Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[The Steel Magnolia]

I guess she shouldn't have tried to take the money. Of course, money for an illegal act. But still.

Yeah I think the shooter was definitely in the wrong, and I do agree that the escort should've also known the risk she was taking by going into someone's house who was probably armed and running off with their money. Being an escort is to take part in a risky business, with clients who could potentially be very dangerous. She should've known better about what she was getting herself into.

Since when do escorts have to provide sex?

[Linderman]

What do you mean?

He had no right to shoot her. You don't have the right to kill someone for not engaging in an illegal contract with you.

She agreed to do X when he gave her 150 dollars... she did not do X. She then made a run for it so he shot her. Seems fair to me.

Also, there's a difference between something being illegal on paper and something being actually illegal. Prostitution may be ''illegal'' in Texas but clearly it's not customary to actually enforce this law with regards to two individuals.

It is customary however, to acquit a killing if you kill to prevent theft. This perfectly explains and justifies the jury's decision.

[Chernoslavia]

I read EVERYTHING not anything. If she didn't give her services then she robbed him, not that it makes shooting her justified, but yet if she did had sex with him then she'd still would have committed a crime. Avoiding to doing something illegal doesn't justify commiting a different crime.

And since she didn't commit a crime, this is irrelevant. Look, I'm not going to waste my time repeating things that have ALREADY been said because you're too lazy to read. So, here:

Of course it does. Prostitution is illegal in Texas.

Yes, it does. It contains the necessary information to back up MY claim, not what you WANT me to be claiming.

Then there should be no problem with admitting that I'm correct. Illegal contracts are by default, void. It is therefore NOT a legitimate contract. Therefore, if you give someone money WILLINGLY, DESPITE assuming they were fulfill a part of an illegal contract, they are under NO obligation to give BACK your payment, because the contract is void in the first place.

Giving someone money of your own free will when there is no legitimate contract stating they must provide a service means that you are giving that money to them as a GIFT, and they have every right to keep it.

Because I actually have a basic grasp of jurisprudence?

No, what I'm saying is that if you engage in an illegal contract and one of the parties breaks the contract, then courts cannot and should not be enforcing this contract in the first place. This means that legally she had every right to take money that was GIVEN to her. If SHE took it from HIS hands without his consent, then you'd have a better point.

Assuming this bullshit is true, then that's not a legal contract and she still could have taken the money anyway because it was GIVEN to her of his own free will.

This isn't complicated at all.

God damn it, now it's in my head too



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.

That still doesn't make it legal to take the money, she simply shouldn't have accepted the pay. If she took the money that was paid to her to have sex, she becomes part of the crime too.

Not my problem your incapable of debating.

[The Steel Magnolia]

He had no right to shoot her. You don't have the right to kill someone for not engaging in an illegal contract with you.

She agreed to do X when he gave her 150 dollars... she did not do X. She then made a run for it so he shot her. Seems fair to me.

Also, there's a difference between something being illegal on paper and something being actually illegal. Prostitution may be ''illegal'' in Texas but clearly it's not customary to actually enforce this law with regards to two individuals.

It is customary however, to acquit a killing if you kill to prevent theft. This perfectly explains and justifies the jury's decision.

Actually she did not. She escorted him. That was the service for which he payed.

[The Steel Magnolia]

And since she didn't commit a crime, this is irrelevant. Look, I'm not going to waste my time repeating things that have ALREADY been said because you're too lazy to read. So, here:

That still doesn't make it legal to take the money, she simply shouldn't have accepted the pay. If she took the money that was paid to her to have sex, she becomes part of the crime too.

Not my problem your incapable of debating.

The money wasn't for sex. The money was for escort services, which she provided.

[Linderman]

bottom line is... if you come to someone's house, take their money in exchange for a service and then make a run for it without doing the service... it's called stealing.

You have the right to shoot a thief who's trying to steal from you in your own house.

[Chernoslavia]

Yeah I think the shooter was definitely in the wrong, and I do agree that the escort should've also known the risk she was taking by going into someone's house who was probably armed and running off with their money. Being an escort is to take part in a risky business, with clients who could potentially be very dangerous. She should've known better about what she was getting herself into.

Since when do escorts have to provide sex?

They don't have to, but usually they offer that service. Just like some escorts offer only sex services.

[Mavorpen]

He had no right to shoot her. You don't have the right to kill someone for not engaging in an illegal contract with you.

She agreed to do X when he gave her 150 dollars... she did not do X. She then made a run for it so he shot her. Seems fair to me.

Of course it does. Because you have no knowledge of jurisprudence.

Also, there's a difference between something being illegal on paper and something being actually illegal. Prostitution may be ''illegal'' in Texas but clearly it's not customary to actually enforce this law with regards to two individuals.

What the actual fuck? So you're saying this is fine because courts break the law? Are you even reading what you're typing?

It is customary however, to acquit a killing if you kill to prevent theft. This perfectly explains and justifies the jury's decision.

