Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[Gauthier]

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.

You're wishing it was federal law, no?

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.

That's because you're missing out on things like how racial justice is nuanced in Texas. A dark-skinned man would not have been allowed to get away with what this guy did even with a good lawyer.

[Des-Bal]

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.

Not magical, legal.

She took the money as part of an illegal contract, you're saying that money is now legally hers. That means that the Jury was clearly and unabashedly in the wrong, I am demanding sources for that claim.

[Des-Bal]

That's because you're missing out on things like how racial justice is nuanced in Texas. A dark-skinned man would not have been allowed to get away with what this guy did even with a good lawyer.

I'm not missing out I'm saying that's not fucking relevant.

[Austerland]

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.

Violence over something as trivial as money is ridiculous. I can understand killing someone to protect your family, but doing so to get some money back is a terrible reason. Especially an amount of money that was so small.

[Galloism]

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.

Not magical, legal.

She took the money as part of an illegal contract, you're saying that money is now legally hers. That means that the Jury was clearly and unabashedly in the wrong, I am demanding sources for that 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.

Please see section 9.

[Des-Bal]

Violence over something as trivial as money is ridiculous. I can understand killing someone to protect your family, but doing so to get some money back is a terrible reason. Especially an amount of money that was so small.

Defense of property is and remains justifiable grounds for the use of force.

[Agritum]

This is one of the most hilariously sad legal loopholes I have ever seen be used.

[Galloism]

This is one of the most hilariously sad legal loopholes I have ever seen be used.

It's awful. Absurd. Inequitable. Heinous even.

I sort of admire the dude's lawyer for thinking of it, but appalled it actually worked.

[Gauthier]

This is one of the most hilariously sad legal loopholes I have ever seen be used.

It's awful. Absurd. Inequitable. Heinous even.

I sort of admire the dude's lawyer for thinking of it, but appalled it actually worked.

I for one can't wait until there's a string of shootings that abuse this loophole.

[Des-Bal]

I for one can't wait until there's a string of shootings that abuse this loophole.

I hope people get murdered so I can feel smug.

[Gauthier]

Violence over something as trivial as money is ridiculous. I can understand killing someone to protect your family, but doing so to get some money back is a terrible reason. Especially an amount of money that was so small.

Defense of property is and remains justifiable grounds for the use of force.

So if someone who lost his or her life savings due to some financial mishap went shooting up Wall Street or whichever financial institution was directly involved you would say it was justified. Right?

[Galloism]

It's awful. Absurd. Inequitable. Heinous even.

I sort of admire the dude's lawyer for thinking of it, but appalled it actually worked.

I for one can't wait until there's a string of shootings that abuse this loophole.

Um, that's bad and you should feel bad for desiring relatively innocent people be shot and killed.

[Gauthier]

I for one can't wait until there's a string of shootings that abuse this loophole.

Um, that's bad and you should feel bad for desiring relatively innocent people be shot and killed.

It's not about enjoying the loophole. It's about how the only way to get absurdity corrected is to highlight it in such a way that people cannot be helped but horrified.

[Des-Bal]

So if someone who lost his or her life savings due to some financial mishap went shooting up Wall Street or whichever financial institution was directly involved you would say it was justified. Right?

No, not really. The comparison doesn't mesh.

[Gauthier]

So if someone who lost his or her life savings due to some financial mishap went shooting up Wall Street or whichever financial institution was directly involved you would say it was justified. Right?

No, not really. The comparison doesn't mesh.

But it involves protection of property!

[Des-Bal]

It's not about enjoying the loophole. It's about how the only way to get absurdity corrected is to highlight it in such a way that people cannot be helped but horrified.

Which is why the Jewish people were so excited about the holocaust. It highlighted the absurdities!

[Des-Bal]

But it involves protection of property!

No it doesn't, not in the least.

[Galloism]

Um, that's bad and you should feel bad for desiring relatively innocent people be shot and killed.

It's not about enjoying the loophole. It's about how the only way to get absurdity corrected is to highlight it in such a way that people cannot be helped but horrified.

This case is pretty horrific without the need for a string of them.

[Galloism]

It's not about enjoying the loophole. It's about how the only way to get absurdity corrected is to highlight it in such a way that people cannot be helped but horrified.

Which is why the Jewish people were so excited about the holocaust. It highlighted the absurdities!

*blast Des-Bal through a wall with the force*

What Gauthier said was awful. Your step up to the holocaust was worse.

[Gauthier]

It's not about enjoying the loophole. It's about how the only way to get absurdity corrected is to highlight it in such a way that people cannot be helped but horrified.

This case is pretty horrific without the need for a string of them.

The lack of gun control legislation in the wake of a few horrific mass shootings including one that killed twenty children just shows how unfortunately desensitized people tend to be to things that don't affect them directly.

[Ifreann]

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.

Not magical, legal.

Hah, no.

She took the money as part of an illegal contract, you're saying that money is now legally hers. That means that the Jury was clearly and unabashedly in the wrong, I am demanding sources for that claim.

You...want sources for my opinion that if I were to hand a wad of cash over to someone, of my own free will, without any legally enforceable conditions about some kind of exchange or the like, that I would not have had my money stolen from me? I could take a picture of my head if you'd like, but it'd be a while before I can upload it from my phone.

[Gauthier]

It's not about enjoying the loophole. It's about how the only way to get absurdity corrected is to highlight it in such a way that people cannot be helped but horrified.

Which is why the Jewish people were so excited about the holocaust. It highlighted the absurdities!

I did not know the United States had a law that made murdering Jews legal. [/godwin]

[Des-Bal]

*blast Des-Bal through a wall with the force*

What Gauthier said was awful. Your step up to the holocaust was worse.

I was highlighting his absurdities!

But regardless of how awful that logic is it seems to be going down a road decidedly not linked to the topic at hand.

[Gauthier]

But it involves protection of property!

No it doesn't, not in the least.

And someone squatting in a home they're about to lose because of mortgage fraud by a company?

[Galloism]

No it doesn't, not in the least.

And someone squatting in a home they're about to lose because of mortgage fraud by a company?

Um, that would mean they could shoot people that tried to eject them, as agents of thieves.