Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Escorts are prostitutes. It's just an upscale hooker who works for a going rate of 200 bucks.. It is unspoken but sex is part of the deal. My friend Bill this young comedian got into the habit of calling up escorts - nice looking well dress professional woman. Then there was this exclusive package for 1200 bucks you get her company for 24 hours. You can take this very beautiful woman to parties and to boast your ego present her as your girlfriend...dinner..dancing - and of course sex is expected.
Well Bill got drunk and she looked at him and you could tell she did not want to have sex with this drooling drunk...so she slipped out fully paid by credit card...Bill calls me up the next day and is in a panic- He said he got robbed....that she took off with his money and he did not get sex- Bill was so stupid he wanted to call up the better business bureau . I told Bill that you can't do that. He said why? I said - Bill - if you have not forgotten it is a hooker and prostitution and those that use prostitutes are illegal.
What I described here is out of real life and similar to the topic here. Should Bill have the right to kill a woman who he paid for sex and did not get sex? The common ground here is when hiring an "Escort" - it is under the guise that you are hiring female company and not a hooker.
Any judge that would set a killer free who uses prostitutes is a judge who himself uses hookers...and loathes them.
Neat story, it isn't the same as the one that happened though.
See, in the real story... she came to his place, took the money, said she had no intention of having sex with him, laughed at him and then ran for the car with her pimp. It was even confirmed that this was an intended scam.
So, he stopped her with lethal force to keep her from getting away with property that can not be replaced (ie once money is spent, more has to be earned and that means it can't be "replaced" and so is lost once it is gone).
In your story, you added in the condition of her being an actual escort (which by the way is a legal profession, providing sex isn't be exchanged for money). Your friend could have very easily called up his CC company, disputed the charge citing she did not fulfill the contract, and they would investigate. Something tells me that she would not have contested (ie unless she responds with formal means to the CC company in the dispute, it falls to the customers favor).
So no, your friend wouldn't be justified in such because of the transaction process. Remember, they law clearly states that the property must be unrecoverable. As I explained, the CC is very easily recovered. It makes this a civil dispute, not a criminal one.
She was on life support and not in a position to tell her side of the story.
This knuckle dragging hard up guy was committing a crime when he engaged in a paying for sex transaction, unless Texas has legalized prostitution. We will never know her side of the story and why shoot at the neck or head when you are attempting to stop someone from fleeing? Maybe she was slamming his fat head against cement...
well, the down south is known to be behind the rest of the civilized society by about a 100 yrs so u must be right
Quote:
i dont need to read yo long essay of an answer to know what's right or wrong
she got killed for not giving sex and taking the money, petty theft basically, if u dont see that as unjust punishment then we got noth else to discuss
If your reasoning and grammatical skills (or lack thereof) are any indication of how we might evolve, then I for one hope we continue to lag behind such "progress" here in the "down south."
Escorts are prostitutes. It's just an upscale hooker who works for a going rate of 200 bucks.. It is unspoken but sex is part of the deal. My friend Bill this young comedian got into the habit of calling up escorts - nice looking well dress professional woman. Then there was this exclusive package for 1200 bucks you get her company for 24 hours. You can take this very beautiful woman to parties and to boast your ego present her as your girlfriend...dinner..dancing - and of course sex is expected.
Well Bill got drunk and she looked at him and you could tell she did not want to have sex with this drooling drunk...so she slipped out fully paid by credit card...Bill calls me up the next day and is in a panic- He said he got robbed....that she took off with his money and he did not get sex- Bill was so stupid he wanted to call up the better business bureau . I told Bill that you can't do that. He said why? I said - Bill - if you have not forgotten it is a hooker and prostitution and those that use prostitutes are illegal.
What I described here is out of real life and similar to the topic here. Should Bill have the right to kill a woman who he paid for sex and did not get sex? The common ground here is when hiring an "Escort" - it is under the guise that you are hiring female company and not a hooker.
Any judge that would set a killer free who uses prostitutes is a judge who himself uses hookers...and loathes them.
Please spare me the jail-house lawyer lecture. I'm a former combat soldier and also a former cop. Unless you're taking a sniper shot you usually aim for center of mass which is very often a killing shot. You shoot to hit. What happens thereafter is coincidental. It's often death.
For your edification: le·thal
/ˈlēTHəl/
Adjective
1.Sufficient to cause death.
2.Harmful or destructive.
Sorry, you are wrong. Lethal force is just that, "sufficient" to cause death, but it is not a guarantee of death, so no... when one uses lethal force, their intent is to stop the action, not to kill.
Ask a police officer his "official" answer when he uses his weapon in course of his duties. Ask him if he would state "I shot to kill that guy" or would he say "I shot to stop the action".
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.
Looking at the law as posted above, I'm not sure he met the requirements. In this case the woman was fleeing with the property (cash). So he would have had to reasonably believe that he could not recover his property by any other means or that failing to use deadly force would put him at risk. For the latter, I suppose he could argue that he feared the pimp was coming to beat him up, but I would imagine once she got to the car with the money they were going to drive away. He could also have argued that filing a police report regarding the stolen money would have incriminated him in regards to soliciting a prostitute.
I did note that the law does not make a distinction about whether he is engaged in lawful activity or not. If the woman who came to his house had been hired as a housekeeper, the outcome could have been the same. All that mattered was that the person who was shot was doing something illegal (i.e., theft) that prompted the shooting.
Sorry, you are wrong. Lethal force is just that, "sufficient" to cause death, but it is not a guarantee of death, so no... when one uses lethal force, their intent is to stop the action, not to kill.
Ask a police officer his "official" answer when he uses his weapon in course of his duties. Ask him if he would state "I shot to kill that guy" or would he say "I shot to stop the action".
I am right, you are wrong here.
No, actually you are wrong and just to stubborn to admit it despite appropriate evidence.
I did ask a cop, myself. As a sergeant and range master I trained others on use of force. The issue was not what we'd say if asked. The issue was the reality that center of mass shots are most often deadly.
Perhaps a course on reading comprehension would benefit you since you failed to understand a simple definition.
Now then, continue to argue if you must. It won't make you right and I won't respond further. Some things are just a waste of time; people too.
cops aim in center mass, of course officially he can say whateva he wants, but the reality is when u shoot, u dont expect the person to survive
Why do they state that though? It is the "intent" that is key here. Many people live after being shot, so lethal force is not definitive, it simply means that the force is sufficient to cause death, not that it will cause death.
"To live outside the law, you must be honest."- Dylan
Caveat Vendit!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
