Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[Mavorpen]

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.

No. That's not how it works.

[Pillea]

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.

That article would literally be claiming she shot herself.

[Mavorpen]

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.

See, we gave him sources that essentially said what yours said. But apparently because it wasn't explicit enough, it isn't a legitimate source. It's honestly pathetic that EVERYONE else understood what was in the source EXCEPT for him simply because it wasn't explicitly spelled out.

How the fuck do you pass through college with such a mentality?

I think you're confused. When I say "Source" I'm not saying "please post a random hyperlink I would like to explore the internet" I'm asking you to substantiate your claim.

Also, this: http://www.gaddywells.com/AFFIRMATIVE_D ... ILLEGALITY

If it helps.

[Euronion]

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.

No. That's not how it works.

Common law, also known as case law or precedent, is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals,[1] as opposed to Civil (Codified/Continental) Law set on statutes adopted through the legislative/parliamentary process and/or regulations issued by the executive branch on base of the parliamentary statutes.

[Tahar Joblis]

"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.

That article would literally be claiming she shot herself.

I'm guessing that's a typo. The NYDN also mentions the AK-47, and puts it in Gilbert's hands.

I suspect we'll have to wait before anyone gets ahold of an interview with any of the jurors.

[Mavorpen]

No. That's not how it works.

Common law, also known as case law or precedent, is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals,[1] as opposed to Civil (Codified/Continental) Law set on statutes adopted through the legislative/parliamentary process and/or regulations issued by the executive branch on base of the parliamentary statutes.

Why are you ignoring the Supremacy Clause?

[Pillea]

That article would literally be claiming she shot herself.

I'm guessing that's a typo. The NYDN also mentions the AK-47.

I suspect we'll have to wait before anyone gets ahold of an interview with any of the jurors.

Everything mentions the AK-47, I'm not disagreeing that it was present. It was used to shoot a woman in the neck for refusing to have sex with a man. It was definitely there.

[Tahar Joblis]

I'm guessing that's a typo. The NYDN also mentions the AK-47.

I suspect we'll have to wait before anyone gets ahold of an interview with any of the jurors.

Everything mentions the AK-47, I'm not disagreeing that it was present. It was used to shoot a woman in the neck for refusing to have sex with a man. It was definitely there.

Or was it used to shoot a departing vehicle, resulting in a bullet lodging in the neck of a woman who refused to give back the money?

EDIT: And re: "everything mentions," neither of the articles in the OP mentions the AK-47. Gawker, in fact, has a photo with a handgun in it at the top of its article.

1. Would she have been shot if she gave the money back? "For refusing to have sex" is sensationalist but may give an inaccurate impression that simply refusing to have sex was a sufficient condition, rather than merely a necessary condition, for Gilbert to be motivated to shoot.

2. Was Gilbert actually aiming at the woman, rather than at the car, as the defense attorney argues?

3. Was the jury motivated by the belief that Gilbert was justified to shoot a thief, or by the belief that Gilbert was not intending to shoot the woman?

4. Would this jury have convicted if the charge was manslaughter instead of murder?

[Pillea]

Everything mentions the AK-47, I'm not disagreeing that it was present. It was used to shoot a woman in the neck for refusing to have sex with a man. It was definitely there.

Or was it used to shoot a departing vehicle, resulting in a bullet lodging in the neck of a woman who refused to give back the money?

EDIT: And re: "everything mentions," neither of the articles in the OP mentions the AK-47. Gawker, in fact, has a photo with a handgun in it at the top of its article.

1. Would she have been shot if she gave the money back? "For refusing to have sex" is sensationalist but may give an inaccurate impression that simply refusing to have sex was a sufficient condition, rather than merely a necessary condition, for Gilbert to be motivated to shoot.

2. Was Gilbert actually aiming at the woman, rather than at the car, as the defense attorney argues?

3. Was the jury motivated by the belief that Gilbert was justified to shoot a thief, or by the belief that Gilbert was not intending to shoot the woman?

4. Would this jury have convicted if the charge were manslaughter instead of murder?

Who knows if she would have been? Any nutjob who thinks murdering someone over $150 is logical, is not someone with a keen grasp on common sanity.

[Des-Bal]

Or was it used to shoot a departing vehicle, resulting in a bullet lodging in the neck of a woman who refused to give back the money?

EDIT: And re: "everything mentions," neither of the articles in the OP mentions the AK-47. Gawker, in fact, has a photo with a handgun in it at the top of its article.

1. Would she have been shot if she gave the money back? "For refusing to have sex" is sensationalist but may give an inaccurate impression that simply refusing to have sex was a sufficient condition, rather than merely a necessary condition, for Gilbert to be motivated to shoot.

