Shooting women for refusing sex is OK!

[The Steel Magnolia]

If it's an illegal contract, that means the government cannot demand completion of the contract. Simple as that. The government says, "we're not touching this. This is not our issue". That's why contract killers typically demand a percentage up front.

The crime is still separate, she stole $150 and the man killed her. Not that it's justified, but point is the woman did scam him of over $100 which is theft. So they both should be in jail, if both were alive.

It's not theft, she provided the services requested.

[Chernoslavia]

The crime is still separate, she stole $150 and the man killed her. Not that it's justified, but point is the woman did scam him of over $100 which is theft. So they both should be in jail, if both were alive.

Considering the law ITSELF states the opposite of what you're arguing, you're lying.

She shouldn't have taken the money nor offer him service if she wanted to leave without breaking any law.

[Hallistar]

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?

If she left his home right after he paid her, I can see why it is considered theft since she didn't provide "companionship" for the time agreed upon, but she's not legally obligated to engage in sexual intercourse with him. He should've taken her to a small claims court, and I think shooting her was definitely excessive.

If he wanted a gaurantee of sexual intercourse for money (Legally in the US), he should've went to some kind of legal brothel in Nevada.

That being said, he should've also looked up any reviews she might have had on those escort review sites I hear about. I'm pretty sure if she did that same thing to other people, she would have multiple negative reviews. People are more likely to rate something at all if they've had a negative experience versus a positive one.

I should add that if she initially did intend to provide "companionship" without sex, and he demanded sex and he would not abide by her not having to engage in sexual intercourse, then she would've had no other choice but to leave. That said, I am very conflicted as to whether she had an obligation to return the money or not. On one hand, she would've provided him "companionship" for the money (without sex), but on the other, there wasn't any net companionship for the hour or whatever time slot was agreed upon.

[Mavorpen]

No, it didn't.

Congratulations son...

You've just proved to me that you have not been reading the OP closely. You may have missed the part where... he was acquitted for basically saying what I was saying?

But the law still backs you right even though he was acquitted? Seems legit.

Yes. The law backs me. See, the thing is, the Supreme Court set a precedent ground IN THE LAW that states that if someone breaks an illegal contract, the parties are to be LEFT AS THEY ARE. In other words, if you engage in an illegal contract, promise to do something for money, don't do that something and take the money, the courts CANNOT force you to give the money back because it ISN'T a legitimate contract. Courts CANNOT create legal contracts under the law.

And yet, this jury did. What they did was NOT follow the law. They essentially stated that they have the power to CREATE new laws and go AGAINST what the Supreme Court said, which they do not have the power to do.

[Mavorpen]

She shouldn't have taken the money nor offer him service if she wanted to leave without breaking any law.

And she didn't break the law by taking the money.

[Linderman]

The crime is still separate, she stole $150 and the man killed her. Not that it's justified, but point is the woman did scam him of over $100 which is theft. So they both should be in jail, if both were alive.

It's not theft, she provided the services requested.

No, read the OP.

[Mavorpen]

Please cite the law she broke.

LOL... it's RIGHT above your own post in the thing you quoted

No. Cite the SPECIFIC law that she broke.

[The Steel Magnolia]

She shouldn't have taken the money nor offer him service if she wanted to leave without breaking any law.

Why are you ignoring the fact that she gave him the escort service, which is what he paid for?

[Valentir]

What fucking BS. That is the stupidest thing I have heard of.

[Mavorpen]

It's not theft, she provided the services requested.

No, read the OP.

Yes, pick up a law textbook.

[Chernoslavia]

The crime is still separate, she stole $150 and the man killed her. Not that it's justified, but point is the woman did scam him of over $100 which is theft. So they both should be in jail, if both were alive.

It's not theft, she provided the services requested.

Not according to the prick that shot her. She probably tried to sneak off of it by pretending she provided her service.

[The Steel Magnolia]

It's not theft, she provided the services requested.

No, read the OP.

I have. She provided the escort services, and he killed her when she wouldn't have sex with him.

[The Steel Magnolia]

It's not theft, she provided the services requested.

Not according to the prick that shot her. She probably tried to sneak off of it by pretending she provided her service.

...she's dead. she pretended nothing.

careful hun. Your misogyny is showing, and your desire to defend a murderer is... telling.

[Mavorpen]

It's not theft, she provided the services requested.

Not according to the prick that shot her. She probable tried to sneak off of it by pretending she provided her service.

She DID provide her service. By LAW, the only LEGAL and therefore LEGITIMATE contract here was her duties as an escort. NOTHING more. Sex is OUTSIDE of the contract because sex for money is NOT LEGAL.

This isn't fucking complicated. Why is something a child can grasp so difficult for you to understand?

[Linderman]

Congratulations son...

You've just proved to me that you have not been reading the OP closely. You may have missed the part where... he was acquitted for basically saying what I was saying?

But the law still backs you right even though he was acquitted? Seems legit.

Yes. The law backs me. See, the thing is, the Supreme Court set a precedent ground IN THE LAW that states that if someone breaks an illegal contract, the parties are to be LEFT AS THEY ARE. In other words, if you engage in an illegal contract, promise to do something for money, don't do that something and take the money, the courts CANNOT force you to give the money back because it ISN'T a legitimate contract. Courts CANNOT create legal contracts under the law.

