Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[Euronion]

The title is misleading. It assumes that if someone, with no financial transaction, refuses sex than it is okay to shot them, that is not what happened. The man paid for a service and that service decided to walk out the door. It would be the equivalent of saying that it is okay if you pay $150 for an iPhone at the Apple Store and they take the money but refuse to give you an iPhone and refuse to give you your money back. I'm not saying he should've shot her, but -- as far as I know -- prostitution is an illegal activity in Texas and so the transaction was an illegal transaction and therefore an invalid transaction. Therefore if the transaction is not recognized as valid in a court of law and no actual goods or services were exchanged for the money that was given, it is the equivalent of stealing someone's money, which under Texan law, gives you the right to shot a nighttime robber. That being said the man should also be prosecuted for attempting to engage in prostitution. This ruling, no matter how bad it sounds, is in accordance with the law and specifically a law that was put in place to protect citizens from real threats, not prostitutes. I do not think that the shooting should have took place, perhaps the man should've attempted to retrieve the money instead. I do not think this person was in the right, I feel sorry for the loss of life that has taken place, but the law is the law and to include a clause that condones one way transactions or stealing or extortion would encourage these actions. I'm not exactly sure how else you wanted the court to rule, other than in accordance with the law.

[Mavorpen]

That is certainly a misunderstanding, because it assumes that the law works in a way it doesn't. If you were in a courtroom and said, "LUL SOURCE!?!" in the form of EXPLICITLY SPECIFIC laws made by your opponent every time they make a claim, you wouldn't be taken seriously. There's something called inductive reasoning. You, for whatever reason, refuse to use it to mask your ignorance of the subject at hand.

You are LITERALLY asking me to take your word as law. There are probably ways to be less reasonable but off the top of my head I can't think of any.

And so are you. Can you provide me a source that states, "if you engage in prostitution and the party providing sex does not fulfill their side of the contract, you still own that property"?

I'll wait.

[Pillea]

The title is misleading. It assumes that if someone, with no financial transaction, refuses sex than it is okay to shot them, that is not what happened. The man paid for a service and that service decided to walk out the door. It would be the equivalent of saying that it is okay if you pay $150 for an iPhone at the Apple Store and they take the money but refuse to give you an iPhone and refuse to give you your money back. I'm not saying he should've shot her, but -- as far as I know -- prostitution is an illegal activity in Texas and so the transaction was an illegal transaction and therefore an invalid transaction. Therefore if the transaction is not recognized as valid in a court of law and no actual goods or services were exchanged for the money that was given, it is the equivalent of stealing someone's money, which under Texan law, gives you the right to shot a nighttime robber. That being said the man should also be prosecuted for attempting to engage in prostitution. This ruling, no matter how bad it sounds, is in accordance with the law and specifically a law that was put in place to protect citizens from real threats, not prostitutes. I do not think that the shooting should have took place, perhaps the man should've attempted to retrieve the money instead. I do not think this person was in the right, I feel sorry for the loss of life that has taken place, but the law is the law and to include a clause that condones one way transactions or stealing or extortion would encourage these actions. I'm not exactly sure how else you wanted the court to rule, other than in accordance with the law.

Escort services =/= prostitution. He paid for an escort.

[Des-Bal]

And so are you. Can you provide me a source that states, "if you engage in prostitution and the party providing sex does not fulfill their side of the contract, you still own that property"?

I'll wait.

This case. The fact that he was acquitted means his claim to the money was deemed legitimate.

[Des-Bal]

Escort services =/= prostitution. He paid for an escort.

In the phone call he specifically asked if sex was going to be provided and he was specifically told it would be. That makes it prostitution.

[Choronzon]

And so are you. Can you provide me a source that states, "if you engage in prostitution and the party providing sex does not fulfill their side of the contract, you still own that property"?

I'll wait.

This case. The fact that he was acquitted means his claim to the money was deemed legitimate.

Oh man.

[Mavorpen]

And so are you. Can you provide me a source that states, "if you engage in prostitution and the party providing sex does not fulfill their side of the contract, you still own that property"?

I'll wait.

Snip

Cut out everything that isn't a law.

[Alien Space Bats]

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.

Legal Purpose:

Essential element of an agreement in contract law whereby an agreement is legal and enforceable only if it complies with the law of the land and public policy. Any agreement entered into for an illegal purpose is not legally binding.

