I don't care how good the lawyer was, these jurors must be dumb as hell.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php#ixzz2VTqmpHIc
QuoteJury acquits escort shooter
By Michelle Mondo, Staff Writers
Updated 10:12 pm, Wednesday, June 5, 2013
A Bexar County jury on Wednesday acquitted Ezekiel Gilbert of murder in the death of a 23-year-old Craigslist escort.
Gilbert, 30, embraced defense attorneys Bobby Barrera and Roy Barrera Sr. with tears in his eyes after the not guilty verdict was read aloud by state District Judge Mary Román.
Outside the courtroom, Gilbert thanked God, the Barrera family and the jury for being able to "see what wasn't the truth" and for the "second chance."
Had he been convicted, he could have faced up to life in prison for the slaying of Lenora Ivie Frago who died about seven months after she was shot in the neck and paralyzed on Christmas Eve 2009. Gilbert admitted shooting Frago.
"I sincerely regret the loss of the life of Ms. Frago," Gilbert said Wednesday. "I've been in a mental prison the past four years of my life. I have nightmares. If I see guns on TV where people are getting killed, I change the channel."
The verdict came after almost 11 hours of deliberations that stretched over two days. The trial began May 17 but had a long hiatus after a juror unexpectedly had to leave town for a funeral.
During closing arguments Tuesday, Gilbert's defense team conceded the shooting did occur but said the intent wasn't to kill. Gilbert's actions were justified, they argued, because he was trying to retrieve stolen property: the $150 he paid Frago. It became theft when she refused to have sex with him or give the money back, they said.
Gilbert testified earlier Tuesday that he had found Frago's escort ad on Craigslist and believed sex was included in her $150 fee. But instead, Frago walked around his apartment and after about 20 minutes left, saying she had to give the money to her driver, he said.
That driver, the defense contended, was Frago's pimp and her partner in the theft scheme.
The Texas law that allows people to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft was put in place for "law-abiding" citizens, prosecutors Matt Lovell and Jessica Schulze countered. It's not intended for someone trying to force another person into an illegal act such as prostitution, they argued.
Who cares? Just a whore.
Timmy, it's Texas. :contract:
Don't mess wiff Texas. Especially if you're a godless whore.
Did he get his $150 back?
You guys suck.
It's interesting that "he didn't mean to kill her" even though he pulled out a gun, aimed it at her, and pulled the trigger. :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 06:18:04 PM
You guys suck.
Where were you to defend the Red Man this morning, dude?
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 06:21:20 PM
It's interesting that "he didn't mean to kill her" even though he pulled out a gun, aimed it at her, and pulled the trigger. :hmm:
Perhaps he just intended in maim her?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 06:22:30 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 06:18:04 PM
You guys suck.
Where were you to defend the Red Man this morning, dude?
He was at the copy machine printing out leaflets.
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 06:21:20 PM
It's interesting that "he didn't mean to kill her" even though he pulled out a gun, aimed it at her, and pulled the trigger. :hmm:
Don't worry--when you try it, it'll be believable too.
MAH AIM
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 06:21:20 PM
It's interesting that "he didn't mean to kill her" even though he pulled out a gun, aimed it at her, and pulled the trigger. :hmm:
Especially given that the law says he's allowed to use deadly force.
So the story here is that he paid her $150 for a hlf hour of her time.
She spends 20 minutes with him, then leaves. They do not have sex.
He then shoots at her with his assault rifle as her and her "manager" are driving away.
And his defense is that when she did not ahve sex with him, and refused to return his money, she was engaged in theft, and therefore he had the right to whip out his AR-15 and blow her away as she was driving away in a car.
And this works, because of some dumbass cro-magnon law about how you have the right to use deadly force to "recover" stolen property.
This is a fine example of the triumph of gun-nut culture, and the fact that it happened in Texas comes as no surprise whatsoever.
:lol:
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 06:32:29 PM
And his defense is that when she did not ahve sex with him, and refused to return his money, she was engaged in theft, and therefore he had the right to whip out his AR-15 and blow her away as she was driving away in a car.
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!?!!?!?!??!
I didn't see that in the article Tim linked... guess you got that info someplace else. :wacko:
So in cases like this is there any way someone can step in and do something? I realize the guy has been acquitted... but...
TO be fair, I don't know that it was an AR-15, it was described as an "assault rifle".
She's gone wherever whores go.
Pimpin' aint what it used to be.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 06:38:27 PM
TO be fair, I don't know that it was an AR-15, it was described as an "assault rifle".
The media seems to use that phrase for any gun that 'looks scary' nowadays. I have a SIG-522 which would probably be classified as one, but it's a semi-automatic .22. :sleep:
Here's what it looks like though:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi54.tinypic.com%2F2hmhsh5.jpg&hash=cccbb69d586274cde7cc5bce1eea6bb09636b357)
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 06:41:26 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 06:38:27 PM
TO be fair, I don't know that it was an AR-15, it was described as an "assault rifle".
The media seems to use that phrase for any gun that 'looks scary' nowadays. I have a SIG-522 which would probably be classified as one, but it's a semi-automatic .22. :sleep:
Here's what it looks like though:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi54.tinypic.com%2F2hmhsh5.jpg&hash=cccbb69d586274cde7cc5bce1eea6bb09636b357)
Yeah that's an "assault rifle". :lmfao:
and no that would not be an assault rifle.
I'll tell you what though, it's fun (and cheap) as hell to shoot. Damnit, if I wasn't going down to Gatlinburg this weekend I'd probably take it out to the lake and shoot it.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 06, 2013, 06:43:15 PM
and no that would not be an assault rifle.
I agree with you, but tell that to the media.
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 06:45:02 PM
I'll tell you what though, it's fun (and cheap) as hell to shoot. Damnit, if I wasn't going down to Gatlinburg this weekend I'd probably take it out to the lake and shoot it.
For sure. ;)
Quote from: 11B4V on June 06, 2013, 06:39:10 PMNo just the tirade.
That wasn't a tirade. That was a description of the facts of the case.
