Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[Des-Bal]

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

I'm using maybe tenth grade level english at the highest. You seem to be the only person failing to understand me. If you can't understand what I'm saying then you shouldn't participate in discussions on the intricacies of the law.

[Des-Bal]

That's the point
the jury shouldn't agree

You're implying the law was mishandled with nothing to substantiate that claim.

[Austerland]

That's fucking bollocks. He should be locked up at once.

[Des-Bal]

That's fucking bollocks. He should be locked up at once.

Why exactly?

[Mortifer]

... 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?

No.... .. Just no...

[Austerland]

That's fucking bollocks. He should be locked up at once.

Why exactly?

Wait, is it more complicated than what the title says? I didn't really read into it to be honest. I just read the title and became enraged.

[Ksclve]

Why exactly?

Wait, is it more complicated than what the title says? I didn't really read into it to be honest.

no, it's autism again

[Xsyne]

Why exactly?

Wait, is it more complicated than what the title says? I didn't really read into it to be honest. I just read the title and became enraged.

No, it's basically what the title says. Some people do not understand basic principles of law despite having them explained to them multiple times, by a number of people, including people in the legal profession.

[Des-Bal]

Wait, is it more complicated than what the title says? I didn't really read into it to be honest.

And there we have the issue. Don't take titles at face value.

He offered her money in exchange for sex and she wanted to leave.

The issue wasn't that she didn't have sex with him it's that she stole his money.

[Ifreann]

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,

Which is wholly unlike calling it robbery.

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.

I'd still like to know how she came to be in possession of the money.

[Ksclve]

Wait, is it more complicated than what the title says? I didn't really read into it to be honest.

And there we have the issue. Don't take titles at face value.

He offered her money in exchange for sex and she wanted to leave.

The issue wasn't that she didn't have sex with him it's that she stole his money.

Are you refreshing this thread every second?

[Des-Bal]

No, it's basically what the title says. Some people do not understand basic principles of law despite having them explained to them multiple times, by a number of people, including people in the legal profession.

You know what's awesome about the law? The written stuff.

If money offered in exchange for an illegal act belongs to the party it was offered to I would just love to see someone provide evidence that this is in fact the case.

[Des-Bal]

Which is wholly unlike calling it robbery.
I'd still like to know how she came to be in possession of the money.

That's why I didn't accuse her of committing the crime of robbery. You're argument is really semantic.

According to the jury she stole it.

[Austerland]

Wait, is it more complicated than what the title says? I didn't really read into it to be honest.

And there we have the issue. Don't take titles at face value.

He offered her money in exchange for sex and she wanted to leave.

The issue wasn't that she didn't have sex with him it's that she stole his money.

I understand that she stole his money, but shooting her is incredibly harsh. Just take a picture of her and call the police.

[Gauthier]

I love how quite a few posters are running on the assumption that "The woman was a whore who took his money, therefore he was justified in shooting her dead." Like I said, it's the Grand Theft Auto Vice City mentality brought to real life.

[Des-Bal]

I understand that she stole his money, but shooting her is incredibly harsh. Just take a picture of her and call the police.

Under the law he was allowed to use deadly force to recover his property, while harsh it was not illegal.

He claims he was not trying to kill her but given that under the law he was allowed to this doesn't really matter either.

[Linderman]

Justice was done. No one should be allowed to steal 150 dollars and expect to walk away without just retribution...

[Des-Bal]

I love how quite a few posters are running on the assumption that "The woman was a whore who took his money, therefore he was justified in shooting her dead." Like I said, it's the Grand Theft Auto Vice City mentality brought to real life.

According to the law yeah if someone takes your money and in pursuit of that money you shoot them dead you are in fact justified.

[Ksclve]

I understand that she stole his money, but shooting her is incredibly harsh. Just take a picture of her and call the police.

Under the law he was allowed to use deadly force to recover his property, while harsh it was not illegal.

He claims he was not trying to kill her but given that under the law he was allowed to this doesn't really matter either.

if you just wanted to say that law is wrong and needs to be rewritten, you could have just say it

[Viritica]

What a shame.

[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.

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.

Plenty of time to discuss the issue. But the point I was making is it's Texas. If a black man shot a white escort dead for "not putting out" and tried to claim he was recovering stolent property he'd still have been convicted.

[Gauthier]

Under the law he was allowed to use deadly force to recover his property, while harsh it was not illegal.

He claims he was not trying to kill her but given that under the law he was allowed to this doesn't really matter either.

if you just wanted to say that law is wrong and needs to be rewritten, you could have just say it

He doesn't think it's wrong. In fact he loves it.

[Des-Bal]

if you just wanted to say that law is wrong and needs to be rewritten, you could have just say it

I am not saying that.

Plenty of time to discuss the issue. But the point I was making is it's Texas. If a black man shot a white escort dead for "not putting out" and tried to claim he was recovering stolent property he'd still have been convicted.

I'm saying that's not fucking relevant.

[Ifreann]

Which is wholly unlike calling it robbery.
I'd still like to know how she came to be in possession of the money.

That's why I didn't accuse her of committing the crime of robbery. You're argument is really semantic.

Really? You're arguing the difference between saying that she robbed the money and calling her actions robbery. Seems to me you're the one dealing in semantics.

And I'm not arguing that you accused her of the crime of robbery. I asked if she took the money by force, because I'm curious as to how she came to be in possession of the money.

According to the jury she stole it.

A very unsatisfying answer. It's not like a jury is some kind of magical authority over right and wrong. People can disagree with the results of court cases. You know, like people have been doing all throughout this thread.

[Des-Bal]

He doesn't think it's wrong. In fact he loves it.

As I recall you were also against a mother shooting a burglar who broke into her home and approached her children.