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

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 11:55:58 PM)
she is accused of robbing him, of theft. Im not doubting you, Im just finding it hard to believe that, had she lived, that part of her record would not be admissible.

LafayetteLady -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 12:15:41 AM)
Had she lived, a judge might have ruled differently. Being she was dead and not able to defend herself (not that one can justify their criminal history), it would amount to putting the victim on trial. If she hadn't died, then we would have gotten what YOU want, which is both sides of the story. So what I assume would have happened would have been that when she was being questioned and cross examined, the "theft" theory would have been looked at more closely. A smart prosecutor would have still objected to using it because she would still be the victim of a shooting that by the defense's own statements was not really "provoked" other than her "stealing" the money. But it would have been difficult to examine the theory of her stealing from him without her past coming up. Don't forget she has the right not to incriminate herself, even though she is not on trial, so she certainly isn't going to admit she was a prostitute, which like it or not tazzy, the liklihood is 99.9% that she was. I think that because she was committing a crime (prostitution), the defense would have attempted to impeach her testimony with that fact. But then again, she would have had to explain what he was paying her $150 for. Of course, she isn't alive, so this is all assumption based on an educated guess and I'm not really up on Texas law. In NJ, there is no chance the guy would have been acquitted. We don't put up with that kind of shit here, lol. Suffice to say, it would have been an entirely different case. Realistically speaking though, the article give really not much information at all. Since he was acquitted, it will be difficult to find it in citable case law any time soon.

tazzygirl -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 12:21:05 AM)
quote: Don't forget she has the right not to incriminate herself, even though she is not on trial, so she certainly isn't going to admit she was a prostitute, which like it or not tazzy, the liklihood is 99.9% that she was. Oh, Im not doubting the likelihood. And I have no issue with prostitution. I think its silly to assume all "escorts" are prostitutes. But, then again, the headlines will not use hooker. What grabbed me was the lawyers words. "Part of the fee". What the hell else DID he pay for? And in that thought, there are questions. I agree there isnt enough in the story to say one way or the other. Too many questions, for me, are left. And, yes, I would love to see the decision on this case. Should be an interesting read.

jlf1961 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 12:33:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Don't forget she has the right not to incriminate herself, even though she is not on trial, so she certainly isn't going to admit she was a prostitute, which like it or not tazzy, the liklihood is 99.9% that she was. Oh, Im not doubting the likelihood. And I have no issue with prostitution. I think its silly to assume all "escorts" are prostitutes. But, then again, the headlines will not use hooker. What grabbed me was the lawyers words. "Part of the fee". What the hell else DID he pay for? And in that thought, there are questions. I agree there isnt enough in the story to say one way or the other. Too many questions, for me, are left. And, yes, I would love to see the decision on this case. Should be an interesting read. Who cares what the girl said, did or didnt do. The guy was not justified in shooting her and killing her. He was not in danger of injury. He was stupid enough to hire an escort for the purpose of sex. And as I said previously, if he could not physically deal with the woman to get his money back, then i doubt he had the proper equipment to have sex with her in the first place.

JeffBC -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 12:41:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I simply do not agree that 150 is worth someone's life when your own is not in danger. Got it. We are on exactly the same page then.

tazzygirl -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 12:46:46 AM)
I never said he was justified. I never said he was in danger. I find the whole case ludicrous and the fact that anyone supports him.. well... you dont want my opinion on that.

hlen5 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 1:17:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Would you be saying that if she had killed him for refusing to pay? quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama The precedent this case sets is dangerous. A woman is NEVER required to have sex with a man if she doesn't want to. Ever. I disagree. Sure, she's not required to have sex but then she IS required to return the money. If she does not it is, in fact, theft. And it is hardly a surprise that deadly force is authorized in Texas for a theft situation. I'm not going to make this one about feminism and reproductive rights. She's a crook. This. Sure, there could very well be a debate to have over whether it's ok to shoot someone who has just stolen $150 from you, but this case has fuck all to do with the girl's refusal to have sex, and everything to do with the fact that she then fucked off with the money. Excellent Question.

