Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[Des-Bal]

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.

No, I'd like sources for the idea that the receiving party has legal claim on money offered as part of an illegal transaction being based on anything but your opinion.

The way I see it if the contract wasn't valid then neither was the exchange. It seems the Jury held that same opinion since if the money was legally hers when he tried to recover it he shot her while trying to rob her.

[Des-Bal]

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.

That is fascinating.

[Galloism]

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.

No, I'd like sources for the idea that the receiving party has legal claim on money offered as part of an illegal transaction being based on anything but your opinion.

The way I see it if the contract wasn't valid then neither was the exchange. It seems the Jury held that same opinion since if the money was legally hers when he tried to recover it he shot her while trying to rob her.

If you refuse to read the sources given already that point out illegal contracts are unenforceable, you lose the right to ask for sources.

[Galloism]

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

That is fascinating.

It'd be sort of like Waco, but with mortgage fraud at its core.

[Terrordome]

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.

remember that guy who exploited stand your ground by going out to confront some drunk party goers with a gun and a video camera, shouting at them for being too noisy and when one of the drunkards says something agressive, he started shouting "I FEEL UNDER THREA! I FEEL UNDER THREAT!" into the camera before pulling his gun and *bang bang bang bang*. I remember this but i cannot for the life of me find it again. I cant remember if he got off or not.

[Des-Bal]

If you refuse to read the sources given already that point out illegal contracts are unenforceable, you lose the right to ask for sources.

I am not requesting a source to prove illegal contracts are unenforcable I'm requesting a source that says that despite the contract being illegal the exchange was still valid.

[Des-Bal]

It'd be sort of like Waco, but with mortgage fraud at its core.

I am absolutely going to be having that conversation in a setting more conducive to fruitful discussion.

[Ifreann]

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.

No, I'd like sources for the idea that the receiving party has legal claim on money offered as part of an illegal transaction being based on anything but your opinion.

Sorry, all you've got is my opinion that giving someone else money generally makes it no longer yours.

---

No, I'd like sources for the idea that the receiving party has legal claim on money offered as part of an illegal transaction being based on anything but your opinion.

The way I see it if the contract wasn't valid then neither was the exchange. It seems the Jury held that same opinion since if the money was legally hers when he tried to recover it he shot her while trying to rob her.

If you refuse to read the sources given already that point out illegal contracts are unenforceable, you lose the right to ask for sources.

And if he'd done it at night, we'd be legally entitled to slap him about with a fish.

[Alien Space Bats]

Jesus fucking Christ

I don't know, maybe it's better this way.

Let her family sue his ass for financial and punitive damages, on the basis that he violated her civil rights under Federal law. After all, he can hardly claim to have had any right to recover his $150, since whatever contract (oral or otherwise) that he entered into for sex was illegal under local law, and illegal contracts are not enforceable (and should he argue otherwise, based on the jury's implicit acceptance of his defense, then his proper legal recourse should have been to take her to small claims court and sue her for restitution).

I can't imagine he'll get the same measure of support from a Federal court as he got locally; instead, he's likely to end up owing her survivors more money than an inbred idiot like him can hope to earn in the course of ten lifetimes.

Here's my REALLY REALLY BIG problem with this. Ignoring Texas' obscene law that makes it legal to use DEADLY FORCE to recover a hundred and fifty bucks, the underlying transaction itself was illegal. If he "gave her money" to have sex with him, he engaged in solicitation of prostitution. Since you can not, legally, give someone money in exchange for sex, what he did, legally, was give her money for nothing.

Which means he just GAVE her money.

Which means it wasn't STEALING anything.

See, this is why you're the lawyer and I'm the IT guy. That's what I was thinking, but you state it much more directly.

[Galloism]

If you refuse to read the sources given already that point out illegal contracts are unenforceable, you lose the right to ask for sources.

I am not requesting a source to prove illegal contracts are unenforcable I'm requesting a source that says that despite the contract being illegal the exchange was still valid.

