Jury Acquits Texas Man Who Shot and Killed Craigslist Escort.

[longhornfan1234]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/06/06/ezekiel_gilbert_texas_man_acquited_of_murdering_cr aigslist_escort_who_wouldn.html

I don't understand this ruling. I understand the law permits deadly force to prevent a robber from leaving with stolen property... but prostitution is illegal in Texas. Escorts sell their companionship for an inflated fee... and it's generally accepted and understood that the person hiring an escort is looking for sex. An escort is under no obligation to have sex with the person who hires them.

[gigantes]

i would have hung that asshole so high that his head would have popped off when he reached the end of the rope.

shit happens in life. deal with it appropriately. he should have just demanded refund from her company, or if not possible, spread the word online on her listings and feedback area, etc.

guess he knew what he was doing as a texan, tho.

[bagelred]

Wait, you can kill someone because they are stealing something from you? :oldlol: Texas residents, explain your state....

I might have to rethink my Spurs fandom.

[Ne 1]

The logic, if we can call it that, is that she was stealing his money.

Texas is a messed up place, but juries do strange things everywhere.

[-p.tiddy-]

people get away with murder in every state...so you guys can stop with the whole "only in Texas" bit

http://www.defendernetwork.com/-art/12/02/19/ae/oj_glove%20300x200.jpg

[PHX_Phan]

Texas still going full retard...

[ace23]

Why is it assumed that she was paid to have sex? It seems that that was the premise of the defense.

[Ne 1]

Anyway this case should be appealed. The law doesn't apply during an unlawful act. You can't shoot your drug dealer because they gave you a short sack. Also as you said an escort is technically hired for their time/companionship and they don't have any obligation to have sex with a client who hires them.

[bmd]

The logic, if we can call it that, is that she was stealing his money.

Texas is a messed up place, but juries do strange things everywhere.Texas is not a messed up place. It is one of the most logical states in a country where their justice systems are filled with insanity.

[bmd]

Wait, you can kill someone because they are stealing something from you? :oldlol: Texas residents, explain your state....

I might have to rethink my Spurs fandom.In Texas, we have the right to protect our property with deadly force.

It's refreshing because in some other states, they give the criminals more rights than the victims.

[ace23]

Anyway this case should be appealed. The law doesn't apply during an unlawful act.
How do you know that?

[DuMa]

brb i need to call my lawyers

[bmulls]

Anyway this case should be appealed. The law doesn't apply during an unlawful act. You can't shoot your drug dealer because they gave you a short sack. Also as you said an escort is technically hired for their time/companionship and they don't have any obligation to have sex with a client who hires them.

Do you understand what an appeal is? You can't try somebody for the same crime twice.

[-p.tiddy-]

also the article is very short and without detail, you just can't get a feel for the entire case or what the jury was shown in one paragraph...posters in here just read the thread title and "OMG, Texas is sooo fcked up, wtf is wrong with that state...blah blah blah"

obviously there is a whole lot more to the case than what you can read in that link...they claim his shot was an accident and not intended to kill, well perhaps that is the truth, hard to know when we have 1/100th of the detail that the jury had.

[bmulls]

Btw, this has nothing to do with Texas law. Under Texas law he is clearly guilty of murder.

The jurors took it upon themselves to let him go for whatever reason.

[MadeFromDust]

Texas: A whole 'nuther country

Our state will kick your state's ass

[JMT]

The stars at night, are big and bright...

The people not so much.

[-p.tiddy-]

The stars at night, are big and bright...

The people not so much.
the ignorance of this post is big and bright...as well as the irony

[BrickingStar]

No death more honorable than dying in the line of duty.

[bdreason]

Let me guess, shooter was white, prostitute was black... just a guess.

[Balla_Status]

The stars at night, are big and bright...

The people not so much.

Best economy in the nation.

[JMT]

the ignorance of this post is big and bright...as well as the irony

So you agree that one individual engaged in a criminal activity has the right to legally shoot another who is engaged in a criminal activity?

