Jury acquits escort shooter

[Ed Anger]

Do you happen to shoot prostitutes often?

Only in their faces.

[Iormlund]

Do you happen to shoot prostitutes often?

Only in their faces.

[alfred russel]

Did he not get hit with any sort of prostitution/solicitation/whatever charge? 

Well that is the thing.  Even if you interpret this law in retarded way required how exactly can you show that a non-advertised illegal service is legally that dude's property?

Isn't this guys story that he was soliciting a prostitute? Why do you need to show anything beyond that?

[Valmy]

Isn't this guys story that he was soliciting a prostitute? Why do you need to show anything beyond that?

Beats me.  YOu solicit a prostitute and then murder her.  In 99% of Texas jurisdictions that would be pretty straight forward.

[11B4V]

Aren't currently subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child, an intimate partner, or the child of an intimate partner.

Wait, so stalking those is not kosher, but anyone else is? Where's the logic in that?

Read down the list further.

[garbon]

Did he not get hit with any sort of prostitution/solicitation/whatever charge? 

Well that is the thing.  Even if you interpret this law in retarded way required how exactly can you show that a non-advertised illegal service is legally that dude's property?

I thought the money was legally his property. Seems like it'd bolster his case as it was illegal for escort to be receiving the money in the first place.

[Valmy]

I thought the money was legally his property. Seems like it'd bolster his case as it was illegal for escort to be receiving the money in the first place.

Well he gave it to her.

[MadBurgerMaker]

What they're saying is he gave the cash to her in exchange for 30 minutes of her time, among other things.  She didn't stay for 30 minutes, or other things, so she was taking money that wasn't hers.

[Malthus]

Heh, this story simply confirms my stereotypical view of Texas. 

Has to be the dumbest law I've ever seen actually utilized.

[Valmy]

Heh, this story simply confirms my stereotypical view of Texas. 

Has to be the dumbest law I've ever seen actually utilized.

There is a kernal of truth in some stereotypes

The idiocy of our lawmakers is one of the reasons we only let them meet once every two years...so they can pass more laws outlawing cheerleading routines.

Actually the recent session was particularly hilarious as the Republican Party has effectively split into two parties (Tea Party vs. Non-Tea Party) so now every single issue is contentious on a level not seen since...um...Reconstruction maybe?  Because we are facing a major water crisis the legislature proposed a savings account to start stockpiling money to deal with the crisis but the Tea Party people flipped out because it seems managing a water crisis is not something the government needs to be involved in. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

And retard Berkut continues to build up his street cred to get a position as guest blogger for the Daily Kos. No, this has nothing to do with "NRA gun culture." It's a 35+ year old law that the NRA had no tangible effect on whatsoever. Thanks for playing though, moronic arguments linking totally unrelated liberal boogeymen sets you up nicely in the leftist blogosphere. This is based on much older Texan conceptions of "protecting mah land" type thinking and just like that rape law from the late 1800s that forced an acquittal of a guy because his victim was an unmarried single female that was "raped by deception" (in California only married women can be raped by deception) it's an anachronism but still law of the land.

It also has nothing explicitly to do with firearms--under my reading of the law you can use any deadly force to prevent the removal of property, so swords, javelins, pikes, grenades etc.

I can see two effective ways the lawyers made their argument. Possibly three:

1. Not sure if this is legal, but they could argue that her violation of an illegal service agreement is still theft even though the original agreement was illegal that doesn't mean her taking of the money isn't larceny. Under this concept, it falls under the statute and allows him to use deadly force to prevent its removal.

2. The agreement was technically a legal agreement because it was strictly for her time, and she deceived him by not giving the full time and refused to return a refund. Even if he believed it was for sex that doesn't necessarily mean that's what the agreement was for.

3. Since the agreement was illegal, the money was still rightfully owned by the shooter and the woman had no right to remove it once he demanded it returned, in which case the statute would apply.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Make that a 40 year old law, almost older than me--passed in 1973. Long before major legislative initiative programs by the NRA that mostly arose in response to the Brady Campaign.

[Berkut]

Damn, you got me. I've been defeated by the observation that the crazy ass gun culture in America is apparently less than 40 years old, therefore any law that was founded prior to that time cannot possibly be based on said culture.

Gee, I feel so silly now.


Apparently the law is an "anachronism" like the rape law from the 1800s. Because 1973 was a lot like the 1800s, what with the crazy ancient laws passed back in those olden days of the 70s.

[DGuller]

3. Since the agreement was illegal, the money was still rightfully owned by the shooter and the woman had no right to remove it once he demanded it returned, in which case the statute would apply.

Does it mean that I can hire prostitutes in Texas, demand my money back after being done, and shoot between the eyes any prostitute that refused to comply?  Or am I going to have to shoot them in the back of the head?

[Ideologue]

So in Texas, if a contract for personal services is breached, you can ask for specific performance, or shoot them in dead in the street.  As long as it's night, I guess.

P.S.: MB's trolling is weak.

It seems even if there is no contract, the service was at most implied, and the service is illegal.

Indeed.  So the only remedy to breach is shooting them dead in the street.

Actually, put that way, I'm kind of leaning to this guy's side.