Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[Des-Bal]

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.

You're saying that legally it amounts to the guy just giving her money, do you have a source to substantiate that?

[Des-Bal]

-snip-

I trimmed all the parts that weren't a source.

[Esternial]

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?

Also, this: http://www.gaddywells.com/AFFIRMATIVE_D ... ILLEGALITY

If it helps.

[Mavorpen]

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.

You're saying that legally it amounts to the guy just giving her money, do you have a source to substantiate that?

YES. For fuck's sake, YES. Prostitution is ILLEGAL in Texas. It therefore means that the contract was VOID. Therefore there WAS NO CONTRACT to engage in sex for money. Which means that it JUST amounts to him giving her money. Period. Case closed.

My gods you are complicating the fuck out of this because you simply refuse to admit you were wrong.

[Mavorpen]

-snip-

I trimmed all the parts that weren't a source.

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?

Since you didn't actually address a single thing in my post.

[Mavorpen]

Of course it does. Prostitution is illegal in Texas.

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

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.

Because I actually have a basic grasp of jurisprudence?

Also, this: http://www.gaddywells.com/AFFIRMATIVE_D ... ILLEGALITY

If it helps.

It indeed does.

[Des-Bal]

it JUST amounts to him giving her money.

Source.

[Mavorpen]

it JUST amounts to him giving her money.

Source.

Of course it does. Prostitution is illegal in Texas.

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

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.

Because I actually have a basic grasp of jurisprudence?

Also, this: http://www.gaddywells.com/AFFIRMATIVE_D ... ILLEGALITY

If it helps.

My fucking gods it's like talking to a child.

[Des-Bal]

My fucking gods it's like talking to a child.

I think you're confused. When I say "Source" I'm not saying "please post a random hyperlink I would like to explore the internet" I'm asking you to substantiate your claim.

[Mavorpen]

My fucking gods it's like talking to a child.

I think you're confused. When I say "Source" I'm not saying "please post a random hyperlink I would like to explore the internet" I'm asking you to substantiate your claim.

Of course it does. Prostitution is illegal in Texas.

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

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.

Because I actually have a basic grasp of jurisprudence?

Also, this: http://www.gaddywells.com/AFFIRMATIVE_D ... ILLEGALITY

If it helps.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

You're saying that legally it amounts to the guy just giving her money, do you have a source to substantiate that?

YES. For fuck's sake, YES. Prostitution is ILLEGAL in Texas. It therefore means that the contract was VOID. Therefore there WAS NO CONTRACT to engage in sex for money. Which means that it JUST amounts to him giving her money. Period. Case closed.

My gods you are complicating the fuck out of this because you simply refuse to admit you were wrong.

Uh, no, it would amount to him giving her money with the intent of fulfilling a contract which, if tested in court, would be rendered null. If such service was not and could not legally be rendered by her, she would be compelled to return the money to him, as that money was specifically intended to fulfill a contract she could not fulfill.

NEVERMIND THE FACT THAT THIS STORY IS TWISTED AND HORRIFIC ENOUGH ALREADY.

[Mavorpen]

YES. For fuck's sake, YES. Prostitution is ILLEGAL in Texas. It therefore means that the contract was VOID. Therefore there WAS NO CONTRACT to engage in sex for money. Which means that it JUST amounts to him giving her money. Period. Case closed.

My gods you are complicating the fuck out of this because you simply refuse to admit you were wrong.

Uh, no, it would amount to him giving her money with the intent of fulfilling a contract which, if tested in court, would be rendered null. If such service was not and could not legally be rendered by her, she would be compelled to return the money to him, as that money was specifically intended to fulfill a contract she could not fulfill.

NEVERMIND THE FACT THAT THIS STORY IS TWISTED AND HORRIFIC ENOUGH ALREADY.

BELIEVING that you are engaging in a legitimate and legal contract doesn't mean that you actually are.

[Mirkana]

It wasn't theft. At best, it was breach of contract. Which I don't believe you can use force to recover, even in Texas.

This was manslaughter. This man should be in jail.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

It wasn't theft. At best, it was breach of contract. Which I don't believe you can use force to recover, even in Texas.

This was manslaughter. This man should be in jail.

I'm pretty sure it's murder. In a decent justice system, the only factor to be decided on by now would be whether it was 'heat of the moment' or premeditated.

[Ostroeuropa]

It wasn't theft. At best, it was breach of contract. Which I don't believe you can use force to recover, even in Texas.

This was manslaughter. This man should be in jail.

I'm pretty sure it's murder. In a decent justice system, the only factor to be decided on by now would be whether it was 'heat of the moment' or premeditated.

He claims he did not intend to kill her. That should be taken into account.
Now, it should, in my opinion, be dismissed because even the NRA, a rabidly pro-gun lobby, uses the criteria "Do not point your gun at anything you do not wish to utterly destroy."

[Trotskylvania]

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.

You're saying that legally it amounts to the guy just giving her money, do you have a source to substantiate that?

She works for a motherfucking escort service, not a brothel, because prostitution is illegal in Texas.

Jesus titty fucking christ, escorts may play fast and loose with the law, but that's no fucking excuse. You don't pay for an escort to do anything but hang on your arm and look pretty. The man who shot her is a moron, and a horrible person to boot, and you're fucking defending someone who MURDERED another human being over 150 dollars, because she didn't want to do a number of things with him, including but not limited to A) breaking the law B) have sex with him.

What the hell is wrong with you?

[OMGeverynameistaken]

I'm pretty sure it's murder. In a decent justice system, the only factor to be decided on by now would be whether it was 'heat of the moment' or premeditated.

He claims he did not intend to kill her. That should be taken into account.
Now, it should, in my opinion, be dismissed because even the NRA, a rabidly pro-gun lobby, uses the criteria "Do not point your gun at anything you do not wish to utterly destroy."

I don't think "honestly, officer, I was only shooting to wound!" would fly in the court of law.

I'm sure if there was a proper forensic investigation, somebody might be able to make a decision on the matter, but I guess the poor woman won't even get that now.

[L Ron Cupboard]

The Texan money shot.

[Gauthier]

I am laughing at everyone getting offended at this.

Ah, it must be time for the Annual ITG Awards again.

[Gauthier]

Any bets on if the guy being a darkie he'd be in Huntsville right now?

[Meryuma]

Apparently rape is legal there. Fuck.

Nope. The thread title is misleading; read the OP.

(Shooting people who scam you out of a few bucks is legal, because Texas. )

I did. It's still rapey logic.

[Gigaverse]

WTF. That is all.

[Sassinia]

Texas, leave the States. Now.

[Gauthier]

Naturally, if a man in the Middle East was acquitted of shooting a woman for not putting out everyone in Texas would be howling in outrage.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Any bets on if the guy being a darkie he'd be in Huntsville right now?

More likely he would have 'resisted arrest' and subsequently been shot dead at the scene.