Hooker didn't blow you? Shoot her. [Texas]

fly

omg
Oct 1, 2004
76,221
26,103
1,323
Marklar
₥64,396
Steam
mattressfish
http://gawker.com/texas-says-its-ok-to-shoot-an-escort-if-she-wont-have-511636423

A jury in Bexar County, Texas just acquitted Ezekiel Gilbert of charges that he murdered a 23-year-old Craigslist escort—agreeing that because he was attempting to retrieve the $150 he'd paid to Lenora Ivie Frago, who wouldn't have sex with him, his actions were justified.

Gilbert had admitted to shooting Frago in the neck on Christmas Eve 2009, when she accepted $150 from Gilbert and left his home without having sex with him. Frago, who was paralyzed by the shooting, died several months later.

Gilbert's defense argued that the shooting wasn't meant to kill, and that Gilbert's actions were justified, because he believed that sex was included as part of the fee. Texas law allows people "to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft."

The 30-year-old hugged his defense attorneys after the "not guilty" verdict was read by the judge. If convicted, he could have faced life in prison. He thanked God, his lawyers, and the jury for being able to "see what wasn't the truth."

Love it
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
464
648
45
Austin
Marklar
₥663
Theft is theft. The circumstances don't change that. This isn't about "saying it's okay to kill hookers who won't f*ck you," it's about clarifying that theft committed by an escort is still theft and we have laws prescribing legal defenses for actions intended to prevent that theft from occurring. That's all this case was about.

Ignore the hooker part, and focus on the theft part. Don't let the media make you stupid.

Also, she died 7 months after the shooting, so apparently she didn't rub enough dirt on it.
 
Last edited:

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,953
18,766
823
Marklar
₥21,493
A theft is not a justifiable reason to shoot someone.

A theft that takes place while you're committing a crime doesn't really help the case. While the title of the article is stupid, the fact that this guy is doing anything but sitting a cell for the rest of his life is outright disgusting and a sign that our criminal justice system is broken at its core.
 

DJBrenton

In Her Majesty's Secret Cervix
Feb 10, 2010
9,399
3,316
273
Robin Hoodland
Marklar
₥1,829
I was going to post this but assumed some moron would accuse me of being a Brit who didn't understand about guns.

Some kid steals a pack of gum from your convenience store at 9:30 on a Wednesday? Kill 'im! Your girlfriend accidentally wears one of your shirts out of the house when she goes out for a pack of smokes? You know what to do! Apparently it even works when that theft happens because you were doing something illegal.

My immediate reaction, of course: if "The Wire" had taken place in Dallas, Avon Barksdale would have been perfectly within his rights to kill Omar whenever he pleased.

So why aren't people given the lethal injection for burglary? Surely if the individual can do it, so can the state?
 

Mr. Argumentor

I fab shitboxes and shitbox accessories.
Sep 27, 2012
52,484
24,177
823
Tampa-ish
Marklar
₥63,534
Steam
asastang
Theft is theft. The circumstances don't change that. This isn't about "saying it's okay to kill hookers who won't f*ck you," it's about clarifying that theft committed by an escort is still theft and we have laws prescribing legal defenses for actions intended to prevent that theft from occurring. That's all this case was about.

Ignore the hooker part, and focus on the theft part. Don't let the media make you stupid.

Also, she died 7 months after the shooting, so apparently she didn't rub enough dirt on it.

Even if you were serious, theft of only $150 is nowhere near felony level, so it doesn't matter if it was theft or not.
Unless Texas is so stupid as to allow lethal force in the prevention of misdemeanors
 

Coqui

Piccolo Pete
Oct 14, 2004
35,593
4,667
673
45
Columbus, OH
Marklar
₥3,593
Theft is theft. The circumstances don't change that. This isn't about "saying it's okay to kill hookers who won't f*ck you," it's about clarifying that theft committed by an escort is still theft and we have laws prescribing legal defenses for actions intended to prevent that theft from occurring. That's all this case was about.

Ignore the hooker part, and focus on the theft part. Don't let the media make you stupid.

Also, she died 7 months after the shooting, so apparently she didn't rub enough dirt on it.

Isn't the way its kept "legal" is by saying you're paying for time only? So as long as she stayed with him, it would be fulfilling her part of the bargain, whether or not his intent was sex?
 

fly

omg
Oct 1, 2004
76,221
26,103
1,323
Marklar
₥64,396
Steam
mattressfish
Theft is theft. The circumstances don't change that. This isn't about "saying it's okay to kill hookers who won't f*ck you," it's about clarifying that theft committed by an escort is still theft and we have laws prescribing legal defenses for actions intended to prevent that theft from occurring. That's all this case was about.

Ignore the hooker part, and focus on the theft part. Don't let the media make you stupid.

Also, she died 7 months after the shooting, so apparently she didn't rub enough dirt on it.

At any point, did he feel his life was in danger from this hooker? If not, then its fucking disgusting, media spin or not. And I'll bet he didn't.
 

fly

omg
Oct 1, 2004
76,221
26,103
1,323
Marklar
₥64,396
Steam
mattressfish
I was going to post this but assumed some moron would accuse me of being a Brit who didn't understand about guns.

Some kid steals a pack of gum from your convenience store at 9:30 on a Wednesday? Kill 'im! Your girlfriend accidentally wears one of your shirts out of the house when she goes out for a pack of smokes? You know what to do! Apparently it even works when that theft happens because you were doing something illegal.

My immediate reaction, of course: if "The Wire" had taken place in Dallas, Avon Barksdale would have been perfectly within his rights to kill Omar whenever he pleased.

So why aren't people given the lethal injection for burglary? Surely if the individual can do it, so can the state?

OMG SHUT UP BRIT
 

plot

Morning Boehner
Oct 16, 2006
20,031
4,165
573
kansas city
Marklar
₥1,882
If you get killed while committing a crime, I don't really give a fuck about you or if you think the reaction was overkill. bet it keeps the other hookers in Texas in line now.
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
464
648
45
Austin
Marklar
₥663
Even if you were serious, theft of only $150 is nowhere near felony level, so it doesn't matter if it was theft or not.
Unless Texas is so stupid as to allow lethal force in the prevention of misdemeanors

There is no distinction between felony or misdemeanor dollar amounts or other aspects of the crime when it comes to protecting your property in Texas.

Unfortunately I am completely serious.

Many Americans seem to believe that criminal trials are manifestations or displays of emotion. They aren't. They are an examination of facts and the application of existing law to those facts. I don't agree with what he did at all, or even the ambiguities of the law, but that's not the point. It's never the point. And if we want to make it the point then we need to change the law.

Which is here, by the way.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) 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.



The more you know:

Texas allows use of force in a lot of situations, including against peace officers who use undue force against you for no reason.

c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
 
Last edited: