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

Lucylastic -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 6:27:11 AM)
FR I read that she was in a car with him and he shot her in the throat.... not exactly fleeing, or accidentally ... She lived for 7 months, I really wanna see more on this, but the gender issue is FAR from being the problem.... sorry Hill thats just bad comprehension on your part. And many criminals are charged in their beds, even for theft.... the thought that its fine for a guy to shoot a "thief" and kill them and then get away with manslaughter...is fucked up, in any place but these dumbarse states.

lovmuffin -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 6:55:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady 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. What's clear is, you seem to think defending yourself when your life is in danger or you're in danger of bodily harm and blowing someone away for trying to make off with your $150 is the same thing or the same type of thing. I say they are 2 different things. In an earlier post you advocate doing away with SYG laws because you're lumping SYG in with this. There is no way I can agree with eliminating SYG laws just because I disagree with what the guy did in the Texas incident. FR The problem I have with this situation is he was engaging in an illegal activity (I'm not saying that prostitution should be illegal) pretty much the same as if a drug deal went bad. I'm all for shooting thieves, burglars and looters, at least in some situations, but in this case, and maybe it's a grey area, I just don't think it was necessary. Had it been me I would have shot out one or more of her tires if I was so hard up about losing $150. If the woman had used CL as a ruse to not only get the $150 but steal other valuables in the home and was making a getaway then ok, shoot the bitch. [8D]

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 7:11:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml 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 Amazing how you change once you actually.... read the whole thread. quote: 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. What I believe and what I can prove are not the same thing. quote: 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. Wow, thank you for the backhanded compliment. You are correct, I am neither naive or stupid. And the minute someone applies "always" the exceptions pop out of the wood work. There are many escort businesses that say "No sex". Nor do I think her being a hooker, if she was, should be germane to this discussion. He followed her to the car, she was inside. he had enough time to point the gun and shoot many rounds. He could have just as easily gotten the license plate and reported the crime. Instead,he knew he could not report a crime for larceny over prostitution... so he shot. Little man's answer to all life's problems. quote: 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. Amazing how you can hide behind the... its the law... but you insist that I cave to be "deliberately disingenuous" because I have no proof she is a hooker. Damn, those pesky double standards again! quote: 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. This is assuming the money was for sex. Im not convinced it was. If "part of the fee" was for sex..what was the rest of "the fee" for? And if all of the fee wasnt for sex... how much did she earn and should not have returned? So, yeah, you can hold on to your beliefs, and I will hold on to mine. As far as your attempts at belittling attacks to shut me up... they worked about as well as Hill's did.

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 7:48:52 AM)
Its not new. Why dont you stop trying to belittle and actually add to the discussion. The whole point of the OP was that someone was killed for 150 dollars, and its being played down because she is "supposedly" a hooker.

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 9:16:07 AM)
You don't understand the law do you? The purpose of a trial is to establish the facts. Given that basic lesson, can you see how your statement might seem really stupid? quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 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

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 9:19:19 AM)
Well you and I are going to have to emphatically disagree with eachother, as I think that it is fantastically silly to argue that someone renting a girl or boy from craigs list would be unreasonable in expecting sex.

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 9:28:12 AM)
This is really boring. If you had bothered to read my posts my consistently held position would be very clear to you. I'm on my phone so can't summon up the energy to explain in detail but if you read my posts and are still confused by my position, all the explanation in the world ain't gonna help you.

eulero83 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 9:53:50 AM)
I lost pretty much of the conversation so I'm sorry if I say something that was already been expalined. I'm not from usa so I have a question: prostitution is illegal in texas, for what I could read, so I suppose there are no standard legal contracts for "sexual services providing" and it's not an activity ruled by the law as I suppose it is commerce, so if he went to a judge in a civil court and asked his money back will he had them back? I make a different example in italy if you play poker in a private house, that's forbidden by law, you loose you have no duty to pay if you have not done yet but you can't aske the money back if you have given them before, even if the game was rigged, if someone goes in court because the money lost where more than the fine's ammount a judge would answer that he was doing something not protected by the law so he was doing it "in faith" and now the money are gone. Is there something simillar in the usa? Does it means if a drug trade goes wrong 'cos the buyer is not happy by quality of the drug he can legitimate kill the seller that doesn't have a satisfied or refund policy?