To be fair to the guy, apparently he's so traumatized by what he's done that it's changed his TV viewing habits.
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/texas_man_acquitted_in_craiglist_escort_murder/
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 06:47:23 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 06, 2013, 06:39:10 PMNo just the tirade.
That wasn't a tirade. That was a description of the facts of the case.
Is that what you anti-nutters call it
Heh, in a neat coincidence, Princesca's cousin just put a Bushmaster AR-15 up for sale on Facebook.
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 06:37:36 PM
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!?!!?!?!??!
I didn't see that in the article Tim linked... guess you got that info someplace else. :wacko:
:unsure:
That's more or less what i got from the article.
I'm talking about the part where she actually left and he got out an 'assault rifle' and fired at their car as they were leaving.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 06, 2013, 06:49:10 PMIs that what you anti-nutters call it
Okay, on rereading Berkut's post - the last two sentences were a tirade.
Whores don't have souls.
Or body armor.
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 06:52:14 PM
I'm talking about the part where she actually left and he got out an 'assault rifle' and fired at their car as they were leaving.
Doesn't really matter what kind of gun it was, does it? He stilled killed her - allegedly by accident.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 06, 2013, 06:52:49 PM
Whores don't have souls.
Neither do you.
From this we can conclude that you are a whore of some sort.
I've been called worse. :)
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 06:53:18 PM
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.
Where is MBM, this was in San Antonio area so he should have heard all about this case.
Cal's gun kinda looks like a toy. :unsure:
That's not my actual gun, just a pic I found on Google of the model.
Suuuuuuure.
If I have to prove it, I will. :sleep:
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 06:57:27 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 06:53:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 06:57:27 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2013, 06:53:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 07:02:43 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:00:27 PM
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.
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:
Quote§ 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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 06, 2013, 08:06:12 PM
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.
Quote(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;
QuoteBut 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.
Is "anti-nutter" a pejorative? :huh:
Quote§ 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.
Quote from: Kleves on June 06, 2013, 08:22:05 PM
Is "anti-nutter" a pejorative? :huh:
No, though I cant vouch for the other sides "Gun-nut" label.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 06, 2013, 08:23:28 PM
That prosector must have sucked.
Granted, but I'm not sure if this isn't less about guns and more about killing sinful hookers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsandrarose.com%2Fimages18%2Flenora-frago-ezekiel-gilbert_536x365.jpg%3F42e305&hash=6b9fcd415185634163a1046334106811dcf1e5da)
I bet if the shooter was the ethnicy one and the escort was the white one, the verdict wouldn't turned out differently.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:00:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 08:26:39 PM
You completely missed the point I was trying to make.
Then make better points.
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 08:26:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:00:27 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:28:35 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 08:26:39 PM
You completely missed the point I was trying to make.
Then make better points.
btw I almost never carry my gun. I pretty much only carry it to the range. :)
That's doesn't comfort me like you think it should.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:26:17 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 06, 2013, 08:23:28 PM
That prosector must have sucked.
Granted, but I'm not sure if this isn't less about guns and more about killing sinful hookers.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsandrarose.com%2Fimages18%2Flenora-frago-ezekiel-gilbert_536x365.jpg%3F42e305&hash=6b9fcd415185634163a1046334106811dcf1e5da)
I bet if the shooter was the ethnicy one and the escort was the white one, the verdict wouldn't turned out differently.
Well it is Texas.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:38:36 PM
That's doesn't comfort me like you think it should.
I don't care whether it comforts you or not, but I figured I should mention it since you brought it up in that totally uncalled-for ad hom you threw at me when you replied. :)
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.
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 08:40:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:38:36 PM
That's doesn't comfort me like you think it should.
I don't care whether it comforts you or not, but I figured I should mention it since you brought it up in that totally uncalled-for ad hom you threw at me when you replied. :)
I can't wait until the Great Black President takes your toys away from you. :) :) :)
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2013, 08:44:36 PM
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.
You need to ask for your money back first.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:46:14 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 08:40:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:38:36 PM
That's doesn't comfort me like you think it should.
I don't care whether it comforts you or not, but I figured I should mention it since you brought it up in that totally uncalled-for ad hom you threw at me when you replied. :)
I can't wait until the Great Black President takes your toys away from you. :) :) :)
Never happen. ;)
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 08:32:53 PM
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.
I'm less sure in the case of Zimmerman than you seem to be, because IIRC he wanted to be a cop, appointed himself captain of the neighborhood watch, etc. so I gotta believe he knew of the stand-your-ground law there in advance. In KY if you apply for a CDWL they actually make you sit in front of a video and watch a tape where a state official reads all of the laws about carrying to you, make you read the laws in a booklet, and then make you pass a test on the content. I dunno whatis required to get one in FL, but wouldn't surprise me if it's got a similar requirement.
Knowing nothing about the other guy, I have no idea if he even had a carry permit or what the Texas requirements are related to getting one.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:46:14 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 08:40:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:38:36 PM
That's doesn't comfort me like you think it should.
I don't care whether it comforts you or not, but I figured I should mention it since you brought it up in that totally uncalled-for ad hom you threw at me when you replied. :)
I can't wait until the Great Black President takes your toys away from you. :) :) :)
:) :) :) :) :) :)
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 08:51:52 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 08:32:53 PM
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.
I'm less sure in the case of Zimmerman than you seem to be, because IIRC he wanted to be a cop, appointed himself captain of the neighborhood watch, etc. so I gotta believe he knew of the stand-your-ground law there in advance. In KY if you apply for a CDWL they actually make you sit in front of a video and watch a tape where a state official reads all of the laws about carrying to you, make you read the laws in a booklet, and then make you pass a test on the content. I dunno whatis required to get one in FL, but wouldn't surprise me if it's got a similar requirement.
Knowing nothing about the other guy, I have no idea if he even had a carry permit or what the Texas requirements are related to getting one.
Dude, you guys take a test?
Quote from: 11B4V on June 06, 2013, 08:48:55 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:46:14 PM
I can't wait until the Great Black President takes your toys away from you. :) :) :)
Never happen. ;)
I know, but waiting for gun-nutters to accidentally shoot themselves takes far too long.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 06, 2013, 08:54:55 PM
Dude, you guys take a test?
