Was the jury wrong in the Texas case where the man shot an escort and was found

1. 36

   ChristinSposted 12 years ago

   Was the jury wrong in the Texas case where the man shot an escort and was found not guilty?
   
   According to a Texas jury it is perfectly legal to kill an escort for not having sex with you. Nevermind that prostitution is illegal.
   
   Texas law allows people to use deadly force to recover property during nighttime theft.  In this case, a man contacted an escort on Craigslist and paid her $150. When she refused to have sex with him he shot her in the neck. She was paralyzed and died a few months later.
   
   Insult to injury, the man was not charged with hiring a prostitute. Do you think this jury was right?  Her life wasn't worth more than $150? Neck shot = no intent to kill?

   replyreport
2. 0

   MysticMoonlightposted 12 years ago

   I don't know the particulars of this story but from what I gather, this is just a shame. I understand that Texas has laws regarding deadly force and the right to defend and all but come on, this appears to be a case of, 'I didn't get my way and because it involved a possible situation of money theft (albeit debatable) I can legally shoot you.' Wow, unless the escort had a weapon or in some way tried to use deadly force against this person and they were simply defending themselves, this is just ludicrous!

   replyreport
   1. 36

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
3. 98

   peeplesposted 12 years ago

   Example- You hire a guy to help you move. He arrives and you pay him. 10 minutes later he refuses to assist and says he leaving with your money. By law this becomes theft. You are left with two legal options so long as the person is on your property. Either demand your money back by force or call the police. If this was the situation and it didn't involve a woman or prostitution would you feel the same way?
   She took his money and refused to provide the service that was paid for. Was it worth a loss in life? Not in my opinion, but so long as one is within their rights they should not be jailed for protecting their assets in a legal matter even if I disagree with it.

   replyreport
   1. 36

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      MickSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      ***

      replyreport
   3. 36

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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!

      replyreport
4. 60

   MickSposted 12 years ago

   What's this.  A jury has found the person not guilty of murder, so now we are having a trial by internet, where every Tomosinna, Richmal, and Harriet, can show her outrage?  If murder under the state law wasn't committed, then not guilty of murder is the only verdict to be found.  Whether that is right or just is another matter, and it is up to the electorate to sort out, not the WWW.

   replyreport
   1. 36

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
   2. 60

      MickSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   3. 73

      Mazzy Boleroposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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!

      replyreport
   4. 68

      Emanate Presenceposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   5. 36

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      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"

      replyreport
5. 80

   junksellerposted 12 years ago

   One of the conditions for using deadly force to prevent theft is "that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means." It would seem to me that calling the police and saying that a hooker just stole your money would be an "other means." Not sure how they got around that requirement. There's also the principle of "unclean hands" which would seem to apply. You sacrifice righteousness when you yourself are doing wrong. But, I guess you can't expect much from a flat-Earth state. I'm surprised they didn't charge him with being a bad shot. Perhaps force him to take a "How to Properly Shoot a Hooker" class.
   
   I can't wait until the first drug dealer uses this defense. "I gave him my product, your Honor, but he didn't pay me..." though I'm sure they'll come to a different conclusion for that one.

   replyreport
   1. 36

      ChristinSposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That was my thought too - what about drug dealers - exactly right.

      replyreport
   2. 91

      Randy M.posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I like the "flat Earth state" moniker.  It fits well, perhaps it should replace the official "lone star state."

      replyreport