Texas Says It's OK to Shoot an Escort If She Won't Have Sex With You

[onehandle]

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 Frago, who wouldn't have sex with him, his actions were justified.

Gilbert had admitted to shooting Lenora Ivie 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."

http://gawker.com/texas-says-its-ok-to-shoot-an-escort-if-she-wont-have-511636423

[PDJane]

1. But if you're a black woman and fire a warning shot, you're guilty, right?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Too many would incarcerate her merely for owning a gun

[Orrex]

35. That's a really ignorant thing to post.

I'm pretty sure that it's illegal for a black woman in Texas to even touch a gun.

[PDJane]

56. Sorry, you're right. The story wasn't from Texas, it was from Florida.

[Orrex]

57. LOL. Touche!

[atreides1]

2. More evidence

Of how f**ked up Texas still is...regardless of what's been said about how "blue" some areas are.

[onehandle]

3. Just those in control and those who vote to keep them there.

Last edited Thu Jun 6, 2013, 02:53 PM - Edit history (1)

The good news is that it won't last.

Blue Texas is inevitable.

[LanternWaste]

23. Then we may safely presume nothing likes this has happened outside of Texas?

Then we may safely presume nothing likes this has happened outside of Texas?

[CokeMachine]

36. It's all of the South's fault -- didn't you get the memo?

If something like this did happen outside of Texas it is because Texas exists? Some posters here make me wonder.

[geek tragedy]

43. In my state of New York, it's illegal to shoot a prostitute because she

refuses to have sex with someone after taking money.

Can't speak for the other 48 states, but so far Texas is alone in granting year-round hunting liceneses to shoot prostitutes.

[CokeMachine]

52. If you say so. nt

[geek tragedy]

58. One good reason we don't honor Texas CCLs.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Man-Convicted-Craigslist-Prostitute-Murder-Long-Island-134630968.html

A Suffolk County jury found Chad Johnson guilty of second-degree murder in the March 2010 death of Jennifer Papain, 26, of North Patchogue, District Attorney Thomas Spota announced Monday.

Prosecutors said Johnson strangled Papain when she refused to give him an $80 refund he paid for, but did not complete, in a car in North Bayshore on March 24, 2010.

Of course, he didn't use a gun, so maybe this would still be illegal in Texas.

[alarimer]

85. It should be illegal to shoot someone, period.

Unless you are in direct fear of your life.

[geek tragedy]

86. That's the rule in civilized states. nt

[Lone_Star_Dem]

96. Since he was arrested and tried I'm assuming it's illegal in Texas as well.

Don't get me started on the ignorance of this jury, though. I've been ranting all day long.

How incompetent does a DA have to be to not know how to select a decent jury? How ignorant of basic decency could these jurors have been to have been so easily manipulated by a defense attorney? I can go on and on and on! I'm livid!

There is no excuse for this in my eyes. None!

[geek tragedy]

97. No, it's not illegal in Texas. The jury got it right, DA was wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022960548

§ 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.

In Texas, if someone steals a loaf of bread from you, you can shoot them in the back while they're running away.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

98. Oh, I'm well aware of the law.

There is no way he should have been found not guilty under that law considering the circumstances. The Grand Jury who indicted him felt there was credible evidence he'd broken the law, as did the DA who pressed the charge. That those twelve idiots on the jury were unable to think beyond the hyperbolic BS the defense hand fed them is simply disgusting.

All I can assume is the defense somehow did manage to have him be reviewed by a jury of 12 of his "peers." There is no way they were of any higher moral fiber than the ass who murdered the woman.

[oldhippie]

103. Regardless of what the Grand Jury or DA said, the jury, ...

.... if they read and follow the law as expressed in the Texas Penal Code, would have to find him not guilty. The law in Texas as posted above is pretty clear. I am sure "the circumstances", as you call them, were brought up by both the DA and the defense. The jury followed the law.

Granted, no other state I know of has a law similar to that of Texas. But that is the beauty (or curse) of democracy.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

109. I know of several states with similar laws.

All totally misguided and as messed up as Texas.

