Gun and Escort

...Only in Texas. Originally Posted by brownsugarbaby

Actually not.

That section of the Texas Penal Code was crafted after the Model Penal Code, which is adopted by a lot of states in the United States.

What may be in play here, is what is considered ... "over charging" by the prosecution....playing on the theme that the dead woman is in a group of "victims" (as was said ... "forced into prostitution") and therefore was some how "innocent" of stealing his money.

Also the attorneys who defended him have a good reputation for quality work ...

.... and the quoted argument from the prosecutors (attributed to jury summation), if accurate, is ridiculously weak.

I will repeat my concern:

People will get the notion they can kill people to get back their money.....$150.

So, who thinks the shooter spent more than $150 to gain his freedom......I came home from playing golf one afternoon to find...actually hear.....intruders in my home...upstairs...I carry CHL...I checked the downstairs ...went upstairs...they had left through the media room window. HCSO comes out to take a report and we sit at my kitchen table to discuss the incident. I tell him I would not have shot them if they were fleeing. He tells me he would. The cost of defending your actions will far outweigh the replacement cost of any material item lost. Only if my life or the life of my family is threatened would I consider using a weapon.

In Texas the use of deadly force at night covers your home and your property. During the day time the use of deadly force only covers being inside your home. There is more to the story than is being reported. I am sorry for the woman who lost her life. He said he shot into the car and hit her instead of the pimp. I wish he would have got the pimp. I would not deal with CL, BP and now some more is added to my list. if a woman is totally independent and her choice that is one thing. I an going to step back now and verify that there is no pimp or manager involved. I am not going to support this. How can I know for sure that a provider is truly an independent.

The acquitted could have easily overpowered her (Unless he's a midget and she's a 6'4" Amazon.) and gotten his $150 back. Deadly force was not necessary, and in fact, if the thief was anything but a "whore" the jury would have agreed.

The acquitted could have easily overpowered her


.... and in fact, if the thief was anything but a "whore" the jury would have agreed. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

posted ..."He said he shot into the car and ...."

I guess he could have "overpowered" the car ...?

As for the last statement there is NO WAY you can draw that "fact" ....

Did the State call the only other witness? the pimp?

The cost of defending your actions will far outweigh the replacement cost of any material item lost. Only if my life or the life of my family is threatened would I consider using a weapon. Originally Posted by lostincypress

^^^^^^^^^This...
CHL holders have this reality drilled into them. It's a good thing.
Wannabe vigilantes don't understand until it's too late.

I wonder if this guy was a CHL holder. I doubt it.

What was the name of that old man who shot the thief robbing his next door neighbor........in broad daylight?

posted ..."He said he shot into the car and ...."

I guess he could have "overpowered" the car ...?

As for the last statement there is NO WAY you can draw that "fact" ....

Did the State call the only other witness? the pimp? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Sigh, before she drove off. Before it escelated to such extreams.

Yes, call the pimp. The State calls convicted felons as informers all the time.

Boardman, my guess is no, he wasn't licensed to carry a hand gun. Personally, I couldn't imagine rven trying to kill someone unless my family or I was cornered and in danger of our lives.

What was the name of that old man who shot the thief robbing his next door neighbor........in broad daylight? Originally Posted by dearhunter

Joe Horn

Sounds like a cash-and-dash, and they both chose poorly.

Wonder if he got a BJ at a social and she felt entitled to the money and dashed ?.... Heh...... That story would make a nice thread. Some hooktard and a couple tranny friends should start one about that.

Looks like an ace in the hole for the Pistorious defense team. If the Sheila is posing for nude photos and shaggin' the 'bow-legged' (get it?) fucker it's got to be for money. She ain't banging him cause of the long walks at sunset by the ocean!!!!! Or the way he looks into her eyes. Shit, he couldn't look past her knees.

No good reason to kill a woman who looked like that..... unless she dashed (right, following me here) or wait....... oh shit, her bio says she was a Law Graduate.... better defense yet....... ijs

.... my guess is .... Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Fill in the blanks.