Yep. You have to pass a written exam on the laws, and then there's a range qualification test too.
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 08:57:56 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 06, 2013, 08:54:55 PM
Dude, you guys take a test?
Yep. You have to pass a written exam on the laws, and then there's a range qualification test too.
WA= none of that.
QuoteRequirements
You must meet all of the following requirements to get a concealed pistol license (RCW 9.41.070):
Be 21 years of age or older at time of application.
Be a United States citizen or a permanent resident alien with permanent resident card (green card).
Have no pending trial, appeal, or sentencing on a charge that would prohibit you from having a license.
Have no outstanding warrants for any charge, from any court.
Have no court order or injunction against possessing a firearm.
Have never been adjudicated mentally defective or incompetent to manage your own affairs.
Have never been committed to a mental institution.
Have no felony convictions, or adjudications for a felony offense, in this state or elsewhere. "Felony" means any felony offense under the laws of Washington, or any federal or out-of-state offense comparable to a felony offense under the laws of Washington.
Within the past year, haven't been an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, narcotics, or any other controlled substance.
Haven't been convicted of 3 or more violations of Washington's firearms laws within any 5-year period.
Haven't been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces.
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.
Have never renounced your United States citizenship.
Have no convictions for any of the following crimes committed by one family member against another:
Assault IV
Coercion
Stalking
Reckless Endangerment
Criminal Trespass in the first degree
Violation of the provisions of a protection order or no-contact order restraining the person or excluding the person from the residence
That's it? :huh:
I actually liked having to go to the class. Interacting with all of the other fine applicants made me realize that shall-issue licensing is actually a pretty bad idea. :bowler:
Quote from: Neil on June 06, 2013, 08:02:19 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 07:02:43 PM
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.
:lol:
Don't make me have to go get it, people. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 09:05:46 PM
That's it? :huh:
I actually liked having to go to the class. Interacting with all of the other fine applicants made me realize that shall-issue licensing is actually a pretty bad idea. :bowler:
Amazing in a state like Washington. I think it would drive me up a wall going to a class/range for a CCW.
Quote from: Neil on June 06, 2013, 08:02:19 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 07:02:43 PM
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.
:lmfao:
Quote from: katmai on June 06, 2013, 06:59:09 PM
Where is MBM, this was in San Antonio area so he should have heard all about this case.
Didn't know about it till this thread.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 06, 2013, 11:34:46 PM
Quote from: katmai on June 06, 2013, 06:59:09 PM
Where is MBM, this was in San Antonio area so he should have heard all about this case.
Didn't know about it till this thread.
Dammit man, start watching the local news!
Quote from: katmai on June 06, 2013, 11:38:12 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 06, 2013, 11:34:46 PM
Quote from: katmai on June 06, 2013, 06:59:09 PM
Where is MBM, this was in San Antonio area so he should have heard all about this case.
Didn't know about it till this thread.
Dammit man, start watching the local news!
Barf. I watched a few minutes tonight after the Spurs game. It reminded me how much local news sucks.
America FAIL. This law that lets you murder people who refuse to commit a crime, it's federal right?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:26:17 PM
I bet if the shooter was the ethnicy one and the escort was the white one, the verdict wouldn't turned out differently.
Well that was Bexar county where minorities make up well over 60% of the population. After all the judge and the white dude's lawyers were Latinos. Not to say they weren't self-loathing...
A rather ridiculous interpretation of a ridiculous law to be sure.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 08:11:01 PM
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:
Yeah the intent of that law is not to allow you to enforce illegal transactions.
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2013, 08:32:53 PM
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.
It is really bizarre because, after all, the jury system is supposed to prevent these sorts of idiotic interpretations.
But the whole stand your ground law was recent. This law is from the 70s and I am pretty sure has never been used this way and I am not even sure how the text could be interpreted that way.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2013, 07:33:17 AM
This law is from the 70s and I am pretty sure has never been used this way and I am not even sure how the text could be interpreted that way.
Yeah, this definitely seems like a new way of looking at this thing. It might just be a case of some super slick lawyerin, combined with stupid people on the jury. All I've read are news articles though, which always seem to suck.
Did he not get hit with any sort of prostitution/solicitation/whatever charge? :huh:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:46:14 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2013, 08:40:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:38:36 PM
That's doesn't comfort me like you think it should.
I don't care whether it comforts you or not, but I figured I should mention it since you brought it up in that totally uncalled-for ad hom you threw at me when you replied. :)
I can't wait until the Great Black President takes your toys away from you. :) :) :)
Please. Those guys can't even keep guns out of the hands of people that aren't legally entitled to own them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2013, 08:15:34 PM
Quote(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;
QuoteBut 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.
She hadn't escaped with the um...goods yet. 20 minutes was the time she was not putting out like she was not legally bound to do so.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 07, 2013, 07:39:12 AM
Did he not get hit with any sort of prostitution/solicitation/whatever charge? :huh:
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?
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2013, 08:44:36 PM
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.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 06, 2013, 09:03:07 PM
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?
E to add the quote:
Quote from: ValmyWell 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 believe they're saying the $150 is his property, and she was "stealing" it when she jumped into the car and was leaving before the half hour was up (and before he got laid). I didn't know this sort of thing could apply to illegal actions though. Like if your coke dealer gave you baking soda instead of blow, then tried to take off with your cash, you could shoot him? It really seems more like they somehow confused a jury made up of tards.
I just don't see why they wouldn't also try to get him with some sort of charge relating to the prostitution. The original thing was aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which then turned into some sort of murder charge when she died. I also wonder if they had gone for a lesser murder or something like manslaughter if they would have gotten him.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 07, 2013, 07:54:47 AM
I believe they're saying the $150 is his property, and she was "stealing" it when she jumped into the car and was leaving before the half hour was up (and before he got laid).
Pretty tortured stretch considering even he said he only interpreted the ad as promising to get him laid. It was only implied.