Well, here's the thing. Suppose, instead of shooting her, they were immediately teleported to small claims court. She's holding the money and he's demanding either sex or a return of the money. The court could not enforce the contract, and she would walk out of small claims with the money. By any reasonable standard, ordering she gets to keep the money makes it hers.

Technically, money used in illegal transactions generally becomes the property of the state. I don't know Texas's laws, but there's a high chance that, once the illegal transaction was made, the money belonged to neither of them. It probably belonged to Texas.

[Terrordome]

I suppose the legal implication comes down to whether it was theft or not. I assume he initially gave her the $150 willingly, and she simply did not honour the agreement for sex, in which case it is not theft but some breach of contract which does not give him the right to shoot her.

On the other hand, if the contract is void and non existant under local law does that make it theft? I think not. What if she DID have sex with him, and he then shot her. As the contract is illegal under under local law the interpretation of theft could still apply under that reasoning, if he did not consent to her taking her fee for the sex afterwoulds, as she is not protected by the law seeing as the verbal contract has no legal binding?

[Ifreann]

I am not requesting a source to prove illegal contracts are unenforcable I'm requesting a source that says that despite the contract being illegal the exchange was still valid.

Well, here's the thing. Suppose, instead of shooting her, they were immediately teleported to small claims court. She's holding the money and he's demanding either sex or a return of the money. The court could not enforce the contract, and she would walk out of small claims with the money. By any reasonable standard, ordering she gets to keep the money makes it hers.

Technically, money used in illegal transactions generally becomes the property of the state. I don't know Texas's laws, but there's a high chance that, once the illegal transaction was made, the money belonged to neither of them. It probably belonged to Texas.

I had a glance at Texas' asset forfeiture law, as I was wondering this yesterday, and from that it seemed that soliciting a prostitute isn't a serious enough crime. It was a very brief look, though, and I'm not exactly a law-talking-guy.

[Des-Bal]

Well, here's the thing. Suppose, instead of shooting her, they were immediately teleported to small claims court. She's holding the money and he's demanding either sex or a return of the money. The court could not enforce the contract, and she would walk out of small claims with the money. By any reasonable standard, ordering she gets to keep the money makes it hers.

Technically, money used in illegal transactions generally becomes the property of the state. I don't know Texas's laws, but there's a high chance that, once the illegal transaction was made, the money belonged to neither of them. It probably belonged to Texas.

I am not being belligerent here, I support defense of property but I'm not big on the idea of wrapping up illegal transactions into that and I'm readily acknowledging my feelings about prostitution come into play.

If you have a source that says he had no claim to the money then I will spin on a fucking dime. I'm not making a moral stand here I'm saying that the jury apparently believed his claim on the money was valid and in the absence of evidence to the contrary I have to side with them.

[Free Tristania]

It's Texas. I am not even surprised.

[MistCliff]

My mind just exploded from reading this.

[Neo Art]

Well, here's the thing. Suppose, instead of shooting her, they were immediately teleported to small claims court. She's holding the money and he's demanding either sex or a return of the money. The court could not enforce the contract, and she would walk out of small claims with the money. By any reasonable standard, ordering she gets to keep the money makes it hers.

Technically, money used in illegal transactions generally becomes the property of the state. I don't know Texas's laws, but there's a high chance that, once the illegal transaction was made, the money belonged to neither of them. It probably belonged to Texas.

I am not being belligerent here, I support defense of property but I'm not big on the idea of wrapping up illegal transactions into that and I'm readily acknowledging my feelings about prostitution come into play.

If you have a source that says he had no claim to the money then I will spin on a fucking dime. I'm not making a moral stand here I'm saying that the jury apparently believed his claim on the money was valid and in the absence of evidence to the contrary I have to side with them.