kalikshama -> 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 10:33:56 AM)
quote: I'm not from usa so I have a question: prostitution is illegal in texas, for what I could read, so I suppose there are no standard legal contracts for "sexual services providing" and it's not an activity ruled by the law as I suppose it is commerce, so if he went to a judge in a civil court and asked his money back will he had them back? I make a different example in italy if you play poker in a private house, that's forbidden by law, you loose you have no duty to pay if you have not done yet but you can't aske the money back if you have given them before, even if the game was rigged, if someone goes in court because the money lost where more than the fine's ammount a judge would answer that he was doing something not protected by the law so he was doing it "in faith" and now the money are gone. Is there something simillar in the usa? It's the same in the USA. Illegal agreement An illegal agreement, under the common law of contract, is one that the courts will not enforce because the purpose of the agreement is to achieve an illegal end. The illegal end must result from performance of the contract itself. The classic example of such an agreement is a contract for murder. quote: Does it means if a drug trade goes wrong 'cos the buyer is not happy by quality of the drug he can legitimate kill the seller that doesn't have a satisfied or refund policy? I've been wondering this exact same thing - hopefully someone will look up Texas cases and see what happens to people who murdered someone who ripped him off in a drug deal.

Oneechan -> 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 10:56:15 AM)
quote: Does it means if a drug trade goes wrong 'cos the buyer is not happy by quality of the drug he can legitimate kill the seller that doesn't have a satisfied or refund policy? no. quality is an entirely different issue, it doesn't really relate a better example would be buying drugs, but getting nothing for your money. that would be the same situation. The point here is that the woman took the money and delivered nothing at all.

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 10:59:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Amazing how you change once you actually.... read the whole thread. Really? Seriously? Agenda based discussions are, of course, the norm on P&R but I find them uninteresting. But hey... go team! and all that.

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 11:00:17 AM)
And so by that you are perfectly fine with her losing her life.

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 11:02:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Amazing how you change once you actually.... read the whole thread. Really? Seriously? Agenda based discussions are, of course, the norm on P&R but I find them uninteresting. But hey... go team! and all that. Rah Rah Sis Boom Bah!!!! Wanna see my pom poms?

njlauren -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 11:04:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I have seen only a few trying to make this a feminist issue..and they arent women. I dunno, Kali seems pretty strong on it. I'm not quite sure where you stand. In my mind this is not about her refusal to have sex. The only question is whether or not we think shooting someone dead for $150 is a "good" outcome. No, it isn't, but what the defenders of the Texas law are missing is that it was an illicit transation, which inviolates the argument it was about protecting property. People have used the same example I did, if I gave you money for drugs, you gave me nothing for it, I don't have the right to shoot you for stealing my money, and even in texas they put people on trial for murder for doing just that, so how is this different? Illicit transactions forfeit any property or contractual rights, because both parties are doing something illegal, it is a null and void transaction, and thus both side's property in effect is null and void (I know there are lawyers on here, I am not one, so I am probably not using the right terms). Put it this way, if the cops broke up this transaction, or a drug deal, the guy wouldn't get back his 150 bucks.

njlauren -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 11:07:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Pft... a texas jury of his peers... ahem... forgive me if I laugh, ok [;)] This is the same "god fearing country" that brings you dinosaurs 6000 years ago. Same state that made certain forms of consenting sex in private a felony crime (specifically gay sex), but distinctly made sex with farm animals legal..... Though wasn't the guy convicted in court but let out on appeal? Though the difference between a judge in texas and a typical jury is the judge graduated from 8th grade, the jury didn't.

