Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[Des-Bal]

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?

Since prostitution is illegal prostitution must not exist. I mean sure he called up the service and unambiguously asked if sex was going to be exchanged for money and received an affirmative response but exchanging sex for money isn't really prostitution.

Actually I'm defending him for lawfully defending his property. You know since she was robbing him. The fact that the service she failed to provide was illegal doesn't really matter.

[Des-Bal]

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.

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

So instead of addressing anything that actually happened you've tried twice to add a racial component to a crime that really doesn't appear to have one.

[Ksclve]

I think that from now on escorts should have an escort.

[Des-Bal]

I think that from now on escorts should have an escort.

Even though you clearly just wanted to write something that sounded silly she had a driver who may or may not be her pimp.

[Ksclve]

I think that from now on escorts should have an escort.

Even though you clearly just wanted to write something that sounded silly she had a driver who may or may not be her pimp.

pimp?
nigga please.....

[Ifreann]

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?

Since prostitution is illegal prostitution must not exist. I mean sure he called up the service and unambiguously asked if sex was going to be exchanged for money and received an affirmative response but exchanging sex for money isn't really prostitution.

Actually I'm defending him for lawfully defending his property. You know since she was robbing him. The fact that the service she failed to provide was illegal doesn't really matter.

Robbing? How do you think the money came to be in her possession, exactly? Did she take it by force, or the threat of force?

[Des-Bal]

Robbing? How do you think the money came to be in her possession, exactly? Did she take it by force, or the threat of force?

Are you saying that money offered as part of an illegal transaction legally belongs to the party it was offered to? Several people have made that claim and if that's the case there's really no question about the fact that the jury fucked up but nobodies provided a source.

[Ksclve]

Are you saying that money offered as part of an illegal transaction legally belongs to the party it was offered to?

Yes, that's it.

[Des-Bal]

Yes, that's it.

Several people have made that claim and if that's the case there's really no question about the fact that the jury fucked up but nobodies provided a source.

nobodies provided a source.

source.

[Ksclve]

Yes, that's it.

Several people have made that claim and if that's the case there's really no question about the fact that the jury fucked up but nobodies provided a source.

nobodies provided a source.

source.

google it yourself

we are not trying to persuade you towards anything, actually

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

google it yourself
we are not trying to persuade you towards anything, actually

Apparently, Des-Bal just glosses over others providing source pages ago.

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.

It's great that someone who teaches for a living just spends his time posting "source!" "source!". It's a good thing he no longer teaches in US, me thinks.Well, that was uncalled for. Sorry about that.

[Des-Bal]

google it yourself

we are not trying to persuade you towards anything, actually

I believe this is the de facto win condition on NS.

[Des-Bal]

google it yourself
we are not trying to persuade you towards anything, actually

Apparently, Des-Bal just glosses over others providing source pages ago.

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

It's great that someone who teaches for a living just spends his time posting "source!" "source!". It's a good thing he no longer teaches in US, me thinks.

1. Had you read that source you would notice it doesn't actually address the issue in any way shape or form.

2. Do you think I'm a teacher?

[Ksclve]

google it yourself

we are not trying to persuade you towards anything, actually

I believe this is the de facto win condition on NS.

Yeah, you lose.

[Linderman]

Justice was done if the man was telling the truth.

She was trying to steal 150 dollars from him so he shot and killed her. Sounds fair...

[Des-Bal]

Yeah, you lose.

No see you're asserting a nonsensical claim to be an absolute incontrovertible fact of the law and saying that based on the mishandling of the law a man who committed what should have been convicted for murder has walked free.

I am challenging you to actually substantiate that bullshit.

[Xsyne]

Frankly I am not sure what's worse. The fact that people are trying to claim that not sleeping with someone constitutes THEFT or the fact that people are buying into the equivocation of "well it's ok ONLY if she really DID consent to sex because if she DID then its theft", and all the while ignoring the actual big elephant in the room problem of "oh Jesus Christ it should never be illegal to shoot someone to death over 150 dollars, what the actual fuck?".

So I'm not going to engage in this concern of whether she ACTUALLY said shed fuck him, whether she's a hooker or an escort, whether it was "theft" or not. I don't care if she DID explicitly agree to fuck him then ran off with his money. Even assuming all of that is true, assuming even she WAS a thief, those of you defending his actions are literally defending taking a human life for half the cost of a fucking Xbox.