Alphabetical order:

Alabama
Arizona
Florida
Georgia
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
Nevda

The jury made a huge mistake. I care not for how people who know nothing about how this law is normally implemented believe. I've seen several of these types of cases and most do not come to this totally misguided end.

Just so people here do not decide to attempt to paint me further with their broad brush, I am anti-gun in civilian hands. I know of too much perversion of current laws to be anything else. My apologies to those who support such laws, walk a mile in my shoes and see how you feel.

[geek tragedy]

104. The law allowed him to shoot someone because they stole from him.

This appears to be the result the legislature was looking for.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

110. The law was perverted

It's a bad law made worse by this juries actions.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with people who have no clue, nor a care one, of the atrocity which took place, because they're too busy broad brushing due to what they want to believe.

Have a fine evening. I wish you the best.

[Notafraidtoo]

127. A legal escort

A legal escort doesn't have sex with his/her patrons and is simply paid temporary companionship, assuming wrongly that all escorts are about sex isn't theft its simply not getting the service you expected, If this person was a caterer or a maid who was paid before service i doubt he would have been acquitted.

[avebury]

135. What I do not understand is, if you are

in the process of committing a crime (engaging a prostitute is an illegal act) and a person dies as a result of the crime (the person refused to fork over paid sex and was shot and ultimately died) you cannot be charged and convicted of that person's death? The guy had an illegal/unenforceable contract with the victim because prostitution is in fact illegal in Texas.

In Oklahoma, if a person is killed during the commission of a crime, the person doing the killing can be charged with the death of that person.

I would have held out and refused to find the guy innocent because he was GUILTY! I am guessing that the Prosecution did a poor job presenting their case.

[geek tragedy]

136. To me, that us the smaller part--he did what the Texas

legislature wanted him to do.

[Hayabusa]

156. Even if said burglary was of illegal goods or services.

I can see why this law is in place. Disagree with it in a lot of places, but I can see why. Kind of a shit interpretation of it in this case, though...

[geek tragedy]

95. Texas is the only state I'm aware of that encourages citizens to kill

each other over property.

[Ilsa]

4. So enforcing an illegal act with murder is

okay in Texas? Time to move. Sorry, fellow Texas Democrats, I just can't take it any more.

[JimDandy]

84. Illegal contracts aren't supposed to be enforceable alright.

Maybe the judge can nullify the verdict?

[Mariana]

116. Well, strictly speaking

it's only a murder if someone is killed illegally. Apparently, this man was obeying the (totally fucked up) law when he killed this woman.

[11 Bravo]

5. Un-fucking-believable.

I had to click on the link just to be sure this wasn't sarcasm. Words fail me.

[malthaussen]

6. Oh, Jesus fuck, I have to go throw up now.

I am rarely at a loss for words... this just boggles the mind. Like 11Bravo, I had to check the link to verify this. WTF is going on in this country?

-- Mal

[shenmue]

7. What the hell?

Says what now?!?

[boston bean]

8. what's the name of the woman who got the death penalty

for killing her johns?

[siligut]

14. Aileen Wuornos?

But, even though sex and death was involved, the two stories don't coincide.

[spanone]

9. 'he thanked God' and Jesus wept.....

[siligut]

15. Beginning to believe that "good, church-going citizen" is lingo for "made man"

And she was just a motherless prostitute.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

10. And no, it's not The Onion.

Abandon all hope, ye who encounter gun nuts in Texas.

[geek tragedy]

11. Texas--a national disgrace since joining the union. nt

[SwissTony]

12. He shot her in the NECK and it wasn't meant to kill???????

Are we living in Bizarro world?

And the justification is that his unsubstantiated expectations weren't met??????? Not providing sex is a nightime theft?????

[onehandle]

16. Head and torso shots are considered 'kill zones.' Like arms and legs, the neck is 'non-critical.'

Yes... I'm kidding.

I hope...

[JoeyT]

53. Any shot anywhere is meant to be lethal.

In a sane world pointing a gun at someone without pulling the trigger would be considered lethal intent.

