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

In the sense that the "acceptable" punishment is way out of line with the crime--summary execution with no trial for stealing $150 or less--yes, I stand by my comment that Texas laws in this case are close to Islamic laws.

I do not believe anyone would claim that execution was an appropriate punishment. From what I have read the death was not intentional and my guess is that the guy would have loved a chance to relive that moment and make a different decision. I would guess that his ordeal is a good example to all that using a gun has very harsh consequences even if you do not go to jail. In this case his risk of a conviction was huge. However, it must be acknowledged that the thieves put themselves at risk and they are just as responsible for what happened.


Yes I can disagree, and in this case I do. If a 6 year old swipes some candy from my house at night and runs down the street I can shoot the robber (hyperbole of course)? Of course there is a gray area, but to me this example as far as I have seen the arguments, is not moral. Legal in Texas--apparently so; but not moral.

I sympathize with your concern here to a degree. The problem is where do you draw the line. Obviously a child stealing a candy bar is not justification. But an adult stealing money? How much money is enough? I think a jury is a good judge of that. A good example is the guy that shot his neighbor while he had a camera on recording him saying he is in fear of his life. A jury made the correct decision and threw his ass in jail. It is not possible to write a law that is perfect in every possible situation.

I sympathize with your concern here to a degree. The problem is where do you draw the line. Obviously a child stealing a candy bar is not justification. But an adult stealing money? How much money is enough? I think a jury is a good judge of that. Originally Posted by Laz

Laz's point about the jury is a good one. Here's the thing; I doubt that anyone on this site read the transcript of the trial. All we normally have access to are news reports and "talking head" opinions. I reckon (1) there are more than a few salient points and lots of evidence from the trial that never make the news (that's why there are juries deciding guilt, not reporters); (2) a good editor can report the "hard" news however he or she wants; (3) "talking heads" can take any position they want because they do not need to be either credible or accountable.

At the end of the day, we weren't in the courtroom, so all of our opinions are no more than the fucking opinions of people who don't know all the facts - and don't have the legal, moral and ethical responsibility of being accountable for our opinions.

So say whatever you want. It doesn't mean shit.

At least, that's my opinion.

Yet another classic example of how the media can fool their viewers but not the jury.

This article has left out a lot of crucial facts. The American public falls for it, over and over and over again.

Good riddance to little miss Cash N Dash. The only injustice here is that the poor hobbyist was crucified by an overzealous prosecutor.

Everyone is at fault here but the biggest loser at fault is the state of texas with their idiot laws. Originally Posted by waverunner234

I was conceived in Texas and raised in Texas by Texans.
I will agree that the laws here are idiotic.
The law allows me to use deadly force to stop somebody from stealing my hub caps at night.

But, during the day, I can't use ANY force at all to stop them from stealing my entire vehicle.

That IS idiotic and possibly why there are so many auto thefts.

If anybody comes on my property...day or night...and proceeds to take my property from me...whether its my vehicle or my cell phone charger...I should be legally allowed to stop them.

If more people were shot dead in Texas for stealing a GPS out of a vehicle....there would be a lot less people stealing a GPS out of vehicles. Hopefully those fearing to be stopped...and not so much because so many were caught and stopped.

And when I say stopped....you know what I mean.

Uhhh, whats so tragic about her death?

Yet another classic example of how the media can fool their viewers but not the jury.

This article has left out a lot of crucial facts. The American public falls for it, over and over and over again.

Good riddance to little miss Cash N Dash. The only injustice here is that the poor hobbyist was crucified by an overzealous prosecutor. Originally Posted by natasteewsym

Thank you for your public SPA.

I can't begin to imagine why any woman would ever feel safe being in a room alone with you.

Well, not by me.

Actually, lawyers and tax collectors are the lowest rungs.

. . . What are 500 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

A good start.

Overzealous prosecution and the fucktard had a well paid defense attorney. With a good defense attorney murderers in CA get off often, OJ and Robert Blake come to mind.

I was conceived in Texas and raised in Texas by Texans.
I will agree that the laws here are idiotic.
The law allows me to use deadly force to stop somebody from stealing my hub caps at night.

But, during the day, I can't use ANY force at all to stop them from stealing my entire vehicle.

That IS idiotic and possibly why there are so many auto thefts.

If anybody comes on my property...day or night...and proceeds to take my property from me...whether its my vehicle or my cell phone charger...I should be legally allowed to stop them.

