sort by best latest
Not in this case because sex was not contractual and it's illegal. She was an escort not a prostitute. Yes many escorts do cross the line, but many do not. He murdered her plain and simple in my opinion.
I would say the same thing regardless of who it was - theft is not an excuse for murder period. I say it's unjust to feel we have the right to kill people over property - self-defense for attack yes, just theft? come on!
- See all 3 commentsHide extra comments
she had no weapon, he shot her in the neck and she suffered for six months before she died and he got away with it. because he alleges she "stole" the money be not having sex. Escorts are not prostitutes, he assumed sex, it was not promised.
Sometimes juries are wrong - and it is an outrage to assume you can kill someone for $150 and be justified. Her life was not worth more than that because of her profession?
You have loaded your reply with value judgements, that is not the way to find truth or justice. Yep, sometimes they are even with guilty verdicts, good to remember with capital crimes.
This is a case where jurors were more morally outraged by the idea of prostitution than the idea of murder. If he hired an escort, he got one, so no theft. He applied for a refund by shooting her in the neck? Consumer rights Texas-style!
MickS makes a valid point. Trial by internet is not beneficial. None of us here were jurors, and none of us knows all the facts. Before I can make an honest, well-rounded and helpful answer to this type of question, I must be more fully informed.
so go read the facts of the case. The FACT is he shot a woman over $150. If this had been a man installing cable people wouldn't be so quick to defend him, it's because of the woman and her profession he is getting away with it, she wasn't "property"
- See all 5 commentsHide extra comments