njlauren -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 11:16:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And you assume the guy is telling the truth... even though you admit his lawyers lie. Do you have any good evidence to the contrary. I'll ask again. If the genders of the shooter and thief were reversed, would you give a shit about the dead person or would you be saying "Good Riddance to a thief"? it's a simple question. Answer it. What anyone would say is meaningless, we are talking the law here...and the real point is, that this asshole was let out of jail because the court decided that an illegal transaction was a legal one, and therefore, he had the right to kill her to get his money back. If that is the case, then lawyers in drug cases where a client kills the dealer for not delivering the drugs paid for, or whatever, should be let off on the same defense, want to bet it doesn't happen? The real problem with this is he was let off because he killed someone for not delivering sex in an illegal transaction, a criminal offense, and I would be willing to bet pretty good money that in drug cases, where a buyer kills the dealer for non deliverance, they won't let the killer off, anyone wanna take that bet? It is also interesting, not only did he get off on the murder charge, they also didn't charge him with soliciting a prostitute, either...talk about double standard. There is another point here, and it is significant, it is what phillip Howard talked about in "The Death of Common Sense", where we read the law for the words instead of the intent. Laws about protecting property were designed around situations like burglary, person breaking into your business or home to steal what is yours, there intent was not to give the right to use deadly force any time you felt ripped off, which is what happened here. Even forgetting that this was illegal, suppose the douchebag who did this decided that the gas station he got his car serviced at didn't do a good job, and refuses to give him his money back, should he be able to go there with a gun and force him to pay? No, we would require he goes to small claims court. If someone sells you something on ebay and doesn't send it to you, you don't have the right to go and find the person and threaten them with a gun, you are supposed to go through legal channels. This is a financial transaction, and the law clearly says these are different, they are not property theft...and if this kind of thing becomes the norm, the morgues better start preparing, because this could apply to a lot of things, and it won't be pretty.

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 11:18:06 AM)
The precedent this is establishing is staggering.

kalikshama -> 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 11:35:46 AM)
quote: The real problem with this is he was let off because he killed someone for not delivering sex in an illegal transaction, a criminal offense, and I would be willing to bet pretty good money that in drug cases, where a buyer kills the dealer for non deliverance, they won't let the killer off, anyone wanna take that bet? I'm waiting for Tazzy to come back with the research for this....TAZZY!

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 11:44:08 AM)
Im working on it!

Real0ne -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/8/2013 12:52:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And you assume the guy is telling the truth... even though you admit his lawyers lie. Do you have any good evidence to the contrary. I'll ask again. If the genders of the shooter and thief were reversed, would you give a shit about the dead person or would you be saying "Good Riddance to a thief"? it's a simple question. Answer it. What anyone would say is meaningless, we are talking the law here...and the real point is, that this asshole was let out of jail because the court decided that an illegal transaction was a legal one, and therefore, he had the right to kill her to get his money back. If that is the case, then lawyers in drug cases where a client kills the dealer for not delivering the drugs paid for, or whatever, should be let off on the same defense, want to bet it doesn't happen? The real problem with this is he was let off because he killed someone for not delivering sex in an illegal transaction, a criminal offense, and I would be willing to bet pretty good money that in drug cases, where a buyer kills the dealer for non deliverance, they won't let the killer off, anyone wanna take that bet? It is also interesting, not only did he get off on the murder charge, they also didn't charge him with soliciting a prostitute, either...talk about double standard. There is another point here, and it is significant, it is what phillip Howard talked about in "The Death of Common Sense", where we read the law for the words instead of the intent. Laws about protecting property were designed around situations like burglary, person breaking into your business or home to steal what is yours, there intent was not to give the right to use deadly force any time you felt ripped off, which is what happened here. Even forgetting that this was illegal, suppose the douchebag who did this decided that the gas station he got his car serviced at didn't do a good job, and refuses to give him his money back, should he be able to go there with a gun and force him to pay? No, we would require he goes to small claims court. If someone sells you something on ebay and doesn't send it to you, you don't have the right to go and find the person and threaten them with a gun, you are supposed to go through legal channels. This is a financial transaction, and the law clearly says these are different, they are not property theft...and if this kind of thing becomes the norm, the morgues better start preparing, because this could apply to a lot of things, and it won't be pretty. HUH????? Now my understanding is that he was on trial for the shooting death of someone who stole money. I dont recall it being for someone who would not have sex, or someone who was trying to engage in an illegal act. Seems to me that would be triable as a completely separate matter.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875