[-p.tiddy-]

So you agree that one individual engaged in a criminal activity has the right to legally shoot another who is engaged in a criminal activity?
no, but if I did wtf does that have to do with the entire population of Texas?

do you agree that an entire state of people is stupid because of what happens in one court room?

is the entire state of California retarded because of the OJ verdict?


once again, PEOPLE GET AWAY WITH MURDER IN EVERY STATE IN THE US, NOT JUST TEXAS

[buddha]

In Texas, we have the right to protect our property with deadly force.

It's refreshing because in some other states, they give the criminals more rights than the victims.

Except that I could kill you. Plant some of my property on you and say you were stealing from me. Thus, getting away with murder. All while your widowed wife turns democratic and starts collecting food stamps, next, your little cowboys grow up without a father figure and don't even like basketball.

[bmd]

The stars at night, are big and bright...

The people not so much.You're an idiot. For somebody who is so grateful to be alive, you sure do say a lot of unkind shit about people.

[LJJ]

Ah Texas, the heart of 'Murica. Where killing a hooker to get your money back is a reasonable, lawful action. It's your property after all.

[BuGzBuNNy]

You approach a drug dealer to buy drugs. You hand him the money, he then runs off. Can you shoot him?

Technically you haven't done anything illegal until you actually receive the drugs, right? Or does it become illegal before that point? That said, the only crime thats been committed is him stealing from you, right? right? :confusedshrug:

Perhaps because he never actually received a sexual favor from her he is clear from ever doing anything illegal. I guess thats what it comes down to, the fact that he never completed the illegal act. The reason he shot her is because she stole from him, we can't say he was trying to force her in to having sex with him as the prosecutors claimed.

I'm guessing thats what they concluded since he wasn't charged for participating in prostitution.


Why is it assumed that she was paid to have sex? It seems that that was the premise of the defense.
He and his defense team confirms that it was in exchange for sex:
It became theft when she refused to have sex with him or give the money back, they said.

[gigantes]

You're an idiot. For somebody who is so grateful to be alive, you sure do say a lot of unkind shit about people.
as the kids say, overreaction much?

[bagelred]

He and his defense team confirms that it was in exchange for sex:
It became theft when she refused to have sex with him or give the money back, they said.

HE KILLED ANOTHER PERSON OVER $150! Is that not registering in people's brains?

[nathanjizzle]

in texas, the white man is the highest breed. so usually they get away with murder if they killed an ethnic person for barely a legal reason.

[Balla_Status]

in texas, the white man is the highest breed. so usually they get away with murder if they killed an ethnic person for barely a legal reason.

Did we miss the thread where a dude from the northeast created a white student union?

[-p.tiddy-]

Some of you need to read the article...he got off because it was determined that the gun shot was an accident and not intended to kill.

Not because in Texas you can by law kill hookers that don't sleep with you. Smh...READ THE ARTICLE

[JMT]

You're an idiot. For somebody who is so grateful to be alive, you sure do say a lot of unkind shit about people.

Christalmighty, get your panties out of the bunch.

Just to be clear, I'll say "the people in that courtroom not so much".

Does that salve the terrible wound inflicted by my comment?

[JMT]

Some of you need to read the article...he got off because it was determined that the gun shot was an accident and not intended to kill.

Not because in Texas you can by law kill hookers that don't sleep with you. Smh...READ THE ARTICLE


I did. He didn't get off because the gun shot was an accident.

He got off because they said he didn't mean to kill her, not because he didn't mean to shoot her.

[-p.tiddy-]

I did. He didn't get off because the gun shot was an accident.

He got off because they said he didn't mean to kill her, not because he didn't mean to shoot her.
It doesn't say he did mean to shoot her...either way, he wasn't charged with murder because the jury decided he wasn't trying to kill...NOT because Texas laws allow people to kill hookers who steal or anything else related to Texas people

[bmd]

Christalmighty, get your panties out of the bunch.

Just to be clear, I'll say "the people in that courtroom not so much".

