OMFG TEXAS guy kills escort and aquitted

I find it amazing that this joker has 51 reviews.

SOOO....What IF the tables are turned and the guy leaves at night without paying for services received....does the provider have the legal right to shoot him?

After all...HE has stolen services that he did not pay for and SHE would only be trying to recoup her losses.


Something to think about guys!!

Based upon the legal reasoning based upon this court case I would think she would have the right to use deadly force since it can also be defined as theft.

SOOO....What IF the tables are turned and the guy leaves at night without paying for services received....does the provider have the legal right to shoot him?

After all...HE has stolen services that he did not pay for and SHE would only be trying to recoup her losses.


Something to think about guys!! Originally Posted by Touchlush

I don't see how anyone can view this as a justifiable homicide. But the problem here isn't the judge or the jury, nor does it have much to do with who the victim was or her line of work. The problem here is a law that fails to require a credible threat to justify a shooting, and a legislature that has a large contingent of lawmakers - and a state that has a large contingent of voters - that would like to see a return to the wild west, don't trust the courts and glorify vigilante justice.

Don't get your panties in a bunch , if it had been a client skipping out without paying my opinion would be the same . Thief ! Personally I'd rather see them shot than supply them 3 hots and a cot , on cash taken out of my paycheck . Originally Posted by rockerrick

SOOO....What IF the tables are turned and the guy leaves at night without paying for services received....does the provider have the legal right to shoot him?

After all...HE has stolen services that he did not pay for and SHE would only be trying to recoup her losses.


Something to think about guys!! Originally Posted by Touchlush

Already answered , a thief is a thief ! Try that in Saudi Arabia , they are not real liberal on thieves there .

I find it amazing that this joker has 51 reviews. Originally Posted by Rambro Creed

Hahaha and I get appts with ease ! Actually it's 57 but only those in Austin know the reason for that .
That's really gonna fuck with your mind next time you hear NBA huh ?

I hope the women on this board are reading carefully and taking note. It is a true shame that the men here can be so utterly disrespectful and disgusting. Luckily I know from experience that the opinions voiced here are in the minority of boys turning to P4P, but damn...do y'all really hate women this much? I shudder at the realization that I have previously accepted donations from men who would shrug their shoulders let alone condone such an account (or outcome of one). Originally Posted by JennsLolli

There is nothing disrespectful speaking their opinion. If so your opinion can also be labelled disrespectful as well. I can't find any person here who hates women, what I see are strong opinions about hating thieves.

Believe me, as many times as any of you boys have been ripped off, any provider has been ripped off at least twice as much. Consider it a risk of dealing within an informal market. It's scary and shady as fuck out there so show a little love for the women who welcome strangers into their incalls day after day. If you get scammed, just be happy you didn't get arrested. Right? Originally Posted by JennsLolli

I do agree it is a risk for both, this guy took it further and a jury acquitted him. In the end it cost him probably in the tens of thousands of dollars. On this incident it was an outcall to his residence. Something I am sure a jury considered in their verdict. If you believe you're taking a risk inviting unknown men into your incall, don't do incall, or get a "real" job where you don't have such a risk. Of course you'll take a pay cut i imagine. The risk you take is commensurate with your income. In this particular case so was her's. scam as many people as you can at $150 a time and assume nobody will resort to violence to get it back. Is there a much larger risk associated with OUTCALL and RIPPING OFF than what you provide? Absolutely there was. If your business model was ripping men off, it's a law of averages. The more you rip off the odds increase you'll meet a guy like this one. Which is unfortunate but it demonstrates probability.

Pro-tip: the more you love women and the harder you work to respect them, the more rewarding your sex-life will be. Want to be a better lover? Be a goddamn feminist. Originally Posted by JennsLolli

I assume you mean in one's real-life relationships. I think when the money runs out you ladies aren't so willing to be better lovers......just a fact.

This isn't about a male's right to deliver disproportionate punishment to a female provider. It is about a thief and a victim period. People who make a living by doing bad things to other people eventually have something far worse happen to them. Simple as that.

