Its ok to kill a hooker if she does not provide for you in Texas

Please forgive me, but I did not answer your question; you asked it out of a surmise that was not only self serving, but was also terribly, terribly unsound. Originally Posted by Luxury Daphne

"Self serving"??? I am missing something here. In what way was my question self serving? In what way was it fundamentally different than your question?

You asked how much would justify shooting someone and I gave you my answer--which others on here obviously do not agree with.

I reversed the question and asked how little before it would not justify shooing someone.

just making the attempt would be justifiable under the conditions.

I agree. I have no sympathy for her at all. You steal and end up getting killed, I'm not shocked at all. Hell if this guy came to Houston, I'd see him and I am sure I would live to tell about it. Originally Posted by Brooke Wild

I do have sympathy for her. It was a life cut short (is that possible if you believe in what I call Ka, or destiny?) by sheer stupidity on both of their parts. Her behaviour had as much to play in getting hurt as the bullet he shot that lodged in her.

"Self serving"??? I am missing something here. In what way was my question self serving? In what way was it fundamentally different than your question?

You asked how much would justify shooting someone and I gave you my answer--which others on here obviously do not agree with.

I reversed the question and asked how little before it would not justify shooing someone.
Originally Posted by Old-T

Out of all I said, that is all you got out of it. I cannot have an intelligent conversation with you.

just making the attempt would be justifiable under the conditions. Originally Posted by dreamvacationdates

Someone gets it.

Filth begats filth. If you live dirty, don't be surprised when you demise in a mess.

I am going to say what I'm sure a lot of providers, and men, must be thinking of this. That the safety of providers has gone down several notches, and that if someone hurts you or shoots you dead in the streets (or in the bedroom) there is no reprecussion. That crazies ( who are already out there mind you, and crazy already) will see this and you are now easier to prey upon.

You are no more safe, or in danger, as you EVER were. If he had been found guilty, you would be NO more safer than you are now. This is no surprise. In society's eyes, we are on one of the lowest rungs on the ladder.

Handle yourself, assert yourself, give the same respect that you demand, and don't fuck people over, and take care of yourself not just your appearance. That will drop your chances of being hurt way more than any court precedence ever will.

If 12 jurors found him not guilty, seeing as they had evidence put before them whereas we do not, I do not disagree with them.. I have no reason to, because after reading the court records (public record for those who love conjecture) I do believe that it took two to tango. She just lost. Then again, she came looking for battle. Same way I agreed with the first OJ jurors though I always felt he did it, and the same way I agreed with the next 12 jurors for sending his ass away forever.

Nobody won. It's just that her Ka (destiny) has finished. His has not.

"Self serving"??? I am missing something here. In what way was my question self serving? In what way was it fundamentally different than your question?

You asked how much would justify shooting someone and I gave you my answer--which others on here obviously do not agree with.

I reversed the question and asked how little before it would not justify shooing someone. Originally Posted by Old-T

Out of all I said, that is all you got out of it. I cannot have an intelligent conversation with you. Originally Posted by Luxury Daphne

No, that is the part of your post I do not follow. The rest of it I understood--don't fully agree with, but understand--so there was no point to ask about those other parts. If you imply that we can only have an intelligent conversation if I agree with you, then you are correct.

No, that is the part of your post I do not follow. The rest of it I understood--don't fully agree with, but understand--so there was no point to ask about those other parts. If you imply that we can only have an intelligent conversation if I agree with you, then you are correct. Originally Posted by Old-T

No, I imply that that I can only have an intelligent conversation with that understands that I was not justifying his actions, or that I feel that I feel like it is justifiable to shoot anyone over any amount of money when your life or someone else's is not in danger.
You did and are still making this about you and your point of view. You cannot fight a blind man swinging, all you can do is either kick him down to the ground and end it, or watch him swing aimlessly at the darkness.

