RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Powergamz1 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 5:09:00 AM)

Never said this case had anything to do with self defense, that's a strawman fallacy.
One more time, SYG is a self defense law and has nothing to do with this case, period. This isn't even an 'SYG 'type' case.


quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Actually, you are lumping all self defense *when your life is in danger* laws, under the heading of SYG.




Actually I'm not. This had NOTHING to do with self defense and everything to do with a law that says you can use deadly force when there is no logical reason for it. Much like SYG, and all the other shit.





Itsthetruth -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 5:15:28 AM)

So if any women in the Middle East was raped and then stoned to death for Adultery,that would be okay with those who support this law?After all,it was the law,so who care's?



eulero83 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 5:19:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brutalessons

Well I have just spent some hours now reading through all of these posts here and seeing the deflections for and against everything from Stand your ground and Self Defense laws, to contractual obligations and definitions of theft, to whether a law that specifys a certain condition, ie night time has relevance or is indeed superfluous in this day and age...

And all ignoring the simple fact, as stated in the various articles on the case that the man was acquitted because the jury felt that The suspect never Intended" to kill the escort. And Intent is a key word because it is the defining Motive that takes a murder from 3rd degree to 1st or separates Manslaughter from Murder.

My read is that the States Prosecuting team pushed for Murder in this case and did not allow for a lesser sentence, then was forced to try to Prove an intent that was not existent. It is very probable, even in Texas. that if the Jury had been allowed the option of convicting on a lesser charge, anything from negligent manslaughter to 3rd degree Murder, a conviction would have been a possibility. However, it is the prosecutors and the DA's office that has to include those possibilities and options in a criminal prosecution, and without them, we have this.

This has very little to do with the odd law the defense used as a defense, and while such a law might seem ludicrous to someone sitting in a Uber-metropolis with the scream of police sirens a constant background cacophony, It begins making a lot more sense when your nearest neighbor is 1 mile away and your entire life and livelihood is tied to the workings of your own hands and sweat, or the knowledge that any form of "law enforcement" support will require a 30-40 minute response. Just as your average urban dweller has difficulty in imagining that kind of "Need" the person in that rural condition would think some of the odd laws that are Germaine only to an urban environment to be similarly ludicrous and frivolous.

In the end, it is the Prosecutors office, in a capitol case that lays out the charges upon which the accused will be charged, tried and punished under. In this case, they failed to prove the facts of the case met the definition of the Crime they were charging for. The defense's use of the "after dark" clause is a red herring as are discussions of SYG, Self defense, etc. The charge was murder in the 2nd degree which requires proven Intent, and in this case, that was absent.


I see your point, but that was absent for the jury, in many other country the fact he aimed in the direction of a person with a firearm proves intention to kill. So it can be red herring but I'm sure if the girl was his ex wife leaving with her new boyfriend after she took the tv she considered hers and he never give her back intention would have been proved.



Powergamz1 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 5:25:01 AM)

Errrr... that's Christian law... Leviticus IIRC.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Itsthetruth

So if any women in the Middle East was raped and then stoned to death for Adultery,that would be okay with those who support this law?After all,it was the law,so who care's?




Powergamz1 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 5:27:07 AM)

It's proof of deadly force in the US as well. Like the earlier Texas case, this looks more and more like jury nullification.
quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brutalessons

Well I have just spent some hours now reading through all of these posts here and seeing the deflections for and against everything from Stand your ground and Self Defense laws, to contractual obligations and definitions of theft, to whether a law that specifys a certain condition, ie night time has relevance or is indeed superfluous in this day and age...

And all ignoring the simple fact, as stated in the various articles on the case that the man was acquitted because the jury felt that The suspect never Intended" to kill the escort. And Intent is a key word because it is the defining Motive that takes a murder from 3rd degree to 1st or separates Manslaughter from Murder.

My read is that the States Prosecuting team pushed for Murder in this case and did not allow for a lesser sentence, then was forced to try to Prove an intent that was not existent. It is very probable, even in Texas. that if the Jury had been allowed the option of convicting on a lesser charge, anything from negligent manslaughter to 3rd degree Murder, a conviction would have been a possibility. However, it is the prosecutors and the DA's office that has to include those possibilities and options in a criminal prosecution, and without them, we have this.