No one here is happy a young lady was shot, suffered and lost her life. The bottom line is she chose to screw people over for a living and paid the ultimate price for it.

While I do feel it is tragic and sad that a young lady ended up going down this path she did so at her own choosing.

Lesson: If you want to dramatically decrease the odds of falling victim to tragic violence don't go around fucking strangers over for a living.

If a woman walked into a bank and quietly whispers to the teller "Hand me all the money in the drawer NOW or else". She then attempts to leave the bank ignoring several demands to stop by the guard.

She then jumps into a waiting car. She will most assuredly be shot on the scene as that is the only recourse left to stop the robbery. The guard won't even be tried as that is his job.

There is NO difference between the two scenarios other than one male is protecting a banks assets as a last resort and the other male is protecting his personal assets as a last resort.

Stop bitching about imaginary haters advocating violence toward women. Exercise a little common sense and stay focused on the actual topic at hand which is theft and the prevention of theft. Gender has nothing to do with it.

If the thief were a gay guy you people would be screaming "Prejudice and violence toward Gays".

Cody your example above is an example of a robbery not a theft. In your example a demand for cash was made with a threat of harm. That is completely different than the scenario in the case where the dead girl did not make a threat to get the money, nor does it appear a threat was ever made by her. She was given the money voluntarily, it was not obtained via a threat or a demand. Legally there is a huge difference, because if someone is robbed there is no question Texas law allows one to use a gun to defend themselves.

This was a theft, a shaky theft due to the nature of the business deal itself (an implication of sex for money), and thus a very gray area.

Cody your example above is an example of a robbery not a theft. In your example a demand for cash was made with a threat of harm. That is completely different than the scenario in the case where the dead girl did not make a threat to get the money, nor does it appear a threat was ever made by her. She was given the money voluntarily, it was not obtained via a threat or a demand. Legally there is a huge difference, because if someone is robbed there is no question Texas law allows one to use a gun to defend themselves.

This was a theft, a shaky theft due to the nature of the business deal itself (an implication of sex for money), and thus a very gray area. Originally Posted by boobs mcgee

Interesting I was unaware of the difference between robbery and theft. So let's try this scenario.

The woman without saying a word smiles and hands the teller three benjis to be changed for twenties. The teller counts out and puts the twenties on the counter but after the woman picks up the twenties the teller realizes that something is not right about the bills and calls security over. The teller should have checked the bills more closely before putting twenties on counter but didn't this particular day.

The woman bolts out the door ignoring several warnings and jumps into waiting car and gets shot.

No threat or implied threat was ever used. In both cases there was the expectation of a voluntary monetary exchange. In both cases one party realized too late that they had been duped by the other party.

Is the guard within his right to shoot in order to stop the "Theft"?

Not a lawyer so I have to rely on google, but it looks like what you describe is listed under the forgery statutes of Texas law, and probably a federal law that mirrors it. Theft is covered in Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code. So I would say your example may not be "theft" because "forgery" has a different definition than "theft", but even if it is then it has to be "during the night time" and there is no other way to recover the money.

Sec. 32.21. FORGERY. (a) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Forge" means:
(A) to alter, make, complete, execute, or authenticate any writing so that it purports:
(i) to be the act of another who did not authorize that act;
(ii) to have been executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case; or
(iii) to be a copy of an original when no such original existed;
(B) to issue, transfer, register the transfer of, pass, publish, or otherwise utter a writing that is forged within the meaning of Paragraph (A); or
(C) to possess a writing that is forged within the meaning of Paragraph (A) with intent to utter it in a manner specified in Paragraph (B).
(2) "Writing" includes:
(A) printing or any other method of recording information;
(B) money, coins, tokens, stamps, seals, credit cards, badges, and trademarks; and
(C) symbols of value, right, privilege, or identification.
(b) A person commits an offense if he forges a writing with intent to defraud or harm another.
(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d), (e), and (e-1), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under this section is a state jail felony if the writing is or purports to be a will, codicil, deed, deed of trust, mortgage, security instrument, security agreement, credit card, check, authorization to debit an account at a financial institution, or similar sight order for payment of money, contract, release, or other commercial instrument.
(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the writing is or purports to be:
(1) part of an issue of money, securities, postage or revenue stamps;
(2) a government record listed in Section 37.01(2)(C); or
(3) other instruments issued by a state or national government or by a subdivision of either, or part of an issue of stock, bonds, or other instruments representing interests in or claims against another person.
(e-1) An offense under this section is increased to the next higher category of offense if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the offense was committed against an elderly individual as defined by Section 22.04.
(f) A person is presumed to intend to defraud or harm another if the person acts with respect to two or more writings of the same type and if each writing is a government record listed in Section 37.01(2)(C).

