OMFG TEXAS guy kills escort and aquitted

http://gawker.com/texas-says-its-ok-...have-511636423

Killed a thief , you have to actually provide service to be an escort .

what if she was a fbsm girl and stated such? the courts would call that escort and who knows what she offered, maybe fetish or fbsm but NOT FS> in any case there is no DEATH penalty for being a ripoff escort.

I agree with Rick on the fact she stole his money, now I dont think shooting her is good either,, cost him a lot more than $150 in the long run.. but I was not on the jury and I do not know all the details...nor frankly do I care

Does this mean if a mechanic rips me off by claiming he did imaginary repairs and "replaced" a perfectly good onboard computer and won't give the old one back, I can shoot him? (Is it retroactive?)

That's about how much sense this makes.

Fancy no because that was A MAN! This is sexism pure and simple. She had no value.

Does this mean if a mechanic rips me off by claiming he did imaginary repairs and "replaced" a perfectly good onboard computer and won't give the old one back, I can shoot him? (Is it retroactive?)

That's about how much sense this makes.
Originally Posted by Fancyinheels

According to the article only at night

10 to 1 the judge is a hobbyist who's been burned before.

I have a feeling theres a lot more to that story than what is being written

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 .

The MySA take: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...er-4581027.php

Does this mean if a mechanic rips me off by claiming he did imaginary repairs and "replaced" a perfectly good onboard computer and won't give the old one back, I can shoot him? (Is it retroactive?)

That's about how much sense this makes.
Originally Posted by Fancyinheels

First off, this is a bad decision.

Second, he got off based on the "theft during the nighttime" clause.

"(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."


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

With the mechanic, you have the chance of recovering your money by other means, i.e. a lawsuit.

He got away on the theory that she was stealing his money, not because she refused to provide the services agreed upon. (Like I said, stupid jury.)



Before anyone else gets a similar idea:

1) It sounds like it was a close call on the jury. It took them 11 hours of deliberation. You can't count on getting another insane jury. It is disturbing that eventually, 12 jurors agreed on "not guilty." I'm guessing that a few psycho jurors browbeat the others into voting "not guilty" to get out of the courtroom instead of doing the right thing and refusing to agree to the wrong verdict. If so, they should have stuck to their beliefs and ended up with a hung jury. Then the prosecutor could have tried the case again.

2) You have to meet a number of conditions before you can use the "theft" defense, including nighttime, fleeing, and unlikely to recover.

3) It's going to be a whole lot more expensive to push the issue this way.

4) Your odds of getting a jury to acquit are going to be real low.

5) A jury verdict is not a legal precedent. A judge didn't rule that you can shoot an escort who doesn't put out. A jury decided there wasn't guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in one particular case. This verdict isn't going to carry any particular weight in a similar case. A jury verdict doesn't set a precedent for future cases. Only judge's rulings on specific issues do that. (I'm sure the technical legal theory is more complicated than that, but I think the idea is correct.)

6) It bears repeating: There was no decision that it's OK to shoot an escort who won't deliver.

This was ONE jury deciding the case wasn't sufficiently strong in ONE particular incident in one particular set of circumstances.


7) Also, "Texas" didn't decide it's OK to shoot an escort who didn't put out. 12 people off the street decided not to convict one particular guy. Just because a jury decides not to convict one guy who does something doesn't mean the next guy who does the same thing will escape conviction.

To stretch the analogy further, if you decide to shoot a dishonest mechanic, and the jury decides to ignore the law and acquit because "he needed killin," that doesn't mean the next guy who shoots a mechanic will escape prosecution and conviction.

It's certainly not something that should be used to condone violence against any one. The man made it look like he had been robbed and exploited a loophole, similar to the stand your ground case.

in a situation where someone takes your money and runs, yes this is lawful

in his situation she was still in his house and must have done something (some service) to feel like it was okay to stand around and reject his refund. Also sex is never guaranteed or discussed in escorting, especially on crackdown sites like craigslist, how was this legally binding?

My ex-mechanic lives yet another day. Dammit.

Seriously, this is about the most insane defense I've ever heard of, and 12 people and a judge bought it? No wonder attorneys get such bad reputations. The provider was scamming him, yes, and that was flat out wrong, but I didn't read where she did anything violent. He wasn't being threatened. She deserved to be punished appropriate to the crime. To think this guy AND a jury would basically toss her whole existence away for $150 and a subjective interpretation of a property law makes me ill. The God this cretin thanked after the "not guilty" verdict would not approve.

The judge could have tossed out the verdict, but no. It's my understanding that now, no matter how many people protest, he can't be put in double jeopardy by being retried unless new evidence is uncovered. That leaves a civil suit as the only recourse. So.... can the escort's driver/pimp sue the dude for damaging his personal property, for taking away his livelihood, and for emotional pain and suffering?

Ye Gods.

As Chris Rock said about OJ. "I don't think he should have killed her .......... but I understand".