"Yeah, I poisoned his soup, but I didn't expect him to eat it!" really shouldn't be a defense.

[Puzzledtraveller]

13. sounds reasonable

[cali]

17. I don't know what to say beyond fuck the jury with a rusty farm implement

[Sheldon Cooper]

18. So if I kill my dope dealer because he ripped me off,

I get to walk away scot free? Super.

[Orrex]

41. Only if it happens after dark.

And if you try to fleece him on the purchase, he can kill you with impunity as well.

Caveat emptor!

[Politicalboi]

54. ONLY if it's a WOMAN

Otherwise, you are in a heap of shit.

[rurallib]

61. might want to make sure the dealer is a woman

that could be a major part of the deal.

[Schema Thing]

19. it's not as bad as it sounds

this happened during a nighttime theft. If it had been during the day he would have totally got jail time.

[unblock]

33. a thoughtful law. deadly force during the day is terrible, but at night it's totally cool!

[thesquanderer]

51. It's like the movie, "The Purge"

Everything is legal, if you do it at the right time.

[Iggo]

21. Wow, Texas.

[Triana]

22. Proper headline: "Life of women in TX valued at $150" n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

24. HA HA

OMG

[iandhr]

25. This sounds like something from The Onion.

This really happened good god.

[kentauros]

77. The problem is that Gawker has misrepresented the subject.

With that headline, it infers that this is now legislated law in Texas. It may have set a precedent, but it's still a jury-based decision. I don't know if the State can appeal, but I hope they do if they can. State prosecutors stated that the law as written wasn't intended to be interpreted this way. If anything, shouldn't blame for twisting the intent of the law be levied against the defense?

It's interesting how everyone here jumps to conclusions. Gawker only posted half of the story (similar to DU's rules on posting a story.) Maybe if people would read the rest of the full story, they might have different opinions. But, seeing as this is DU, and we are talking about something that happened in Texas, I doubt anyone's going to change their minds...

[liberalhistorian]

81. Exactly how was it "misrepresented"?

I read the full story and still don't see it. He shot an escort in the NECK (who the fuck shoots someone in the neck thinking it won't kill or gravely injure them???????) because she wouldn't have sex with him but wouldn't return the lousy $150? Where was he at all justified in doing so??? As the prosecutors said, the "nighttime theft" law was NOT intended to be applied to illegal activity, which prostitution was and is, under Texas law. So he thought he had the right to murder a woman because she "stole sex" from him and wouldn't give back his lousy goddamn one fifty? And you think that's justified and WE'RE the ones being unreasonable? Seriously?

Do you have a problem with women?

[kentauros]

100. "Do you have a problem with women?"

No, but I'd say as a so-called historian that you have a problem reading, or at least comprehending what's written.

I was defending the side of the prosecutors, not the law itself. They were the ones that, rightly so, stated that the law as written was not intended to be used in a defense like this. And as others here have pointed out, his defense shouldn't have won, because he was engaged in illegal activity to begin with.

Gawker is mis-representing this by inferring that Texas law has now changed because one jury has decided to interpret another law incorrectly. The title should have been what the San Antonio paper used, not their misguided re-interpretation of the same story.

And, the last time I checked, aren't any jury-decided case open for further appeal? Hopefully, Texas will do so, and reverse this stupid jury.

[oldhippie]

105. Just to pick a nit, and a legal argument, ...

I was defending the side of the prosecutors, not the law itself. They were the ones that, rightly so, stated that the law as written was not intended to be used in a defense like this. And as others here have pointed out, his defense shouldn't have won, because he was engaged in illegal activity to begin with.

What was the prosecutor's evidence that "the law as written was not intended to be used in a defense like this?" Was there some legal Texas court precedent? Or was it just their opinion? If the law wasn't intended to cover a case like this, involving illegal activity, why didn't it say so? Or why isn't there some precedent that says so? The DA probably didn't bring it up because there wasn't any. Nor did the judge seem to give the jury any such instruction. The law is the law, and juries are supposed to follow it, not their individual feelings.

