Texas jury acquits escort shooter... (San Antonio, Anton: apartment, credit card, closing)

[CptnRn]

Texas jury acquits escort shooter...

Jury acquits escort shooter - San Antonio Express-News

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. It became theft when she refused to have sex with him or give the money back, they said.

Gilbert testified earlier Tuesday that he had found Frago's escort ad on Craigslist and believed sex was included in her $150 fee. But instead, Frago walked around his apartment and after about 20 minutes left, saying she had to give the money to her driver, he said.

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. It's not intended for someone trying to force another person into an illegal act such as prostitution, they argued.

Help me understand this. I would have never expected the Texas law to be interpreted this way, but apparently the jury did. Since the altercation took place at the shooter's home, it appears he is protected by the Texas "castle doctrine". I assume the jury interpreted the escorts taking of $150 (property) to be 'theft during the night time"? He thought he paid for a service that he did not receive and was leaving without giving him the refund of his "property" that he demanded?

Here are the statutes:

§ 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.

TEX PE. CODE ANN. § 9.42 : Texas Statutes - Section 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.

[TexasHorseLady]

This is so weird that, having a clue how these things can operate, I desperately want more information from the trial itself, but it is amazingly difficult to find anything more on it - almost bizarrely so.

There's something not right about this as far as interpretation of the law is concerned.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

This is so weird that, having a clue how these things can operate, I desperately want more information from the trial itself, but it is amazingly difficult to find anything more on it - almost bizarrely so.

There's something not right about this as far as interpretation of the law is concerned.

I think the jury was just unsympathetic to the victim. The only mitigating circumstance that I could find was the shooter claims he wasn't trying to kill the girl, who he shot in her car, as she was driving off with her pimp at the wheel. Also he did seem very remorseful , but other than that, I can't find anything the jury may have used to acquit. Other than the Prosecution may have over charged the case.

[TT Dave]

"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. It's not intended for someone trying to force another person into an illegal act such as prostitution, they argued"


I couldn't agree more! This sounds like a really stupid law that needs to be repealed before something like this happens again.

[Midessan]

I generally like the castle doctrine since it gives the property owner the means to defend himself or herself and his or her property, but this does seem like a strange verdict. But then again it does seem like the escort and her pimp were stealing from him, so I dunno.

[TheOverdog]

If they really used the castle doctrine to defend the right to take back $150 from a escort because he didn't receive sex, then I sure am glad I don't live anywhere near San Antonio, because the 'average citizens' that made that jury are really too vengeful to continue living without harming others.

I'd really hate to be one of those 'door to door' cleaner, knife salesmen, or lawn service people right now, because it seems to me that this interpretation of the law allows you to kill them if you are unsatisfied with their service as long as you are 'sorry' you did it.

[lonestar2007]

Just when you think it can't get any dumber. . .

I agree with the law and don't think it should be appealed, but they might have to reword it with stricter definitions, so as to restrict any broad interpretation, although in my book the term "law-abiding" should have prevented an acquittal in this case.

Like others have said, I dunno. Too bad they didn't have a big gunfight with all three ending up dead. Good riddance to bad rubbish and save the cost of a trial.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

This is so weird that, having a clue how these things can operate, I desperately want more information from the trial itself, but it is amazingly difficult to find anything more on it - almost bizarrely so.

There's something not right about this as far as interpretation of the law is concerned.

I agree, I'd love to read a transcript from the trial.

[John26]

Sounds like the prosecution screwed up by trying to push it as a murder case. If they had tried for manslaughter instead I'm pretty sure he would have been convicted.

I'm glad we have the law about defending your property, there is a saying "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent imprisoned." If self defense laws were rolled back it would only lead to more otherwise innocent people imprisoned or harmed.

That being said, prostitution should be legalized. It would be much better for a person to Yelp for a reputable service provider than to deal with some of the shady people that are in the business as a result of its illegality. In an ideal world this guy would have just filed a chargeback with his credit card.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by TT Dave

"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. It's not intended for someone trying to force another person into an illegal act such as prostitution, they argued"


I couldn't agree more! This sounds like a really stupid law that needs to be repealed before something like this happens again.

While I definitely see your point on this case, TTD, I definitely disagree that the general provision itself needs to be repealed (that is, the theft in the nighttime clause...if I am reading you right). Bad cases make for bad changes in the law, as they say...

Just to play the devils advocate here on a certain level, it doesn't appear the shooter was trying to force her into anything. I mean, if she refused to have sex with him even after he had paid her, I agree it would have been rape and she even might have the right to use deadly force against him to prevent it...particularly if she had offered to first refund his money. In fact, I would say she definitely would have.

But, in a sense it was theft...although again, yeah, I can't really argue to much on this one at this point. Like lots of y'all have said, there may be quite a bit more (as there usually are), than meets the eye or the media!

Regardless, I firmly believe the "theft in the night-time" justification for the use of deadly force should remain as written. This places the criminals in fear of us. Which is as it should be. It is up to them to decide whether or not stealing the stereo system from your car is potentially worth their life.

Now, perhaps a good change might be that the statute provision to be modified (operative term here) to make an exception if the "theft in the night-time" involved an illegal transaction to begin with...?