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

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

Real0ne -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 7:35:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne now can we apply this to the crooks on wall street and the banking industry et al? Hmmmmm.............Good point, I might have to change my position on this. the really fun ones are the terrorist cases when you reverse the process and apply it to "government" actions against the inhabitants! Lots of possibilities there.

njlauren -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 7:38:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 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....... yep and if you cant take it to court you use street justice in its place. thats life. and death for that matter. Except street justice is not allowed. If someone kills a drug dealer for taking money and not giving them the drugs, they are arrested and sent to jail for murder, period, the law doesn't allow them to claim theft and therefore it was legal. The guy hired a hooker, she refused to put out, and that is no different then drug dealing, and it shows the hypocrisy of claiming this is theft and therefore the shooting was justified. If someone breaks into your home and tries to steal your stuff, that is him committing an illegal act; if prostitution were legal, he might have a case (even though I don't agree), but he was doing something illegal and killed someone as part of that transaction, so therefore it was not a property crime.

Lucylastic -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 7:45:04 PM)
Yeah some fucked up reasoning goin on here...the cops never charged her with theft..... or prostitution...(seven months paralysed....then dies)... totally reasonable...NOT

LafayetteLady -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 7:49:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl You can kill someone because you and the other party has a disagreement over a verbal contract? Interesting to know. We only have his side. I am basing it on what HIS lawyers said. "Part of a fee". Means what? That was his understanding. What was the rest of the fee for? I know you get very passionate about these types of cases. So much so that you sometimes lose site of reason. Read my other posts prior to this one. The problem with these broad SYG laws is that YES, obviously you can use a contract dispute as a reason to kill someone. That is not MY opinion, that was obviously the jury's. The point is that you seem to be saying that because sex was only "part" of the fee, she wasn't really ripping him off. That is what doesn't matter, what the rest of the fee was for. The baseline here is that his man didn't shoot her for exercising her option to refuse sex. To reach that conclusion defies reason and logic. The baseline is that SYG laws allow people to use deadly force for something that does NOT carry a legal sentence of death. It puts a civilian in the position of being judge and jury, determining what THEY think is an appropriate sentence and bypassing what existing law says. It doesn't matter that she was a hooker. As Lauren said, would you be as angry if he shot her for selling him powdered sugar instead of cocaine? Try to look at WHY he was acquitted, not the "she refused to have sex with him." Which incidentally, whatever "part" of the fee was designated for sex, there should have been a refund of sorts for deciding not to have sex. If you want to continue the "contract dispute" angle.

Hillwilliam -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 7:50:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Yeah some fucked up reasoning goin on here...the cops never charged her with theft..... or prostitution...(seven months paralysed....then dies)... totally reasonable...NOT You don't have to charge someone immediately. You can wait months or years if necessary. Most of the time, they wait until the perp is out of the hospital or at least out of the woods. If the police charge someone while they are in the hospital, they are in custody of that person and the taxpayers might easily be on the hook for their care which can really fuck up the budget of the particular police dept. Face it, if they're in ICU, they ain't running..

lovmuffin -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 7:50:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 SYG as distorted by the media has mutated into the notion of opening fire on school buses and claiming self defense because one of the children might have had a sharp pencil. [;)] Presumptive property defense as distorted by the media has morphed into Joe Horn type shootings. Castle doctrine as distorted by the media has turned into 'shooting it out with the jackbooted thugs'. Excellent, well written but you forgot the sarcasm font [8D]

LafayetteLady -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 7:51:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin 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. Go read the link again. He was acquitted because of the Texas version of SYG. It is essentially an SYG case, not a "do I have the right to shoot a hooker when she refuses sex?" case.