QuoteI just don't see why they wouldn't also try to get him with some sort of charge relating to the prostitution. The original thing was aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, which then turned into some sort of murder charge when she died. I also wonder if they had gone for a lesser murder or something like manslaughter if they would have gotten him.
Yeah rather a prosecutor fail on that front I guess. They probably figured the case for murder was so strong they didn't need to cover their bases like that.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2013, 08:44:36 PM
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.
I was trolling? Weird. Whores aren't people.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 07, 2013, 07:54:39 AM
Wait, so stalking those is not kosher, but anyone else is? Where's the logic in that?
Only for the purposes of gun ownership and if I were to guess it is because those are the forms of stalking that usually result in guns being used.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2013, 07:56:30 AMPretty tortured stretch considering even he said he only interpreted the ad as promising to get him laid. It was only implied.
I think the focus was more on the $150 and lack of...er...services rendered. The cash was his, she didn't do what she was supposed to, so she was stealing from him when she decided to leave. I don't know why they would bust out the sex part though, since it seems like they could have just used the 20 minute vs 30 minute thing, but I guess it worked.
These are the lawyers, btw: http://www.nicholasandbarrera.com/overview.php Roy Barrera, Sr and Robert J Barrera were the dudes in the photo.
QuoteYeah rather a prosecutor fail on that front I guess. They probably figured the case for murder was so strong they didn't need to cover their bases like that.
I mean, I see where they were coming from if that was what they were thinking, but....
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 07, 2013, 08:05:41 AM
These are the lawyers, btw: http://www.nicholasandbarrera.com/overview.php Roy Barrera, Sr and Robert J Barrera were the dudes in the photo.
I have to say those are some pretty badass lawyers for some loser-who-shoots-prostitutes. How the hell could he afford them?
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2013, 08:09:27 AM
I have to say those are some pretty badass lawyers for some loser-who-shoots-prostitutes. How the hell could he afford them?
I dunno. Maybe he had some scratch saved up from living in that horribly shitty apartment complex.
E: I DO know, however, which lawyers I'm calling if I ever get into some shit. They managed to get a dude out of there while still saying he actually *did* shoot a prostitute.
Do you happen to shoot prostitutes often? :unsure:
I try not to but shit happens.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 07, 2013, 08:22:43 AM
Do you happen to shoot prostitutes often? :unsure:
Well no but if they can get off prostitute murderers they should easily get you off that traffic offense.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 07, 2013, 08:22:43 AM
Do you happen to shoot prostitutes often? :unsure:
Only in their faces.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2013, 07:50:38 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 07, 2013, 07:39:12 AM
Did he not get hit with any sort of prostitution/solicitation/whatever charge? :huh:
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?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 07, 2013, 09:48:11 AM
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.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 07, 2013, 07:54:39 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 06, 2013, 09:03:07 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2013, 07:50:38 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 07, 2013, 07:39:12 AM
Did he not get hit with any sort of prostitution/solicitation/whatever charge? :huh:
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.
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2013, 10:00:41 AM
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.
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.
Heh, this story simply confirms my stereotypical view of Texas. ;)
Has to be the dumbest law I've ever seen actually utilized.
Quote from: Malthus on June 07, 2013, 10:19:37 AM
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 :blush:
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. :lol:
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 07, 2013, 01:20:35 PM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2013, 07:52:07 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2013, 08:44:36 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2013, 03:14:30 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 07, 2013, 01:20:35 PM
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?
Only after sunset. So Texas isn't all crazy.
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2013, 03:14:30 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 07, 2013, 01:20:35 PM
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?
Just don't do it at dawn or twilight, or you will offer a Texan jury a real legal dilemma. :hmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on June 07, 2013, 03:15:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2013, 07:52:07 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2013, 08:44:36 PM
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.
Isn't shooting women in the face your usual MO? :P
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2013, 03:14:30 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 07, 2013, 01:20:35 PM
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?
As long as it is nighttime, you are all good.
Of course, this is just some bizarre remaining anachronistic law from back on the Wild Wild West days of 1973.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2013, 03:24:48 PM
As long as it is nighttime, you are all good.
Of course, this is just some bizarre remaining anachronistic law from back on the Wild Wild West days of 1973.
I would like to know what exactly is the history behind it. It is the sort of stupid law that usually gets passed here because somebody did shoot somebody at night who was stealing their stuff and the whole state was outraged this law-abiding gun weilder was getting the death penalty or something. We legislate alot because of specific outrages.
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2013, 03:14:30 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 07, 2013, 01:20:35 PM
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?
You probably have to hire those Barrera guys as lawyers and gotten this particular nutty jury as well though. This is a story because almost every single other time the guy would have got the book tossed at him.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2013, 03:48:05 PM
You probably have to hire those Barrera guys as lawyers and gotten this particular nutty jury as well though. This is a story because almost every single other time the guy would have got the book tossed at him.
:hmm: Probably cheaper to pay the sex prostitutes.
"Sex prostitutes?"
Dude, how long have you bin living in this country? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 07, 2013, 03:52:16 PM
"Sex prostitutes?"
Dude, how long have you bin living in this country? :huh:
He's making a lawyer joke. :P
Maybe Yi was making a joke about Guller living in a trashcan. :hmm:
Of course, to be fair, we live in a country where all you need for an outcome like this is a single dumbfuck juror, right?
Just one of the twelve...?
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2013, 03:58:59 PM
Of course, to be fair, we live in a country where all you need for an outcome like this is a single dumbfuck juror, right?
Just one of the twelve...?
Thread title says acquittal, not hung jury.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 07, 2013, 03:58:59 PM
Maybe Yi was making a joke about Guller living in a trashcan. :hmm:
:D
Nothing like a little bin living.
The DG-Oscar the Grouch connection. I can see a resemblance ... :hmm:
Blueberry Slav forever.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 07, 2013, 03:58:59 PM
Maybe Yi was making a joke about Guller living in a trashcan. :hmm:
More likely a pronunciation joke.
:mad:
Quote from: Maximus on June 07, 2013, 04:05:42 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 07, 2013, 03:58:59 PM
Maybe Yi was making a joke about Guller living in a trashcan. :hmm:
More likely a pronunciation joke.