I've already posted that shooting someone for $150 is WRONG, even if the factual circumstances are justified by statute. Additionally, I posted that IMO this thread ought not to have been started in the first place, BECAUSE some gunslinnging (CHL or nonCHL) would get it in the "brain" that "it is ok"!

But to speculate as to this or that ... to imbellish a political agenda or whatever is equally nonproductive ... I am familiar with the law firm who represented him and particularly "Sr." .... who, if I recall correctly, was a district court judge at one time. They are good.

Finally, having not heard all of the evidence OR the Judge's instructions presented to the Jury it is ... well, let's say "a stretch" for anyone to criticize the verdict.

Criticize the shooter for ... unnecessarily killing someone!

So, who thinks the shooter spent more than $150 to gain his freedom......I came home from playing golf one afternoon to find...actually hear.....intruders in my home...upstairs...I carry CHL...I checked the downstairs ...went upstairs...they had left through the media room window. HCSO comes out to take a report and we sit at my kitchen table to discuss the incident. I tell him I would not have shot them if they were fleeing. He tells me he would. The cost of defending your actions will far outweigh the replacement cost of any material item lost. Only if my life or the life of my family is threatened would I consider using a weapon. Originally Posted by lostincypress

I was told by HPD a long time ago when the CHL was being considered that if they are in your home unlawfully, SHOOT them.. then there is one story.. YOURS!

The cops have less paperwork and a small story is put in the paper about local home owner caught and killed burglars defending his property... hence a warning goes out to others who might want to try that area of town..

.. This woman didn't break in. She was invited into the residence. She was there "lawfully." As a consequence there was no "burglary" .... she was leaving and there was only $150 at stake ...

.. this incident is like someone barreling down on an intersection because the light is green and someone cuts the red light in front of the "green light" vehicle ... and the driver of the "green light" vehicle accelerates into a broadside collision with the "red light" vehicle .. because ... "he" had GREEN ... AND HE KILLS THE OTHER DRIVER.

Any way one dices this "thing" in SA .. it stinks.

..

.. This woman didn't break in. She was invited into the residence. She was there "lawfully." As a consequence there was no "burglary" .... she was leaving and there was only $150 at stake ...

.. this incident is like someone barreling down on an intersection because the light is green and someone cuts the red light in front of the "green light" vehicle ... and the driver of the "green light" vehicle accelerates into a broadside collision with the "red light" vehicle .. because ... "he" had GREEN ... AND HE KILLS THE OTHER DRIVER.

Any way one dices this "thing" in SA .. it stinks.

.. Originally Posted by LexusLover

They do not need to "break in" to be in your home unlawfully.

It is the old "breaking and entering" as opposed to "unlawful entry" difference is a locked door..

if she came in the house and took 150, that is theft of property... sure she can claim she was invited but if you shot and killed the thief that you determined was in your house unlawfully... her story does not matter now.

There is one side if this that is overlooked.. if the prosecutor can prove the two had a conversation about coming over then it would have proven she was invited in.

However: let's say you let someone into your house, say, the maid service...

she is cleaning your downstairs and you are upstairs chilling out..
you walk down to see her digging through your desk and taking things.. at that point she is no longer the maid, she is a thief. You can then LAWFULLY detain her for the cops that you call, and of course let her supervisor know what is going on. This would be the ideal thing... but once she leaves your house and is on your property, you have to pursue her to retrieve your property and that is what can be claimed.

I admit this story is a wild one but it has merit on the fact she was invited, was paid for sex, took the money and ran instead. the guy had to use "force" to get his $$$ back. Oh.. and lets say you get her photo, license plate etc.. everything the cops need to go arrest her, including where she lives etc... she was an escort.. the cops will look at you and say "tough cookies" and NOT pursue her because they do not like escorts so if a JOHN gets burned by one, they are not going to arrest her for theft... they MIGHT arrest him for admitting to solicitation / pandering....