Except this wasn't theft.

[Mavorpen]

Just like some escorts offer only sex services.

Stop lying through your teeth. That's not an escort, that is by definition a prostitute.

[Chernoslavia]

bottom line is... if you come to someone's house, take their money in exchange for a service and then make a run for it without doing the service... it's called stealing.

You have the right to shoot a thief who's trying to steal from you in your own house.

Yes, but however prostitution is illegal in that state.

[Linderman]

That still doesn't make it legal to take the money, she simply shouldn't have accepted the pay. If she took the money that was paid to her to have sex, she becomes part of the crime too.

Not my problem your incapable of debating.

The money wasn't for sex. The money was for escort services, which she provided.

Sex is implicit in the contract given the sort of organization she works for and the traditional framework of how escort services operate in Texas...

[Linderman]

bottom line is... if you come to someone's house, take their money in exchange for a service and then make a run for it without doing the service... it's called stealing.

You have the right to shoot a thief who's trying to steal from you in your own house.

Yes, but however prostitution is illegal in that state.

In theory...

In practice, it's clearly not enforced or the man would be facing other charges.

[Mavorpen]

That still doesn't make it legal to take the money

According to the Supreme Court, yes it does.

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

Not my problem your incapable of debating.

No, I'm just sick and tired of people PRETENDING they've read posts in the thread other than the OP and PRETENDING that they have any fucking clue what they're talking about.

[The Steel Magnolia]

bottom line is... if you come to someone's house, take their money in exchange for a service and then make a run for it without doing the service... it's called stealing.

You have the right to shoot a thief who's trying to steal from you in your own house.

First off, normally you don't have such a right.

Second off, she provided the escort services.

[The Steel Magnolia]

The money wasn't for sex. The money was for escort services, which she provided.

Sex is implicit in the contract given the sort of organization she works for and the traditional framework of how escort services operate in Texas...

And is illegal, and thus cannot be in the contract.

[Mavorpen]

Yes, but however prostitution is illegal in that state.

In theory...

In practice, it's clearly not enforced or the man would be facing other charges.

So let me get this straight. If I can shoot my neighbor right now for absolutely no reason and evade capture, then this means that said act is legal?

[Linderman]

That still doesn't make it legal to take the money

According to the Supreme Court, yes it does.

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



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

Not my problem your incapable of debating.

No, I'm just sick and tired of people PRETENDING they've read posts in the thread other than the OP and PRETENDING that they have any fucking clue what they're talking about.

So what you're saying is...

that the Supreme Court condones open acts of fraud?

''Hey let's do X if you give me 150 dollars. Oh you gave me the money? HAHAHAHAHAHA! Now I am GONE! Because guess what? X was illegal and the Supreme Court says now I get your money so FUCK YOU!''

Runs out without getting shot?

[Chernoslavia]

Just like some escorts offer only sex services.

Stop lying through your teeth. That's not an escort, that is by definition a prostitute.

Hey, they call themselves escorts regardless so go tell them about it...

And my preferred definition is phone hookers.

[Mavorpen]

The money wasn't for sex. The money was for escort services, which she provided.

Sex is implicit in the contract given the sort of organization she works for and the traditional framework of how escort services operate in Texas...

This. Is. A. Lie. Sex CANNOT be in the contract because that is ILLEGAL.

[Linderman]

In theory...

In practice, it's clearly not enforced or the man would be facing other charges.

So let me get this straight. If I can shoot my neighbor right now for absolutely no reason and evade capture, then this means that said act is legal?

If your neighbor comes to your house, you pay him for a service... he takes the money, doesn't provide the service, and makes a run for it...

And you think you can convince the court this is what happened.

Yes.

[Mavorpen]

So what you're saying is...

that the Supreme Court condones open acts of fraud?

No. I'm saying that the Supreme Court understands basic jurisprudence, unlike you.

[Chernoslavia]

In theory...

In practice, it's clearly not enforced or the man would be facing other charges.

So let me get this straight. If I can shoot my neighbor right now for absolutely no reason and evade capture, then this means that said act is legal?

Seriously Mavor, just get out...

[Mavorpen]

So let me get this straight. If I can shoot my neighbor right now for absolutely no reason and evade capture, then this means that said act is legal?

If your neighbor comes to your house, you pay him for a service... he takes the money, doesn't provide the service, and makes a run for it...

Yes.

Please, never serve in a Jury in Texas. We have enough individuals who are ignorant of the law.

[Linderman]

So what you're saying is...

that the Supreme Court condones open acts of fraud?

No. I'm saying that the Supreme Court understands basic jurisprudence, unlike you.

Then you would be incorrect.

[Linderman]

If your neighbor comes to your house, you pay him for a service... he takes the money, doesn't provide the service, and makes a run for it...

Yes.

Please, never serve in a Jury in Texas. We have enough individuals who are ignorant of the law.

You want more individuals such as myself on juries if you want justice to be done.

Not the politically-correct type of justice... but ACTUAL justice.