Possibly, but that wouldn't be as personal. Guller living in a trashcan kinda works because he does live in New Jersey.
(I'd guess typo/autocorrect as most likely thing)
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2013, 03:58:59 PM
Of course, to be fair, we live in a country where all you need for an outcome like this is a single dumbfuck juror, right?
Just one of the twelve...?
Judge Dredd style of justice FTW
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 07, 2013, 04:11:05 PM
Quote from: Maximus on June 07, 2013, 04:05:42 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 07, 2013, 03:58:59 PM
Maybe Yi was making a joke about Guller living in a trashcan. :hmm:
More likely a pronunciation joke.
Possibly, but that wouldn't be as personal. Guller living in a trashcan kinda works because he does live in New Jersey.
(I'd guess typo/autocorrect as most likely thing)
Does DG actually live in Newark? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 07, 2013, 04:11:05 PM
Possibly, but that wouldn't be as personal. Guller living in a trashcan kinda works because he does live in New Jersey.
(I'd guess typo/autocorrect as most likely thing)
YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK
It was a pronounciation joke. It still works personally because adopting Amurican pronounciation is part of assilmilation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 07, 2013, 04:16:44 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 07, 2013, 04:11:05 PM
Possibly, but that wouldn't be as personal. Guller living in a trashcan kinda works because he does live in New Jersey.
(I'd guess typo/autocorrect as most likely thing)
YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK
It was a pronounciation joke. It still works personally because adopting Amurican pronounciation is part of assilmilation.
Is this a spelling joke?
Quote from: The Brain on June 07, 2013, 04:41:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 07, 2013, 04:16:44 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 07, 2013, 04:11:05 PM
Possibly, but that wouldn't be as personal. Guller living in a trashcan kinda works because he does live in New Jersey.
(I'd guess typo/autocorrect as most likely thing)
YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK
It was a pronounciation joke. It still works personally because adopting Amurican pronounciation is part of assilmilation.
Is this a spelling joke?
:D
:weep:
Quote from: Malthus on June 07, 2013, 04:03:23 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 07, 2013, 03:58:59 PM
Maybe Yi was making a joke about Guller living in a trashcan. :hmm:
:D
Nothing like a little bin living.
The DG-Oscar the Grouch connection. I can see a resemblance ... :hmm:
Well, being equated with Oscar is a step up for him from being equated with Dorsey. :)
Quote from: dps on June 07, 2013, 06:37:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 07, 2013, 04:03:23 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 07, 2013, 03:58:59 PM
Maybe Yi was making a joke about Guller living in a trashcan. :hmm:
:D
Nothing like a little bin living.
The DG-Oscar the Grouch connection. I can see a resemblance ... :hmm:
Well, being equated with Oscar is a step up for him from being equated with Dorsey. :)
Dguller is Dorsey? :huh:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 07, 2013, 07:18:54 PM
Dguller is Dorsey? :huh:
No, he's just privy to a lot of secret knowledge that Dorsey told him in pms. :ph34r:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 07, 2013, 07:18:54 PM
Quote from: dps on June 07, 2013, 06:37:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 07, 2013, 04:03:23 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 07, 2013, 03:58:59 PM
Maybe Yi was making a joke about Guller living in a trashcan. :hmm:
:D
Nothing like a little bin living.
The DG-Oscar the Grouch connection. I can see a resemblance ... :hmm:
Well, being equated with Oscar is a step up for him from being equated with Dorsey. :)
Dguller is Dorsey? :huh:
Well yes. :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 07, 2013, 07:21:31 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 07, 2013, 07:18:54 PM
Dguller is Dorsey? :huh:
No, he's just privy to a lot of secret knowledge that Dorsey told him in pms. :ph34r:
How convenient. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2013, 07:23:25 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 07, 2013, 07:18:54 PM
Quote from: dps on June 07, 2013, 06:37:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 07, 2013, 04:03:23 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 07, 2013, 03:58:59 PM
Maybe Yi was making a joke about Guller living in a trashcan. :hmm:
:D
Nothing like a little bin living.
The DG-Oscar the Grouch connection. I can see a resemblance ... :hmm:
Well, being equated with Oscar is a step up for him from being equated with Dorsey. :)
Dguller is Dorsey? :huh:
Well yes. :huh:
Dorsey wasnt Dgullers full call sign back then IIRC. Wasnt it like Dorsey4(insert something stupid)
Heisman
Quote from: 11B4V on June 07, 2013, 07:26:26 PM
Dorsey wasnt Dgullers full call sign back then IIRC. Wasnt it like Dorsey4(insert something stupid)
It's why I call him D4Guller. ^_^
Well Ken Dorsey was pretty awful. Noodle arm. Slow. Just bad.
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2013, 07:28:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 07, 2013, 07:26:26 PM
Dorsey wasnt Dgullers full call sign back then IIRC. Wasnt it like Dorsey4(insert something stupid)
It's why I call him D4Guller. ^_^
:lol:
Like I said, Dguller's come a long way from D4H. Kind of like Grumbler.
I mean, hey, maybe toss it to Andre Johnson or maybe Kellen Winslow's retarded kid, maybe a dump off to Frank Gore (Willis McGahee had blown up his knee earlier, so he wasn't an option anymore). Ken Dorsey didn't do any of that. Instead, Ken Dorsey noodle armed it to no one and ended up not being able to beat Ohio State with what was basically the first round of the NFL Draft surrounding him and on the sidelines. Pathetic.
I'd change my name in shame too.
E: Shit I forgot about Roscoe Parrish. He was a WR on that team too. So was Devin Hester, although he might have redshirted that year. He was on the team though. *I* could win a bunch of college games as their QB with those kinds of players around. Like, right now me, not 21 or 22 year old me.
See, but if you age Ken Dorsey, he could have lost a QB competition in the CFL to Cleo Lemon.
And the Panthers want that guy teaching Cam Newton the moves?
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2013, 03:58:59 PM
Of course, to be fair, we live in a country where all you need for an outcome like this is a single dumbfuck juror, right?
