Jury acquits escort shooter

[11B4V]

Doesn't really matter what kind of gun it was, does it? He stilled killed her - allegedly by accident.

While I am by no means condoning this course of action or saying I find it to be acceptable, it's one thing to be carrying concealed, get in an argument with someone, and pull your pistol out and shoot them.  It's an entirely different level of insanity to go out of your way to grab your assault rifle (which you couldn't realistically have concealed on you) and fire on people as they are leaving and therefore couldn't possibly be construed as an imminent threat.

I guess I'm gonna have to read a comprehensive summary of this case because I find it almost impossible to understand given the brief article in the OP and the added facts Berk posted.

There's no mention of AR-15 or Assault Rifle in OP or a brief net skim. Accurate Jacob?? please.

[CountDeMoney]

Doesn't really matter what kind of gun it was, does it? He stilled killed her - allegedly by accident.

While I am by no means condoning this course of action or saying I find it to be acceptable, it's one thing to be carrying concealed, get in an argument with someone, and pull your pistol out and shoot them.  It's an entirely different level of insanity to go out of your way to grab your assault rifle (which you couldn't realistically have concealed on you) and fire on people as they are leaving and therefore couldn't possibly be construed as an imminent threat.

No, it's not.  Getting "in an argument with someone" and pulling out a concealed weapon to shoot somebody is not "one thing".  It's still murder to shoot somebody you're in an argument with, whether you're wearing a concealed weapon. or you get a concealed weapon from behind the sofa.

See, this is exactly why goofy ass twerps like you shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons.  You don't possess the common sense.

[Neil]

That's not my actual gun, just a pic I found on Google of the model.

You can tell because all of the parts seem to be attached.

[Berkut]

I was reading a couple different articles trying to figure out what the real story was, since it could not possibly be as represented in the OP. Nobody get aquitted of murder when they shoot someone who is leaving in a car, right?

One of them said he used an assault rifle. I am sure I could dig up the link in question.

That isn't what makes this about the gun nut culture though - the resident gun nuts are right - the definition of "assault rifle" is stupidly vague.

What makes it about the gun nut culture are these moronic NRA backed laws that legalize shooting people under idiotic circumstances like this one. This guy was acquitted because *that is what the law defines as justifiable use of deadly force*. And that has everything to do with the gun nut whackos.

The fact that B4 defines "anti-gun nutter" as someone who is outraged that someone gets to walk for murdering a prostitute just proves the point that his definition of "anti-gun nutter" is simply anyone who has any kind of remotely sane views on what reasonable restraints are on the use of force and the regulation of deadly weapons.

[Eddie Teach]

No, it's not.  Getting "in an argument with someone" and pulling out a concealed weapon to shoot somebody is not "one thing".  It's still murder to shoot somebody you're in an argument with, whether you're wearing a concealed weapon. or you get a concealed weapon from behind the sofa.

Sure, but it could be the difference between first and second degree.

[Berkut]

Here is the relevant penal code. Note for all our foreign friends this is Texas state law. Most states do not allow you to blow people away for stealing from you, even at night:

§ 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.

[CountDeMoney]

Sure, but it could be the difference between first and second degree.

Now waiting until Tuesday to do it, maybe.  But not if you're wearing a weapon or you immediately go to retrieve it from elsewhere in the vicinity.

[CountDeMoney]

(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;

But instead, Frago walked around his apartment and after about 20 minutes left

I know things move slower in the South, but even 20 minutes doesn't qualify as "immediately" down there.

[Kleves]

Is "anti-nutter" a pejorative? 

[11B4V]

§ 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.

That prosector must have sucked.

[11B4V]

Is "anti-nutter" a pejorative? 

No, though I cant vouch for the other sides "Gun-nut" label.

[CountDeMoney]

That prosector must have sucked.

Granted, but I'm not sure if this isn't less about guns and more about killing sinful hookers.




I bet if the shooter was the ethnicy one and the escort was the white one, the verdict wouldn't turned out differently.

[Caliga]

No, it's not.  Getting "in an argument with someone" and pulling out a concealed weapon to shoot somebody is not "one thing".  It's still murder to shoot somebody you're in an argument with, whether you're wearing a concealed weapon. or you get a concealed weapon from behind the sofa.

See, this is exactly why goofy ass twerps like you shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons.  You don't possess the common sense.

You completely missed the point I was trying to make.  I figured people would do that, which is why I tried to add that disclaimer at the beginning, but it obviously didn't work.  Let me try this again.

Compared this to, say, the Trayvon Martin case.  Personally, given the facts available to the public on that case, I believe Zimmerman murdered Martin and should be held accountable for that act.  But it seems petty obvious that the two of them were involved in a physical altercation, and I guess if you want to try to get inside Zimmerman's head and try to understand his actions you can see how he might have thought his life was in danger.

In this case, I see absolutely no suggestion that the defendant thought his life was in danger and what (little) we know about the case suggests the escort was actually leaving the scene when the guy decided to fire after her and retrieved a weapon which he couldn't possibly have been carrying on his person when they met and then argued.

[CountDeMoney]

You completely missed the point I was trying to make.

Then make better points.

[Berkut]

No, it's not.  Getting "in an argument with someone" and pulling out a concealed weapon to shoot somebody is not "one thing".  It's still murder to shoot somebody you're in an argument with, whether you're wearing a concealed weapon. or you get a concealed weapon from behind the sofa.

See, this is exactly why goofy ass twerps like you shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons.  You don't possess the common sense.

You completely missed the point I was trying to make.  I figured people would do that, which is why I tried to add that disclaimer at the beginning, but it obviously didn't work.  Let me try this again.

Compared this to, say, the Trayvon Martin case.  Personally, given the facts available to the public on that case, I believe Zimmerman murdered Martin and should be held accountable for that act.  But it seems petty obvious that the two of them were involved in a physical altercation, and I guess if you want to try to get inside Zimmerman's head and try to understand his actions you can see how he might have thought his life was in danger.

In this case, I see absolutely no suggestion that the defendant thought his life was in danger and what (little) we know about the case suggests the escort was actually leaving the scene when the guy decided to fire after her and retrieved a weapon which he couldn't possibly have been carrying on his person when they met and then argued.

His defense had nothing to do with any claim that he felt his life was in danger. In Texas, you are allowed to kill people even if you don't think they pose any threat to you at all.

But just like in the Martin case, the fucked up gun culture that turns shooting people into an act of moral courage has created these laws that can be used to cover what any sane person would consider to be clearly homicide.

I don't think the people who write these laws are thinking "Sweet! This will let white boys kill latino hookers!" but they do have this stupid veneration for the mythos of the brave gun owner nad his AR-15 protecting his property and life from the imagined forces of chaos, and they create these fucked up laws to "protect" them from being prosecuted for it, and of course it leads to incredible results like this one.

I don't think this dipshit killed her because he thought the law protected him, anymore than I think Zimmerman really thought he needed to kill Martin to protect his life. They both acted out of a sever case of the stupids, and they were both stupids with guns, so they murdered someone.

The idea of using these laws to then get away with it comes afterwards.