This has very little to do with the odd law the defense used as a defense, and while such a law might seem ludicrous to someone sitting in a Uber-metropolis with the scream of police sirens a constant background cacophony, It begins making a lot more sense when your nearest neighbor is 1 mile away and your entire life and livelihood is tied to the workings of your own hands and sweat, or the knowledge that any form of "law enforcement" support will require a 30-40 minute response. Just as your average urban dweller has difficulty in imagining that kind of "Need" the person in that rural condition would think some of the odd laws that are Germaine only to an urban environment to be similarly ludicrous and frivolous.

In the end, it is the Prosecutors office, in a capitol case that lays out the charges upon which the accused will be charged, tried and punished under. In this case, they failed to prove the facts of the case met the definition of the Crime they were charging for. The defense's use of the "after dark" clause is a red herring as are discussions of SYG, Self defense, etc. The charge was murder in the 2nd degree which requires proven Intent, and in this case, that was absent.


I see your point, but that was absent for the jury, in many other country the fact he aimed in the direction of a person with a firearm proves intention to kill. So it can be red herring but I'm sure if the girl was his ex wife leaving with her new boyfriend after she took the tv she considered hers and he never give her back intention would have been proved.




Itsthetruth -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 5:32:22 AM)

The laws there need to change,just like this law in Texas need's to change.I agree with everything you have been saying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Errrr... that's Christian law... Leviticus IIRC.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Itsthetruth

So if any women in the Middle East was raped and then stoned to death for Adultery,that would be okay with those who support this law?After all,it was the law,so who care's?






Brutalessons -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 5:40:42 AM)

Jury nullification is probably a very good interpretation and the conditions that made that outcome probable lie in just what the specific charge the DA's office was aiming to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt". The Defense argument seemed aimed at creating such a reasonable doubt scenario by bringing up the "theft after dark" argument, which at best would lead toward a "justifiable homicide" ruling, but if the Jury was instructed that a lesser charge could not be considered, then Intent is what the case hinged upon, Intent to kill the specific target with Malice aforethought.

My supposition is that the DA felt that because of the quasi "Illegality" ie Sex for money implied then a fatality occurring during the commission of a crime would override the Intent factor and place the crime in the higher degree. For whatever reason, it failed.



Real0ne -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 6:08:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brutalessons

Jury nullification is probably a very good interpretation and the conditions that made that outcome probable lie in just what the specific charge the DA's office was aiming to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt". The Defense argument seemed aimed at creating such a reasonable doubt scenario by bringing up the "theft after dark" argument, which at best would lead toward a "justifiable homicide" ruling, but if the Jury was instructed that a lesser charge could not be considered, then Intent is what the case hinged upon, Intent to kill the specific target with Malice aforethought.

My supposition is that the DA felt that because of the quasi "Illegality" ie Sex for money implied then a fatality occurring during the commission of a crime would override the Intent factor and place the crime in the higher degree. For whatever reason, it failed.


if it were jury nullification the jury could have issued any sentence they deemed appropriate regardless of the judge. When a jury nullifies they become both the trier of fact and law. Now the states think they have the power to dictate the law and they absolutely do not,l though the presumption persists.



Real0ne -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 6:12:18 AM)

yeh we need laws so we can start hanging bankers and those who have a monopoly on wholesale large scale robbery and replacing bailouts with fines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Itsthetruth

The laws there need to change,just like this law in Texas need's to change.I agree with everything you have been saying.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Errrr... that's Christian law... Leviticus IIRC.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Itsthetruth

So if any women in the Middle East was raped and then stoned to death for Adultery,that would be okay with those who support this law?After all,it was the law,so who care's?








Real0ne -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 6:15:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Itsthetruth

So if any women in the Middle East was raped and then stoned to death for Adultery,that would be okay with those who support this law?After all,it was the law,so who care's?



yep thats right!

who the fuck gave the US [UK colonies] the license to play fucking god and destroy and enslave every damn culture on the planet in the name of commerce and statist pseudo righteousness?

