Jury acquits escort shooter

http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/local...er-4581027.php

Found this to be interesting...

And a lot more than the 150$ he was chasing. Know your outcall guests people.

what does the article mean by "nighttime theft"? is that literally theft that occurs at night? or code for something else?

"So I gave this girl 150 to have sex with me but she wouldn't so I shot her."

Makes me wonder what type of people the jurors were. Freaking cold hearted.

It's never a good MO to go around ripping people off, but damn!

what does the article mean by "nighttime theft"? is that literally theft that occurs at night? or code for something else? Originally Posted by Chung Tran

The cunt stole his cash $$ property and she fled. He has a right to use deadly force. Lmao

Texas Law is very liberal when it comes to protection of “things” ie property.

what does the article mean by "nighttime theft"? is that literally theft that occurs at night? or code for something else? Originally Posted by Chung Tran

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...E/htm/PE.9.htm

Texas law allows for deadly force to be used to protect property in some circumstances. On of the elements required for a particular circumstance is that a theft occurred during the night:

Sec. 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.

Not condoning the outcome but how is she still being called an escort and not just a thief?

Not condoning the outcome but how is she still being called an escort and not just a thief? Originally Posted by Brandofan

Simple. Makes the jury more sympathetic. Had she just been a random date off Tinder, it would have been much harder for him to be acquitted. Painting the girl not only as a thief but as a "hooker"... well, that makes it easier for the average juror to look at her as less than human.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...E/htm/PE.9.htm

Texas law allows for deadly force to be used to protect property in some circumstances. On of the elements required for a particular circumstance is that a theft occurred during the night: Originally Posted by Crock

Which is horrible law. As this case demonstrates.

Not condoning the outcome but how is she still being called an escort and not just a thief? Originally Posted by Brandofan

Becausevto call her a thief presumes that she agreed to have sex for money, which she probably didn’t explicitly agree to do.

Which is horrible law. As this case demonstrates. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I've got mixed feelings about it.

I grew up in another state where property crime was much, much higher than it is here. Breaking into houses was almost normal for teenagers to do. People really feel secure in their homes here. This law is part of what enables that security.

That said, I can't help but feel that taking someone's life for a few hundred bucks is a horrible shame.

Becausevto call her a thief presumes that she agreed to have sex for money, which she probably didn’t explicitly agree to do. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

From what I read, I thought it was pretty clear that she was a provider. I didn't think there was a question about that.

There's definitely a giant gray area here, legally.

Ethically, it can be looked at in very simple terms: The lady always controls her body. If she consensually contracts to let someone else use her body for a fee, that's her decision. If she changes her mind after the contract, that's fine (not great for business, perhaps, but absolutely her decision to make), but she must return the fee. To not return it is theft. For the man to proceed with use of her body after she changes her mind is rape. If, after the contract is made and the deed is done (consensually), the man doesn't pay, then it is theft.

Wow.... He should have been sent to death row... Never, ever point a gun at something or someone whom you don't intend to kill... And only use deadly force when your safety is threatened... Stay safe ladies!!!

...only use deadly force when your safety is threatened... Stay safe ladies!!! Originally Posted by mellobugler

not condoning any actions, however, that clearly is not how texas law is written, or interpreted by the court

I bet if she would've shot him for raping her (if say, a rape had occurred) they would've locked her up.

Betcha they would've.

Bullshit...and I'm going to leave it there.

Probably all his relatives on the jury.