quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

What did she steal?

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Money

. "But instead, Frago walked around his apartment and after about 20 minutes left, saying she had to give the money to her driver, he said"

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

I'm all for dropping criminals dead in their tracks and all but this, at least on its face seems over the top.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

What did she steal?

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Money

. "But instead, Frago walked around his apartment and after about 20 minutes left, saying she had to give the money to her driver, he said"

Did she? I seem to recall she provided a service for 150 dollars. He paid her for that service, then they started arguing over the extent of that service.

Sounds more like a contact dispute than a theft.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

What did she steal?

DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Money

. "But instead, Frago walked around his apartment and after about 20 minutes left, saying she had to give the money to her driver, he said"

Did she? I seem to recall she provided a service for 150 dollars. He paid her for that service, then they started arguing over the extent of that service.

Sounds more like a contact dispute than a theft.

I see nothing in the article that she provided any service

What service did she provide?

From what I saw, she showed up, She took money, she left. That makes her a thief if services had been contracted for.

If service was promised for the money, she stole the money.

I see so many people saying "Oh My GAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWD, he finally got caught. Keep him in jail til he rots" when a male is caught.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Now that's the Libertarian dream in action: that man paid good money to rent the body of another human being in the free market, and when she didn't deliver the promised services he asserted his property rights without appealing to the tyrannical state by shooting her. Texas - the beacon of liberty!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

I'm all for dropping criminals dead in their tracks and all but this, at least on its face seems over the top.

How was she not a thief?

As I said earlier, If a male was using CL to solicit lawn mowing jobs and taking the money and jumping in his truck and hitting the gas, would you believe differently?

A woman got killed by a man. Oh My GAWWWWWWWWWWWWWD

I'm sorry. She was a thief.
If a male thief had died, I'd feel the same
If a black thief had died, I'd feel the same
If an Asian thief had died, I'd feel the same
If a TG thief had died, I'd feel the same
If an Hispanic thief had died, I'd feel the same.
If a Democrat thief had died, I'd feel the same
If a Republican thief had died, I'd feel the same
If a young thief had died, I'd feel the same
If an old thief had died, I'd feel the same.

Are you catching the idea?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

Shot for refusing sex

A court in Texas just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him. She's dead, and he will serve no time at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Do I believe the law needs to change? Yes. However, not for a single reason you are saying. Remarkably, I agree with Powergamz on this one.

We live in a society that has laws where the premise is that a punishment fits the crime. The legal punishment for what this women did was not death. Someone who is not even educated on the law (the defendant) made the decision unilaterally that she should be killed for it regardless of the already proscribed punishment.

Yes, she was a criminal and I'm not crying in my coffee that she is dead. But I also believe that the defendant should NOT have been acquitted.

What needs to change (again agreeing with Powergamz, eek!) is this whole concept of the various "stand your ground" laws.

It wasn't a miscarriage of justice because he shot a woman he believed promised him sex. It was a miscarriage of justice because there is a big enough contingent of citizens who are itchy enough to want to shoot someone that they were able to get these "stand your ground" type laws on the books.

Yes, the defense took the broad terms used in that law and used it to their advantage. That IS their job after all. If that law didn't exist, there is little question this guy would have been found guilty. Why? Because that law wouldn't have been there for the defense to take advantage of.

Stand your ground type laws ARE vigilante justice. For every law that exists like that, there are people who will use it to their advantage, just like in this case. If "Joe Citizen" knew how to apply the law as it was written, there wouldn't be a need for attorneys or even a court system. Every citizen would be able to apply whatever punishment they thought was appropriate.

This is the same problem both sides keep having with various gun laws. They don't know how to properly present their argument. Complaining a guy got away with shooting a hooker who refused sex with him doesn't do any cause any good. Saying that the government is trying to take away your guns doesn't deal with the issue of people legally owning guns. Both arguments can't manage to get to the "meat" of the issue.

So no, I won't be signing any petition for a hooker who got shot in the commission of a crime. Should they create a petition to eliminate "SYG" type laws and possibly use this as one of the reasons those laws need to be abolished, let me know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Do I believe the law needs to change? Yes. However, not for a single reason you are saying. Remarkably, I agree with Powergamz on this one.

We live in a society that has laws where the premise is that a punishment fits the crime. The legal punishment for what this women did was not death. Someone who is not even educated on the law (the defendant) made the decision unilaterally that she should be killed for it regardless of the already proscribed punishment.

Yes, she was a criminal and I'm not crying in my coffee that she is dead. But I also believe that the defendant should NOT have been acquitted.