And, the last time I checked, aren't any jury-decided case open for further appeal? Hopefully, Texas will do so, and reverse this stupid jury.

Maybe you haven't checked in awhile, but there is this thing called double jeopardy. You might look it up.

One thing I have learned since moving to Texas after 20 years living in California. "Texas don't cotton to thieves."

[kentauros]

112. Okay, I didn't realize that was a double-jeopardy thing.

I thought the appeal process worked for both sides. Thank you for the clarification

As for the prosecutors' evidence, all I have at my disposal is what they were quoted as saying in the original article. Maybe that's just opinion, but it's all that's available to any of us at this stage. It seemed black and white clear to me, though.

Plus, they were attempting to try this man for murder. I don't see how everyone else here could possibly interpret my original post to mean I have something against women. Nothing in my post even infers that.


I'm going to let y'all know this right now. I'm a pretty literal kind of guy. In other words, I say what I mean and I mean what I say. There's nothing between the lines to read. If I didn't type it in a post, then I didn't say it, so stop "putting words in my mouth" as they don't belong there.

Haters are gonna hate, no matter what you try to do...

[oldhippie]

114. I don't see where that came from either .....

Plus, they were attempting to try this man for murder. I don't see how everyone else here could possibly interpret my original post to mean I have something against women. Nothing in my post even infers that.

I didn't get the "Do you have a problem with women?" comment at all.

Haters are gonna hate, no matter what you try to do...

Yep, and it's becoming all too common here these days.

[geek tragedy]

106. The problem is that Texas allows you to shoot someone over a loaf of bread.

The law was meant to encourage people to shoot each other over property and money. It achieved the legislature's intent.

[dbackjon]

82. There is nothing in your article that disputes Gawkers claim

It was a fucked up jury decision. It happened in Texas. Deal with it.

[geek tragedy]

93. No, the problem is that Texas encourages people to kill over property

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.42.00.html

§ 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.

If someone steals your wallet in Texas, you're allowed to shoot them in the back as they run away.

[TorchTheWitch]

99. Nothing was misrepresented

It's the same story. Dude THOUGHT his $150 paid for "sex"... did it? Was this specified? If sex was included, did it specify what type of sex? How is it known that she supposedly stole this money when we don't know anything about that? But, moving on - in trying to recover the $150 dude shoots her in the neck and claims he didn't mean to. Yeah right. Seems to me that aiming a gun anywhere at a person and pulling the trigger is an intent to kill. The jury finds him not guilty due to a law that prosecutors explained did not apply in this circumstance since the law was not meant to protect those people committing illegal acts, and there is no question that purchasing sex - or what you BELIEVE to be purchasing sex - is an illegal act.

No, there's nothing at all different about this story with the link you provided, and it's still a revolting jury decision and an absurd law as written. If it was not meant that this law could cover those people committing illegal acts then it bloody well should have been written that way since obviously it could be used as this jury did with deliberate wrong intent. It's further a ridiculous law because it only specifies nighttime. Theft is still theft and murder is still murder whether it occurs during the daytime or during the nighttime. One is neither more serious or less serious than the other. Further, it is a grotesque law that allows murder in a situation where one attempts to recover stolen property. It permits vigilante justice that far exceeds the crime of theft. Not even the police are allowed to shoot someone to death for the sole reason of attempting to recover someone's stolen property, so why on earth should citizens be permitted to? This disgusting decision should be overturned on appeal since the jury did not follow the intent of the law, and that murding shit thrown in prison. And that revolting law should be flushed since it allows vigilante justice that not even the police are permitted and only during a specific time period that does not make the crime committed any different than had it been committed during the non-specific time period.

[Sanity Claws]

26. Isn't prostitution illegal?

He paid money for an illegal act and then shot to recover the money he willingly paid for an illegal act that he didn't get. I always thought you couldn't enforce an illegal contract. Wasn't that what Texas essentially allowed? It allowed this guy to recover money he paid on an illegal contract.

[SpankMe]

64. This is a good point.

I wonder if her next of kin can sue in civil court on that basis and get him via contract law?

Remember the OJ thing, where he got off for the criminal act of killing his wife and Ron Goldman, but was found "responsible" for their deaths in civil court?

[JimDandy]

91. Oddly enough they might lose in civil court after this verdict.

It's Texas, remember, and a civil jury there just might hold that there was no meeting of the minds (he thought the $150 included sex and she would never claim that she was anything more than an escort), so no contract existed, illegal or not, and therefore it was theft.

[MattBaggins]

113. It was a gift

He gave her the money

That is a freaking gift... Stupid jury

[caraher]

27. How many jurors were "pro-life?"

I guess we now have an upper limit on the value of human life in Texas: $150.

[jollyreaper2112]

28. Typical

I'd give Texas back to the Mexicans but I don't think they've done anything to deserve such a punishment.

[Xyzse]

29. You mean this is real?

When I saw the headline/topic, I thought it was some sort of satire or joke.
That's awful.

[unblock]

30. i'm surprised this question was put to the jury.

legally, escorts are paid for companionship for a period of time, not for sex (that would be illegal), though they may of course choose to then have sex having nothing legally to do with the companionship-for-hire arrangement.

if the killer engaged in a legal contract (for her companionship), then there was no theft and therefore no basis for the shooting.
if the killer engaged in an illegal contract (for sex) then the money becomes contraband and i would not think the law would permit him to seek recovery of it legally at all, nevermind with deadly force. i mean, if that's ok it would seem to permit killing the police for seizing your drugs.

either way it doesn't seem like a valid legal theory to me, so i would think the judge would rule as a matter of law that this should not lead to a finding of not guilty. perhaps the judge did put this in the charge to the jury and the jury just ignored it.

[Orsino]

45. If prostitution is illegal there...

...wouldn't law-'n'-order Texans come down more heavily on the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime/solicitation?

The situation also smells like the use of a firearm to force no consensual sex, or what we used to call attempted rape.

[unblock]

49. legal analysis aside, it's obviously a violently misogynistic outcome.

female + sex = evil, deserving of all manner of punishment. there's really no other explanation.

[ismnotwasm]

31. He "thanked God"??

[Laelth]

32. Wow. Very troubling law.

From the OP: "Texas law allows people "to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft."" Really?

In law school, I was taught that under the English common law (the backbone of the law in 49 states), it is never acceptable to use deadly force in defense of property.

I have to wonder how old that Texas law is. I suspect it's fairly new and represents the natural progression of the right's assault on the common law. Think "stand your ground" laws destroying the common law "duty to retreat." This law, I suspect, is part of the same trend.

-Laelth

[oldhippie]

108. Texas law is based more on Spanish law ....

... than on English common law as in the Northeast. And the section cited in the Penal Code Chapter 9 goes way back, to the establishment of the Texas Republic. Cattle rustlers and other thieves were not treated kindly.

My best advice to people who don't like Texas law is to not move here.

[MattBaggins]

115. So you say as a Texan

It's okay to gift someone money, demand it back and then shoot them if they refuse? You're proud of your state?

[oldhippie]

118. Actually, I'm from New York, ...

.... and lived most of my life in California (Monterey), but I now live in Texas. So I like to understand local law. I read the statutes, and even case precedents. I try to understand the history and the culture. Texas is actually a pretty democratic state. The state constitution limits the powers of the state government and allows the people's representatives to pass the laws they think appropriate. In the 16 years I have lived here I have learned a bit about how they think. Texans are different than the rest of the country. The state was "born" in a different process than most.

Both sides presented their case. The jury decided.

Proud of my state? Which one? Everywhere I have lived (including six states and six countries) had it's pros and cons.

[MattBaggins]

120. If you feel the jury decided and that's okay

Then the stereotype of texans is deserved.

You can't give a Gift and then murder the person if you decide you want it back.

[oldhippie]

121. I think you would have trouble .....

.... convincing a judge or a jury that there was any "gift" involved. Gift has a legal meaning.

I know it's not PC to admit, but stereotypes sometimes exist for a reason. I'm not saying I agree with the jury decision, but I certainly understand how a Texas jury came to it. And this is certainly not the first time a Texas jury has pissed off DU. Probably won't be the last.

