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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote:



§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

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.

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.