Just one of the twelve...?
I wouldn't think so. The question of whether when a prostitute takes money after sunset without rendering services it constitutes a theft in the nighttime should have been decided by the judge, as a question of law. The jury, appropriately charged, would have decided, as a question of fact, whether this prostitute kept the money, whether she did not render services, and I guess whether or not it was actually nighttime.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 07, 2013, 07:31:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 07, 2013, 07:28:27 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 07, 2013, 07:26:26 PM
Dorsey wasnt Dgullers full call sign back then IIRC. Wasnt it like Dorsey4(insert something stupid)
It's why I call him D4Guller. ^_^
:lol:
Like I said, Dguller's come a long way from D4H. Kind of like Grumbler.
You know, I think I'm a pretty good sport about being teased, but I have no sense of humor about having my honesty questioned. I would appreciate it if you fucked off with that bullshit. Thanks.
Where's Marty at? He on a sabbatical?
No one has ever questioned my honesty.
Prosecutors still done fucked up, IMO. For it to be theft, there should have been an enforceable contract. Since prostitution is illegal in Texas, there was no such thing. Ergo, not theft, and no authorization of deadly force.
Also, doesn't Texas have any rules of escalation? Shooting them in the back as they're leaving still sounds more like murder than deadly force.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 08, 2013, 06:56:44 AM
For it to be theft, there should have been an enforceable contract. Since prostitution is illegal in Texas, there was no such thing. Ergo, not theft, and no authorization of deadly force.
The contract might have been void. Doesn't mean she gets to keep the money.
Quote from: Kleves on June 08, 2013, 09:17:44 AM
The contract might have been void. Doesn't mean she gets to keep the money.
The contract was for "time"; it was his assumption that sex was part of the deal, an assumption not made clear in the Craigslist ad. As she spent 20 minutes with him, the contract was fulfilled. :)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 08, 2013, 06:56:44 AM
Prosecutors still done fucked up, IMO. For it to be theft, there should have been an enforceable contract. Since prostitution is illegal in Texas, there was no such thing. Ergo, not theft, and no authorization of deadly force.
Also, doesn't Texas have any rules of escalation? Shooting them in the back as they're leaving still sounds more like murder than deadly force.
Please. Just stop trying to give legal analysis.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 08, 2013, 09:27:37 AM
Quote from: Kleves on June 08, 2013, 09:17:44 AM
The contract might have been void. Doesn't mean she gets to keep the money.
The contract was for "time"; it was his assumption that sex was part of the deal, an assumption not made clear in the Craigslist ad. As she spent 20 minutes with him, the contract was fulfilled. :)
It was apparently for 30 min. She was leaving early.
Travel time door-to-door is usually included in standard house calls, whether your a plumber or a hooker. So there.
That seems strange for an online 'order' of this nature.
E: Also, your plumber sucks. Mine doesn't charge travel time and therefore is awesome.
If she at least sucked, this probably wouldn't have been such a problem.
Did he hear her racist rant on the phone?
Quote from: DGuller on June 07, 2013, 03:14:30 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 07, 2013, 01:20:35 PM
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?
Maybe? You know I don't live in Texas nor am I a lawyer, so I'm just guessing. But why do you seem to presume that just because a law would allow something ridiculous, that must not be what the law really allows? Are you familiar with the case in California? An unmarried woman is in bed, a man comes into her bedroom and she assumes it is her boyfriend and they have sex. She later finds out it was not her boyfriend, but an intruder. This is basically rape via deception. However, the statute in California explicitly says that women cannot be raped by deception unless they are married. Why? Because in 1800s California it was understood no proper woman would have a man frequenting her bed unless it was her husband, so any proper woman would otherwise immediately violently resist the sexual advances of any other men lest she was a whore.
So it may seem ridiculous, but yes, that meant in California you could sneak into a complete stranger's house and rape them as long as the woman doesn't claim you "forcibly raped" her, for example if she assumed you were a male that she was sexually active with. I see no reason a Texas law couldn't allow the sort of scenario you're talking about, which is evidence of it being a bad law, for sure.
Quote from: Berkut on June 07, 2013, 02:40:03 PM
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.
The NRA was not involved in active lobbying of State legislation in the 70s.
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2013, 09:28:59 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 08, 2013, 06:56:44 AM
Prosecutors still done fucked up, IMO. For it to be theft, there should have been an enforceable contract. Since prostitution is illegal in Texas, there was no such thing. Ergo, not theft, and no authorization of deadly force.
Also, doesn't Texas have any rules of escalation? Shooting them in the back as they're leaving still sounds more like murder than deadly force.
Please. Just stop trying to give legal analysis.
But DSB is an expert at everything!
Quote from: katmai on June 08, 2013, 05:41:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2013, 09:28:59 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 08, 2013, 06:56:44 AM
Prosecutors still done fucked up, IMO. For it to be theft, there should have been an enforceable contract. Since prostitution is illegal in Texas, there was no such thing. Ergo, not theft, and no authorization of deadly force.
Also, doesn't Texas have any rules of escalation? Shooting them in the back as they're leaving still sounds more like murder than deadly force.
Please. Just stop trying to give legal analysis.
But DSB is an expert at everything!
:D
To go along with the Texas theme of the thread.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Frapgenius%2F1232550426_worf%2520face%2520palm.gif&hash=1b11e18b4e701643e4370a50f7d3c6ecd289905c)
Quote
Free gun initiative begins in Houston neighborhood
HOUSTON – Houston resident Cheryl Strain's inexperience with guns was apparent as she struggled to load shells into a 20-gauge shotgun.
Over the piercing blasts of gunfire in the shooting range, Strain's instructor, Dan Blackford, patiently directed her on how to use her thumb to shove a shell all the way inside the barrel and feel it click.
"Now we got a round in the chamber ready to go," Blackford said as he positioned her body on the right way to hold the shotgun. "Look down your sight, put that BB right in the middle of your target and press the trigger."
