Texas jury acquit man who shot dead Craigslist escort who refused to have sex with him

reply to post by JayinAR


I note that the statute quoted refers to Penal Code section 9.41 which contains additional qualifying language for the use of deadly force, specifically providing that deadly force can be used if the shooter was "dispossessed" of property by FRAUD. The defense had a double whammy in the law under both sections 9.41 and 9.42 so if the jury believed it was REASONABLE for this guy to believe he'd been ripped off, they'd have to acquit.

Concealed Carry classes (for TX CHL) teaches licensees that imminent threat of bodily harm is the standard applied in the use of deadly force. The business about protection of property at night has been the law in Texas for decades - but it's the sort of thing that "you can beat the rap, but you'll still take the ride". In a clear cut case of imminent danger of bodily harm it's entirely possible one won't be arrested. Somebody shows up in your locked house after dark uninvited - blast away. And that's the way it is in Texas!

(BTW JayinAR I was born and raised in AR....)

ganjoa

Originally posted by MarshMallow_Snake
reply to post by Sankari

 

I am pretty sure this is not legal in every state.

Don't worry, the Republicans will do their best to ensure that it is!

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Op.. are you INSANE.. this guy brought a hot chick home with him and she Robbed him Blind.

Just happened to a friend of mine.. shooting a thief in your house is not a bad thing.. she may have killed you next!

edit on 13-6-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: sp

Show proof where she robbed him. He willing gave the money to her. It isn't her fault that he was too stupid to know the difference between a escort and a hooker. Texas is a backward state where a dollar is worth more than a human life.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Op.. are you INSANE.. this guy brought a hot chick home with him and she Robbed him Blind.

Just happened to a friend of mine.. shooting a thief in your house is not a bad thing.. she may have killed you next!

edit on 13-6-2013 by JohnPhoenix because: sp

Show proof where she robbed him. He willing gave the money to her. It isn't her fault that he was too stupid to know the difference between a escort and a hooker. Texas is a backward state where a dollar is worth more than a human life.

You know damn well that he was expecting sex and she put herself in a position of performance that she failed in. Maybe prostitution should be legal and that way escorts will be a loophole of the past. I would really like to hear what proof you are asking for.

No proof? How about common sense? She wasn't just going up there to do a lap dance....especially with her pimp in the car outside.

I note that the statute quoted refers to Penal Code section 9.41 which contains additional qualifying language for the use of deadly force, specifically providing that deadly force can be used if the shooter was "dispossessed" of property by FRAUD. The defense had a double whammy in the law under both sections 9.41 and 9.42 so if the jury believed it was REASONABLE for this guy to believe he'd been ripped off, they'd have to acquit.

I'd wager the statute was originally on the books for ranchers to protect their property (herds) at night, but the law is the law. The jury is instructed to follow the letter of the law, if not the spirit of it. Here, in this case, the law is on the John's side.

As for proving it was theft, I'd have to see the court notes here. It sounds like her manager (aka pimp) inadvertently built the defense's case with his testimony by admitting they took the money. The defense then just had to show fraud, and that's probably where the balance was tipped. From the account so far, sounds like she ran out of the apartment, so a pretty good indication she got the cash and decided to split. It's all conjecture of course, without all of the info.

The wording of the law is almost MADE to defend this case though... Texas law allows people to use

“deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property … when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s imminent commission of … theft during the nighttime or to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing… theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property.”

His only trick was to prove the theft, and it seems his lawyers did that (and man, did they know how to pick a jury!) The prosecution should have argued that the law is to protect law-abiding citizens, not those in the process of breaking a law (prostitution).

The law may be a bit ridiculous, but jurors have to abide by it. To call them stupid is not really fair (though I would love to see how they proved theft..fraud? maybe....theft?). They are following their mandate to apply the law to the case.

Was he justified in shooting her? Morally, no. Legally, as unbelievable as it may seem.....yes.

reply to post by buster2010


I don't agree with what happened here either, but it isn't our job to prove the alleged theft. Apparently that was already done in the court room and the guy walked.

Now, the guy cannot be tried again for this crime, but perhaps the family members of the deceased can appeal to challenge the legality of this law? Sounds like the law needs to be revisited in this case.

Although honestly I don't see this happening. Hookers don't tend to come from close knit families.

reply to post by JayinAR


Using OJ as a precedent, they could likely sue him in civil court for damages, but good luck doing that in Texas....

reply to post by deadeyedick


This seriously has me upset. I used to drive for escorts and the three girls we had on our site were all very nice college students who almost never had sex with the clients. It isn't part of the arrangement. If they try to then that's when the driver gets them out of there. To think that some sick psychopath thinks that he is within his rights to murder over a failed rape is just disgusting.

To be shot over escaping an attempted rape and then having your murderer get away with it is... let's just say I fully support any and all efforts made by Texas to secede.

reply to post by Cuervo


There was no rape or intended rape. There was a money exchange for sex.

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Cuervo

 

There was no rape or intended rape. There was a money exchange for sex.

You are twisted. By your rationale, by extension of your justification, you are entitled to sex if you buy a woman dinner and are fully within your rights to kill her if she resists.

I need to bow out because I am a person who is very optimistic about where our society is headed and this conversation is just making me see an ugliness that I don't need to see in people. Anybody who thinks this is justified is a piece of crap and I say that without even an ounce of apology. You are a terrible person if you think that this was okay.

reply to post by Cuervo


Your mind seems to be drawing conclusions that are not rational in thought. Bottom line is that running out the door with a hand full of someone else's money will get you shot and if you live in texas the shooter will go free. I am sad that she is gone but scamming is the reason.

reply to post by Sankari


Well, they play for the same team anyway... so one or the other

No one has the right to kill someone who refuses sex.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


In Texas they do.

Whether they SHOULD or not....is another matter....but the law in Texas says you can use deadly force to regain property in certain circumstances. I suspect this law will be examined a bit closer and either rescinded or modified, but at the time of the incident, the shooter seems to be LEGALLY justified, if not morally.

Originally posted by Sankari
reply to post by deadeyedick

 

Ah, the good old USA: where it's perfectly legal to shoot someone if they refuse to have sex with you.

Well done, America. Leading the world, as usual.

oh settle petal, in the UK we lock up paedophiles for 15 months (out in half that time with good behaviour)

Good ol UK really leading the world as usual

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

In Texas they do.

Whether they SHOULD or not....is another matter....but the law in Texas says you can use deadly force to regain property in certain circumstances. I suspect this law will be examined a bit closer and either rescinded or modified, but at the time of the incident, the shooter seems to be LEGALLY justified, if not morally.

I hate it when people get off due to a legal technicality, everybody knows, in a civil world, you cant just go around shooting people because they wont sleep with you.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


I don't think anyone on this thread thinks it is ok to kill someone for not having sex. No one has said that at all. This person was shot for robbery at a home. She should not have left that way and the driver should have not sped away without resolving the situation unless they just wanted to rob him and run.

If I shoot someone in my home (or on my property), at night, it isn't going to be because they are robbing me. It is going to be because they pose a threat to my loved ones. Stuff is just stuff. It can be replaced. But, I won't stand for threats to my loved ones. If I see a stranger in my house, at night, I have no idea of their motives, so I will use deadly force because whatever the reason, they are jeopardizing that safety.

I don't think we have a right to kill over "stuff". Texas law states otherwise, and is what applies in his case (the stolen cash).

To state that, he had to first prove it was "stolen", which he seemed able to do. The rest is simply the jury following the law. Doesn't matter what the cash was for. The point is it was stolen property in the eyes of the law. The prosecution should have argued that since he was in the act of committing a crime at the time of the "theft", the law did not protect him in this case, but somehow, they dropped that ball.

reply to post by Gazrok


It seems that way...but hiring an "escort" is not illegal. Now considering she had her pimp outside we all know what the game plan was. But if the prosecution intended to argue that he was comitting a crime, he could have simply said he had hired the escort for a dinner date and she showed up with a pimp, refused to go to dinner, took his cash, and bolted.

Any way you look at it he was justified under current law. But I agree that law needs revisited. This isn't the wild wild west. People named Dudley aren't running around stealing cattle anymore (I am sure that's why this law ia on the books and makes sense why people would shoot for theft).

reply to post by JayinAR


Exactly...but that is really already covered under the shooting someone on your property law...just as in Florida. Of course, I suspect it was originally intended to cover ranchers during the cattle drive, when not on their property.

It seems that way...but hiring an "escort" is not illegal.

Seems the defendant is the one who confirmed he was paying for sex though, so in essence, he already established it for the prosecution. Remember, this was his whole reasoning as to why it was theft, because she took money for a service not rendered.