If more people were shot dead in Texas for stealing a GPS out of a vehicle....there would be a lot less people stealing a GPS out of vehicles. Hopefully those fearing to be stopped...and not so much because so many were caught and stopped.

And when I say stopped....you know what I mean. Originally Posted by GlobeSpotter

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.

You both still completely miss the point that a contract for illegal services is not enforceable by law. Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

I didn't miss anything, but the jury did find him not guilty. Just for information's sake before we start going off on conjecture here.

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. Originally Posted by lostincypress

HD, Old Dingus, You are a pair of callous, chauvinistic, evil bastards— Originally Posted by Old-T

I am sarcastically fucin' around. I should have known it would be you who took the bait.

Like usual, you are full of yourself on a hooker board.

Yeah. Morally and legally superior. For sure.

Cry me a river.

Why not sign off permanently and go do missionary work?

You are the worst level of hypocrite.

Old Dingus

In the sense that the "acceptable" punishment is way out of line with the crime--summary execution with no trial for stealing $150 or less--yes, I stand by my comment that Texas laws in this case are close to Islamic laws.

I do not believe anyone would claim that execution was an appropriate punishment. From what I have read the death was not intentional and my guess is that the guy would have loved a chance to relive that moment and make a different decision. I would guess that his ordeal is a good example to all that using a gun has very harsh consequences even if you do not go to jail. In this case his risk of a conviction was huge. However, it must be acknowledged that the thieves put themselves at risk and they are just as responsible for what happened.


Yes I can disagree, and in this case I do. If a 6 year old swipes some candy from my house at night and runs down the street I can shoot the robber (hyperbole of course)? Of course there is a gray area, but to me this example as far as I have seen the arguments, is not moral. Legal in Texas--apparently so; but not moral.

I sympathize with your concern here to a degree. The problem is where do you draw the line. Obviously a child stealing a candy bar is not justification. But an adult stealing money? How much money is enough? I think a jury is a good judge of that. A good example is the guy that shot his neighbor while he had a camera on recording him saying he is in fear of his life. A jury made the correct decision and threw his ass in jail. It is not possible to write a law that is perfect in every possible situation.

Originally Posted by Laz

Good points. I agree there will always be judgment involved, and I completely agree both people are victims here.

I am sarcastically fucin' around. I should have known it would be you who took the bait.
Well now, I will try to point out a few things to you so maybe you don’t look quite so stupid and insensitive next time, though I doubt you will listen or let it soak in.

1) Claiming sarcasm after you have been called out on an insensitive, callous post is the last resort of a scoundrel.

2) When trying to be sarcastic it helps if you make it clear; based upon a number of your other posts on other threads you have shown a serious propensity to kill first and think later (if at all), so here it is exceedingly difficult to read sarcasm into your post.

3) Even if you really were trying to be funny, making light of people being killed and others facing a long prison sentence is in poor taste.


Like usual, you are full of yourself on a hooker board.

Yeah. Morally and legally superior. For sure.
Morally and legally superior? Since you think killing someone over $150 or less is a good idea—and mock the person as well—then yes I think in this case my position is morally superior to yours. I can acknowledge that some like Laz have a different perspective—and he has some reasonable points. But look at his posts: he can make sound arguments disagreeing with mine, yet avoid mocking the victims. Legally, no, I concede that the Texas law is what it is—there seems little argument that the killing was legally allowed.

Cry me a river.
Cry you a river? No, from you I wouldn’t expect a single tear. You have made that quite clear.



Why not sign off permanently and go do missionary work?
Missionary work? Quite a jump of illogic on your part. Why would I do that pray tell?


You are the worst level of hypocrite.
I’m the worst level of hypocrite? I’m afraid I miss the point on that one too. You may not like my stance—obviously you don’t—but where have I been hypocritical? Where have I advocated summary execution, shooting people over small amounts of money, etc.? I know I often hold contrarian points of view, but I am usually quite consistent about my views, and try to apply them evenly.


Old Dingus Originally Posted by Old Dingus

..

I seem to recall a thread I think in the Dallas forums about the subject of carrying guns to appointments and someone, real or wannabe lawyer felt it was illegal to carry a gun while committing another crime. If that is true, it seems that would have come in to play somewhere in here.

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

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

I'm not sure you read my post correctly....or you mistyped your response....or both.

In addition, I didn't mention "self defense" anywhere.