---

Legally Binding:

Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited. For example, a lease for an apartment is legally binding, because upon signing the document, the lessor and the lessee are agreeing to a number of conditions. The lessor typically agrees to provide the apartment in a certain condition for a certain length of time, and the lessee typically agrees to pay an agreed upon rent and refrain from certain destructive behaviors. The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration - both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to. If a person is forced, tricked, or coerced into entering into an agreement, it typically is not considered legally binding.

— BusinessDictionary.com

I am now going to explain to you why you are wrong.

Ezekiel Gilbert responded to a Craiglist advertisement for escort services by contacting Lenora Ivie Frago. He claims they agreed to sex in exchange for $150; she can make no counter-claim, being dead as a result of their encounter.

He says that gave her $150 at the start of their encounter, believing that he was paying for sex. Unfortunately, there are two problems with this argument:

• The payment of money for sex is prostitution, which violates local law. Under the law of contracts, such an agreement is not (and cannot be) legally binding, as it does not have a legal purpose (i.e., it does not "comply with the law of the land and public policy"); therefore, as it was not (and could not be) legally binding, Mr. Gilbert had no recourse in the event that Ms. Frago refused to comply (that is what "legally binding" means: That once the contracting parties have reached an agreement, they are both legally obligated to follow through on all its terms, or face the consequences of failing to do so in court); this lack of recourse includes the right to a refund, which — unless guaranteed (either explicitly within the terms of the contract itself, or under local law [where it can be either explicit or implicit]) — does not otherwise exist.
  
  Therefore, if Mr. Gilbert did indeed solicit prostitution — as he claims he did — then he was not entitled to his money back in the event that he didn't get laid. If prostitution were legal in Texas, then things might be different; but it's not, so they're not.
  
  
• Alternately (or additionally, depending on circumstance), Mr. Gilbert could claim that he was deceived by Ms. Frago as to the nature of their agreement, making it invalid. In the event that this were true, he might be entitled to a refund of his money. The problem here is that a legitimate disagreement over whether or not such a refund is indeed due does not constitute attempted theft; it constitutes a disagreement over the terms of a contract. As such, Mr. Gilbert's proper recourse was not to assume that he had an automatic right to get his money back, and then leap to the conclusion that Ms. Frago's failure to return his money meant that she was stealing it from him; we are not, as a rule, allowed to assume that all legal disputes we might enter into would necessarily go our way, and then proceed to grab our guns and enforce whatever judgement we think we're entitled to by lethal means. Rather, Mr. Gilbert's proper recourse was to sue Ms. Frago in small claims court.

And therein lies the heart of the matter: Whether Mr. Gilbert was actually being cheated out of money (or sex), or whether Mr. Gilbert and Ms. Frago were simply engaged in a legitimate argument over the terms of their agreed-upon escort contract, Mr. Gilbert did not have the right to assume that the law was on his side and then use lethal force to retrieve "his" money. The right to a refund is not automatic; and if we don't correctly understand the terms of any verbal agreement that we enter into, we are not simply allowed to assume that we're right and seek redress on our own. In a civilized society (which Texas is supposed to be), these matters are supposed to get resolved in court, and one cannot act on one's own authority without legal sanction just because we think we're entitled to. Mr. Gilbert's correct (and only response), whether he'd actually been stiffed by a prostitute or whether he'd simply misunderstood what he was getting, was to go to court and get his money.

Of course, I rather suspect that Mr. Gilbert knew that — and that he also knew that he had no chance at all of getting his money back that way, because he had no legal leg to stand on.

So he shot the bitch and took it from her, Texas-style.

[Mavorpen]

Escort services =/= prostitution. He paid for an escort.

In the phone call he specifically asked if sex was going to be provided and he was specifically told it would be. That makes it prostitution.

Great, so you agree that sex was part of the deal.

No. See, that's the thing. Sex could have been agreed upon without it being a part of the LEGAL CONTRACT between the two. In other words, she could have AGREED to have sex with him OUTSIDE of being compensated for it with the $150, due to the nature of what an escort is versus a prostitute. She had no LEGAL obligation to have sex with him as compensation for the $150. THAT'S the key problem here.

[Mavorpen]

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.