Edwynn -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 3:32:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama Jury acquits escort shooter A Bexar County jury on Wednesday acquitted Ezekiel Gilbert of murder in the death of a 23-year-old Craigslist escort. ...During closing arguments Tuesday, Gilbert's defense team conceded the shooting did occur but said the intent wasn't to kill. Gilbert's actions were justified, they argued, because he was trying to retrieve stolen property: the $150 he paid Frago. It became theft when she refused to have sex with him or give the money back, they said. Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php#ixzz2VYdVexCR If I were like you (which, thankfully, I'm not) I would show some statistic that says that sex crimes are on the decline, as to purpose of diminishing anything and everything that might be of concern to you personally. Except that nothing is personal to you at all, as you've well demonstrated. All that politicos are concerned with is scoring points. When it come to r/l situations you're on the attack, quite opposite of the 'concern' you propose here. Some far away event strikes up the band, whereas any r/l situation seems to invite outright attack from your camp. OK, so, tell us again what we are supposed to be 'concerned' about, and this, coming from whom?

crazyml -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 3:41:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I answered them all. You insisted they be yes or no...lol... you can insist all you like.. it wont happen. As far as her record, of course thats admissible. The only time it wouldnt be are in cases of rape. Clearly, this was not such a case. If she had a record of stealing, its very much admissible. quote: 1. Do you honestly believe that CL 'escorts' aren't selling sex? Yes, I believe there are some who do not, just as there are some escort services who do not. I cannot imagine that you really believe that the escort in this case wasn't fully aware that the guy was paying her for sex. I also think you're being deliberately disingenuous when you say the above - No doubt, it would be possible to find an escort service that does not include sex in its services, and possible (though for fuck's sake, much much less so) that the same might be true of craigslist escorts, but I know very well that you are neither stupid or naive enough to imagine that a guy hiring a craigslist escort isn't expecting sex. Now if this poor girl was simply fantastically stupid, and didn't understand that her client (And for this fantastically improbable scenario to work the chap must have been her first client) was essentially buying sex rather than some pleasant chitter chatter then she should have made it very clear that there had been a misunderstanding and refunded the money.

crazyml -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 3:49:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady So would you support her shooting him if she had sex with him and he refused to pay? That is theft as well by your definition, isn't it? For clarity I'm answering this question from my point of view. And to help anyone who is too stupid to have inferred it - I think it's outrageous to kill anyone over a small amount of money. But what I think isn't the point. The point is what the law states. If the law states that you can shoot someone for stealing 150 bucks then... well you can shoot someone for stealing 150 bucks. Now in your hypothetical, yeah I'd say that his refusal to play is more or less equivalent to taking someone's cash and running off before providing the service for which the cash was paid. But of course a lawyer might differentiate between fraud and theft (although they're equivalent in my view) and there might be some other legal trickery but yeah . the act of taking money from a john and then fucking off without providing the service is, in my view, the same as a john offering money for a service, taking the service then fucking off.

crazyml -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 3:53:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I simply do not agree that 150 is worth someone's life when your own is not in danger. Got it. We are on exactly the same page then. Ditto

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 4:45:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml .....Now if this poor girl was simply fantastically stupid, and didn't understand that her client (And for this fantastically improbable scenario to work the chap must have been her first client) was essentially buying sex rather than some pleasant chitter chatter then she should have made it very clear that there had been a misunderstanding and refunded the money. The problem with this idea that she must have known the guy was after sex, is that pretty much all the legit escort agencies specifically state that sex is not on the list of services being supplied by the fee being levied. You are paying for the lady (or gentleman) to be your escort - arm candy for want of a better phrase; but that is it. The reason the escort agencies have this exclusion is because in most parts of the modern world, paying for any sexual service is usually considered to be under the prostitution laws and thus illegal and to continue trading they have to make sure they stick within the law. A girl I knew that used to work for such an agency (very well paid too, I might add), was told that she must not indulge in such activites and should she wish to do so would be at her own discretion and at her own negotiations with the client and had nothing to do with the agency. So I emphatically disagree that the john had an expectancy of sex for the money he paid because that is not the usual terms of an escort agency - whenther that is on CL or elsewhere. So in that sense, he had no reason to shoot her and no crime was being committed and would therefore not come under that particular set of Texas laws. He murdered her because he wanted a fuck and she wouldn't give him one. Simple as that.

Edwynn -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 4:47:12 AM)
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. Here’s what happened: Ezekiel Gilbert shot and killed a Craigslist escort after she left without having sex with him. His lawyer argued that since he had paid her $150 for the evening, he was justified under Texas law in shooting her because state law allows people “to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft." The precedent this case sets is dangerous. A woman is NEVER required to have sex with a man if she doesn't want to. Ever. Here's the proposition in this post: Women who offer their bodies for sale, CL or elsewhere, are excluded from contract law, or any other common law. The fact of the matter is that this guy deserves whatever time because he shot somebody, and nothing else. There are stipulations in this country about taking the law into your own hands, etc., so any ruling in favor of his action there is against the law of the land, except that many courts take glee in twisting any law made. Here's some coffee. OTOH, we could just go all "hate crime" or "sex crime" on this and have a blast. The BBC is probably already on it. Here's the essence of the OP: "Sorry about your lost house, your lost job, etc., I was snoozing soundly at the time, not that I know what actually happened in all that deregulation stuff to begin with, but we have more important issues here, being that they are more obtuse and foreign, however much closer to the ideological heart and farther apart from actual r/l experience." Thank goodness for the obfuscation and uber-contrived ideological distraction of the mega-media. Eat it up, here's the slop bowl, kids.