Does that salve the terrible wound inflicted by my comment?It's not just this thread. Acting like a jackass is a common theme in your posts.

[Lebowsky]

You approach a drug dealer to buy drugs. You hand him the money, he then runs off. Can you shoot him?

Technically you haven't done anything illegal until you actually receive the drugs, right? Or does it become illegal before that point? That said, the only crime thats been committed is him stealing from you, right? right? :confusedshrug:

Perhaps because he never actually received a sexual favor from her he is clear from ever doing anything illegal. I guess thats what it comes down to, the fact that he never completed the illegal act. The reason he shot her is because she stole from him, we can't say he was trying to force her in to having sex with him as the prosecutors claimed.

I'm guessing thats what they concluded since he wasn't charged for participating in prostitution.


He and his defense team confirms that it was in exchange for sex:
It became theft when she refused to have sex with him or give the money back, they said.

Isn't solititation of prostitution a criminal offense in the US?

[JMT]

It's not just this thread. Acting like a jackass is a common theme in your posts.

And overreaction tends to be a common thread in yours .

[Scholar]

Texas, where $150 > a person's life.

[MadeFromDust]

You approach a drug dealer to buy drugs. You hand him the money, he then runs off. Can you shoot him?

Technically you haven't done anything illegal until you actually receive the drugs, right? Or does it become illegal before that point? That said, the only crime thats been committed is him stealing from you, right? right? :confusedshrug:

Perhaps because he never actually received a sexual favor from her he is clear from ever doing anything illegal. I guess thats what it comes down to, the fact that he never completed the illegal act. The reason he shot her is because she stole from him, we can't say he was trying to force her in to having sex with him as the prosecutors claimed.

I'm guessing thats what they concluded since he wasn't charged for participating in prostitution.


He and his defense team confirms that it was in exchange for sex:
It became theft when she refused to have sex with him or give the money back, they said.There should have been some charge. Solicitation of prostitution is against the law too

[ace23]

He and his defense team confirms that it was in exchange for sex:
It became theft when she refused to have sex with him or give the money back, they said.
Of course the defense is going to claim that -- they need a reason to justify the homicide.

Techncially, she wasn't a prositute. Her job title was "escort". I don't see where the stolen property variable comes in. "Will **** for money" isn't in her job description.

[gigantes]

It doesn't say he did mean to shoot her...either way, he wasn't charged with murder because the jury decided he wasn't trying to kill...NOT because Texas laws allow people to kill hookers who steal or anything else related to Texas people
so in texas you're allowed to shoot ppl in a situation like that and as long as a lawyer convinces a panel of jurors that you didn't mean to kill, you walk away...?

"no... see... i was aiming for her elbow... not her chest... ELBOW!"

[ace23]

There should have been some charge. Solicitation of prostitution is against the law too
Prove that there was solicitation of prostitution. Of course, we don't have all the details, but I don't see anything that points to that.

[bmd]

And overreaction tends to be a common thread in yours .Nope. You're just a jackass.

[tpols]

Yeeeeeed HAW

Texas!

[GOBB]

I would like to hear the 911 call

"Hello operator I shot someone. I paid for sex she refused and proceeded to leave so I tried to shoot her so she wouldnt get away before I called the cops about an escort not providing the service I paid for. Got all that? Hello? Operator? Hello?"


so in texas you're allowed to shoot ppl in a situation like that and as long as a lawyer convinces a panel of jurors that you didn't mean to kill, you walk away...?

"no... see... i was aiming for her elbow... not her chest... ELBOW!"

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[JMT]

It doesn't say he did mean to shoot her...either way, he wasn't charged with murder because the jury decided he wasn't trying to kill...NOT because Texas laws allow people to kill hookers who steal or anything else related to Texas people

His own lawyers didn't contest that he meant to shoot her:

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.

The incident occurred in Texas, was decided by a Texas jury made up of Texas residents. If that doesn't relate in any way to Texas or it's people, ok.