Legal Purpose:

Essential element of an agreement in contract law whereby an agreement is legal and enforceable only if it complies with the law of the land and public policy. Any agreement entered into for an illegal purpose is not legally binding.

---

Legally Binding:

Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited. For example, a lease for an apartment is legally binding, because upon signing the document, the lessor and the lessee are agreeing to a number of conditions. The lessor typically agrees to provide the apartment in a certain condition for a certain length of time, and the lessee typically agrees to pay an agreed upon rent and refrain from certain destructive behaviors. The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration - both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to. If a person is forced, tricked, or coerced into entering into an agreement, it typically is not considered legally binding.

— BusinessDictionary.com

I am now going to explain to you why you are wrong.

Ezekiel Gilbert responded to a Craiglist advertisement for escort services by contacting Lenora Ivie Frago. He claims they agreed to sex in exchange for $150; she can make no counter-claim, being dead as a result of their encounter.

He says that gave her $150 at the start of their encounter, believing that he was paying for sex. Unfortunately, there are two problems with this argument:

• The payment of money for sex is prostitution, which violates local law. Under the law of contracts, such an agreement is not (and cannot be) legally binding, as it does not have a legal purpose (i.e., it does not "comply with the law of the land and public policy"); therefore, as it was not (and could not be) legally binding, Mr. Gilbert had no recourse in the event that Ms. Frago refused to comply (that is what "legally binding" means: That once the contracting parties have reached an agreement, they are both legally obligated to follow through on all its terms, or face the consequences of failing to do so in court); this lack of recourse includes the right to a refund, which — unless guaranteed (either explicitly within the terms of the contract itself, or under local law [where it can be either explicit or implicit]) — does not otherwise exist.
  
  Therefore, if Mr. Gilbert did indeed solicit prostitution — as he claims he did — then he was not entitled to his money back in the event that he didn't get laid. If prostitution were legal in Texas, then things might be different; but it's not, so they're not.
  
  
• Alternately (or additionally, depending on circumstance), Mr. Gilbert could claim that he was deceived by Ms. Frago as to the nature of their agreement, making it invalid. In the event that this were true, he might be entitled to a refund of his money. The problem here is that a legitimate disagreement over whether or not such a refund is indeed due does not constitute attempted theft; it constitutes a disagreement over the terms of a contract. As such, Mr. Gilbert's proper recourse was not to assume that he had an automatic right to get his money back, and then leap to the conclusion that Ms. Frago's failure to return his money meant that she was stealing it from him; we are not, as a rule, allowed to assume that all legal disputes we might enter into would necessarily go our way, and then proceed to grab our guns and enforce whatever judgement we think we're entitled to by lethal means. Rather, Mr. Gilbert's proper recourse was to sue Ms. Frago in small claims court.

And therein lies the heart of the matter: Whether Mr. Gilbert was actually being cheated out of money (or sex), or whether Mr. Gilbert and Ms. Frago were simply engaged in a legitimate argument over the terms of their agreed-upon escort contract, Mr. Gilbert did not have the right to assume that the law was on his side and then use lethal force to retrieve "his" money. The right to a refund is not automatic; and if we don't correctly understand the terms of any verbal agreement that we enter into, we are not simply allowed to assume that we're right and seek redress on our own. In a civilized society (which Texas is supposed to be), these matters are supposed to get resolved in court, and one cannot act on one's own authority without legal sanction just because we think we're entitled to. Mr. Gilbert's correct (and only response), whether he'd actually been stiffed by a prostitute or whether he'd simply misunderstood what he was getting, was to go to court and get his money.

Of course, I rather suspect that Mr. Gilbert knew that — and that he also knew that he had no chance at all of getting his money back that way, because he had no legal leg to stand on.

So he shot the bitch and took it from her, Texas-style.

Inb4heasksforspecificlaw

[Neo Art]

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.

Wait, that's really ALL you want? Proof of my original assertion that he has no grounds to claim the return of money paid for illegal services? Fine

if a court will not, on grounds of public policy, aid a promisee by enforcing the promise, it will not aid him by granting him restitution for performance that he has rendered in return for the unenforceable promise. Neither will it aid the promisor by allowing a claim in restitution for performance that he has rendered under the unenforceable promise. It will simply leave both parties as it finds them, even though this may result in one of them retaining a benefit that he has received as a result of the transaction

Rest.2d Contracts, § 197, com. a, p. 71. The first part of the bold is clear, the law will not allow restitution. The second line, bolded and underlined, is EXPLICITY, the law will leave the parties AS IT FINDS THEM, even if one benefits while the other did not.