[MattBaggins]

123. Yes it has a legal meaning

And if a woman comes to your house to hang out with you, any money you give her is a gift.

You can't murder someone over a gift.

[oldhippie]

128. OK, if you say so ...

... I believe you.

[Laelth]

134. Very interesting to know, thanks.

I've never studied Vernon's Code of Texas Annotated. All I can tell you is that my law school generally taught that Louisiana's state law is based upon Code Napoleon whereas the rest of the states in the union used the English common law as the basis for their legal systems. It makes a lot of sense, though, historically, for Spanish colonial law (or Mexican law) to have had a strong influence on the state law of Texas. If the law in question (allowing deadly force to be used in defense of property) is, indeed, very old, predating the entry of Texas into the union, then I stand corrected and thank you for enlightening me.

Cheers!

-Laelth

[oldhippie]

137. I wish I had better history of early Texas law .....

I'm sure there is a way to find it, but I am an engineer, not a lawyer. When I looked at the annotated Code I saw that almost all the sections were dated from an act of the legislature in 1973, and revised since. So I assume that Texas re-codified some earlier document at that time. I wish I knew the earlier history.

I was curious enough that this morning I called a friend (local police chief) and asked him if he knew how long the self defense laws had been around. He has been on the force for 30 years and his family here in Texas for generations. His answer was, "It's always been that way." (And that was a pretty wordy explanation from the Chief!)

So I still would like to know the origins and history of Texas Penal Code Sec 9.42. All I have heard is that it goes back to the founding of the Texas republic, but I would love to see something more authoritative. (It's amazing what interests an old retired engineer these days. )

[Laelth]

139. Interesting, and thanks for looking further into the matter.

I wonder whether you worded the question in a way that the local police chief could understand, however. "Self-defense" laws have, in fact, been around for a very long time and are part of the English common law, but this Texas case (shooting someone over money) is not what I understand as "self-defense." You have every right to defend your person (your body) and other persons (in most cases) from threats of bodily harm, and you have the right to use deadly force to do so. 49 states are agreed on that point, and, as far as I know, Louisiana agrees too.

What's not allowed under the English common law is the use of deadly force in defense of property, i.e. the john's money, and that's what we have in this Texas case. That, also, is why I was so shocked by the law when it came to my attention. I am not aware of any other state that allows the use of deadly force in defense of property. In most states, you can't just shoot a guy who's stealing your car. Evidently, in Texas, you can, but only if the car is being stolen at night. That seems to be what this Texas law says, and that's why it sparked my curiosity.

-Laelth

[oldhippie]

141. You are correct, and I used "self-defense" when ......

.... I should have said "use of deadly force." But I think he knew what I meant. If I get a chance I might look into it a little more.

I assume you have looked at the applicable Texas Penal Code section (9.42). I was also surprised when I first saw it. I have been a firearms instructor for years, going back to my youth in NY and teaching firearms training to Scouts in California. When I came to Texas I became a certified handgun and self defense instructor and Range Officer. When I saw Chapter 9, with the defense of third persons and defense of property (and even third person's property) I was shocked. But, I was told, "This is Texas, and we don't cotton to thieves." I was also told that this goes back to the days of the Texas Republic, when there wasn't a lot of law enforcement presence, things were pretty rural, and in the harsh environment at the time a man's possessions could literally be his life.

When I first got here in 1997 there was a section in chapter 9 that even authorized the use of deadly force against a police officer that was using excessive force to effect an arrest! My LEO buddies really didn't like that one and it wasn't even mentioned during the classes for CHLs. I just looked at the Code and that section seems to be gone, which is probably good.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion of legal history, and if you happen across anything showing the genesis of this part of Texas law I'd sure like to see it. Thanks!

[LeftInTX]

150. Texas groundwater laws are based on English common law

"Rule of capture"

(Sorry off topic, but noticed your interest in Texas law. I have no idea where the rest of the Texas laws originate, but I know about that stupid groundwater law!!)

