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

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

kalikshama -> 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 11:47:39 AM)
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

kalikshama -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 11:49:51 AM)
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. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott can issue an opinion clarifying that nobody can be shot for refusing to have sex. As the state’s chief legal official, his opinion will influence elected and legal officials and could help save lives in the future. Will you sign the petition asking Attorney General Abbott to clarify that women always have the right to say no to sex, no matter the circumstances? Your message to Attorney General Greg Abbott: "The recent court decision to let Ezekiel Gilbert walk after he murdered a woman who refused to have sex with him sets a dangerous precedent. Texans and all Americans need you to weigh in and clarify--nobody should be shot or killed for refusing to have sex, no matter the circumstances." Sign the petition: http://act.weareultraviolet.org/sign/texas_woman_shot

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 11:50:12 AM)
I was just about to post this:( Ezekiel Gilbert, 30, was found not guilty of murdering an escort he found on Craigslist. Gilbert's lawyers argued that because Lenora Ivie Frago had left his house with the $150 he'd paid her, without having sex with him, he was within his rights to use deadly force to retrieve his property. was my link Id love to say, its just texas, but...there just arent words

kalikshama -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 11:54:17 AM)
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!

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 12:01:59 PM)
The case rested on a law that allows deadly force to be used when the robbery happens at night. However, she didnt rob him. He gave her the money.

stef -> 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 12:02:51 PM)
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. She wasn't required to have sex with him. She could have returned the money. She chose poorly.

kalikshama -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 12:06:38 PM)
...The Texas provision authorizes deadly force not only to “retrieve stolen property at night” but also during “criminal mischief in the nighttime” and even to prevent someone who is fleeing immediately after a theft during the night or a burglary or robbery, so long as the individual “reasonably” thinks the property cannot be protected by other means. This shockingly broad statute authorizes individuals to take not just law enforcement, but punishment, into their own hands and impose death for alleged offenses that would never warrant the death penalty even if the person were convicted in court. But even in light of the expansive vigilante justice made legal by the statute, it is difficult to see how Gilbert’s behavior was justified, given that escorts are not entitled to deliver sex under the law, and delivering sex for money is an illegal transaction. Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/06/2117161/jury-acquits-texas-man-for-murder-of-escort-who-refused-sex/

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 12:41:17 PM)
If it had been Dolly, they would have strung him up!

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 1:48:49 PM)
FR~ I truly wonder at the US justice system sometimes [sm=ofcourse.gif]

JeffBC -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 1:55:02 PM)
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.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 2:16:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC 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. I whole-heartedly agree. But shouldn't he have reported the crime to the police rather than take the law into his own hands and become judge, jury, and executioner? I don't always understand the semantics of US law, but surely a local law doesn't override a higher law? Does he actually have that right in every single state?? I doubt it. He certainly wouldn't have gotten away with that storyline over here. You kill someone and it's either murder (if pre-meditated) or it's manslaughter (if by accident). And it sure as hell doesn't look like an accident to me.

Yachtie -> 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 2:18:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef 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. She wasn't required to have sex with him. She could have returned the money. She chose poorly. FTW[:D]

RottenJohnny -> 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 2:31:32 PM)
Okay. I didn't see anybody else say it so I'm gonna... Let this be a lesson to you greedy little girls that use your pussy to get ahead. Conduct your business honestly then get on with life.

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 3:05:08 PM)
'In the night' was an old standard for common law crimes, but those have been weeded out over the last half century, that's why every state has actual statutory codes written down with specific definitions and details. Burglary is now burglary 24/7 and so forth. Just because we can Google 'It shall be a crime for a man to walk his horse on the left side of the road on Thursdays', or 'It shall be legal for a man to beat his wife for any reason' doesn't make it the current law of the land. The specifics of Garner v Tenn, and Graham v Connor have been thoroughly spelled out in previous discussions here, and Texas has already had one notorious strike in the Joe Horn case. (We've also hashed out ad infinitum the castle doctrine, retreat to the wall, shall issue, may issue, and states with presumptive deadly force statutes). There are lots of 'Love to not know' arguers insisting that of course you can shoot someone for stepping on your lawn... often citing Texas, and claiming that 'state's rights', colonial era religious law, and Jim Crow trump 'the evil federal gummint'. Well, this particular case is going to require the feds to step in (as they did in Rodney King), and draw a clear line in the sand. There is no place in America where a woman (even a prostitute) can be forced to have sex, and there is no place in America, where a citizen can be shot over mere property. This is the problem with letting the sovereign citizen, Storm Front, revisionist Constitutional 'experts' who interpret each phrase to suit them as though it were Scripture, go unchallenged... If those memes aren't debunked loudly and often, the Big Lie effect starts to work, they seep into the media, and then infect the jury pool and the voting bloc. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The case rested on a law that allows deadly force to be used when the robbery happens at night. However, she didnt rob him. He gave her the money.

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 3:07:58 PM)
And there is no death penalty for a crook stealing $150 dollars. By your logic, the police could just kill every petty thief they catch, and not bother clogging up the jails. 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.

crazyml -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 3:14:16 PM)
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.

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 3:19:20 PM)
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.

kalikshama -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 3:20:50 PM)
When I pro-subbed, clients often wondered about sex. They didn't get it, nor did they get their money back (not that they ever asked for it back.)

crazyml -> RE: A court in TX just exonerated a man who shot and killed a woman who had refused to have sex with him (6/7/2013 3:26:53 PM)
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. If there were a statute that said it's ok to kill someone for refusing to pay for services, then of course I would. I mean - if I didn't that would be fucking stupid and hypocritical, now... wouldn't it? I did try to provide the tiniest hint at how I feel about the general "right" to shoot people for stealing when I said that there could very well be a debate... I'm also pretty fucking hip to a woman's right to say "No" so please don't go making too many assumptions.

thursdays -> 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 3:29:42 PM)
NM

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875