And yet, this jury did. What they did was NOT follow the law. They essentially stated that they have the power to CREATE new laws and go AGAINST what the Supreme Court said, which they do not have the power to do.

They used their common sense.

An ''escort girl'' in Texas' traditions is a ''prostitute.'' The man called her on the phone so they can meet with that particular understanding.

Prostitution may be illegal in Texas ON PAPER but customary law says that it is not enforced in practice when you're only dealing with a few individuals. Hence, the escort service/prostitution thing WAS legal in practice.

Customary law/laws in practice don't always = law on paper. It's not that complicated.

Hence, the jury only focused on the part where she scammed him of 150 dollars and made a run for it.

Justice was done man.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Not according to the prick that shot her. She probable tried to sneak off of it by pretending she provided her service.

She DID provide her service. By LAW, the only LEGAL and therefore LEGITIMATE contract here was her duties as an escort. NOTHING more. Sex is OUTSIDE of the contract because sex for money is NOT LEGAL.

This isn't fucking complicated. Why is something a child can grasp so difficult for you to understand?

Because he has the mentality of a child, perhaps?

[The Steel Magnolia]

Yes. The law backs me. See, the thing is, the Supreme Court set a precedent ground IN THE LAW that states that if someone breaks an illegal contract, the parties are to be LEFT AS THEY ARE. In other words, if you engage in an illegal contract, promise to do something for money, don't do that something and take the money, the courts CANNOT force you to give the money back because it ISN'T a legitimate contract. Courts CANNOT create legal contracts under the law.

And yet, this jury did. What they did was NOT follow the law. They essentially stated that they have the power to CREATE new laws and go AGAINST what the Supreme Court said, which they do not have the power to do.

They used their common sense.

An ''escort girl'' in Texas' traditions is a ''prostitute.'' The man called her on the phone so they can meet with that particular understanding.

Prostitution may be illegal in Texas ON PAPER but customary law says that it is not enforced in practice when you're only dealing with a few individuals. Hence, the escort service/prostitution thing WAS legal in practice.

Customary law/laws in practice don't always = law on paper. It's not that complicated.

Hence, the jury only focused on the part where she scammed him of 150 dollars and made a run for it.

Justice was done man.

Funny... during Reconstruction, in custom the laws of the land were utterly ignored in favour of domestic terrorism.

should domestic terrorism and lynchings and assassinations be legal then, because they were "customary"?

[Mavorpen]

They used their common sense.

In other words, you ADMIT that they didn't understand the law. They had NO legal precedent to make this decision upon. They threw up their hands and said, "obviously this bitch deserved it because she didn't give him sex!" That's NOT how the law works.

[Linderman]

Not according to the prick that shot her. She probable tried to sneak off of it by pretending she provided her service.

She DID provide her service. By LAW, the only LEGAL and therefore LEGITIMATE contract here was her duties as an escort. NOTHING more. Sex is OUTSIDE of the contract because sex for money is NOT LEGAL.

This isn't fucking complicated. Why is something a child can grasp so difficult for you to understand?

Laws in practice/customary laws =/= everything that's on paper.

In Texas, prostitution between individuals goes unenforced and so is customarily legal. They only crack down on you when you're a pimp or leading some kind of massive prostitution ring...

It's not that hard to grasp.

However, in ANY US court... stealing and theft are unequivocally illegal.

[The Steel Magnolia]

She DID provide her service. By LAW, the only LEGAL and therefore LEGITIMATE contract here was her duties as an escort. NOTHING more. Sex is OUTSIDE of the contract because sex for money is NOT LEGAL.

This isn't fucking complicated. Why is something a child can grasp so difficult for you to understand?

Laws in practice/customary laws =/= everything that's on paper.

In Texas, prostitution between individuals goes unenforced and so is customarily legal. They only crack down on you when you're a pimp or leading some kind of massive prostitution ring...

It's not that hard to grasp.

However, in ANY US court... stealing and theft are unequivocally illegal.

Funny. So is prostitution.

[Chernoslavia]

She shouldn't have taken the money nor offer him service if she wanted to leave without breaking any law.

And she didn't break the law by taking the money.

She is in the escort business which often times offer sex.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

The law says you're lying.

In case you haven't noticed... THE LAW ACQUITTED THE MAN!



So as of now... the courts back my position. She tried to rob him of 150 dollars, he protected himself from theft and shot her.

You are confusing the law and the jury. The jury acquitted the man. Whether it was a correct judgement is an altogether different matter. The intent of the law, as argued by the prosecution, was not applied correctly by the jurors.

[The Steel Magnolia]

And she didn't break the law by taking the money.

She is in the escort business which often times offer sex.

Sex for money is illegal, and thus it's not part of any contract. What part of this is so hard to understand?

[Linderman]

They used their common sense.

In other words, you ADMIT that they didn't understand the law. They had NO legal precedent to make this decision upon. They threw up their hands and said, "obviously this bitch deserved it because she didn't give him sex!" That's NOT how the law works.

They understood the law.

Prostitution being illegal on paper =/= prostitution between 2 individuals is illegal in practice.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

And she didn't break the law by taking the money.

She is in the escort business which often times offer sex.

And the prosecution brought out a witness who testified that there was no offer of sex.