quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The precedent this is establishing is staggering.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren
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?

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ

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.

You are making a strange assumption: It is not illegal to be an escort.
She was an escort.
It is illegal to exchange money for sex; that is prostitution.

He may have expected sex, she was not required to give that, and she did not have to return the money, if she was merely his escort.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

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.

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

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ

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.

You are making a strange assumption: It is not illegal to be an escort.
She was an escort.
It is illegal to exchange money for sex; that is prostitution.

He may have expected sex, she was not required to give that, and she did not have to return the money, if she was merely his escort.

quote:

http://www.kens5.com/news/Defense-argues-protection-of-property-in-Lenora-Frago-murder-trial-207937521.html

Posted on May 17, 2013 at 6:40 PM
SAN ANTONIO -- Wiping away tears, an emotional Christopher Perkins took the stand today as the first witness in the murder trial of Ezekiel "Zeke" Gilbert.

The defense claimed Perkins wasn't just Lenora Frago's friend, but also her pimp on the night she was allegedly gunned down by Gilbert at the Camino Real Apartments on Christmas Eve 2009.

"The holes in my car and the blood in her neck were evidence of a gun," Perkins said.

The prosecution argued Gilbert became enraged and shot the escort after she and Perkins attempted to leave with the $150 he paid them without ever getting sex.

That's sex Perkins said Gilbert was never going to get.

"If I found out you were having sex, you were fired. Period. End of discussion," Perkins said.

The defense doesn't deny Gilbert shot and killed Frago. It argued instead that the shooting was justified because Frago and Perkins were attempting to take his $150. Therefore, he was just trying to defend his property.

"The responsibility lies with him," Perkins said. "He was the one holding the gun."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

He was on trial because he gave the woman 150 bucks and she wouldn't put out for sex, which is not theft of property. If she attempted to pick his pocket, it would be theft of property, not coming through with an agreed upon transaction is fraud, it is a very different type of crime. Not to mention, of course, that what he was doing was illegal, which means he has no right to claim his property was stolen, given that the transaction he was doing was illegal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ

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.

You are making a strange assumption: It is not illegal to be an escort.
She was an escort.
It is illegal to exchange money for sex; that is prostitution.

He may have expected sex, she was not required to give that, and she did not have to return the money, if she was merely his escort.

if you are able to name the elements of a contract then you know that no contract was made regardless of either of their expectations.

That said the facts are that the woman took money that did not belong to her and had no contract to do so.

seems you all have a bit of a problem now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

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.

Since the admins are selectively removing posts... allow me to repeat what I said in a more.... kinder.. friendlier manner... giving you far more than you gave me.

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

Calling my intelligence into question.

quote:

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.

Accusing me of being less than honest.