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.
Wrong - in Canada to prostitution is not illegal per say - the communication for the purpose of prostitution is illegal. My friend did solicit a hooker...Escort services exist legally because they are not supposed to be the suppliers of prostitution. Once the escort arrives it is up to her if she wants to have sex with the client ...it becomes a private deal between hooker and John. If the act you describe is illegal - I really don't see how one person committing a crime can come out on top morally and legally over the other person who is also committing a crime? BOTH of these parties are criminals. How can you have even a civil dispute when both parties are committing a crime? If law enforcement is to be fully diligent both parties should have been charged.
This is a US forum, in a thread discussing a US state law and incident. Not Canada. If I missed that you mentioned that your scenario was in Canada, my apologies, but I could care less about Canada's law and it is not relevant to the discussion.
As for your question, the reason is that breaking the law in one aspect does not all of a sudden make all other legal actions illegal. If our system worked that way, I would seriously consider moving as that has some serious potential to be tyrannical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach
American law seems similar to old British property law - where an elite with wealth who had property had the right to kill any poor person stealing his stuff. Money and property still is more important than human life it appears. The jury's verdict is similar to the Zimmerman case...but not quiet...Zimmerman imagined Martin as running off and stealing communal security...Where as this hooker and this pimp ran off stealing his hard earned cash. What if the hooker performed partial oral sex on the guy - and he wanted full sex and she declined and fled...Would the jury still seen it as a theft or a partial theft that may have demanded a wound in the leg rather than a fatal wound...The whole thing is stupid- You don't shoot someone over a few bucks and an unsatisfied erection.
It isn't that money or property is more important than human life, it is the respect for liberty is. If you disregard someone's liberty, there is no point. A person should not have to consider the safety of the offender in such matters. It is counter to logic and reason and it becomes a means of burdening the victim. That is why some states have these laws. They feel that a person should not have to play bureaucratic games when it comes to their livelihood.
Keep in mind, only one person has complete control when it comes to this situation and that is the person committing the crime. The victim doesn't get to choose and so burdening them with consideration for the offender is aid to the offender and there is nothing just about that.
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.
If you aim for the head/neck area, the outcome has the odds stacked in favor of causing death. If someone is fleeing, you do have the choice of where to aim. The guy wanted to kill this woman who rejected him, regardless of why she did.
Escort killer acquitted by Texas jury
Is this normal?
This is another one of those cases where another side can't tell their story cuz she's dead. How do they know that she really stole the money? Maybe he paid her for a massage or whatever, and she didn't wan have sex so he shot her. Even if she stole, you don't get death penalty for that. Is human life really worth $150?
No sense putting them both down for a dick deal gone bad.
This is a US forum, in a thread discussing a US state law and incident. Not Canada. If I missed that you mentioned that your scenario was in Canada, my apologies, but I could care less about Canada's law and it is not relevant to the discussion.
As for your question, the reason is that breaking the law in one aspect does not all of a sudden make all other legal actions illegal. If our system worked that way, I would seriously consider moving as that has some serious potential to be tyrannical.
It isn't that money or property is more important than human life, it is the respect for liberty is. If you disregard someone's liberty, there is no point. A person should not have to consider the safety of the offender in such matters. It is counter to logic and reason and it becomes a means of burdening the victim. That is why some states have these laws. They feel that a person should not have to play bureaucratic games when it comes to their livelihood.
Keep in mind, only one person has complete control when it comes to this situation and that is the person committing the crime. The victim doesn't get to choose and so burdening them with consideration for the offender is aid to the offender and there is nothing just about that.
The one with the deadly weapon has "complete control" as the outcome of this incident clearly proves.
Correction: "Texas, please go away." I've now asked several times for you folks to make good on the threats of some of your political leaders and just leave. Please leave. You're loud, you're obnoxious, you're stupid. Just go. Few will lament it if you do.
First off, this is a childish statement at best.
Secondly, even if we wanted to leave, you know the government would never let it happen. Texas has always been a Federal Tax contributing state. And we know how the government likes to spend.
All they did was turn the scenario around and it happens A LOT. If a john request a sexual act, gets the act and then refuses to pay it seems like the prostitute should be able to kill the john.
Actually, I am the only one making points within the law and logically making comparisons.
When a person has to use stupid additions like "pulls out an AK47" to make their point, it is because their point is lacking in the first place and so need to exaggerate elements to make their position look valid. I have no desire to argue with people who discuss in such a facetious manner.
You are welcome to counter any point I make properly applying Texas law (I quoted it in the thread) and using logical argument to establish a valid point.
Read the law I provided, there are some key points you are missing in this evaluation. It is why the man was not charged.
The one with the deadly weapon has "complete control" as the outcome of this incident clearly proves.
Omitting facts will not make your position valid.
The mans actions were in response to a crime committed against him. His actions would not be necessary if that crime was not committed. The person committing the crime had complete control here, they created this issue, for if they did not steal, this would have never happened.
If you aim for the head/neck area, the outcome has the odds stacked in favor of causing death. If someone is fleeing, you do have the choice of where to aim. The guy wanted to kill this woman who rejected him, regardless of why she did.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
The man stated his intention was not to kill her. Your attempt to claim otherwise is unsupported speculation. Just the facts please.
I am not arguing aiming, the reason someone aims for the torso is because it has the highest chance of successfully hitting the target and reduces the chance of a miss, causing danger to someone else who is not the intended target.
The man used lethal force, for which he was legally authorized in order to stop the woman from escaping with property to which he would not be able to recover.
Those are the facts, the rest is manufactured by you.
Too many people think that your property belongs to others and it is ok for them to steal from you. I like the idea of people getting knocked off for stealing from someone. Don't steal and you won't wind up dead. IT IS THAT SIMPLE!
The mans actions were in response to a crime committed against him. His actions would not be necessary if that crime was not committed. The person committing the crime had complete control here, they created this issue, for if they did not steal, this would have never happened.
So again, you are wrong.
Getting down to the nitty gritty...his act of soliciting a prostitute via Craigslist (of all places) was a crime in the first place. I did not see this addressed in the article and I was under the impression that Craigslist no longer ran those types of ads, but then again in Texas...who knows. All this for a $150 bucks. What a social reject! And yes, what about the john that refuses to pay the prostitute. Can she kill him as he makes his exit? And if not, why the hell not?
Edit...I see that this happened a few years back, so that would explain the ad on Craigslist.
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.