Powergamz1 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 5:24:23 AM)
Actually, you are lumping all self defense when your life is in danger laws, under the heading of SYG. quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin 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. Ok, I said it was an SYG TYPE of law. I went on to explain that these are all laws that allow a civilian to use deadly force without deadly force being used on them. This particular law would allow you to use deadly force and shoot someone dead if they stole a dollar from you after dark. Yes, I am grouping all the "it's ok to use deadly force" when deadly force is not necessary for defense of your own life as "SYG type laws. I really can't make it any fucking clearer. But hey, half the people on this board think it is ok to shoot someone for stealing a dollar, hell for stepping on their lawn. So they will defend to the death the idea that this law is appropriate and not being intentionally misused in this case to provide the technicality to get an acquittal.

Powergamz1 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 5:28:21 AM)
The test for admissibility per the USSC is a balance between probative value, and the risk of sensationalizing the jury. In this case, as in Zimmerman, the shooter would have to prove they knew about the past actions and was anticipating a repeat. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl she is accused of robbing him, of theft. Im not doubting you, Im just finding it hard to believe that, had she lived, that part of her record would not be admissible.

Powergamz1 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 5:39:43 AM)
If the law actually stated that you can shoot someone for stealing $150, then there never would have been a trial. quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady So would you support her shooting him if she had sex with him and he refused to pay? That is theft as well by your definition, isn't it? For clarity I'm answering this question from my point of view. And to help anyone who is too stupid to have inferred it - I think it's outrageous to kill anyone over a small amount of money. But what I think isn't the point. The point is what the law states. If the law states that you can shoot someone for stealing 150 bucks then... well you can shoot someone for stealing 150 bucks. Now in your hypothetical, yeah I'd say that his refusal to play is more or less equivalent to taking someone's cash and running off before providing the service for which the cash was paid. But of course a lawyer might differentiate between fraud and theft (although they're equivalent in my view) and there might be some other legal trickery but yeah . the act of taking money from a john and then fucking off without providing the service is, in my view, the same as a john offering money for a service, taking the service then fucking off.

Nanako -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 5:53:19 AM)
I don't believe theft deserves the death penalty. But there's a difference between a court handing out a death sentance for a crime in the past, and firing a shot to try to stop a crime that is in the process of happening. That's where the "defense of property" comes in it may well be he only intended to wound or scare her. running away was a big mistake on her part. You don't run away when someone is pointing a gun and telling you to stop. THAT is what she got shot for. police do the same with a fleeing suspect i know these type of thieves are quite common, and they give excorts a bad name :<

Nanako -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 5:57:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn The fact of the matter is that this guy deserves whatever time because he shot somebody, and nothing else. There are stipulations in this country about taking the law into your own hands, etc., so any ruling in favor of his action there is against the law of the land, except that many courts take glee in twisting any law made. umm, isn't the whole reason for this discussion, the fact that texas DOES allow someone to take the law into their own hands in certain circumstances? it seems like he was acting within the law of the land he was in

Powergamz1 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 6:09:40 AM)
Police are explicitly forbidden to do that. The standard for quite some time is that the fleeing suspect must present an immediate and an obvious danger to someone. And if the police can't shoot you in the back for running away with a stolen pair of shoes, then neither can private citizens. quote: ORIGINAL: Nanako I don't believe theft deserves the death penalty. But there's a difference between a court handing out a death sentance for a crime in the past, and firing a shot to try to stop a crime that is in the process of happening. That's where the "defense of property" comes in it may well be he only intended to wound or scare her. running away was a big mistake on her part. You don't run away when someone is pointing a gun and telling you to stop. THAT is what she got shot for. police do the same with a fleeing suspect i know these type of thieves are quite common, and they give excorts a bad name :<

Powergamz1 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 6:11:12 AM)
Again, if the law allowed that, there never would have been a trial. quote: ORIGINAL: Nanako quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn The fact of the matter is that this guy deserves whatever time because he shot somebody, and nothing else. There are stipulations in this country about taking the law into your own hands, etc., so any ruling in favor of his action there is against the law of the land, except that many courts take glee in twisting any law made. umm, isn't the whole reason for this discussion, the fact that texas DOES allow someone to take the law into their own hands in certain circumstances? it seems like he was acting within the law of the land he was in

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625