NATION

PASSWORD

Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Should he have been acquited?

I don't even
301
63%
Don't mess with Texas!
108
23%
Bonobo parade
71
15%
 
Total votes : 480

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32088
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:00 am

Ksclve wrote:
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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32088
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:01 am

Ksclve wrote:
That's the point
the jury shouldn't agree


You're implying the law was mishandled with nothing to substantiate that claim.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Austerland
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 359
Founded: Apr 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Austerland » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:02 am

That's fucking bollocks. He should be locked up at once.
Last edited by Austerland on Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32088
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:03 am

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


Why exactly?
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Mortifer
Diplomat
 
Posts: 680
Founded: Mar 21, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Mortifer » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:04 am

Arrakis wrote:... 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.... :palm:.. Just no...
Puppet Nation of The Flutterlands

User avatar
Austerland
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 359
Founded: Apr 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Austerland » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:04 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Austerland wrote: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.
Last edited by Austerland on Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ksclve
Envoy
 
Posts: 297
Founded: Jan 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Ksclve » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:05 am

Austerland wrote:
Des-Bal wrote:
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

User avatar
Xsyne
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6537
Founded: Apr 30, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Xsyne » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:06 am

Austerland wrote:
Des-Bal wrote:
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.
If global warming is real, why are there still monkeys? - Msigroeg
Pro: Stuff
Anti: Things
Chernoslavia wrote:
Free Soviets wrote:according to both the law library of congress and wikipedia, both automatics and semi-autos that can be easily converted are outright banned in norway.


Source?

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32088
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:07 am

Austerland wrote: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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 159114
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ifreann » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:07 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Ifreann wrote: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.

User avatar
Ksclve
Envoy
 
Posts: 297
Founded: Jan 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Ksclve » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:08 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Austerland wrote: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?

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32088
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:09 am

Xsyne wrote: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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32088
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:10 am

Ifreann wrote: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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Austerland
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 359
Founded: Apr 15, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Austerland » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:10 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Austerland wrote: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.

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:12 am

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.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32088
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:12 am

Austerland wrote: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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Linderman
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 186
Founded: Oct 22, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Linderman » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:13 am

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

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32088
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:14 am

Gauthier wrote: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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Ksclve
Envoy
 
Posts: 297
Founded: Jan 09, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Ksclve » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:14 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Austerland wrote: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

User avatar
Viritica
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7790
Founded: Nov 25, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Viritica » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:14 am

What a shame.
Empire of Viritica (PMT) · Factbook (Incomplete)
Hamas started this after all
NSG's Resident KKKoch Rethuglican Shill
Watch Mark Levin shred Jon Stewart
The Jewish Reich is upon us

Conservative Atheist, Pro-Choice, Pro-LGBT rights, Pro-Israel, Zionist, Anti-UN

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:14 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Gauthier wrote: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.

Gauthier wrote: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.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:15 am

Ksclve wrote:
Des-Bal wrote:
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.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32088
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:16 am

Ksclve wrote:
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.

Gauthier wrote: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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 159114
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ifreann » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:17 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Ifreann wrote: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.

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32088
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Fri Jun 07, 2013 6:19 am

Gauthier wrote:
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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Akita-saki, Bemolian Lands, Dimetrodon Empire, Eahland, Furilisca, Heavenly Assault, Juansonia, La Xinga, Neu California, Ngelmish, Ryemarch, Senkaku, Shrillland, Uiiop

Advertisement

Remove ads