Just keep that in mind for the soon-to-come endless threads about Philly that condemn the city, franchise and fanbase for something one stupid jamoke says or does. For example, an idiot I never wanted them to sign who stupidly shot his mouth off about some "Dream Team" crap.

Guy from Texas as I recall.

[JMT]

Nope. You're just a jackass.

OK. I make an offhanded, sweeping generalization, the kind that happen on message boards a thousand times a day. Could I have been more specific, less general? Fair enough. In reality, it's the kind of comment you'd have to be incredibly thin skinned to take as a personal "hurtful" comment.

Your retort is a personal attack against me, one you felt strongly enough to repeat. Keep convincing yourself that you're the good guy.

Not sure what other horrible things I've said to offend you. Perhaps I don't share your enthusiasm for Lin or Harden? Just guessing because of your location. I really don't know. Have no idea that we've interacted before. But let me take this opportunity to publicly apologize and to assure you that I will make all efforts to avoid doing so in the future.

[-p.tiddy-]

His own lawyers didn't contest that he meant to shoot her:

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.

The incident occurred in Texas, was decided by a Texas jury made up of Texas residents. If that doesn't relate in any way to Texas or it's people, ok.

Just keep that in mind for the soon-to-come endless threads about Philly that condemn the city, franchise and fanbase for something one stupid jamoke says or does. For example, an idiot I never wanted them to sign who stupidly shot his mouth off about some "Dream Team" crap.

Guy from Texas as I recall.
What happens in one court room says absolutely nothing about the rest of the state...again, is the entire state of California stupid because the jury failed the OJ trial? You really are acting like a jackass.

And okay, it was shown that he meant to shoot, still my entire point was that he was not convicted of murder because the jury believes he wasn't trying to murder. That's all.

[-p.tiddy-]

Everyone is acting as though they know what went down based on just a very small amount of information.

Maybe the jury was composed of idiots

Maybe the guys lawyer was a complete ace

Or maybe, just maybe, he really doesn't deserve to be charged with murder...

[gigantes]

in that case you might wanna start tucking your elbows in when you walk down the street, pee tiddy.

[LJJ]

Everyone is acting as though they know what went down based on just a very small amount of information.

Maybe the jury was composed of idiots

Maybe the guys lawyer was a complete ace

Or maybe, just maybe, he really doesn't deserve to be charged with murder...

Actually everybody forms their opinion here based on a very small, very definitive amount of factual information.

The guy shot a hooker over $150. There is no actual dispute over this between the prosecutor and the accused. The guy isn't claiming innocence of killing the hooker, the guy is claiming he was justified shooting someone over a couple of dollars. And the jury agreed. That shit only happens in Texas.

[tpols]

Maybe the jury was composed of idiots

..
Well.. Yea that's kind of the point.

Go cowboys!

[-p.tiddy-]

Actually everybody forms their opinion here based on a very small, very definitive amount of factual information.

The guy shot a hooker over $150. There is no actual dispute over this between the prosecutor and the accused. The guy isn't claiming innocence of killing the hooker, the guy is claiming he was justified shooting someone over a couple of dollars. And the jury agreed. That shit only happens in Texas.
Uh no dumb ass, he is claiming he didn't try to kill her...and THAT is why he wasn't a convicted killer...not because the jury said "oh well hell, she owed him money so...."

Read the article...he got off because the jury believes her death was an accident.

[LJJ]

Uh no dumb ass, he is claiming he didn't try to kill her...and THAT is why he wasn't a convicted killer...not because the jury said "oh well hell, she owed him money so...."

Read the article...he got off because the jury believes her death was an accident.

If you meant to shoot someone and then kill them that shit is not an accident.

But again. You are from Texas. You don't understand why everybody else thinks this shit is outrageous. You probably do think that if someone takes 150 from you, you should be able to shoot them with no legal repercussion.