If you had really read what I wrote, you would know that my comment (question really) was not one of justification of his actions, but rather of the jury's for finding him not guilty. There is a deeper lesson to this other than 'any john is allowed to kill you if you don't perform or do what he wants'. It is a lesson of being right with the world. The wheel within the wheel. But you wish to argue the former, which is not only a very subjective slippery slope, but irrelevant to my original point.

Therefore I dismissed the engagement. I often find that those who I do not always agree with me and my point of view are those that I learn the most from. You can only parlay if both parties are on the same page in the book of discussion. We are not, hence the dismissal. Just because you post things in color and italics does not mean that it is more crackerjack than any other.

No, I imply that that I can only have an intelligent conversation with that understands that I was not justifying his actions, or that I feel that I feel like it is justifiable to shoot anyone over any amount of money when your life or someone else's is not in danger.
You did and are still making this about you and your point of view. You cannot fight a blind man swinging, all you can do is either kick him down to the ground and end it, or watch him swing aimlessly at the darkness.

If you had really read what I wrote, you would know that my comment (question really) was not one of justification of his actions, but rather of the jury's for finding him not guilty. There is a deeper lesson to this other than 'any john is allowed to kill you if you don't perform or do what he wants'. It is a lesson of being right with the world. The wheel within the wheel. But you wish to argue the former, which is not only a very subjective slippery slope, but irrelevant to my original point.

Therefore I dismissed the engagement. I often find that those who I do not always agree with me and my point of view are those that I learn the most from. You can only parlay if both parties are on the same page in the book of discussion. We are not, hence the dismissal. Just because you post things in color and italics does not mean that it is more crackerjack than any other. Originally Posted by Luxury Daphne

You really seem to be looking for things to pick at. I often post in blue italics when I am responding to a quote--or multiple quotes in one post--because to makes it easier to differentiate between what "the other person" said and what I am saying. Certainly not because it is a subliminal message that I think my ideas are any better than anyone else's. Actually I started doing it because a lady got upset that my extended commentaries were hard to follow--and this approach seemed to make it clearer. Nothing more complex than that.

But I think we have gotten to the point that you will read anything I post and decide I am attacking you or in some other way seeking to annoy you. I am not. I have expressed my opinion and now you have expressed yours. Having explained yours a bit more I don't think that we are that far apart, so I do not know why you are seemingly so upset--I know I was a bit puzzled by your posts, but never upset. Believe me, if I WAS upset at you it would be FAR more obvious. I try very hard not to be too curmudgeonly on this board.

She did not steal, you dopes. She was there 2/3 of her time before he got irate and she justifiably left, to which he pulled out an AK-47 and shot her. Originally Posted by Cowboyfan74

I respectfully disagree with a couple of points here, first she did try to steal from him, but she shouldn't have lost her life because of it. But really let's all be honest, when most hobbiest see a provider, we have a service in mind, not just time and companionship. Now I know there are some who do, but most don't. I agree with one point in that he should go to prison, 150 bucks is not worth the life of that person or anyone else.

I understand where you are coming from, but it doesn't matter what the customer may want or what the status quo is; what matters is what the law is.

In Texas, if you are an escort and you specifically sell any sex act, you will get arrested.
This verdict says, in Texas, if you are an escort and you do not sell any sex acts, take the money and you leave -- the very thing you are legally permitted to do, the customer may legally shoot and kill you.

So, Texas is sending the message to escorts -- have sex with customers and go to jail or don't and we can legally kill you.

No it means if your going to do stupid shit at night like cash and dash you can get killed
don't do stupid shit!!!
not the first time she's done it, but it was her last.
I am quite sure anyone thinking about doing the same, will think long and hard about the consequences.

