breaks the contract, then courts cannot and should not be enforcing this contract in the first place. This means that legally she had every right to take money that was GIVEN to her. If SHE took it from HIS hands without his consent, then you'd have a better point.

You know what's weird? How none of that was a source.

Well then, I'll go ahead and take that as a concession from you. I get the feeling that's as far as I'll get.

[Esternial]

That's not what happened.

He ASKED for the illegal contract. That's a second grade felony.

the ad was the offer. She placed the ad

So far I haven't seen any proof that the ad actually did imply that and more proof to state the contrary.

First of all he stated that the believed the ad implied sex.
Secondly he stated that he asked on the phone, specifically, if there would be sex.

Both these details give enough reason to believe that he thought sex was included because he thought escorts always include sex in their 'package', but since he didn't see it in the ad he asked for it specifically, thus going from a legal contract to an illegal agreement.

[Des-Bal]

Well then, I'll go ahead and take that as a concession from you. I get the feeling that's as far as I'll get.

I repeat:

You are claiming that money offered pursuant to an illegal transaction legally belongs to the party it was offered to.

I demand sources to substantiate that claim.

[Mavorpen]

Well then, I'll go ahead and take that as a concession from you. I get the feeling that's as far as I'll get.

I repeat:

You are claiming that money offered pursuant to an illegal transaction legally belongs to the party it was offered to.

I demand sources to substantiate that claim.

And I already gave them to you.

You then shifted the goal posts massively, asking for a SPECIFIC law, despite that being irrelevant to the point: that illegal contracts are just that, illegal and thus void. Unless you can demonstrate that prostitution is legal in Texas, you're tilting at windmills.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

This is why we can't have nice women.

[Des-Bal]

And I already gave them to you.

You then shifted the goal posts massively, asking for a SPECIFIC law, despite that being irrelevant to the point: that illegal contracts are just that, illegal. Unless you can demonstrate that prostitution is legal in Texas, you're tilting at windmills.

1. A wikipedia article on the general handling of legal agreements has no relationship to the laws of texas.
2. After you posted that bullshit I immediately pointed out it didn't have the information I was asking for.
3. Given my entire question is ABOUT the money from illegal transactions it requires that prostitution not be legal in texas.


The goalposts are where they've always been you're running in the wrong direction.

[Esternial]

I repeat:

You are claiming that money offered pursuant to an illegal transaction legally belongs to the party it was offered to.

I demand sources to substantiate that claim.

And I already gave them to you.

You then shifted the goal posts massively, asking for a SPECIFIC law, despite that being irrelevant to the point: that illegal contracts are just that, illegal and thus void. Unless you can demonstrate that prostitution is legal in Texas, you're tilting at windmills.

Exactly. What you're left with is this guy giving the woman money. This is not theft, which means he can't apply that Texan law of protection one's property.

[Ethel mermania]

the ad was the offer. She placed the ad

So far I haven't seen any proof that the ad actually did imply that and more proof to state the contrary.

First of all he stated that the believed the ad implied sex.
Secondly he stated that he asked on the phone, specifically, if there would be sex.

Both these details give enough reason to believe that he thought sex was included because he thought escorts always include sex in their 'package', but since he didn't see it in the ad he asked for it specifically, thus going from a legal contract to an illegal agreement.

have you ever seen an escort ad? again i cant point you at one cause it would violate site rules but The one des-bai took from was pretty typical. Please stop with the legal contract nonsense,

she made an offer of an illegal contract, he accepted. he paid upfront which is the way it works, she did not preform the service. Was what he did justified?

[Mavorpen]

1. A wikipedia article on the general handling of legal agreements has no relationship to the laws of texas.

Of course it does. Prostitution is illegal in Texas.

2. After you posted that bullshit I immediately pointed out it didn't have the information I was asking for.

Yes, it does. It contains the necessary information to back up MY claim, not what you WANT me to be claiming.

3. Given my entire question is ABOUT the money from illegal transactions it requires that prostitution not be legal in texas.

Then there should be no problem with admitting that I'm correct. Illegal contracts are by default, void. It is therefore NOT a legitimate contract. Therefore, if you give someone money WILLINGLY, DESPITE assuming they were fulfill a part of an illegal contract, they are under NO obligation to give BACK your payment, because the contract is void in the first place.

Giving someone money of your own free will when there is no legitimate contract stating they must provide a service means that you are giving that money to them as a GIFT, and they have every right to keep it.

The goalposts are where they've always been you're running in the wrong direction.

Because I actually have a basic grasp of jurisprudence?