[-p.tiddy-]

And again, if anyone thinks Texas is the only place court rooms fail and killers are set free then they need to turn on the news...this happens in every state

[MadeFromDust]

Then the prosecutor was a diipshiite for overreaching on the charges. Juries don't like that shiite

[ace23]

Uh no dumb ass, he is claiming he didn't try to kill her...and THAT is why he wasn't a convicted killer...not because the jury said "oh well hell, she owed him money so...."

Read the article...he got off because the jury believes her death was an accident.
Lol if you shoot someone, your intent is to kill, end of story. Jury is terrible either way.

People love to pick on Texas with cases like these though. Haha

[-p.tiddy-]

If you meant to shoot someone and then kill them that shit is not an accident.

But again. You are from Texas. You don't understand why everybody else thinks this shit is outrageous. You probably do think that if someone takes 150 from you, you should be able to shoot them with no legal repercussion.
You're a fckin retard

[MadeFromDust]

It's Obama's fault anyway. This is a natural reaction to a gun control nazi in the white house. Texans are gonna look after their fellow gun owners in the face of this leftist onslaught from the highest reaches of gubbamint.

Gee, Thanks oBOMMa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkQxHlr2fXM

[-p.tiddy-]

Lol if you shoot someone, your intent is to kill, end of story. Jury is terrible either way.

People love to pick on Texas with cases like these though. Haha
I have no earthly idea what this guys intent was or what the situation was like...but it is def possible to shoot at someone without intending to kill.

[bdreason]

If you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you are accepting the consequence that they might die.

[gigantes]

You're a fckin retard
that seemed rather clumsy. shouldn't the sho kosugi of ISH wield a more elegant attack?

a shuriken casually flicked from 20ft away to penetrate a ripe femoral artery? a stealthy back-thrust with wakizashi of choice, leaving victim none the wiser til they blossom in to crimson fountain a few moments later? :confusedshrug:

[-p.tiddy-]

If you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you are accepting the consequence that they might die.
Right but it might not be your intent that they did...like premeditated murder

From the small amount if info we are shown it does look like jury failed horribly, I wouldn't mind seeing the details of the shooting to see what they saw, perhaps she threatened him or something, idk.


I am just defending the fact that this case says absolutely nothing about the state of Texas that's all.

[ballup]

Wait, so there are people who think that it is justified to use deadly force in order to stop a non life threatening thief?:oldlol:

[GOBB]

His own lawyers didn't contest that he meant to shoot her:

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.

The incident occurred in Texas, was decided by a Texas jury made up of Texas residents. If that doesn't relate in any way to Texas or it's people, ok.

Just keep that in mind for the soon-to-come endless threads about Philly that condemn the city, franchise and fanbase for something one stupid jamoke says or does. For example, an idiot I never wanted them to sign who stupidly shot his mouth off about some "Dream Team" crap.

Guy from Texas as I recall.

:applause:

[JMT]

Wait, so there are people who think that it is justified to use deadly force in order to stop a non life threatening thief?:oldlol:

Yes, but keep in mind that just because it happened in Texas and was ruled on in a Texas court by a jury made up of Texans using Texas law, it in no way reflects on any of the people in the state of Texas.

Just like nothing else that happens anywhere else reflects on any of the people in that state/region.

[Balla_Status]

If you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you are accepting the consequence that they might die.

Unrelated to this case but you are also accepting the consequences if you break into someone's house and try to steal something. I don't see why anybody would have an issue over shooting someone in that situation.

[bmulls]

Yes, but keep in mind that just because it happened in Texas and was ruled on in a Texas court by a jury made up of Texans using Texas law, it in no way reflects on any of the people in the state of Texas.

Just like nothing else that happens anywhere else reflects on any of the people in that state/region.

Seriously? One pool of jurors represents a state with a population of 17 million people?

You do this all the time, write disingenuous bullshit trying to pick arguments.

[JMT]

Seriously? One pool of jurors represents a state with a population of 17 million people?

You do this all the time, write disingenuous bullshit trying to pick arguments.


That's always a good component of a reasonable argument.