It is obvious, many of you don't have experience with the type of people you take up for. These are the people who will do anything to get a dollar. They care nothing about whether you live or die; only what they can take from you. They often kill each other. This girl was not what we would even classify as an escort on this site. If you are streetwise, you will stay far, far away from them. They will deceive you, extort from you, break into your home, steal your wallet (and not care that you have to replace your drivers license and cancel credit cards). They care not what damage they do to you, your house, or your car. I am tired of this pity party for a thug. What I am sorry about is how she chose to live her life.
The jury's decision does not create "open season" on escorts. We are not going to be out to kill you. When street hoodlums and gangsters live by the sword, they will die by the sword. If you treat others honestly and respectfully, you will generally be treated the same in return. You say escorts are the lowest rung on the ladder, but I can guarantee that law enforcement has spent some long hours with few clues tracking down those who have tortured and murdered innocent escorts.
Take the case of Casey Jo Pipestem from Oklahoma. Her story is on the internet. I was with her several times and thought the world of her. She never hurt or stole from anyone, yet someone destroyed her life. You have no idea how many hours I spent shedding agonizing tears over her. She was thrown naked from a bridge in Grapevine, TX. Detectives worked long and hard to find her killer. She was so battered, she was only identified by a tattoo. One of the detectives said she had an "infectious smile". Her murderer is in prison, unless some idiot judge has granted parole.

Wow, I have not been on here in a while and this is the first thread I see.... Horrible.... 150.00??? that's someone's life ... Just sad

The jury found him innocent of "murder". Had he been charged with "manslaughter" or "homicide", the same jury would surely would have found him guilty.

"Murder" is a very specific type of killing - if a homeowner shoots a perceived thief on his property, it is not murder because the homeowner is justified in using deadly force to protect her home.

It's sad that the woman is dead, and surely the jury took her profession into account when they gave their verdict, but when you get down to brass tacks, the prosecution probably knew that by charging him with murder, he would be found innocent.

Your point is well taken. However, I think it's important to point out that the Court did not interpret anything. In fact, 12 human beings, seated in the Jury box, applied the law (written by Legislators in Austin) to the facts and, applying the burden of proof required under the Constitution in order to find someone guilty and put him in the Penitentiary, acquitted him - so, did these 12 individuals determine that he was truly innocent and without fault? I seriously doubt it. Did they find that the State did not meet its Constitutional burden of proof? Maybe. Did they find there was a single reasonable doubt presented in Court? Apparently. Point is, 12 individuals decided that man's fate, based on everything they saw, heard, and were allowed to infer. It happens every day in all 50 States, the exact same way. So, we can bitch about the law until our faces turn blue; we can cop-out and call it the "ignorant dumbass Texas red-neck way;" we can use it as a pulpit for the degradation of women and providers, or try and make it unreasonable using contracts law, or turn the woman who was shot into a martyr. But when you boil it down to its raw core, the fact remains: if you use the promise of sex to set someone up for a cash and dash, that's ..... well, that's robbery. No matter who you are. Originally Posted by Roguejet

Since this was a justified killing, manslaughter wouldve been tossed as well. George Zimmerman's charges will be tossed regardless of the fact as well.

If you dont like Texas gun laws, you might move to a place where self defense is allowed and criminals run wild with no fear of retribution from anyone. Try Chicago or New York city. Originally Posted by natasteewsym

Sorry to disappoint you, but according to the most recent census data I could find:

Murder rates per 100,000 / Rape rates per 100,000:

DALLAS, TX 12.9 / 37.6
HOUSTON, TX 12.6 / 36.2
SAN ANTONIO, TX 7.2 / 45.7
NEW YORK CITY, NY 5.6 / 9.9

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0309.pdf Originally Posted by Old-T

Since this was a justified killing, manslaughter wouldve been tossed as well. George Zimmerman's charges will be tossed regardless of the fact as well. Originally Posted by natasteewsym

Welcome back, resident blood thirsty vigilante. Now why don't you either explain why the census data I quoted above is wrong (I'm sure you can find some wacked out excuse), or apologize for your typical Good Ol Boy slander of 10 million people or so. I doubt you will do either since you are little swayed by facts (above) or much else. You want the right to blow people away for the fun of it and probably spend time reading through the laws to try and find other loopholes where you can justify doing it. Reading your posts here and on other threads I suspect you need to hide your Eccie persona before any lady would see you. You are a very dangerous person.