Jury Acquits Escort Shooter (2013, buy, minimum wage)

[sleeptech210]

This may have played a factor, A lot of people have the opinion that Prostitution really doesn't make you a criminal as being a drug dealer would be. Just saying. Two Adults do a business transaction with their bodies for currency exchange really doesn't make you out to be a bad person just a broke desperate horny person..lol But if you Steal then your a criminal. Think about it not too many people see Prostitution as a huge deal and this may have played a big part in why the John was not considered to be a CRIMINAL. The law should read "If you act like a dumbass you will die" lol Would I shoot at a hooker over 150 bucks? Hell no not worth the problems....All this guy is guilty of is being a Dumbass! Plus 150 is way too much! Never go past 20!

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by majormadmax

You said, and I quote...



I provided photographic evidence that MANY MANY people DID celebrate their deaths, as the vast majority of Americans did (myself included).

Again, you speak as though you represent the majority, but unfortunately for you, you do not. The vast majority of Americans (to include our President) was overjoyed at the death of Osama bin Laden, and the majority of Texans agree with the lethal force laws of this state.

:

What you quoted, stated "many" and "plenty." I never stated the "majority." That is your interpretation of "many." I have no idea of actual numbers, but I know enough who did not celebrate - and who spoke out against such celebrations - that it'd be erroneous to assume all did. So unless you know the person to whom you are addressing this acted in such a manner, you can not accuse them of hypocrisy. Even if the majority of people behaved in such a way, that doesn't mean all are responsible for such behaviour.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by MattTx

This thread has nothing to do with Osama or Saddam. It is about a girl who made some bad choices and paid for it with her life. She is not an "evil" human being like the two I mentioned earlier but I don't deny that she is a criminal. She did not deserve to die and I don't see anyone out in the streets celebrating her death like the pictures posted earlier.

The law is outdated and needs to be modified. Criminals should never benefit from this law if it needs to remain on the books.

True. How anyone can justify this killing is beyond me.

[clarksvillemom]

Agreed

[L210]

Originally Posted by sleeptech210

This may have played a factor, A lot of people have the opinion that Prostitution really doesn't make you a criminal as being a drug dealer would be. Just saying. Two Adults do a business transaction with their bodies for currency exchange really doesn't make you out to be a bad person just a broke desperate horny person..lol But if you Steal then your a criminal. Think about it not too many people see Prostitution as a huge deal and this may have played a big part in why the John was not considered to be a CRIMINAL. The law should read "If you act like a dumbass you will die" lol Would I shoot at a hooker over 150 bucks? Hell no not worth the problems....All this guy is guilty of is being a Dumbass! Plus 150 is way too much! Never go past 20!

The law is the law. If you don't like that prostitution is illegal, then move to Nevada. Isn't that the prevailing logic in this thread? Drug dealers sell to willing buyers, so I don't see how it's much different. Smoking marijuana is less hazardous than HIV or an STD. It's not like San Antonio doesn't have an issue with human trafficking where many minors and immigrants are forced into prostitution. There are also prostitutes who only sell their bodies to fund a drug addiction. The two "industries" are often interconnected.

The defense of property laws are there to protect property owners from prosecution. They are not there to protect thieves. If she had truly committed a theft and weren't shot, she would have been subject to prosecution under Texas' theft laws. So not allowing a criminal to shoot another criminal (thief) wouldn't have protected the thief from punishment. However, under current laws, the killer IS protected from punishment.

[CptnRn]

I'm having a hard time understanding how this is theft. If she offered escort services and provided them, then she fulfilled her part of the bargain. There was no theft.

Is there any evidence that this women offered more than escort services? Is there any proof that she was in fact a prostitute? It is my understanding that it is legal to offer and provide escort services in Texas. If she advertised escort services it is entirely possible that all this women intended to provide was escort services. It makes no sense that if she was a prostitute that she would have refused to provide prostitution services.

As an escort, all that is promised is her time, maybe a lap dance if you are lucky. But if you hire an escort, you have no right to expect prostitution, therefore there was no theft.

She did not take anything from him, he gave her the $150. If he did not first obtain a clear understanding of what services he was going to receive before giving her the money, that is his fault. It is nothing more then disagreement over the terms of a business transaction. Not a theft.

No theft = no right to use deadly force to recover your property.

[clarksvillemom]

I guess I just see what happened as the law protecting criminals - the man who killed her. Yes, what she was going was illegal but in the grand scheme of things, do we want people to get killed and then the killers to get off for this? Doesn't make much sense to me.

[sa dave]

Contraband cannot be owned.

In the eyes of the law there is no such thing as "ownership" of illegal drugs or stolen goods; only posession. Which is why charges of drugs or stolen property are typically drawn up as "Possesion of a controlled substance", and as such, an entire carload of people can be collective possesors of one marijuana joint in little Johnnys shirt pocket.

Prostitution, like drugs or stolen items, is a contraband service. Sex cannot be "purchased" or enforced in a contract [verbal or written]. So for him to expect it when he exchanged money with her is no longer an issue of theft for sex services. In fact for him to admit that he gave her money with the expectation he would recieve sex means that he is a party to a crime; and any money lost during crime is money lost and not stolen.

It works the same way for people who buy drugs from a dealer, only to find out the white powder they they thought was coke, was in fact sugar. The purchaser cannot run to the police or to small claims court to get their money back. The police nor courts are not there to make sure an illicit transaction should be honored.

Mr. Gilbert's only valid argument for shooting her would be to say that he felt his life was in danger in the middle of the night because the pimp some how created a situation in which he feared for his safety. Aside from that he had no valid argument for killing her.

[majormadmax]

Originally Posted by MattTx

This thread has nothing to do with Osama or Saddam. It is about a girl who made some bad choices and paid for it with her life. She is not an "evil" human being like the two I mentioned earlier but I don't deny that she is a criminal. She did not deserve to die and I don't see anyone out in the streets celebrating her death like the pictures posted earlier.

The law is outdated and needs to be modified. Criminals should never benefit from this law if it needs to remain on the books.

She was a criminal, not matter how pretty of a picture you try to paint.

Don't go try convincing anyone that prostitution is a victimless crime. It is far from that, and anyone who believes that myth is only fooling themselves...

But I agree that the law needs to be modified, it shouldn't be limited to only the hours of darkness.

[majormadmax]

Originally Posted by sa dave

Contraband cannot be owned.

In the eyes of the law there is no such thing as "ownership" of illegal drugs or stolen goods; only posession. Which is why charges of drugs or stolen property are typically drawn up as "Possesion of a controlled substance", and as such, an entire carload of people can be collective possesors of one marijuana joint in little Johnnys shirt pocket.

Prostitution, like drugs or stolen items, is a contraband service. Sex cannot be "purchased" or enforced in a contract [verbal or written]. So for him to expect it when he exchanged money with her is no longer an issue of theft for sex services. In fact for him to admit that he gave her money with the expectation he would recieve sex means that he is a party to a crime; and any money lost during crime is money lost and not stolen.

It works the same way for people who buy drugs from a dealer, only to find out the white powder they they thought was coke, was in fact sugar. The purchaser cannot run to the police or to small claims court to get their money back. The police nor courts are not there to make sure an illicit transaction should be honored.

Mr. Gilbert's only valid argument for shooting her would be to say that he felt his life was in danger in the middle of the night because the pimp some how created a situation in which he feared for his safety. Aside from that he had no valid argument for killing her.

Yet a jury of 12 of your and my peers decided differently. Why do you think that happened?