OMFG TEXAS guy kills escort and aquitted

Don't take that away from Rockerrick. It's all he has. He's on this board 24/7 making useless comments, most of which make absolutely no sense.

I am so shocked at the comments on this board. Unbelievable. First, we don't know the circumstances. If he's willing to take out a gun and shoot someone in the throat for $150 dollars, I'm quite sure he's quite nuts and probably scared the shit out of her for some reason or another. There's no telling what happened there, but this was not an aggravated assault on her part. Originally Posted by Annef

Speaking of people posting on here and making NO sense :
First off he didn't take out a gun and shoot her in the throat , he shot at a fleeing suspect escaping in a car , missed and shrapnel hit her in the throat !
Second off if he did something that made her scared give the money back and leave , or ............. Oh well .
Third the law didn't require it be an aggravated assault , just the theft of property was enough .

All of which she or anyone in that position could have avoided , don't steal people's money. She chose to bolt with his cash , and look where she is now !
Sooooo knowing all this are you gonna run out with someone's cash ? Well you haven't made too much sense thus far , maybe ?

The bottom line here is someone was killed because a guy didn't get laid. Originally Posted by Annef

Really, that is YOUR bottom line? Let me tell you, if that was true then only one guy would be left and he'd have to shoot himself.

Really, that is YOUR bottom line? Let me tell you, if that was true then only one guy would be left and he'd have to shoot himself. Originally Posted by fun2come

I tend to agree, not getting laid had a little to do with it, if that was the case then there would 1000's of dead Providers all over the US

The homicide rate for female prostitutes was estimated to be 204 per 100,000,[2] which is considerably higher than that for the next riskiest occupations in the United States during a similar period (4 per 100,000 for female liquor store workers and 29 per 100,000 for male taxicab drivers).[3] However, there are substantial differences in rates of victimization between street prostitutes and indoor prostitutes who work as escorts, call girls, or in brothels and massage parlors..... wikki

[QUOTE=rockerrick;1053028206]Speaking of people posting on here and making NO sense :
First off he didn't take out a gun and shoot her in the throat , he shot at a fleeing suspect escaping in a car , missed and shrapnel hit her in the throat !
Second off if he did something that made her scared give the money back and leave , or ............. Oh well .
Third the law didn't require it be an aggravated assault , just the theft of property was enough .

All of which she or anyone in that position could have avoided , don't steal people's money. Sooooo knowing all this are you gonna run out with someone's cash ? Well you haven't made too much sense thus far , maybe ?

Oh good god, he took out a gun and shot at someone which effectively ended her life. No too much else that is pertinent here.

"She chose to bolt with his cash , and look where she is now !" You sound like a twelve year old on steroids. I have no interest in going rounds with an idiot. Do you also have a big presence on yahoo comments. Or was that crowd too bright for you? Adios.

By sweetie I'll be missing all your super duper intelligent comments ! Hahahahahaha !

We shall all have to simply agree to disagree on this one.

Some view it as some guy shooting a provider over $150 period.

Others see it (As did the jury) as a victim unwilling to sit back and do nothing while a thief drove off with his property regardless of the amount. I'm not sure why folks keep bringing up the $150 amount as if $100,000 would have made the shooting any more righteous.

He didn't like getting scammed and acted according to his own principles or might have reacted out of anger or both.

Forget this self alert BS. Any provider who thinks this girl's actions were not tantamount to playing with fire is a provider I would just as soon avoid.

In fact remember this well. Don't even think about coming to my place if you're planning on ripping me off.

Don't get me wrong as every provider who has met me has commented on how peaceful a spirit I seem. I keep my home environment just as peaceful.

That being said I won't shoot you but I won't lay down like many wimps do for you or your pimp either. I make a lousy choice if you're looking for your next victim.

I am speaking from an experience about ten years ago with two chronicle hoes and their redneck pimp who tried to cash and dash me but that is another story.

I'll say this much. I got my money back before the pickup peeled rubber down the street. It was the pimp who was doing the shaking not me. I was extremely calm but very direct.

For me it was a matter of principle not the $300 they tried to steal. Now I am older and wiser so who knows how I'd respond. I would like to think I'm wiser at choosing those I associate with so it's a moot point.

As I stated early on he should NOT have shot her but I understand.

Good riddance to the filthy thief. And fuck the media for omitting important info..... too bad they cant spread their bullshit to the jury. Too bad the poor hobbyist had to deal with this.

It seems like a lot of people have lost perspective. It is tragic this woman died. I don't know all the facts, so it is hard to have a strong opinion either way. Unlike the OJ or Jodi Arias trials--in which the facts were well known to everyone--I am guessing no one on here knows the evidence the jury heard. They acquitted. Unless we know more, it seems there is no room for outrage either way.

To make a fair comparison, would you be outraged if you read about a black man who mugged a guy and got shot while running away with the man's wallet? Or what about a man who walks into a convenience store, robs the place, and gets shot by the cashier while running out of the store? What if it were two men who broke into the guy's house at night, stole money from his safe, and they got shot by him while running down his driveway with the cash? Or, to bring it closer to home, what if her pimp came in, grabbed the money from the guy and started to run out with it and the guy shot him?