He handed money to her as part of the illegal transaction. That is how the law found them. Her with money, him without sex. The law will neither require her to provide sex, nor require her to return the money.

He GAVE her the money, yes he EXPECTED something in return but what he EXPECTED was not something he was legally authorized to contract for. All he did, as a matter of law, was give her money.

[Mavorpen]

Oh, and to just supplement the idea that he probably knew he had no legal stand in this case, he didn't even report this as theft in a police interview. If you were ACTUALLY stolen from or actually believe you were, that's probably something you would include in a police interview.

[Des-Bal]

Cut out everything that isn't a law.

This exact case went before the court and found under the law that his claim to the money was legitimate.

You on the other hand are arguing that you with your limited knowledge of the case and the law that the court is wrong and you are substantiating this with nothing more than opinion. The burden of evidence falls on you.

[Mavorpen]

Cut out everything that isn't a law.

This exact case went before the court and found under the law that his claim to the money was legitimate.

You on the other hand are arguing that you with your limited knowledge of the case and the law that the court is wrong and you are substantiating this with nothing more than opinion. The burden of evidence falls on you.

Oh look, still no law.

[Tahar Joblis]

"Woman shot with AK-47 for refusing to give $150 refund" would be sensationalist enough of a headline. And, from the commentary about drug dealers and bribing public officials, something that gives a rather broader warning about what sort of precedents this would be in line with.

Not to mention the assault weapon angle. Why is that omitted? You'd think the use of an AK-47 in a killing would be newsworthy in its own right.

It's odd that the articles in the OP don't mention anything about the AK-47, or that the jury may have acquitted the man on the murder charge because they thought he was shooting at the tires, which is evidently the defense lawyer's opinion on the matter. Thoughts, legal beagles?

[Alien Space Bats]

The title is misleading. It assumes that if someone, with no financial transaction, refuses sex than it is okay to shot them, that is not what happened. The man paid for a service and that service decided to walk out the door. It would be the equivalent of saying that it is okay if you pay $150 for an iPhone at the Apple Store and they take the money but refuse to give you an iPhone and refuse to give you your money back. I'm not saying he should've shot her, but -- as far as I know -- prostitution is an illegal activity in Texas and so the transaction was an illegal transaction and therefore an invalid transaction. Therefore if the transaction is not recognized as valid in a court of law and no actual goods or services were exchanged for the money that was given, it is the equivalent of stealing someone's money, which under Texan law, gives you the right to shot a nighttime robber. That being said the man should also be prosecuted for attempting to engage in prostitution. This ruling, no matter how bad it sounds, is in accordance with the law and specifically a law that was put in place to protect citizens from real threats, not prostitutes. I do not think that the shooting should have took place, perhaps the man should've attempted to retrieve the money instead. I do not think this person was in the right, I feel sorry for the loss of life that has taken place, but the law is the law and to include a clause that condones one way transactions or stealing or extortion would encourage these actions. I'm not exactly sure how else you wanted the court to rule, other than in accordance with the law.

See, where both you and Des-Bal have it wrong is in thinking that if you engage in a business transaction that has an illegal purpose, then the law gives you some kind of protection in the form of a right to have your money cheerfully refunded to you.

It does not. There is no such thing as a "criminal transaction refund."

No right to a refund means there was no theft.

[Pillea]

"Woman shot with AK-47 for refusing to give $150 refund" would be sensationalist enough of a headline. And, from the commentary about drug dealers and bribing public officials, something that gives a rather broader warning about what sort of precedents this would be in line with.

Not to mention the assault weapon angle. Why is that omitted? You'd think the use of an AK-47 in a killing would be newsworthy in its own right.

It's odd that the articles in the OP don't mention anything about the AK-47, or that the jury may have acquitted the man on the murder charge because they thought he was shooting at the tires, which is evidently the defense lawyer's opinion on the matter. Thoughts, legal beagles?

Tires is an interesting term for neck.