I'm with you. Backtrack and read, and you'll see clearly where I admit that it doesn't reflect on everyone in Texas. What's disingenuous is to say that it reflects on nobody in the state of Texas. It's their law, their court, etc.

I'm great with the notion that the actions of the few don't define the many. But it has to apply across the board, to all places and people, and that hasn't been my experience with some of the posters in this thread.

[ballup]

Yes, but keep in mind that just because it happened in Texas and was ruled on in a Texas court by a jury made up of Texans using Texas law, it in no way reflects on any of the people in the state of Texas.

Just like nothing else that happens anywhere else reflects on any of the people in that state/region.
Ok, but there's bound to be quite a handful of people who agree with the notion.

[daily]

The jury decision may not reflect on Texans as individuals but it does reflect on a seriously fuc*ed up set of laws in Texas put in place by Texans that allow a person to get away with murder over 150 dollars. There is no way no how a person in a public place should be able to walk away scot free from a shooting when their life was not in danger.

[Balla_Status]

The jury decision may not reflect on Texans as individuals but it does reflect on a seriously fuc*ed up set of laws in Texas put in place by Texans that allow a person to get away with murder over 150 dollars. There is no way no how a person in a public place should be able to walk away scot free from a shooting when their life was not in danger.

It was a private home.

[gigantes]

Unrelated to this case but you are also accepting the consequences if you break into someone's house and try to steal something. I don't see why anybody would have an issue over shooting someone in that situation.
you're quite right... that has utterly nothing to do with this case.

is there some relevant point you are trying to make that i'm missing...?

[Rasheed1]

This episode brings out the classic features of some ISH posters..The posters who defend something while claiming they arent defending it though.... the "drive by" postings of hawker where he makes defensive comments, but never really engages in any meaningful conversation... :oldlol:

if we are being honest? there is no way this guy should walk when he killed an alleged hooker for stealing $150 of his money..

the story is ridiculous, and it is only topped buy the fact that a jury let him go free.

Its so ridiculous, I wanna blame jury instruction for it...

[daily]

It was a private home.He shot her on the street while she was driving away.

She got into a car, and when Gilbert was told he would not be getting his money back he fired into the car, the report said. Frago was critically injured and died July 13, 2010.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Man-accused-in-shooting-of-alleged-prostitute-3689192.php#ixzz2Vgay1uuF

[-p.tiddy-]

Yes, but keep in mind that just because it happened in Texas and was ruled on in a Texas court by a jury made up of Texans using Texas law, it in no way reflects on any of the people in the state of Texas.

Just like nothing else that happens anywhere else reflects on any of the people in that state/region.
What is sad is that what you posted is 100% true but you are being sarcastic.

Why in the fck would a group of 12 jurors being convinced to vote a certain way by a lawyer reflect on the entire population of fcking Texas, one of the most populated and diverse stares in the country? Are you really fckin that dumb guy?

Again I will ask you, is the entire state of California stupid because of the OJ trial? I mean it happened in California, and they were Californian jurors, so that must mean the entire state is retarded right?...yeah, thats completely logical.

[lucky001]

Relevant texas laws follow. No idea how old they are. Kinda sounds like something out of the wild wild west where your property was your life's blood. If someone stole your horse, gun, or lucky rabbit's foot you were justified in ending him because losing that would be fatal for you.

It turns out the law is a little more nuanced than 'he needed killin', but not that much more.


Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:


(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

[JMT]

What is sad is that what you posted is 100% true but you are being sarcastic.

Why in the fck would a group of 12 jurors being convinced to vote a certain way by a lawyer reflect on the entire population of fcking Texas, one of the most populated and diverse stares in the country? Are you really fckin that dumb guy?

Again I will ask you, is the entire state of California stupid because of the OJ trial? I mean it happened in California, and they were Californian jurors, so that must mean the entire state is retarded right?...yeah, thats completely logical.

