Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[Choronzon]

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....

I just like how open he is being about his belief that women's bodies are property.

[Gauthier]

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?

And those heartless bastards want poor beleaguered George Zimmerman to fry.

[Ifreann]

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.

Shame we already used "des-ballin"

[Xsyne]

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.

She did not take his money. We've linked the law on this multiple times.

[Choronzon]

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.

You are asking us to ignore every single other aspect of this case.

How intellectually dishonest. Not at all in character.

[Gauthier]

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.

You are asking us to ignore every single other aspect of this case.

How intellectually dishonest. Not at all in character.

And of course presuming she was a prostitute just because she happened to be a paid escort.

[Neo Art]

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?

Let me add clarification. It is not that, in a criminal trial "directed verdicts are not allowed against the defendant, as a general rule". It is, in fact, directed verdicts are not allowed against a defendant.

Period.

At all.

Ever.

A directed verdict against a defendant would be a judicially mandated verdict of guilty. This is absolutely, utterly, 100% unconstitutional as a violation of the defendant's right to a trial by jury. There is absolutely no such thing in american criminal law as a directed verdict for the prosecution.

[Des-Bal]

She did not take his money. We've linked the law on this multiple times.

No you fucking haven't. You may be confused because I've asked you to multiple times but every time I ask you bring up a general wikipedia article about illegal transactions or a section of the law that really doesn't address who has legal claim to the money.

[Pillea]

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.

You're right, the fact that she was shot over $150 for refusing to have sex with him, just because he believed it was part of the deal, and he gets away with it is.

The issue here is that a man murdered someone and is getting a pat on the back all across the internet and a free pass from the law.

[Alien Space Bats]

Let me add clarification. It is not that, in a criminal trial "directed verdicts are not allowed against the defendant, as a general rule". It is, in fact, directed verdicts are not allowed against a defendant.

Period.

At all.

Ever.

A directed verdict against a defendant would be a judicially mandated verdict of guilty. This is absolutely, utterly, 100% unconstitutional as a violation of the defendant's right to a trial by jury. There is absolutely no such thing in american criminal law as a directed verdict for the prosecution.

But the judge could have issued the jury instructions that they should essentially reject the defense's interpretation of the escort's actions as "nighttime theft", right?

[Des-Bal]

You're right, the fact that she was shot over $150 for refusing to have sex with him, just because he believed it was part of the deal, and he gets away with it is.

The issue here is that a man murdered someone and is getting a pat on the back all across the internet and a free pass from the law.

Actually it seems to be he's being painted as a murder despite the fact that he's been acquitted.

[Pillea]

You're right, the fact that she was shot over $150 for refusing to have sex with him, just because he believed it was part of the deal, and he gets away with it is.

The issue here is that a man murdered someone and is getting a pat on the back all across the internet and a free pass from the law.

Actually it seems to be he's being painted as a murder despite the fact that he's been acquitted.

Only by reasonable people.

[Choronzon]

You're right, the fact that she was shot over $150 for refusing to have sex with him, just because he believed it was part of the deal, and he gets away with it is.

The issue here is that a man murdered someone and is getting a pat on the back all across the internet and a free pass from the law.

Actually it seems to be he's being painted as a murder despite the fact that he's been acquitted.

Well, it can't be murder because it lacked anti-consent. Its some other, lesser crime that is just like murder but somehow not at all.

[Choronzon]

Actually it seems to be he's being painted as a murder despite the fact that he's been acquitted.

Only by reasonable people.

Don't forget, he was acquitted so that obviously means that he was 100% in the right because people never ever ever get away with crimes neener neener

Poor OJ, called a murderer all those years after having been acquitted.

[Des-Bal]

Only by reasonable people.

Right like those reasonable lynch mobs who tracked down those darkies who escaped justice through the loophole that they hadn't actually done anything wrong.

[Choronzon]

Only by reasonable people.

Right like those reasonable lynch mobs who tracked down those darkies who escaped justice through the loophole that they hadn't actually done anything wrong.

Priceless.

[The Steel Magnolia]

It didn't help that the prosecution was utterly incompetent.

[Ifreann]

You're right, the fact that she was shot over $150 for refusing to have sex with him, just because he believed it was part of the deal, and he gets away with it is.

The issue here is that a man murdered someone and is getting a pat on the back all across the internet and a free pass from the law.

Actually it seems to be he's being painted as a murder despite the fact that he's been acquitted.

Arguing semantics, are we?

[Choronzon]

It didn't help that the prosecution was utterly incompetent.

It rarely does.

[Neo Art]

Let me add clarification. It is not that, in a criminal trial "directed verdicts are not allowed against the defendant, as a general rule". It is, in fact, directed verdicts are not allowed against a defendant.

Period.

At all.

Ever.

A directed verdict against a defendant would be a judicially mandated verdict of guilty. This is absolutely, utterly, 100% unconstitutional as a violation of the defendant's right to a trial by jury. There is absolutely no such thing in american criminal law as a directed verdict for the prosecution.

But the judge could have issued the jury instructions that they should essentially reject the defense's interpretation of the escort's actions as "nighttime theft", right?

Do you want the long answer or the short answer?

The short answer is "no". A judge can not TELL the jury to not consider a defendant's argument. The defendant has a constitutional right to a defense, and a judge can not tell the jury "their interepretation of the law is wrong, and you shouldn't believe their argument". Such conduct is grounds for mistrial.

What the judge CAN do is provide the jury with the definition of "theft" for the purposes of the statute. If they claim defense due to "night time theft" the judge CAN provide the jury with the definition of "nighttime" and "theft" as relative to the law. But you can not TELL the jury that the facts of these circumstances meet or do not meet the definition of "nighttime" or "theft", because that's a finding of fact, and findings of fact are the explicit realm of the jury. You can provide them with the law. you can provide them with the facts, but you can not tell them whether the facts meet the law (at least in circumstances where this is to the detriment of the defendant). That is, in fact, their entire JOB

But the meaning of "theft" for the purposes of the law can be provided TO them. That's called a "jury instruction" however.

[Pillea]

Only by reasonable people.

Right like those reasonable lynch mobs who tracked down those darkies who escaped justice through the loophole that they hadn't actually done anything wrong.

Managed to avoid Godwin by about half a degree I see?

[Gauthier]

Only by reasonable people.

Don't forget, he was acquitted so that obviously means that he was 100% in the right because people never ever ever get away with crimes neener neener

Poor OJ, called a murderer all those years after having been acquitted.

And The Real Killer is still out there somewhere.

[Xsyne]

Don't forget, he was acquitted so that obviously means that he was 100% in the right because people never ever ever get away with crimes neener neener

Poor OJ, called a murderer all those years after having been acquitted.

And The Real Killer is still out there somewhere.

No, no. OJ killed her, it just wasn't murder because she didn't explicitly not consent to being killed.

[Des-Bal]

Managed to avoid Godwin by about half a degree I see?

I have no objection to comparing someone to the Nazis. When you're looking for something that is widely considered to be not good they're a pretty good choice.

[Neo Art]

Don't forget, he was acquitted so that obviously means that he was 100% in the right because people never ever ever get away with crimes neener neener

Poor OJ, called a murderer all those years after having been acquitted.

And The Real Killer is still out there somewhere.

Poor OJ, thwarted from finding the real killer because he happened to take property of someone else, while the owner didn't give affirmative non consent, which makes it kinda like stealing, but also not.