2. Was Gilbert actually aiming at the woman, rather than at the car, as the defense attorney argues?

3. Was the jury motivated by the belief that Gilbert was justified to shoot a thief, or by the belief that Gilbert was not intending to shoot the woman?

4. Would this jury have convicted if the charge was manslaughter instead of murder?

Every article I find mentions "First Degree Murder" even though no such charge exists in Texas so to remove any fuckery.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.19.htm

Since they keep talking about "life in prison" rather than capital punishment being the maximum sentence he was probably charged with murder rather than capital murder or any similar charge.

The only logic I could see behind taking this route and not charging him with manslaughter of some kind is that if her claim on the money was legitimate and his was not he was basically trying to rob her at gun point.

[Tahar Joblis]

Or was it used to shoot a departing vehicle, resulting in a bullet lodging in the neck of a woman who refused to give back the money?

EDIT: And re: "everything mentions," neither of the articles in the OP mentions the AK-47. Gawker, in fact, has a photo with a handgun in it at the top of its article.

1. Would she have been shot if she gave the money back? "For refusing to have sex" is sensationalist but may give an inaccurate impression that simply refusing to have sex was a sufficient condition, rather than merely a necessary condition, for Gilbert to be motivated to shoot.

2. Was Gilbert actually aiming at the woman, rather than at the car, as the defense attorney argues?

3. Was the jury motivated by the belief that Gilbert was justified to shoot a thief, or by the belief that Gilbert was not intending to shoot the woman?

4. Would this jury have convicted if the charge were manslaughter instead of murder?

Who knows if she would have been? Any nutjob who thinks murdering someone over $150 is logical, is not someone with a keen grasp on common sanity.

This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable.

... I may kill a thief that sets on me in the highway, yet I may not (which seems less) take
away his money, and let him go: this would be robbery on my side.

Not to say that people haven't been killed over less than $150, mind; I could probably pull up news cases documenting people getting killed over barely enough money to pay for dinner at McDonald's without much trouble; but the idea that lethal force is justified against thieves is, regrettably, not reserved to grunting illiterates or frothing madmen.

If we were dealing with a case of a thief having grabbed twenty bucks off his kitchen table and fleeing at top speed, it would not be without precedent to claim the shooting was justified. It seems rather seriously uncivilized, and if the sum the thief is making off with isn't something the loss of which threatens your own life, I have trouble seeing how lethal force can be morally justified; but the claim is not without precedent or seemingly otherwise sane proponents.

Ignore that fact at your peril; there are a lot of Lockean sorts running around, especially in Texas, but in the United States in general.

[Tahar Joblis]

Or was it used to shoot a departing vehicle, resulting in a bullet lodging in the neck of a woman who refused to give back the money?

EDIT: And re: "everything mentions," neither of the articles in the OP mentions the AK-47. Gawker, in fact, has a photo with a handgun in it at the top of its article.

1. Would she have been shot if she gave the money back? "For refusing to have sex" is sensationalist but may give an inaccurate impression that simply refusing to have sex was a sufficient condition, rather than merely a necessary condition, for Gilbert to be motivated to shoot.

2. Was Gilbert actually aiming at the woman, rather than at the car, as the defense attorney argues?

3. Was the jury motivated by the belief that Gilbert was justified to shoot a thief, or by the belief that Gilbert was not intending to shoot the woman?

4. Would this jury have convicted if the charge was manslaughter instead of murder?

Every article I find mentions "First Degree Murder" even though no such charge exists in Texas so to remove any fuckery.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.19.htm

Since they keep talking about "life in prison" rather than capital punishment being the maximum sentence he was probably charged with murder rather than capital murder or any similar charge.

The only logic I could see behind taking this route and not charging him with manslaughter of some kind is that if her claim on the money was legitimate and his was not he was basically trying to rob her at gun point.

I suspect that there are probably a number of relevant facts we aren't aware of that went into the choice of what charges to file. Just as there was no discussion of AK-47s in this thread, and though the Daily Mail article linked to mentions that Gilbert claimed to be shooting at the tires, there was no discussion of tires or wheels in this thread - until I brought them up.

Almost all discussion in this thread has centered around Gawker's presentation of what was important about this case. We can and should go beyond that; not that the legal beagles of NSG haven't had some interesting things to say even within that restricted domain, but it's not the whole story.

[Aurora Novus]

Jesus...this is insane...killing someone over $150...

I don't care whether he had the legal right or not, this is immoral. You don't kill someone, unless it is in self-defense. Admittedly, he claimed he did not mean to kill her...but by shooting her in the neck? Come on. What a load of bullshit. He meant to make her suffer, because he didn't get the sex he wanted. Boo-stupid-hoo. Fucking people...

[Des-Bal]

Jesus...this is insane...killing someone over $150...