Please find anyplace that I used the word "retarded". Please backtrack and read the posts where I've clearly admitted that the original statement was a sweeping generalization, the kind that people throw around every day. The difference in this instance is the ridiculous overreaction to the comment from a very small group of people from the area. Those looking at the situation from the outside (read: objectively) see that, while this does not reflect on everyone in the state (something I've freely admitted to), it most certainly does reflect on the state, their laws, courts, culture and at least some of their people.

And again, I will ask you, do the same rules apply when someone in Philly says/does something stupid or something bad occurs? Because I see lots of piling on when one idiot there does/says something and it's freely applied to everyone and anything having to do with the area.

Yes, the sarcasm is directed at folks who look for every chance to pile on people from other places, yet can't take it when handed back to them re their home state.

[-p.tiddy-]

Okay JMT I forgive you, it's all good...you're right when a Philly fan does something dumb I pile on all of you.


but time out for sec...getting at the laws posted above

Is Texas really the only state in the US where you are allowed to shoot at someone that breaks into your home? For some reason I assumed it was similar in the entire US.

To me those laws don't seem like the "wild west" at all really...If a burglar breaks into your home I think he should be scared of being shot at...

[JMT]

Okay JMT I forgive you, it's all good...you're right when a Philly fan does something dumb I pile on all of you.


but time out for sec...getting at the laws posted above

Is Texas really the only state in the US where you are allowed to shoot at someone that breaks into your home? For some reason I assumed it was similar in the entire US.

To me those laws don't seem like the "wild west" at all really...If a burglar breaks into your home I think he should be scared of being shot at...

Laws vary from state to state, so I'm sure there are others with home defense laws.

In this case, my questions/issues would be:

As stated in the expanded version of the story:"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."


Of course, that's the prosecutions argument.

She was unarmed and leaving the premises. There's nothing to indicate that he was in any danger. If the law doesn't require that to be a component,so be it. But that's a hard one for me to wrap my head around.

Is it really a "break in" when you invite someone into your home to join you in an illegal activity? There's doesn't appear to be any dissent that's what happened. He thought he was paying a hooker. No honor among thieves.

If you invite somebody to com e into your house and smoke meth, then they steal your meth without use of a weapon, seems strange you'd be entitled to shoot them.

[-p.tiddy-]

[QUOTE=JMT]Laws vary from state to state, so I'm sure there are others with home defense laws.

In this case, my questions/issues would be:

As stated in the expanded version of the story[I]:"The Texas law that allows people to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft was put in place for

[MadeFromDust]

...
She was unarmed and leaving the premises. There's nothing to indicate that he was in any danger. If the law doesn't require that to be a component,so be it. But that's a hard one for me to wrap my head around...
It's an aberrant case and I thought judges are allowed to overrule juries in some cases...or maybe I'm thinking of the punishment phase.

I know of a guy who did time because he couldn't prove that a thief who was trying to steal his car posed an imminent life threat to him when the car owner bashed his face in with the butt of a shotgun as he was trying to escape with his car.

[MadeFromDust]

Thieves in Texas take notice. Texans have the right to shoot and kill you if they catch you stealing their stuff. I just read it. Here:

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.41.00.html
[CODE]Texas Penal Code - Section 9.41. Protection Of One's Own Property

Legal Research Home > Texas Laws > Penal Code > Texas Penal Code - Section 9.41. Protection Of One's Own Property

[TEXAS BATMAN]

Take that gun safety pansies.

[IamRAMBO24]

http://i46.tinypic.com/k21cm.jpg

[NuggetsFan]

All over 150 bucks? Dam. That's cold blooded if it dude didn't even have any emotional attachment. Girls already fcking people for money, shoulda just let her have it :lol

[MadeFromDust]

Take that gun safety pansies.
http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/2/4/1/6/2/9/Good-40986438822.jpeg

[Horde of Temujin]

Im all for people having guns, but come on people this is just ridiculous. No way this is right, I don't care what laws you want to cite, this is just wrong.

[MadeFromDust]

Accidents happen

[-p.tiddy-]

Accidents happen
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/files/2012/05/gun-shot.jpg