[oldhippie]

152. That's interesting ....

I wonder if there just wasn't anything like water laws in Spanish law, or maybe there weren't enough people in Texas to worry about it until Texas joined the union and started adopting the more common English law? I don't know, but I still find it interesting.

I've heard that the Colorado water laws are pretty draconian.

[LeftInTX]

154. I'm pretty sure groundwater laws were written after Texas became a state

Basically whoever has the biggest pump gets the most water.... yippee!!!

Surface water is a whole different story. The surface water laws are much more sane and regulated.

[TexasTowelie]

34. Another reason I'm glad that I only lived in Bexar County for two months.

I was there for a short while after graduating college and did not like living in San Antonio.

[Snake Plissken]

37. The Texas Taliban is okay with honor killings

Unfortunately I' really not surprised.

Get ready for shootouts at Texas Beauty Salons by clients who are not happy with the haircut they paid for.

[veganlush]

39. and..

[marions ghost]

40. Grotesque

"to recover property during a nighttime theft" was the basis for a legal victory in this?



Here's the pathological narcissist's statement:

“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.”

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php#ixzz2VSkv8f8Q

[AlbertCat]

42. So....

.... does this mean I can shoot my Rep or Senator if they don't do what I think I'm paying them to do? (as long as it's night)

[oldhippie]

153. Hmmmm, tempting .....

But I think they have to meet the legal definition of robbery, burglary, or theft during the night before you can cap'em. There's a couple of other little nitpicking rules, like no other safe way to stop them, identify them, etc. But still, it's tempting.

[HelenWheels]

44. Women, stay out of Texas! nt

[derby378]

72. Excuse me?

My beloved Ginny was a native-born Texan and one of the fiercest Democrats you could ever meet. Please don't go pissing all over the entire state because of a corrupt jury in Bexar County.

[kentauros]

78. Remember, though. We're on DU.

Pissing all over Texas (and Florida) is a favorite pastime, if not the primary favorite thing to do for some of them...

Keep defending us, anyway. I posted above about the full story. Gawker makes it seem like this is some kind of new law from the Legislature.

[geek tragedy]

107. When did the law allowing people to shoot each other over money get passed? nt

[oldhippie]

111. 1973 .....

... was when the law was codified into Chapter nine of the Texas Penal Code by the legislature. But it existed in statute long before that, going back to the days of the Texas Republic before the civil war. Remember, Texas had a slightly different "birth process" than the rest of the states.

If I were you I wouldn't move there.

[geek tragedy]

132. Oh, Texas is somewhere between Afghanistan and Somalia on list of retirement destinations. nt

[BainsBane]

46. Tell me again how there is no real misogyny in the US?

[ismnotwasm]

55. No shit

Some folk thinks this is about guns alone.

[opiate69]

83. Try as I might...

For the life of me, I can`t recall ever seeing anyone here (with the possible exception of a long-gone troll or two) actually try to make the argument that "misogyny doesn't exist in the US. By all means, if you have evidence of this I'd love to see it so I could mock the idiocy as well.

[Swede Atlanta]

47. I just vomited.........

I know we have many, many intelligent, rational DUers from Texas but WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH TEXAS?

First of all they were engaging or attempting to engage in an illegal activity - prostitution
Second, even if you want to accept the idea that the agreement of a wink and nod and entry into a hotel room creates an enforceable contract under which she will do whatever and he will get his jollies, I do not believe U.S. jurisprudence accepts that when the party paying for the services attempts to take back their "pre-mature" (oh the imagery) payment for services not rendered, can use deadly force to do so. I think that is called a "civil case".

Good God those idiots on the jury should be quarantined for being stupid.

[adieu]

48. I can see how a vengeful prostitute

might devise a way to take this person out. I'm sure this Gilbert a-hole will return to the CL or elsewhere to get some booty for $150.

When the ladies find out who he is, by his cell phone or whatever, they'll lay a nice trap and blow his balls away and claim that he tried to defraud her by not paying the amount agreed to. And it wasn't even prostitution, it was for the "time spent together" as an escort.

