Jury acquits escort shooter

[Malthus]

Correction: it is a plausible reason for this abhorrent outcome that he got off because of a failure to charge him with manslaughter, as opposed to the bizzare Texan kill-robbers-by-night defence. Given that *both* were issues before the jury, we can't know why they decided what they did, unless a juror tells us.

It's why his lawyers were using the "he shot her but didn't mean to" line of reasoning, and why they have been making that point to the (local) press.  That doesn't have anything to do with the "kill robbers by night" defense, which is also why Valmy and I (and anyone else) had never heard of it being used like that.  Because it most likely wasn't.  I bet it would have been much more useful for any manslaughter charges that came up, because manslaughter doesn't need that intent thing and can still send you away for 20, buuuut...

E:  Oh there was another thing about it that wasn't mentioned in these articles that showed up so quickly.  Apparently the argument was between escort hiring dude and escorts "driver," who was the one who had the cash.  According to the driver, the girl went out there after 20 min, gave the driver the cash, and dude went out there to get it back. The driver told him he would have to take it from him, dude went and got the gun.

Where are you getting the notion that the defence wasn't used? Certainly it isn't from the article you cited.

At trial, defense attorneys made the shocking argument that Gilbert was justified in shooting Frago because she had stolen from him and Texas law permits the use of deadly force to defend one's property at night. That a defense was raised in this case based on Texas' awful defense of property law is certainly newsworthy and even more reason to reform that law. But there is no evidence that the jury acquitted based on the defense of property law in the first place.

Seems to me that what the article is saying is 'yeah, they used that defence all right. But there is no evidence that the jury bought it.'

[MadBurgerMaker]

I didn't say it wasn't used.  I said there's a reason they've been focusing on the "didn't mean to" argument (E: I should say: the non Gawker OMGOMGOMG types have been noting that pretty significant point), because that seems to be a way better way to get out of a murder charge vs. some strange law that most people have never heard of and hasn't ever been used that way.

E2:  This would, sadly, mean that those guys aren't superlawyers, and I need to keep looking for my future defense team.

[Berkut]

You really think that the jury bought the idea that firing at a car of people with an assault rifle can be excused as long as you say you didn't mean to kill anyone?

That seems more ludicrous than the silly law that says you can shoot people who you think are stealing from you because they didn't put out.

[Malthus]

I didn't say it wasn't used.  I said there's a reason they've been focusing on the "didn't mean to" argument, because that seems to be a way better way to get out of a murder charge vs. some strange law that most people have never heard of and hasn't ever been used that way.

My point is that, as least based on the article, you can't say definitively "he got off because of X". The jury were given at least two reasons to let him off, and we so far don't know which they picked. Certainly the defence team thought there was some value in raising this Texan law.

[MadBurgerMaker]

You really think that the jury bought the idea that firing at a car of people with an assault rifle can be excused as long as you say you didn't mean to kill anyone?

That seems more ludicrous than the silly law that says you can shoot people who you think are stealing from you because they didn't put out.

Why not?  That's what murder requires.  It actually turned out the whole thing was between the driver and crazy dude with the gun, and a fragment was what actually hit her.

[garbon]

You really think that the jury bought the idea that firing at a car of people with an assault rifle can be excused as long as you say you didn't mean to kill anyone?

That seems more ludicrous than the silly law that says you can shoot people who you think are stealing from you because they didn't put out.

Why not?  That's what murder requires.  It actually turned out the whole thing was between the driver and crazy dude with the gun, and a fragment was what actually hit her.

Well he certainly intended to harm them unless we're in a bizarro-NRA fantasy world where guns don't hurt people.

[Sheilbh]

It is really bizarre because, after all, the jury system is supposed to prevent these sorts of idiotic interpretations.

The English system still leaves it as a question for the jury. Did the person honestly believe that they were defending themselves, or another, or protecting property or stopping a crime from being committed? If they did in those circumstances was the force reasonable?

I think it's far better to leave it to the jury than to have blanket laws, or statutes trying to cover every eventuality. I thought that over the Martin case too.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Well he certainly intended to harm them unless we're in a bizarro-NRA fantasy world where guns don't hurt people.

Oh *I* think he was probably trying to kill them (or maybe "just" the driver), but they were saying he was trying to shoot out the tires, and apparently the fragment came off of a round that actually did hit a tire.  The argument could definitely be made that dumbass was "only" (jesus christ what an asshole) trying to shoot out the tires in order to stop the car and get his money back from the driver (at gunpoint), so it wouldn't be murder because he wasn't intending to kill them. 

[The Minsky Moment]

From the Texas Penal Code 19.02(b)(3):

[A person commits an offense [of murder] if he . . . commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

Texas Penal Code 22.05 (b) sets forth the offense of "Deadly Conduct" as including, among other things, discharging a firearm at a vehicle.  It is a 3d degree felony.

So can someone explain how the jury finds no felony murder here?

[Malthus]

From the Texas Penal Code 19.02(b)(3):

[A person commits an offense [of murder] if he . . . commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

Texas Penal Code 22.05 (b) sets forth the offense of "Deadly Conduct" as including, among other things, discharging a firearm at a vehicle.  It is a 3d degree felony.

So can someone explain how the jury finds no felony murder here?

Obviously, because it is legal in Texas to use deadly force on a thief after dark ... 

[MadBurgerMaker]

Here's the whole thing:

Sec. 19.02.  MURDER.  (a)  In this section:
(1)  "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.
(2)  "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.
(b)  A person commits an offense if he:
(1)  intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2)  intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;  or
(3)  commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
(c)  Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d)  At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause.  If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

So if that's the case, then it seems very strange that everyone who aren't gawkertards who think the law is about hookers, are focusing on the intent part with the shooting after dark part as a little aside quote at the end of the articles and such.  It would be that the shooting up the parking lot and car wasn't a felony (because they were fleeing after stealing his cash and he couldn't get it back any other way and the driver would fuck him up if he just tried to take it or whatever that part of it was), then the rest of it wouldn't apply because there wasn't any intent, unless there's much more to it.  His lawyers don't seem to give very much of a shit about that deadly force after dark law.  Also, if that deadly force after dark actually applied, why would they even need to bother with the part about intent in the first place, since that law would prevent it from being anything but "I WUZ GETTIN MAH CASH BACK AFTER DEY STOLE IT" in the first place, right?  Just CYA that has taken on more meaning than it probably should?

Manslaughter is just "recklessly causes the death of an individual," btw.


E:  Oh speaking of which, apparently they're trying to change that shooting after dark law.

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)  if 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.
          SECTION 5.  Section 9.43, Penal Code, is amended to read as
   follows:

This was introduced in March. http://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB1349

[The Minsky Moment]

Obviously, because it is legal in Texas to use deadly force on a thief after dark ... 

Sadly that does seem to be the defense after all.

[Berkut]

Wait, WTF???

They are thinking about making it illegal for law abiding Texas citizens to try to recover their property from criminals and liberals?

What is the great Republic of Texas coming to???

[Admiral Yi]

So can someone explain how the jury finds no felony murder here?

I imagine because trying to get your money back is not a felony.

[Malthus]

So can someone explain how the jury finds no felony murder here?

I imagine because trying to get your money back is not a felony.

I shoulda taken his approach when my bank incorrectly charged me an overdraft fee. 

A nasty letter simply lacks that certain something that a stream of automatic rifle bullets provides by way of incentive!