Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[Neo Art]

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?

Ifreann, do me a favor. If I ever find myself claiming that, as a matter of principle, it is morally justifiable to take a human life over carpent lint, please remind me to take a very hard look at my life, and try and help me figure out where things went horribly, horribly wrong.

[Des-Bal]

Knocking at the door and ringing the doorbell, and the story said nothing about the man being armed.

Yeah, clearly he's a polite robber paying a housecall.

The fact of the matter is that you just don't believe defense is a right people have. You object to people using lethal force to defend their children in their own home while confronted by a burglar and while trying to hide. The rest of this bullshit your spreading around is just to support your position that lethal force isn't justifiable.

[Ifreann]

I'm reasonably across the details of the case, am I allowed to think Texas is ass-backwards and uncivilised?

Yes, yes you are.

I just ask that you don't characterize Texas or the South as ass-backwards simply because of a stupid jury. I just hate all these people who see a jury nullification and immediately see it as ripe for negative comments towards Texas and/or the South without knowing the facts of the case.

It's a bad case yes, but jury nullification does not an uncivilized state make.

Whatever about the jury, I think it's mad that Texas law allow you to kill someone to retrieve any property of yours as long as it's night time.

---

Alright...so will he face charges for soliciting prostitution? I mean, I get why they let him go for murder (I don't agree, but I see where the "loop hole" is), but that doesn't change the fact that he gave her that money for sex, which is illegal.

Soliciting prostitution is a class B misdemeanor in Texas.

Greed and death said yesterday that statute of limitations had passed on charging him with soliciting a prostitute. Though, it was greed, it could well not be true, I haven't checked myself.

[Xirnium]

Oh that incident. Since when do rational people in the United States respond to someone knocking at the door and ringing doorbells by hiding with their children? The man wasn't even described as a Jehovah's Witness. That was the root of the objection. The shooting could have been unnecessary if she just answered the door instead of waiting for him to come in. And most modern doors have walleyes because I know what you'll be trying to say.

When it's late at night? The fact is that hiding with her children was a smart move given he was there to rob the house.


You have a fundamental problem with people defending themselves.

Why are you suddenly talking about threat and fear when your position in this case is that lethal force is justified to recover property taken from you without force or the threat of force?

It sounds like you’re trying deliberately to confuse the issue and disguise how extreme your position is.

[Des-Bal]

The article states it was 1pm. As in, right about lunch time, not the "darkest hours of the night when the only people on the street are criminals" o'clock.

I was just offering an example of a good time not to answer the door.

Most burglaries take place during daytime hours, she felt something was seriously wrong and her instincts proved to be right.

[Des-Bal]

Why are you suddenly talking about threat and fear when your position in this case is that lethal force is justified to recover property taken from you without force or the threat of force?

It sounds like you’re trying deliberately to confuse the issue and disguise how extreme your position is.

I'm pointing out that Gauthiers objections are based on his objections to defense in general not a belief that the law was mishandled here.

[Caninope]

Greed and death said yesterday that statute of limitations had passed on charging him with soliciting a prostitute. Though, it was greed, it could well not be true, I haven't checked myself.

The case originates from four years ago.

I'd actually expect that to be true, honestly.

[Al Horeya]

Alright...so will he face charges for soliciting prostitution? I mean, I get why they let him go for murder (I don't agree, but I see where the "loop hole" is), but that doesn't change the fact that he gave her that money for sex, which is illegal.

Soliciting prostitution is a class B misdemeanor in Texas.

Greed and death said yesterday that statute of limitations had passed on charging him with soliciting a prostitute. Though, it was greed, it could well not be true, I haven't checked myself.[/quote]
Seriously? Damn, that really sucks...

[The New Sea Territory]

Ah, Texas.

I honestly don't even have the energy to be outraged. Just sad. Killing someone over $150. What a waste.

But it's ok to go out and kill over big things, right? Like......say........drone strikes for our oil in the Middle East?

[Pillea]

The article states it was 1pm. As in, right about lunch time, not the "darkest hours of the night when the only people on the street are criminals" o'clock.

I was just offering an example of a good time not to answer the door.

Most burglaries take place during daytime hours, she felt something was seriously wrong and her instincts proved to be right.

Then why mention night in the first place?

[Imota]

I understand that you can't exactly go the police if an escort stiffs you, but shooting someone over $150 is just messed up.

[Des-Bal]

I was just offering an example of a good time not to answer the door.

Most burglaries take place during daytime hours, she felt something was seriously wrong and her instincts proved to be right.

Then why mention night in the first place?

I was just offering an example of a good time not to answer the door.

[Al Horeya]

Gilbert's defense argued that the shooting wasn't meant to kill

Uh...what? No matter how pro or anti gun you are, you know this is BS. You don't use deadly force without meaning to kill. Even officers trained in shots to the extremities know that they are potentially fatal, and therefore will not use them unless necessary.
Besides, if that were the case, either 1.He's a shitty shot, since it hit her freakin' head instead of her leg, and/or 2.He didn't even bother aiming, opting instead to point and shoot, hoping that the bullet would be gentle.
Either way, this guy shouldn't have a gun.

[Choronzon]

I am shocked that Des-Bal is coming out in support of violence against women.