[Des-Bal]

Rest.2d Contracts, § 197, com. a, p. 71. The first part of the bold is clear, the law will not allow restitution. The second line, bolded and underlined, is EXPLICITY, the law will leave the parties AS IT FINDS THEM, even if one benefits while the other did not.

He handed money to her as part of the illegal transaction. That is how the law found them. Her with money, him without sex. The law will neither require her to provide sex, nor require her to return the money.

He GAVE her the money, yes he EXPECTED something in return but what he EXPECTED was not something he was legally authorized to contract for. All he did, as a matter of law, was give her money.

It took an unreasonably long time to get that very basic information but I thank you for it.

[Euronion]

This exact case went before the court and found under the law that his claim to the money was legitimate.

You on the other hand are arguing that you with your limited knowledge of the case and the law that the court is wrong and you are substantiating this with nothing more than opinion. The burden of evidence falls on you.

Oh look, still no law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

[Mavorpen]

Oh look, still no law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

That's not what I'm looking for.

[Neo Art]

And if we don't like the 2nd restatement, how about the United States Supreme Court?

Judicial refusal to enforce promises contrary to public policy . . is not unknown to the common law, and the traditional course is to leave the parties where they stood when they knocked on the courthouse door.

General Dynamics Corp. v. United States, 567 F. 3d 1340

[Tahar Joblis]

"Woman shot with AK-47 for refusing to give $150 refund" would be sensationalist enough of a headline. And, from the commentary about drug dealers and bribing public officials, something that gives a rather broader warning about what sort of precedents this would be in line with.

Not to mention the assault weapon angle. Why is that omitted? You'd think the use of an AK-47 in a killing would be newsworthy in its own right.

It's odd that the articles in the OP don't mention anything about the AK-47, or that the jury may have acquitted the man on the murder charge because they thought he was shooting at the tires, which is evidently the defense lawyer's opinion on the matter. Thoughts, legal beagles?

Tires is an interesting term for neck.

Read the article. The defense attorney evidently laid out the claim that the bullet ricocheted off the wheel, fragmenting into two pieces, one of which then went into the back seat.

[Euronion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

That's not what I'm looking for.

Doesn't matter, the US is a common law system. The court interprets the law and what the court rules becomes the law unless overturned by another court case or a court of appeals.

[Des-Bal]

"Woman shot with AK-47 for refusing to give $150 refund" would be sensationalist enough of a headline. And, from the commentary about drug dealers and bribing public officials, something that gives a rather broader warning about what sort of precedents this would be in line with.

Not to mention the assault weapon angle. Why is that omitted? You'd think the use of an AK-47 in a killing would be newsworthy in its own right.

It's odd that the articles in the OP don't mention anything about the AK-47, or that the jury may have acquitted the man on the murder charge because they thought he was shooting at the tires, which is evidently the defense lawyer's opinion on the matter. Thoughts, legal beagles?

Tires is an interesting term for neck.

"Barrera says evidence showed Frago shot an AK-47 at the tires of the vehicle."

Frago would be the victim I'm going to go ahead and look for more details.

[Neo Art]

Rest.2d Contracts, § 197, com. a, p. 71. The first part of the bold is clear, the law will not allow restitution. The second line, bolded and underlined, is EXPLICITY, the law will leave the parties AS IT FINDS THEM, even if one benefits while the other did not.

He handed money to her as part of the illegal transaction. That is how the law found them. Her with money, him without sex. The law will neither require her to provide sex, nor require her to return the money.

He GAVE her the money, yes he EXPECTED something in return but what he EXPECTED was not something he was legally authorized to contract for. All he did, as a matter of law, was give her money.

It took an unreasonably long time to get that very basic information but I thank you for it.

I apologize that my busy schedule precluded me from satisfying your intellectual laziness in a fashion that would have been more suitable for you. I had operated under the assumption you were at least a reasonable intelligent individual, and when talking in your presence, I shouldn't find it necessary to articulate a foundation behind every basic statement of fact, because, given that I assumed you were at least a reasonably intelligent individual, you had, at least, the barest minimum of capacity to, should you find yourself questioning the authenticity of the statement I made way back on page 2 of this thread, you were at least modestly capable of doing your own very basic research.

I see my assumptions about your capacity and general capability were in error. I will not overestimate you again.