Strain's northwest Houston community of Oak Forest is the first neighborhood in the country being trained and equipped by the Armed Citizen Project, a Houston nonprofit that is giving away free shotguns to single women and residents of neighborhoods with high crime rates.
While many cities have tried gun buy-backs and other tactics in the ongoing national debate on gun control, the nonprofit and its supporters say gun giveaways to responsible owners are actually a better way to deter crime. The organization, which plans to offer training classes in Dallas, San Antonio, and Tucson, Ariz., in the next few weeks, is working to expand its giveaways to 15 cities by the end of the year, including Chicago and New York.
But others in Houston, while expressing support for Second Amendment rights, question whether more guns will result in more gun-related deaths rather than less crime.
Residents of Oak Forest say their neighborhood, made up of older one-story houses and a growing number of new townhomes, has experienced a recent rash of driveway robberies and home burglaries. On a recent Sunday afternoon, a group of 10 residents, including Strain, went through training at Shiloh Shooting, a northwest Houston gun range.
Kyle Coplen, the project's 29-year-old founder said his group expects to train at least 50 Oak Forest residents and put up signs saying the neighborhood is armed.
"When we have a crime wave, we don't just say let's just increase police and that's all we do. We do multiple things. I see this as one aspect of what we can do," said Coplen, who graduated from the University of Houston with a master's degree in public administration.
It costs the organization about $300 to arm and train an individual and about $20,000 for an entire neighborhood. All costs are paid through donations, said Coplen, though he declined to say how much his organization has raised so far.
While some residents in the neighborhood are supportive, several officials have mixed feelings about it.
Sandra Keller, Strain's neighbor, said she is participating in part because of the helplessness she felt after her furniture store was robbed a couple of years ago.
"If you don't have a gun, you're just a walking victim. You're just waiting for somebody to take advantage of you and your property," said Keller, 64, after practicing at the shooting range.
But Houston City Councilwoman Ellen Cohen, who represents Oak Forest, said, "I have serious concerns about more guns in homes."
Cohen said she supports Second Amendment rights and believes that such a responsibility should include proper training and background checks.
David Hemenway, a professor of health policy and management at the Harvard School of Public Health who has written about firearms and health, said studies suggesting gun ownership deters crime have been refuted by many others that say the opposite.
"Mostly what guns seem to do is make situations more lethal because most crime has nothing to do with guns," he said. "When there is a gun in the mix, there is much more likely to be somebody dying or somebody incredibly hurt."
Proponents of increased gun ownership point to a variety of statistics to support their argument, including ones showing that some cities with strict gun control laws, like Chicago, still have high murder rates.
Blackford, the firearm instructor in the Oak Forest training, said the group is teaching residents not only how to handle and store a weapon but also when to use deadly force.
"The sad part is most people think if you're pro-gun, that you've got this gunslinger attitude, that you are walking around looking for a gun fight to get into and that is so far from the truth," said Blackford, a former Secret Service agent.
Harris County Precinct One Constable Alan Rosen, whose deputies patrol Oak Forest, said that while he believes the best deterrent to crime is effective neighborhood watch programs, he believes people should have the right to protect themselves.
"In terms of having a shotgun, after you've been properly trained on it, to have that in your home to protect your home, I'm for it," he said.
Strain, 46, a single mother who has never owned a gun, said she was nervous firing the shotgun but that more training will help. She also had her 12-year-old son Rory practice firing the shotgun so "if God forbid something happens, he could be prepared as well."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/08/free-gun-initiative-begins-in-houston-neighborhood/#ixzz2VglJ97zN
That explains "All My Exes Live in Texas". His exes are all armed and dangerous, which is why he feels he needs to be in a different state.
Hey I want a free shotgun!
So here's what probably went down with this thing:
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/06/08/no-texas-law-does-not-say-you-can-shoot-an-escort-who-refuses-to-have-sex/
QuoteA misreading of the verdict in a strange and upsetting Texas case has gone viral, since Gawker claimed: "Texas Says It's OK to Shoot an Escort If She Won't Have Sex With You." Texas law does not say that, and the jury didn't say that either. Pushing the idea that an "Insane Texas Law Made it Legal for a Man to Kill a Prostitute" is irresponsible; it misinforms the public and sends a terrible message to violent misogynists.
It is not in dispute that the defendant, Ezekiel Gilbert, paid the victim, Lenora Frago, $150 for 30 minutes of escort services advertised on Craigslist. After Frago refused to have sex with him, the defendant shot her. Frago was paralyzed and the defendant was charged with aggravated assault. When she died seven months later Gilbert was indicted for murder instead.
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.
The much more plausible reason for the verdict is that the jury believed the defendant's claim that he didn't intend to shoot the victim. Per Texas' homicide statute, the prosecution needed to prove that Gilbert "intentionally or knowingly" killed Frago or intended to cause her "serious bodily injury." The defense argued that Gilbert lacked the requisite intent for murder because when he shot at the car as Frago and the owner of the escort service drove away, he was aiming for the tire. The bullet hit the tire and a fragment, "literally the size of your fingernail," according to Defense Attorney Bobby Barrera, hit Frago. Barrera does not believe the jury acquitted because of the defense of property law. He believes they acquitted because they believed Gilbert didn't mean to shoot her.
Unless someone has interviewed a juror or can read minds, they cannot claim the jury agreed the killing was justified. And the juries do not "cite" laws. They find facts and decide "guilty" or "not guilty." And it isn't accurate to call Frago a "prostitute." Witnesses for the prosecution testified she was an escort who never agreed to have sex. Rather than siding with the killer's characterization, writers should at least say "alleged."
One would expect the jury to find that shooting at a car with an AK-47 is at least "reckless," in which case he could have been convicted of manslaughter. But the prosecution didn't charge him with manslaughter, only murder. Manslaughter is a "lesser included offense" of murder and the judge is entitled to instruct the jury if the evidence supports that charge, but it appears she did not. The jury can't convict on a charge that isn't before them.