I am guessing--although maybe I'm wrong--that no one would be too outraged by any of the scenarios I just presented. But, they are all pretty functionally equivalent to what she did. IF -- and I know this is a big IF -- she really did take his money and leave without providing services she impliedly or directly promised him, then it's not really any different than the situations I describe above. The jury appears to have believed that's what happened and, perhaps logically and fairly, looked at it just like one of the scenarios I described above. If that's the case, I would argue they were actually being unprejudiced and non-discriminatory by treating her the same way they would a male robber. In fact, if you would not be genuinely outraged if the pimp had come in, taken the money, and been the one to be shot, then I would argue YOU are being discriminatory and biased toward women.

OK, enough from me. There may be some providers out there who will never see me because of this post, but I stand by it. I think my logic is sound. :-)

The scenarios you present are all robbery not theft. This case was a theft. The dead escort did not rob the defendant. Guys please read the law books before you attempt to make a comparison or analogy...

I agree, she shouldn't have gone in with a plan to take his money and leave. She had an opportunity to return it and did not. Unfortunately he used a gun but the court system acquitted him, like it or not.

She paid for her "mistake" with her life. I would hope no other escort goes into a man's residence attempting the same thing because somewhere out there, there is another guy who will do the same thing. Don't think he is the only one!

It seems like a lot of people have lost perspective. It is tragic this woman died. I don't know all the facts, so it is hard to have a strong opinion either way. Unlike the OJ or Jodi Arias trials--in which the facts were well known to everyone--I am guessing no one on here knows the evidence the jury heard. They acquitted. Unless we know more, it seems there is no room for outrage either way.

To make a fair comparison, would you be outraged if you read about a black man who mugged a guy and got shot while running away with the man's wallet? Or what about a man who walks into a convenience store, robs the place, and gets shot by the cashier while running out of the store? What if it were two men who broke into the guy's house at night, stole money from his safe, and they got shot by him while running down his driveway with the cash? Or, to bring it closer to home, what if her pimp came in, grabbed the money from the guy and started to run out with it and the guy shot him?

I am guessing--although maybe I'm wrong--that no one would be too outraged by any of the scenarios I just presented. But, they are all pretty functionally equivalent to what she did. IF -- and I know this is a big IF -- she really did take his money and leave without providing services she impliedly or directly promised him, then it's not really any different than the situations I describe above. The jury appears to have believed that's what happened and, perhaps logically and fairly, looked at it just like one of the scenarios I described above. If that's the case, I would argue they were actually being unprejudiced and non-discriminatory by treating her the same way they would a male robber. In fact, if you would not be genuinely outraged if the pimp had come in, taken the money, and been the one to be shot, then I would argue YOU are being discriminatory and biased toward women.

OK, enough from me. There may be some providers out there who will never see me because of this post, but I stand by it. I think my logic is sound. :-) Originally Posted by yunguyus

Actually, only the first two are robbery (assumed to be, because "mugged" and "rob" imply the use of force or threat of harm, even though I did not indicate explicitly). The last two do not have any use of threat of harm or force, so they would not be robbery per se (see Texas Penal Code 29.02).

So, I stand by the examples! :-)

No. The last two examples are burglary of a habitation and the law specifically states you can use deadly force for unlawful entry into your home.

Again not a parallel example, she was invited in.

So sexyash should have at least one bounty on her head.

to me the legalities are not important.. it is crazy to shoot someone over a small amount of $$$ even if you know its "legal"
I got took in a hobby scam 20 years ago in Northern VA.. just chalked it up to experience.. another hobbyist encountered the same thing like a month later.. and went back to the "incall" with an AR15 shot up the place!
I'm pretty liberal on shooting people that are using violence, but for small amounts of money and "things" you will probably wish you had just walked away later when your in jail and court and paying lawyers

Ok, first thing first fuck shooting someone for money. And if your pride is so important that you cant handle charging a buck fifty to the game rethink your spot in this fucked system. This guy cost himself how much in fees to get this acquittal. Lady you can have my buck fifty and keep your life. Tell you what I'll put out an alert here so no other guys get ripped off. And when you look back at your life do you like what you see. Remember all those times you scammed some one are you happy?

Ok if she was not a thief. People are fucked. We all know this. Everyone here understands we live in a world where people get shot for nothing more than showing up. Kids get shot from random wild shots all the time. Death is the price we pay for living. I just said that if it was theft the guy shouldn't have killed her. So if she wasn't my opinion obviously doesn't change.

Then on to the jury in my opinion they saw it as they did and ruled so. But a jury is made of people and I pointed out above people are fucked. Not only that they don't have to pass a iq test to be jurors. So we have a case where obviously there is some confusing points about the law. We entrust johnny asshat and Jane whatever with understanding these points of the law. Tell all you guys what I talk to hundreds of people a day and I trust half of them to understand the difference between a adjective and an adverb without Google's help. Even less to understand the law or follow it being explained to them. So maybe they got it wrong seems likely to happen.

And lastly we all know the system fails people everyday . And maybe this guy felt he had no recourse. Well he is an asshole who would knowingly shoot someone for a bill 50. So fuck him too. So what have we learned from Johnny nothing. Fuck thieves fuck murders fuck not being able to trust the courts. And most importantly fuck me( please) this whole situation is fucked the girl thief or no thief I feel bad for her but we never know what step is going to kill us. The guy he's fucked out of money and a fucking asshole to boot so he's fucked the system is fucked yet Johnny remains unfucked ( again please). So yeah both sides of this argument there is no winner here. We should stop trying to be right and realize no matter what side your on everyone lost its only arguing should some one deserve to lose more?


Johnny