I'm going to ask GnD's question in reverse. If you believe lethal force is a legitimate response to defense of property, at what level? You find shooting, and killing a woman, acceptable if that woman is stealing $150 from you. OK. What about $125? $100? 50 bucks? 20? 5 dollars? One dollar? the dime you'll spin upon? How about a penny?

How about the lint on your carpet? That is still, technically, your property, after all. You support "defense of property"? How far? Do you think it is morally justifiable to shoot someone for trying to steal a dollar from you?

[Des-Bal]

I'm going to ask GnD's question in reverse. If you believe lethal force is a legitimate response to defense of property, at what level? You find shooting, and killing a woman, acceptable if that woman is stealing $150 from you. OK. What about $125? $100? 50 bucks? 20? 5 dollars? One dollar? the dime you'll spin upon? How about a penny?

How about the lint on your carpet? That is still, technically, your property, after all. You support "defense of property"? How far? Do you think it is morally justifiable to shoot someone for trying to steal a dollar from you?

As a matter of principle? Right down to the carpet lint.

[Ifreann]

I'm going to ask GnD's question in reverse. If you believe lethal force is a legitimate response to defense of property, at what level? You find shooting, and killing a woman, acceptable if that woman is stealing $150 from you. OK. What about $125? $100? 50 bucks? 20? 5 dollars? One dollar? the dime you'll spin upon? How about a penny?

How about the lint on your carpet? That is still, technically, your property, after all. You support "defense of property"? How far? Do you think it is morally justifiable to shoot someone for trying to steal a dollar from you?

As a matter of principle? Right down to the carpet lint.

Wow.

[Xirnium]

I am confused by the law.

So, essentially Texas allows a ‘defence’ to murder if the person was engaged in conduct to recover (not just defend) property fraudulently obtained (not just robbed or burgled)? At… night?

Okay…

[Ifreann]

I am confused by the law.

So, essentially Texas allows a ‘defence’ to murder if the person was engaged in conduct to recover (not just defend) property fraudulently obtained (not just robbed or burgled)? At… night?

Okay…

The night is dark, and full of terrors Texans.

[Des-Bal]

Wow.

Yeah as a side effect of not dodging questions or engaging in intellectual dishonesty sometimes when I state my beliefs they don't always sound nice.

[Ifreann]

Wow.

Yeah as a side effect of not dodging questions or engaging in intellectual dishonesty sometimes when I state my beliefs they don't always sound nice.

Has it ever occurred to you that valuing human life less than carpet lint doesn't sound nice because it is, in fact, insane?

[Des-Bal]

Has it ever occurred to you that valuing human life less than carpet lint doesn't sound nice because it is, in fact, insane?

It's not an issue of value. I absolutely wouldn't should someone over carpet lint but that doesn't change the fact I believe an individual should have the right to.

[Galloism]

Well, here's the thing. Suppose, instead of shooting her, they were immediately teleported to small claims court. She's holding the money and he's demanding either sex or a return of the money. The court could not enforce the contract, and she would walk out of small claims with the money. By any reasonable standard, ordering she gets to keep the money makes it hers.

Technically, money used in illegal transactions generally becomes the property of the state. I don't know Texas's laws, but there's a high chance that, once the illegal transaction was made, the money belonged to neither of them. It probably belonged to Texas.

I am not being belligerent here, I support defense of property but I'm not big on the idea of wrapping up illegal transactions into that and I'm readily acknowledging my feelings about prostitution come into play.

If you have a source that says he had no claim to the money then I will spin on a fucking dime. I'm not making a moral stand here I'm saying that the jury apparently believed his claim on the money was valid and in the absence of evidence to the contrary I have to side with them.

It was in the link Mav posted and I repeated. Section 9.

Hell, I even gave you the section number.

[Galloism]

Has it ever occurred to you that valuing human life less than carpet lint doesn't sound nice because it is, in fact, insane?

It's not an issue of value. I absolutely wouldn't should someone over carpet lint but that doesn't change the fact I believe an individual should have the right to.

Wow.