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/killemall0042_zps5e7709a2.jpg[/image]

business as usual



JeffBC -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 7:13:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
if it were jury nullification the jury could have issued any sentence they deemed appropriate regardless of the judge. When a jury nullifies they become both the trier of fact and law. Now the states think they have the power to dictate the law and they absolutely do not,l though the presumption persists.

I'm not exactly sure what "jury nullification" means but I know that in California if you, as a juror, tell the judge you will not vote against your conscience then you face a stern talking to with dire legal words in it (like contempt) and then they toss you off the jury.



Powergamz1 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 7:28:37 AM)

Telling the judge that you will follow the facts and the law, and then returning a not guilty verdict when you actually believe the defendant to be guilty. It can be due to prejudice, or it can be a form of protest against specific laws.





quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
if it were jury nullification the jury could have issued any sentence they deemed appropriate regardless of the judge. When a jury nullifies they become both the trier of fact and law. Now the states think they have the power to dictate the law and they absolutely do not,l though the presumption persists.

I'm not exactly sure what "jury nullification" means but I know that in California if you, as a juror, tell the judge you will not vote against your conscience then you face a stern talking to with dire legal words in it (like contempt) and then they toss you off the jury.





Real0ne -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 7:42:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
if it were jury nullification the jury could have issued any sentence they deemed appropriate regardless of the judge. When a jury nullifies they become both the trier of fact and law. Now the states think they have the power to dictate the law and they absolutely do not,l though the presumption persists.

I'm not exactly sure what "jury nullification" means but I know that in California if you, as a juror, tell the judge you will not vote against your conscience then you face a stern talking to with dire legal words in it (like contempt) and then they toss you off the jury.



I'd look the judge square in the eye and ask if "equity" has been abolished in this state?

Jury nullification is when the jury is both the trier of fact and the applier of law. If the jury does not think the law enforced by the state is fair, (equitable) they can simply acquit or dismiss, and if with prejudice now becomes a big dealiwickio! lol The judges have usurped that right by "presumption", where in fact any time there is a jury, the jury IS the court not the judge.

Take a look at the very careful wording in:

quote:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


of course the states and the state courts want to pretend their statutes overrule however they can wipe their asses with that since the statutes are "presumably" created within the scope of the common law.

this gets a bit sticky when you joinder this with the sovereign claims of prerogative. (the states are sovereign you know, just like the king of england)

The reason to uphold jury nullification is to keep the law directly in the hands of the people, those who have presumably consented to live under it, hence removing it from institutional and corporate state interference.



Real0ne -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 7:44:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Telling the judge that you will follow the facts and the law, and then returning a not guilty verdict when you actually believe the defendant to be guilty. It can be due to prejudice, or it can be a form of protest against specific laws.



which law? Normally you [the jury] determine the facts, and the judge would choose the appropriate and applicable law. Then the judge would apply the chosen [presumably most appropriate] law.

However it can also consider inequity built into the law.



JeffBC -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 7:49:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1
Telling the judge that you will follow the facts and the law, and then returning a not guilty verdict when you actually believe the defendant to be guilty. It can be due to prejudice, or it can be a form of protest against specific laws.

Ahhh... now there was my mistake. I told the judge I was a free man. It is core to my entire belief about the "justice" system that the purpose of 12 actual human beings... and peers no less... is to exercise judgement. Otherwise we could save a lot of trouble now and just get a computer program to tally up points.



LafayetteLady -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 10:47:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

As already pointed out, that is left over language from the common law, which is obsolete and has been superceded by the state penal code.
Same thing for the elements of burglary... they used to depend on time of day, now the code is cited based on the actions.



Here is the current statute:

quote:


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


So if you want to keep going on like you actually know something, try reading the statute. It isn't obsolete. The article said that was the reason his defense gave, the statute says it, and every fucking article says it. But you want to claim it was something else. Well, the statute calls you full of shit, not me. Well, me too, but the statute proves it.



LafayetteLady -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 10:50:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

And once again, you are making up your own legal definitions and jumping to wild conclusions based on media hype.


quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Actually, you are lumping all self defense *when your life is in danger* laws, under the heading of SYG.




Actually I'm not. This had NOTHING to do with self defense and everything to do with a law that says you can use deadly force when there is no logical reason for it. Much like SYG, and all the other shit.