Interesting I was unaware of the difference between robbery and theft. So let's try this scenario.

The woman without saying a word smiles and hands the teller three benjis to be changed for twenties. The teller counts out and puts the twenties on the counter but after the woman picks up the twenties the teller realizes that something is not right about the bills and calls security over. The teller should have checked the bills more closely before putting twenties on counter but didn't this particular day.
The woman bolts out the door ignoring several warnings and jumps into waiting car and gets shot.
No threat or implied threat was ever used. Is the guard within his right to shoot in order to stop the "Theft"? Originally Posted by Codybeast

Hahaha and I get appts with ease ! Actually it's 57 but only those in Austin know the reason for that .
That's really gonna fuck with your mind next time you hear NBA huh ? Originally Posted by rockerrick

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. Absolutely, no sense in using force of that kind. Almost everyone who does this has been ripped off at some point. You move on. I was ripped off once, should I have run into the street and shot him in the back? I'm 99 percent sure that a jury of my peers would have convicted me, no problem. I wouldn't want to do it anyway as I am not a sociopath. This as money for services not rendered, not money she broke into his house and took. I think the mechanic analogy works perfectly. I recently had a repair, paid a good deal of money and they did not fix the problem. Well, service not rendered. Should I shoot him or be allowed too? Of course not. And, the whole he didn't have recourse in a court of law does justify anything. You don't get to shoot people in the event that you were treated unfairly. Good God. Except, it seems, in the case of a sex worker.

No matter how you look at it, $150 is not worth losing your life over. It is also not worth the stigma and cost of a murder trial defense. I see nothing accomplished here. She is dead and he will always be that guy that killed an escort.

Originally Posted by JennsLolli

Pro-tip: the more you love women and the harder you work to respect them, the more rewarding your sex-life will be. Want to be a better lover? Be a goddamn feminist.
__________________

I assume you mean in one's real-life relationships. I think when the money runs out you ladies aren't so willing to be better lovers......just a fact

This is off topic but everything in this thread has been off topic for a couple of pages, at least this is potentially positive, So:

No,it is possible and profitable too to be loving in your relationships with any one. Even if money is also involved. There is a formula that many people think is helpful to living a better life in a better society. It goes like this:
"Treat other people the way you would like for them to treat you." King James the 1st's translators thought it ought to go " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Some people, like men who march through life holding their cock in their hand and shouting obscenities to make themselves feel more manly, think that is a rule that they can get an advantage from not following. It actually is a guideline to make life better for everyone who follows it and everyone they deal with.

No, not a "trick" to get "free pussy". It is a way of behaving that potentially makes every interaction with other people, including sex workers in sessions, more enjoyable for everyone. Treat everyone with respect is part of it that works everywhere. Treat your paid companion as if you actually liked her. You might find, after you get used to this radical concept, only two thousand years old in written form, that you actually do like her, even if you did have to pay for her time. Sex with people you like is usually better than sex with people you do not like. If not still doesn't make sense - good luck to you and those who have to deal with you.

No it probably will not work on the two guys swinging around overhead in the trees, flinging feces and shouting about how manly they are. Here is something that will:
1. Click on their name in the left hand column
2. Click on "View Public Profile"
3. Click on "User Lists", its small print two lines down from their name
4. Click "Add to Ignore List"
5. Click "Yes" under the question "Are you sure you want to add (S Flinger) to your ignore list?
That's it. Notice how much quieter its is? I have 40 "gentleman" on ignore although quite a few of those seem to have gone silent. Got tired of shouting perhaps.

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