LafayetteLady -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 7:53:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 SYG as distorted by the media has mutated into the notion of opening fire on school buses and claiming self defense because one of the children might have had a sharp pencil. [;)] Presumptive property defense as distorted by the media has morphed into Joe Horn type shootings. Castle doctrine as distorted by the media has turned into 'shooting it out with the jackbooted thugs'. I won't say that the media hasn't distorted the laws. I'm well aware of the "spirit" for which the laws are supposed to apply. However, can you really say that savvy attorneys are not taking that distortion and running with it to get people off?

Hillwilliam -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 7:54:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl You can kill someone because you and the other party has a disagreement over a verbal contract? Interesting to know. We only have his side. I am basing it on what HIS lawyers said. "Part of a fee". Means what? That was his understanding. What was the rest of the fee for? I know you get very passionate about these types of cases. So much so that you sometimes lose site of reason. Read my other posts prior to this one. The problem with these broad SYG laws is that YES, obviously you can use a contract dispute as a reason to kill someone. That is not MY opinion, that was obviously the jury's. The point is that you seem to be saying that because sex was only "part" of the fee, she wasn't really ripping him off. That is what doesn't matter, what the rest of the fee was for. The baseline here is that his man didn't shoot her for exercising her option to refuse sex. To reach that conclusion defies reason and logic. The baseline is that SYG laws allow people to use deadly force for something that does NOT carry a legal sentence of death. It puts a civilian in the position of being judge and jury, determining what THEY think is an appropriate sentence and bypassing what existing law says. It doesn't matter that she was a hooker. As Lauren said, would you be as angry if he shot her for selling him powdered sugar instead of cocaine? Try to look at WHY he was acquitted, not the "she refused to have sex with him." Which incidentally, whatever "part" of the fee was designated for sex, there should have been a refund of sorts for deciding not to have sex. If you want to continue the "contract dispute" angle. If someone takes money from you and bails, SYG isn't in the picture. You're shooting a thief. As I said earlier, if a guy had said "I'll take care of your yard for $150" and showed up with the right equipment to do the job, taken the money and given it to someone and driven off, he is a thief. People are getting into a foofaraw because it was a woman who got shot and sex was involved. A thief is a thief regardless of gender or the 'work' to be done. If she didn't want to do the work, refund the money.

Hillwilliam -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 7:56:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin 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. Go read the link again. He was acquitted because of the Texas version of SYG. It is essentially an SYG case, not a "do I have the right to shoot a hooker when she refuses sex?" case. I don't see it as SYG. I see it as "A thief got shot in the act of stealing".

LafayetteLady -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 7:59:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam If someone takes money from you and bails, SYG isn't in the picture. You're shooting a thief. As I said earlier, if a guy had said "I'll take care of your yard for $150" and showed up with the right equipment to do the job, taken the money and given it to someone and driven off, he is a thief. People are getting into a foofaraw because it was a woman who got shot and sex was involved. A thief is a thief regardless of gender or the 'work' to be done. If she didn't want to do the work, refund the money. quote: The Texas law that allows people to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft was put in place for “law-abiding” citizens, prosecutors Matt Lovell and Jessica Schulze countered. It's not intended for someone trying to force another person into an illegal act such as prostitution, they argued. This is yet another version of SYG. The use of deadly force when used by "law abiding" citizens. That was the defense. So you can believe it or not, but that is why he was acquitted.

tazzygirl -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 8:05:46 PM)
quote: You dodge questions and I'm the dense one? " I seem to recall she provided a service for 150 dollars. He paid her for that service" is your statement. That appears to have come from the depths of your imagination. That comes from the articles and his lawyers. Part of a fee is just that... part... not the whole fee. So, according to his lawyers, the fee for sex was not 150. She provided a service for the pther part of the 150. What was it? quote: My argument has not fallen apart except in your imagination. If she didn't want to perform the service then she should have handed the money back and left. Again, part of the fee. They are not disputing the whole amount, just the part of the fee he insists was for sex. And we only have his word for it. quote: If she had tossed the money on the floor, tried to leave and he had sex with her, he would be a rapist and subject to her blowing HIS ass away. She took the money and left. That is theft They did not agree, per his lawyers, on what the fee was for sex as opposed to whatever other service she provided. Again, we have only his lawyer's words to draw upon. quote: If a MAN advertises that I'll 'take care of your yard for $150 on CL and shows up with a truck with the correct equipment to do the job, and a woman hands him the money whereupon he gets in the truck and bails followed by a fatal gunshot, there wouldn't even be a trial. Then the complaint would be.. I paid him for a service he did not provide. Not... I paid him and he did not provide part of that service.