Totally shocked.

This is my shocked face,

[Pillea]

Gilbert's defense argued that the shooting wasn't meant to kill

Uh...what? No matter how pro or anti gun you are, you know this is BS. You don't use deadly force without meaning to kill. Even officers trained in shots to the extremities know that they are potentially fatal, and therefore will not use them unless necessary.
Besides, if that were the case, either 1.He's a shitty shot, since it hit her freakin' head instead of her leg, and/or 2.He didn't even bother aiming, opting instead to point and shoot, hoping that the bullet would be gentle.
Either way, this guy shouldn't have a gun.

This guy shouldn't be getting away with murder either, but hey, what can you do, that's America for ya.

[Ifreann]

I am shocked that Des-Bal is coming out in support of violence against women.

Totally shocked.

This is my shocked face,

Well, did she anti-consent to being shot?

[Choronzon]

I am shocked that Des-Bal is coming out in support of violence against women.

Totally shocked.

This is my shocked face,

Well, did she anti-consent to being shot?

She never explicitly said she did not want to be shot, thus there was no anti-consent, so what he did was not as bad as shooting her after she said "No" would have been.

It is wrong for all of you to accuse him of violent assault. Your definition of violent assault is far to general and vague to have any real meaning. Without the presence of anti-consent, it is wrong to call this man violent. We need to come up with some sort of lesser charge to describe what he did.

[Gauthier]

Knocking at the door and ringing the doorbell, and the story said nothing about the man being armed.

Yeah, clearly he's a polite robber paying a housecall.

The fact of the matter is that you just don't believe defense is a right people have. You object to people using lethal force to defend their children in their own home while confronted by a burglar and while trying to hide. The rest of this bullshit your spreading around is just to support your position that lethal force isn't justifiable.

And the root of the problem. You believe anything can be responded to with lethal force, even complete nonviolence. I just love how you assume a call for common sense is a complete abdication of safety. That's the exact same mentality that has the NRA fighting every single gun regulation.

[Alien Space Bats]

I agree with you completely, ASB, but I'm adhering to Hanlon's Razor. It seems likely enough that you had a fallible jury and a good lawyer who made an alleged loophole jut large enough for the jurors to justify jury nullification.

EDIT: I should also add that directed verdicts are not allowed against the defendant, as a general rule.

Thanks for the clarification on directed verdicts.

That said, however, couldn't the judge — Hell, shouldn't the judge — have essentially told the jury to disregard the defendant's invocation of the "nighttime theft" law, or simply told them that, as a matter of law, no theft could have possibly occurred, and that therefore the "nighttime theft" law did not apply (and therefore essentially led them by the nose to a guilty verdict)?

I mean — at least as I understand the system — that's what jury instructions are for: Where lawyers try to obfuscate and make squirrelly arguments based on dubious interpretations of the law ("In Texas, a shooting is in self-defense if the other guy impugns your lineage, intelligence, or sexual prowess!"), judges are supposed to set juries straight as to what the law actually means and how it actually applies, right?

[Pillea]

Well, did she anti-consent to being shot?

She never explicitly said she did not want to be shot, thus there was no anti-consent, so what he did was not as bad as shooting her after she said "No" would have been.

It is wrong for all of you to accuse him of violent assault. Your definition of violent assault is far to general and vague to have any real meaning. Without the presence of anti-consent, it is wrong to call this man violent. We need to come up with some sort of lesser charge to describe what he did.

Heck, he's the real victim of all this right? Think of how much slander he was put through for all of this?

[Choronzon]

She never explicitly said she did not want to be shot, thus there was no anti-consent, so what he did was not as bad as shooting her after she said "No" would have been.

It is wrong for all of you to accuse him of violent assault. Your definition of violent assault is far to general and vague to have any real meaning. Without the presence of anti-consent, it is wrong to call this man violent. We need to come up with some sort of lesser charge to describe what he did.

Heck, he's the real victim of all this right? Think of how much slander he was put through for all of this?

Those vile feminist whores have launched a vicious smear campaign against a man just because he was trying to recover his property (which, in this case, was a woman's body).

[Des-Bal]

I am shocked that Des-Bal is coming out in support of violence against women.

Totally shocked.

This is my shocked face,

I am completely unsurprised that Choronzon is trying to turn defense of property into violence against women.

Completely unsurprised.

[Pillea]

I am shocked that Des-Bal is coming out in support of violence against women.

Totally shocked.

This is my shocked face,

I am completely unsurprised that Choronzon is trying to turn defense of property into violence against women.

Completely unsurprised.

Well when a woman gets shot over 150$ for not having sex with a man....

[Choronzon]

I am shocked that Des-Bal is coming out in support of violence against women.

Totally shocked.

This is my shocked face,

I am completely unsurprised that Choronzon is trying to turn defense of property into violence against women.

Completely unsurprised.

I am completely shocked that Des-Bal thinks that shooting a woman for not having sex with you is "defense of property."

I am totally and completely shocked that an MRA would take a stand that relegates women's bodies to the status of property. Completely shocked.

[Des-Bal]

Well when a woman gets shot over 150$ for not having sex with a man....

The fact she was a woman shouldn't come into play. A person was shot for taking another persons money. That is the issue here.