Should I play like R0 and keep posting the same statute until it gets through your thick head? Because one of us is making shit up, but it ain't me.

quote:



§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.


Tell me again that it isn't a Stand Your Ground type of law. I've just proven you haven't got a clue what the statute in Texas says, so who's making things up?





JeffBC -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 10:54:27 AM)

"criminal mischief"?????
~blink~
~gulp~
That is utter insanity. Although it does explain the gun culture a lot better. I would not dare to walk outside at night under that legal code without a firearm. After sunset we're talking wild wild west here.



LafayetteLady -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 10:57:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brutalessons

Well I have just spent some hours now reading through all of these posts here and seeing the deflections for and against everything from Stand your ground and Self Defense laws, to contractual obligations and definitions of theft, to whether a law that specifys a certain condition, ie night time has relevance or is indeed superfluous in this day and age...

And all ignoring the simple fact, as stated in the various articles on the case that the man was acquitted because the jury felt that The suspect never Intended" to kill the escort. And Intent is a key word because it is the defining Motive that takes a murder from 3rd degree to 1st or separates Manslaughter from Murder.

My read is that the States Prosecuting team pushed for Murder in this case and did not allow for a lesser sentence, then was forced to try to Prove an intent that was not existent. It is very probable, even in Texas. that if the Jury had been allowed the option of convicting on a lesser charge, anything from negligent manslaughter to 3rd degree Murder, a conviction would have been a possibility. However, it is the prosecutors and the DA's office that has to include those possibilities and options in a criminal prosecution, and without them, we have this.

This has very little to do with the odd law the defense used as a defense, and while such a law might seem ludicrous to someone sitting in a Uber-metropolis with the scream of police sirens a constant background cacophony, It begins making a lot more sense when your nearest neighbor is 1 mile away and your entire life and livelihood is tied to the workings of your own hands and sweat, or the knowledge that any form of "law enforcement" support will require a 30-40 minute response. Just as your average urban dweller has difficulty in imagining that kind of "Need" the person in that rural condition would think some of the odd laws that are Germaine only to an urban environment to be similarly ludicrous and frivolous.

In the end, it is the Prosecutors office, in a capitol case that lays out the charges upon which the accused will be charged, tried and punished under. In this case, they failed to prove the facts of the case met the definition of the Crime they were charging for. The defense's use of the "after dark" clause is a red herring as are discussions of SYG, Self defense, etc. The charge was murder in the 2nd degree which requires proven Intent, and in this case, that was absent.


Well, considering his apartment building was right there, his "nearest neighbor" wasn't 40 minutes away, was it? He shot her with an AK47, not exactly the chosen weapon for home defense. He also ran after her. Yes, he claims he didn't intend to shoot her, but what the reality is is that he really has no business using a gun if he can't handle the gun. A claim that he was trying to shoot out the tires, yet hit significantly higher than the tires to get in the car tells me he isn't likely telling the truth.

By your account, all anyone has to do to get off on a murder charge is say, "I didn't mean to kill them." Wanna tell me how that makes any sense?

Article including video of testimony




LafayetteLady -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/9/2013 11:01:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

th ewoman had the opportunity to give him the money back. it is not about enforcing an illegal agreement. It is about her taking money that did not belong to her and no agreement existed. Either way you lose on this one.


Where exactly in the article did he demand his money back before shooting her? If you have found a more detailed article, please by all means share it with us. However, keep it to articles relating specifically about this case as opposed to your typical post that takes up an entire page with pictures of things having nothing to do with the OP.



I answer to Real0ne, too.
I don't know if it's different in your legal system, but in italy this would not have been theft as intention is mandatory for the conduct to be criminal so the voluntary action of giving the prostitute the money by the man discharge her from a theft accuse, he used deadly force in a quarrel. So to me it's not relevant if he asked them back because this was not even theft. But maybe it's different in the usa I don't know.


Our laws are not that much different. As you can see from my other posts which include the statute used by the defense, it doesn't come down to what he says, it comes down to what was used as a defense. Here are links to the statutes used.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

This is the statute the above refers back to:

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 13 [14] 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625