Jesus fucking Christ what the fuck is wrong with you people?

When you're thirteen, one hundred fifty bucks is a hell of a lot of money.

[Ksclve]

Yeah, you lose.

No see you're asserting a nonsensical claim to be an absolute incontrovertible fact of the law and saying that based on the mishandling of the law a man who committed what should have been convicted for murder has walked free.

I am challenging you to actually substantiate that bullshit.

I don't understand half you wrote lol

anyway, who do you think this money belongs to?
the jews?

[Ksclve]

Frankly I am not sure what's worse. The fact that people are trying to claim that not sleeping with someone constitutes THEFT or the fact that people are buying into the equivocation of "well it's ok ONLY if she really DID consent to sex because if she DID then its theft", and all the while ignoring the actual big elephant in the room problem of "oh Jesus Christ it should never be illegal to shoot someone to death over 150 dollars, what the actual fuck?".

So I'm not going to engage in this concern of whether she ACTUALLY said shed fuck him, whether she's a hooker or an escort, whether it was "theft" or not. I don't care if she DID explicitly agree to fuck him then ran off with his money. Even assuming all of that is true, assuming even she WAS a thief, those of you defending his actions are literally defending taking a human life for half the cost of a fucking Xbox.

Jesus fucking Christ what the fuck is wrong with you people?

When you're thirteen, one hundred fifty bucks is a hell of a lot of money.

Or if you live in another country.

I could live for a month for this money.

[Ifreann]

Robbing? How do you think the money came to be in her possession, exactly? Did she take it by force, or the threat of force?

Are you saying that money offered as part of an illegal transaction legally belongs to the party it was offered to? Several people have made that claim and if that's the case there's really no question about the fact that the jury fucked up but nobodies provided a source.

I am saying nothing. I asking how the money came to be in this woman's possession. You called it robbery, which implies it was taken by force or the threat of force. Is that actually the case?

[Ifreann]

Frankly I am not sure what's worse. The fact that people are trying to claim that not sleeping with someone constitutes THEFT or the fact that people are buying into the equivocation of "well it's ok ONLY if she really DID consent to sex because if she DID then its theft", and all the while ignoring the actual big elephant in the room problem of "oh Jesus Christ it should never be illegal to shoot someone to death over 150 dollars, what the actual fuck?".

So I'm not going to engage in this concern of whether she ACTUALLY said shed fuck him, whether she's a hooker or an escort, whether it was "theft" or not. I don't care if she DID explicitly agree to fuck him then ran off with his money. Even assuming all of that is true, assuming even she WAS a thief, those of you defending his actions are literally defending taking a human life for half the cost of a fucking Xbox.

Jesus fucking Christ what the fuck is wrong with you people?

When you're thirteen, one hundred fifty bucks is a hell of a lot of money.

That's two video games and enough energy drinks to keep you awake long enough to finish both.

[Des-Bal]

I don't understand half you wrote lol

anyway, who do you think this money belongs to?
the jews?

Given your inabillity to understand fairly simple posts and your references to "nigga[s]" and "jews" I have a hard time believing this tangent will bear fruit regardless of how far it's followed.

[Ksclve]

I don't understand half you wrote lol

anyway, who do you think this money belongs to?
the jews?

Given your inabillity to understand fairly simple posts and your references to "nigga[s]" and "jews" I have a hard time believing this tangent will bear fruit regardless of how far it's followed.

yeah, you have to use simple, normal words or else people are not even going to understand you
it's the truth of this world

[Des-Bal]

Are you saying that money offered as part of an illegal transaction legally belongs to the party it was offered to? Several people have made that claim and if that's the case there's really no question about the fact that the jury fucked up but nobodies provided a source.

I am saying nothing. I asking how the money came to be in this woman's possession. You called it robbery, which implies it was taken by force or the threat of force. Is that actually the case?

No I said he was robbed, I was using the phrase in the colloquial sense which implies only that he was deprived of something. Regardless of the manner that happened he submitted and the jury agreed that she was stealing from him and that's the issue.

[Ksclve]

I am saying nothing. I asking how the money came to be in this woman's possession. You called it robbery, which implies it was taken by force or the threat of force. Is that actually the case?

No I said he was robbed, I was using the phrase in the colloquial sense which implies only that he was deprived of something. Regardless of the manner that happened he submitted and the jury agreed that she was stealing from him and that's the issue.

That's the point
the jury shouldn't agree