What needs to change (again agreeing with Powergamz, eek!) is this whole concept of the various "stand your ground" laws.

It wasn't a miscarriage of justice because he shot a woman he believed promised him sex. It was a miscarriage of justice because there is a big enough contingent of citizens who are itchy enough to want to shoot someone that they were able to get these "stand your ground" type laws on the books.

Yes, the defense took the broad terms used in that law and used it to their advantage. That IS their job after all. If that law didn't exist, there is little question this guy would have been found guilty. Why? Because that law wouldn't have been there for the defense to take advantage of.

Stand your ground type laws ARE vigilante justice. For every law that exists like that, there are people who will use it to their advantage, just like in this case. If "Joe Citizen" knew how to apply the law as it was written, there wouldn't be a need for attorneys or even a court system. Every citizen would be able to apply whatever punishment they thought was appropriate.

This is the same problem both sides keep having with various gun laws. They don't know how to properly present their argument. Complaining a guy got away with shooting a hooker who refused sex with him doesn't do any cause any good. Saying that the government is trying to take away your guns doesn't deal with the issue of people legally owning guns. Both arguments can't manage to get to the "meat" of the issue.

So no, I won't be signing any petition for a hooker who got shot in the commission of a crime. Should they create a petition to eliminate "SYG" type laws and possibly use this as one of the reasons those laws need to be abolished, let me know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

This gets into a gray area because prostitution is illegal, and therefore you could argue that since it was such, the guy can't argue that what she did was theft, a property crime, since he was engaged in an illegal activity. It is no different then if he gave someone 150 bucks to buy cocaine, and the guy gave him powdered sugar..would those who say he was justified in protecting his property, say so if he was buying drugs? He was engaged in illicit commerce, no different.......

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

Do I believe the law needs to change? Yes. However, not for a single reason you are saying. Remarkably, I agree with Powergamz on this one.

We live in a society that has laws where the premise is that a punishment fits the crime. The legal punishment for what this women did was not death. Someone who is not even educated on the law (the defendant) made the decision unilaterally that she should be killed for it regardless of the already proscribed punishment.

Yes, she was a criminal and I'm not crying in my coffee that she is dead. But I also believe that the defendant should NOT have been acquitted.

What needs to change (again agreeing with Powergamz, eek!) is this whole concept of the various "stand your ground" laws.

It wasn't a miscarriage of justice because he shot a woman he believed promised him sex. It was a miscarriage of justice because there is a big enough contingent of citizens who are itchy enough to want to shoot someone that they were able to get these "stand your ground" type laws on the books.

Yes, the defense took the broad terms used in that law and used it to their advantage. That IS their job after all. If that law didn't exist, there is little question this guy would have been found guilty. Why? Because that law wouldn't have been there for the defense to take advantage of.

Stand your ground type laws ARE vigilante justice. For every law that exists like that, there are people who will use it to their advantage, just like in this case. If "Joe Citizen" knew how to apply the law as it was written, there wouldn't be a need for attorneys or even a court system. Every citizen would be able to apply whatever punishment they thought was appropriate.

This is the same problem both sides keep having with various gun laws. They don't know how to properly present their argument. Complaining a guy got away with shooting a hooker who refused sex with him doesn't do any cause any good. Saying that the government is trying to take away your guns doesn't deal with the issue of people legally owning guns. Both arguments can't manage to get to the "meat" of the issue.

So no, I won't be signing any petition for a hooker who got shot in the commission of a crime. Should they create a petition to eliminate "SYG" type laws and possibly use this as one of the reasons those laws need to be abolished, let me know.

Oh good grief, I was wondering when some one would bring SYG into this. I'm not comprehending how SYG has anything to do with this situation. Though we may be in agreement that he shouldn't have shot her.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne




now can we apply this to the crooks on wall street and the banking industry et al?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Let's put it this way... If someone hires an escort, and said escort shows up for the assignation, and pulls out a badge, aren't most people are going to claim 'But we were just talking, not having sex!'?

Yes, she provided an escort service of companionship at a minimum. We don't have enough details from the media to know where the minds failed to meet. All of which might make an interesting law school riddle of the 'improved the property' sort.

Until you get to the part about shooting people.

Note that the idea of an adult deliberately pulling the trigger and claiming 'I didn't mean to kill them' has also been extinct in modern courtrooms for quite a while.

All of which raises the suspicion that either the media has completely misreported the story, or that yet another jury has succumbed to the wrong kind of rhetoric.