tazzygirl -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 8:07:21 PM)
quote: I know you get very passionate about these types of cases. So much so that you sometimes lose site of reason. I am not passionate about this case. I am basing my thoughts on what his lawyers said. Dispute that if you want, but I think my reasoning is sound.

Hillwilliam -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 8:13:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I know you get very passionate about these types of cases. So much so that you sometimes lose site of reason. I am not passionate about this case. I am basing my thoughts on what his lawyers said. Dispute that if you want, but I think my reasoning is sound. Lawyers lie.

tazzygirl -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 8:15:43 PM)
All the time...especially when the victim is dead.

Hillwilliam -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 8:17:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl They did not agree, per his lawyers, on what the fee was for sex as opposed to whatever other service she provided. That's not what you said earlier. Again. If a MAN shows up after saying on the phone "I'll take care of your yard" (He didn't say mow and trim) He has ALL the necessary equipment right there to do that job. He takes the money and goes to the car and drives off, is he a thief? You seem hung up on the gender of the person who died. I see her as a thief. Thief is genderless. If she wasn't stealing the money, then she shouldn't have left with it. Tell me if you would consider the MAN in the above vignette a thief. yes or no

Real0ne -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 8:18:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 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....... yep and if you cant take it to court you use street justice in its place. thats life. and death for that matter. Except street justice is not allowed. If someone kills a drug dealer for taking money and not giving them the drugs, they are arrested and sent to jail for murder, period, the law doesn't allow them to claim theft and therefore it was legal. The guy hired a hooker, she refused to put out, and that is no different then drug dealing, and it shows the hypocrisy of claiming this is theft and therefore the shooting was justified. If someone breaks into your home and tries to steal your stuff, that is him committing an illegal act; if prostitution were legal, he might have a case (even though I don't agree), but he was doing something illegal and killed someone as part of that transaction, so therefore it was not a property crime. no, money was unlawfully removed from his possession and he was protecting his property. I would argue what the private deal between consenting adults was is irrelevant. The fact is money was stolen. The court need look no further to prove the case. Street justice is most certainly allowed, someone pulls a weapon and threatens you, you have the full right ot shoot them dead. Cops use street justice all the time. Hell all you need to do is trip and fall toward a cop and they will blow your fuckign brains out and lable it an attack and self defense.

Hillwilliam -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 8:18:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl All the time...especially when the victim is dead. You assume the victim was dead and not on trial. The THIEF is dead.

Powergamz1 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 8:21:43 PM)
It really isn't any sort of SYG case, unless the media is leaving something big out. SYG is the opposite of 'retreat to the wall', and there is zero indication that she was attacking this guy. quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin 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. Go read the link again. He was acquitted because of the Texas version of SYG. It is essentially an SYG case, not a "do I have the right to shoot a hooker when she refuses sex?" case.

lovmuffin -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 8:22:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady The problem with these broad SYG laws is that YES, obviously you can use a contract dispute as a reason to kill someone. That is not MY opinion, that was obviously the jury's............ ..........The baseline is that SYG laws allow people to use deadly force for something that does NOT carry a legal sentence of death. It puts a civilian in the position of being judge and jury, determining what THEY think is an appropriate sentence and bypassing what existing law says. SYG as I understand it eliminates the requirement for a would be victim to retreat or hide, even if that option is available, should they feel their life is threatened. I can't figure out how you apply SYG to this.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875