I think Texas's defense of property law is abhorrent and my gut reaction was that it was a reprehensible defense. This reaction suggests, that you should think twice before hiring me as your defense attorney, sadly. As Professor Michael W. Martin of Fordham Law's Federal Litigation Clinic reminded me: "If the law allows the defense, the lawyer must use it, if it is viable, unless there is a good strategic reason not to. Otherwise, it is ineffective assistance of counsel. If the lawyer feels like he is ethically barred from using a legal, viable defense, he should ask to be relieved."
This story looks very different depending on whether you are looking at the law or at the reporting. Remember reporting? People used to get paid to go find facts and tell the public about them. That happens a lot less now. With many commentators and too few reporters, an alarmist story can have a long life in the echo chamber. But there are still some reporters, and a number of them, though probably stretched pretty thin, have engaged in that old-fashioned practice of going to court, making phone calls, interviewing people and checking facts for this very case. The San Antonio Express did not just start covering this case last week, that's where to start if you want to follow this story as it develops.
This is a terrible story, a woman was killed and no one is going to prison. It is reasonable to be suspicious that prejudice based on her gender, race, or occupation led to that injustice. But all we know thus far is that the defendant received due process and a zealous defense. We don't know that Texas's terrible defense of property law had anything to do with him getting off. The vilification of this jury isn't justified—we should give them the benefit of the doubt that they spent those 11 hours deliberating in good faith and did what they thought the law required. And in our concern for women and victims of violence, we must remember that even admitted killers still have rights.
So he got off not because it's cool to blast prostitutes, but because they didn't also charge him with manslaughter and all the jury could do was decide on murder. Since it wasn't murder, and there wasn't anything else, he walked away. Nice job, prosecutor.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 09, 2013, 04:11:56 PM
So he got off not because it's cool to blast prostitutes, but because they didn't also charge him with manslaughter and all the jury could do was decide on murder. Since it wasn't murder, and there wasn't anything else, he walked away. Nice job, prosecutor.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2013, 08:04:52 AM
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.
I'm still shocked they *only* charged him with murder. Firing off a weapon in an apartment complex parking lot in a heavily populated part of the city, shooting at people in a car, solicitation/prostitution, etc. There's all sorts of stuff there, and they're usually not shy about doing that, at least just from what I've seen other times. Hell, there's a school right down the street from there (Churchill High School), so I'm surprised they couldn't get some THINK OF THE CHILDREN stuff going on too (;)).
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 10, 2013, 08:21:41 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2013, 08:04:52 AM
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.
QuoteAt 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.'
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.
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.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 10, 2013, 08:49:53 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2013, 08:51:38 AM
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.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 10, 2013, 08:53:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2013, 08:51:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 07, 2013, 07:33:17 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2013, 08:59:24 AM
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.
From the Texas Penal Code 19.02(b)(3):
Quote[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?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 09:12:27 AM
From the Texas Penal Code 19.02(b)(3):
Quote[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 ... :lol:
Here's the whole thing:
QuoteSec. 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.
QuoteSec. 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
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2013, 09:14:29 AM
Obviously, because it is legal in Texas to use deadly force on a thief after dark ... :lol:
Sadly that does seem to be the defense after all.
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???
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 09:12:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2013, 10:31:48 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 09:12:27 AM
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. :hmm:
A nasty letter simply lacks that certain something that a stream of automatic rifle bullets provides by way of incentive! :D
You should use it on semi auto for your first time. Way easier to control.
E:
Quote from: YiI imagine because trying to get your money back is not a felony.
Shooting up a moving vehicle in an apartment complex parking lot usually is though.
Do they have to charge you with that to use it?
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2013, 10:34:41 AM
I shoulda taken his approach when my bank incorrectly charged me an overdraft fee. :hmm:
A nasty letter simply lacks that certain something that a stream of automatic rifle bullets provides by way of incentive! :D
The problem is banks are rarely open at night :(
They are way ahead of you Malthus! But maybe if you did it during the winter when it gets dark early.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2013, 10:37:05 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2013, 10:34:41 AM
I shoulda taken his approach when my bank incorrectly charged me an overdraft fee. :hmm:
A nasty letter simply lacks that certain something that a stream of automatic rifle bullets provides by way of incentive! :D
The problem is banks are rarely open at night :(
They are way ahead of you Malthus! But maybe if you did it during the winter when it gets dark early.
Hey, TD Bank is open until 8 PM, for months of the year that is after dark up here. :shifty:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 10, 2013, 10:31:48 AM
I imagine because trying to get your money back is not a felony.
Which gets us back to how firing your AK at a car with people in it is a perfectly legit way to resolve one's contractual dispute over $150.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 10, 2013, 10:41:46 AM
Which gets us back to how firing your AK at a car with people in it is a perfectly legit way to resolve one's contractual dispute over $150.
Presumably because jury found that it was theft, not a contractual dispute.
How do we know they couldn't have convicted of manslaughter? You guys do know that in a lot of states manslaughter is a "lesser included" of murder, meaning the prosecutor doesn't really "charge with murder instead of manslaughter" in such states if you're charged with murder the jury always has the discretion to convict you of a lesser included. I don't know about Texas, I do know that in the Zimmerman/Martin case in Florida where Zimmerman was charged with 2nd Degree murder that in Florida there are several offenses like manslaughter, involuntary homicide etc that are lesser included offenses. So in the Zimmerman/Martin case just because the prosecutor chose murder doesn't mean the jury either has to agree that Zimmerman formed malicious intent or that he's acquitted, they can decide the aggravating factors that would make it second degree murder may not exist but that he's still guilty of manslaughter or another lesser charge.
One of the articles said that there were no jury instructions given on manslaughter, presumably because the prosecutor didn't ask for any.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,9957.msg594343.html#msg594343
QuoteOne would expect the jury to find that shooting at a car with an AK-47 is at least "reckless," in which case he could have been convicted of manslaughter. But the prosecution didn't charge him with manslaughter, only murder. Manslaughter is a "lesser included offense" of murder and the judge is entitled to instruct the jury if the evidence supports that charge, but it appears she did not. The jury can't convict on a charge that isn't before them.
Quote from: Kleves on June 06, 2013, 08:22:05 PM
Is "anti-nutter" a pejorative? :huh:
It bothers me!