Jury Acquits Escort Shooter (Howe, Anton: live, rating, dental)

[*mud*]

Originally Posted by L210

How am I wrong? Please elaborate. So soliciting a prostitute is legal? Provide proof. I never said the verdict was wrong. I said that the law should not protect criminals. There are some serious reading comprehension issues on public forums.

.
.
.
this is your *CRIMINAL* Justice System at work.

I believe it was Bob Dylan said - "to live outside the law you must be honest".

appears she wasn't so honest and now she doesn't *live* outside the law.......

the *CRIMINAL* Justice System is not designed to protect *VICTIMS* and punish *CRIMINALs*.

it is designed to line the pockets of lawmakers aka liars/attorneys.........
.
.
.

[L210]

Originally Posted by *mud*

.
.
.
this is your *CRIMINAL* Justice System at work.

I believe it was Bob Dylan said - "to live outside the law you must be honest".

appears she wasn't so honest and now she doesn't *live* outside the law.......

the *CRIMINAL* Justice System is not designed to protect *VICTIMS* and punish *CRIMINALs*.

it is designed to line the pockets of lawmakers aka liars/attorneys.........
.
.
.

So I'm wrong to think that the criminal justice system should punish criminals and protect victims? You aren't making any sense. Bob Dylan isn't the criminal justice system, so I really don't care about that.

[*mud*]

Originally Posted by L210

So I'm wrong to think that the criminal justice system should punish criminals and protect victims? You aren't making any sense. Bob Dylan isn't the criminal justice system, so I really don't care about that.

.
.
.
you don't get it at all do you.......

statement. not a question. over and out..........
.
.
.

[L210]

Originally Posted by *mud*

.
.
.
you don't get it at all do you.......

statement. not a question. over and out..........
.
.
.

It would help if you articulated your point instead of filling your posts with periods and asterisks.

[*mud*]

Originally Posted by L210

It would help if you articulated your point instead of filling your posts with periods and asterisks.

.
.
.
don't worry so much about the punctuation.... read *the words*

where I come from, we have an old saying......

...here it is - if you lay down with dogs, you're gonna get fleas..

in this particular case the lady got a bit more than fleas....

.....by livin *outside* the law

(remember ya gotta be honest out there.. very unforgiving out there.)

and, in this case, *inside* the law, as the jury of 12 so rightly concluded, says - *NOT GUILTY*
.
.
.

[L210]

Originally Posted by *mud*

.
.
.
don't worry so much about the punctuation.... read *the words*

where I come from, we have an old saying......

...here it is - if you lay down with dogs, you're gonna get fleas..

in this particular case the lady got a bit more than fleas....

.....by livin *outside* the law

(remember ya gotta be honest out there.. very unforgiving out there.)

and, in this case, *inside* the law, as the jury of 12 so rightly concluded, says - *NOT GUILTY*
.
.
.

I did read the few words that were there along with all of the stars and dots. As I already said, the verdict was not wrong. The killer also laid down with dogs and had his money stolen. If this were a defense of person case, he would not have been protected because he was breaking the law. So as the laws stand now, criminals have more rights to protect their property than rights to protect their lives or someone else's life while engaging in criminal activities.

This man lost a lot more by shooting a person than he would have if he would have called the police, but he probably didn't want to call the police for fear of being charged of a crime himself. So, instead, he got to spend a few years in the court system. If he didn't have public defenders, I'm sure he ended up paying a lot more than $150.

Is anyone going to answer my question? Are any of you going to move out of the state because the Castle Doctrine does not cover those engaging in criminal activities?

[*mud*]

Originally Posted by L210

I did read the few words that were there along with all of the stars and dots. As I already said, the verdict was not wrong. The killer also laid down with dogs and had his money stolen. If this were a defense of person case, he would not have been protected because he was breaking the law. So as the laws stand now, criminals have more rights to protect their property than rights to protect their lives or someone else's life while engaging in criminal activities.

This man lost a lot more by shooting a person than he would have if he would have called the police, but he probably didn't want to call the police for fear of being charged of a crime himself. So, instead, he got to spend a few years in the court system. If he didn't have public defenders, I'm sure he ended up paying a lot more than $150.









Is anyone going to answer my question?

Are any of you going to move out of the state because the Castle Doctrine does not cover those engaging in criminal activities?

.
.
.
alright then. sounds like we agree. fleas are bad for your health and well being *and* your wallet.

your last two questions - it's refreshing to read that you have a sense of humor..........
.
.
.

[prim8]

Originally Posted by L210

How am I wrong? Please elaborate. So soliciting a prostitute is legal? Provide proof. I never said the verdict was wrong. I said that the law should not protect criminals. There are some serious reading comprehension issues on public forums.

The law shouldn't protect criminals.

So what you're saying is he shouldn't have even been tried for murder because she was breaking the law.

[majormadmax]

Originally Posted by prim8

While I won't worry about what happened too much, I think we need to be careful we don't celebrate the death of someone just because they committed a crime.

Really? I remember a lot of Americans/Texans/San Antonians celebrating the death of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

I guess we get to pick and choose, huh?

[L210]

Originally Posted by prim8

The law shouldn't protect criminals.

So what you're saying is he shouldn't have even been tried for murder because she was breaking the law.

That would be the case if he weren't breaking the law himself. The unclean hands doctrine would apply to him because he was the one with the grievance. There are laws for theft under which she would have been tried, but there might be a common law out there that says that she did not commit theft because the transaction was illegal, thus, illegitimate. The court system might have been able to force her to give the money back, but they wouldn't have been able to order her to perform the illegal service they agreed to.