I don't care whether he had the legal right or not, this is immoral. You don't kill someone, unless it is in self-defense. Admittedly, he claimed he did not mean to kill her...but by shooting her in the neck? Come on. What a load of bullshit. He meant to make her suffer, because he didn't get the sex he wanted. Boo-stupid-hoo. Fucking people...

Except he was shooting at her tire and a bullet fragment bounced up and into her neck.

[Frisivisia]

Jesus...this is insane...killing someone over $150...

I don't care whether he had the legal right or not, this is immoral. You don't kill someone, unless it is in self-defense. Admittedly, he claimed he did not mean to kill her...but by shooting her in the neck? Come on. What a load of bullshit. He meant to make her suffer, because he didn't get the sex he wanted. Boo-stupid-hoo. Fucking people...

Except he was shooting at her tire and a bullet fragment bounced up and into her neck.

He should improve his shooting.

[Aurora Novus]

Jesus...this is insane...killing someone over $150...

I don't care whether he had the legal right or not, this is immoral. You don't kill someone, unless it is in self-defense. Admittedly, he claimed he did not mean to kill her...but by shooting her in the neck? Come on. What a load of bullshit. He meant to make her suffer, because he didn't get the sex he wanted. Boo-stupid-hoo. Fucking people...

Except he was shooting at her tire and a bullet fragment bounced up and into her neck.

Oh, really? Strange...but that is far more reasonable. Forgive me, I was making my post based solely upon the OP. I hadn't read any of the discussion.

[Des-Bal]

Oh, really? Strange...but that is far more reasonable. Forgive me, I was making my post based solely upon the OP. I hadn't read any of the discussion.

Given that someone admitted to having come in just as angry having only read the title no apology is in order.

[Ifreann]

In fairness, is it really a circlejerk with just one person?

One person can move in a circle.

One person jacking off while frantically dancing in a circle is actually a really good analogy for Des-bal's stance.

This mental image...damn you Choro, damn you to hell.

---

Except he was shooting at her tire and a bullet fragment bounced up and into her neck.

He should improve his shooting.

He shouldn't shoot at things he doesn't want dead.

[Des-Bal]

He shouldn't shoot at things he doesn't want dead.

He wanted the tire dead.

[Pope Joan]

If only she'd had a gun.

Mm hm, it's the obvious solution.

The right to bear arms should accompany the right to bare arms and legs and whatever.

[Terrordome]

Hypothetically speaking, seeing as prostitution is illegal therefore the verbal contract is void and inconsequential, if he had paid her 150 bucks, fucked her, then decided when she was leaving he didn't want to pay after all then shot her, would this loophole still apply? If so then basically the grand theft auto method of killing a hooker after you are done is legal in Texas!

[Kromar]

I feel no sympathy for this woman. If the man did not fire upon the woman, he would be left with the following options:
1. Allow her to leave with 150 dollars.
2. Sue her for a chance to get the 150 dollars back, thereby expending resources which would add up to more than the value of 150 dollars.
3. Commit trespass, and other crimes, by somehow finding out the woman's address and breaking in to take the money.

I think risking her life, and reclaiming the 150, is the best course of action. The woman is a lowly whore/thief, and it is not so immoral to kill her.

[Choronzon]

I feel no sympathy for this woman. If the man did not fire upon the woman, he would be left with the following options:
1. Allow her to leave with 150 dollars.
2. Sue her for a chance to get the 150 dollars back, thereby expending resources which would add up to more than the value of 150 dollars.
3. Commit trespass, and other crimes, by somehow finding out the woman's address and breaking in to take the money.

I think risking her life, and reclaiming the 150, is the best course of action. The woman is a lowly whore/thief, and it is not so immoral to kill her.

My, what big muscles you have.

[Gauthier]

I feel no sympathy for this woman. If the man did not fire upon the woman, he would be left with the following options:
1. Allow her to leave with 150 dollars.
2. Sue her for a chance to get the 150 dollars back, thereby expending resources which would add up to more than the value of 150 dollars.
3. Commit trespass, and other crimes, by somehow finding out the woman's address and breaking in to take the money.

I think risking her life, and reclaiming the 150, is the best course of action. The woman is a lowly whore/thief, and it is not so immoral to kill her.

My, what big muscles you have.

Hey now, he also killed Osama Bin Laden barehanded.

[The Rich Port]

I feel no sympathy for this woman. If the man did not fire upon the woman, he would be left with the following options:
1. Allow her to leave with 150 dollars.
2. Sue her for a chance to get the 150 dollars back, thereby expending resources which would add up to more than the value of 150 dollars.
3. Commit trespass, and other crimes, by somehow finding out the woman's address and breaking in to take the money.

I think risking her life, and reclaiming the 150, is the best course of action. The woman is a lowly whore/thief, and it is not so immoral to kill her.

... Did a woman take a shit on your porch or something?