I'm sure the jury would not convict, right? Nighttime theft is nighttime theft, right?

[magical thyme]

50. You people are so mean....

Poor Ezekial can't even watch teevee any more because all the violence on it upsets him so much.

Besides, that escort is lucky she wasn't thrown in jail for prosti...oh, wait a minute....

Un. Fucking. Believable.

So he's crying that he's been a prisoner of his own mind for the last 4 years. May that sentence of a guilty conscience last a lifetime, then.

[TRoN33]

59. Holy mackerel!

Texans, really?

[Snake Plissken]

60. The San Antonio Spurs might want to consider wearing body armor to their home games in the finals

Tickets are going for a lot more than $150, so it's perfectly legal to kill the players if you are not happy with the outcome of the game you paid to attend.

[AndyA]

62. Is prostitution not a crime in Texas?

"Escort" may be a nice way to put it, but why was the guy not committing a crime by hiring a prostitute. That's what being paid for sex is in most places.

So, if the guy was robbing a bank in the middle of the night, and paid someone to drive the get away car, and they took the money and left him instead of fulfilling their paid obligation, it would be OK for the robber to kill the driver and he wouldn't be prosecuted for breaking the law by robbing the bank?

WTF?

[BlueJazz]

63. The poor woman. She gets no justice even in death. I live in Florida and I thought these...

...(OK..Half)...people were stupid but that jury in Texas has to be completely brain-dead.

Geez..this is sad.

[Laelth]

66. It appears to me that the jury followed Texas law.

It's the law that's the problem, I think, not the jury.

-Laelth

[BlueJazz]

70. True...But if I were on the jury, I'd probably "buck the system" and catch hell for it.

I just could not vote not guilty.
I have to be true to myself..as the saying goes.

[Laelth]

71. It appears that one or more jurors felt the same way.

According to this article, http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php, the jury deliberated for nearly eleven hours. Somebody was having a hard time saying "not guilty."

-Laelth

[derby378]

73. I can't decide whether to shake that juror's hand or throw a beer in his face

In the end, the shooter got away scot free. And the Two Minutes Hate for the entire state has begun.

[alarimer]

87. I would have held out and hung the jury

Make them try him again. Now, he can't be tried again.

[Laelth]

89. That's always an option.

The Judge, however, has the power to keep sending the jury back to deliberate, again and again, if he or she chooses. It can take a long time to hang a jury.

Still, it's a worthy endeavor for those who believe strongly that injustice will be done if they fold.

-Laelth

[alarimer]

155. And it's really hard to be the lone holdout.

The only two times I've served on juries, we found both of them guilty. I didn't have a problem with the verdict, but I did have the problem with the pace of deliberations. Everyone had made up their minds before we went to deliberate and I wanted to slow it down a little. It's like they just wanted to get out early so they could have the rest of the day off. It was unseemly.

But the pressure to go along was strong and those were minor cases.

[Laelth]

157. The pressure to go along is, indeed, immense.

In fact, it's supposed to work that way. Sadly, juries tend to be very pro-state. It's incredibly common and easy to get a jury to say "guilty," particularly if the defendant is male and has dark skin. Getting a "not guilty" verdict is quite rare. Ultimately, I guess I am saying that your experience strikes me as normal.

-Laelth

[Poll_Blind]

74. Yup. If the judge put the fear of god into 'em about not considering anything but whether...

...the shooting was technically justified or not according to the law, I could absolutely see this being the result.

PB

[MattBaggins]

117. No it's not

Dumb ass interpretation of refusal to return a gift as theft. Really stupid to allow that to stand.

[Laelth]

133. A gift? I am not so sure.

If the $150.00 was a gift, why, then, was the defendant asking the victim to give the money back?



-Laelth

[Fantastic Anarchist]

65. Incredible.

No words.

[quakerboy]

67. So then

If I order food at Mcdonalds in Texas, and they forget to give me the fries, Can I then legally murder the cashier if they refuse to give me a refund as quickly as I want it? As long as its at night, that is?

[geek tragedy]

68. Only if you use a gun, It is Texas, after all. nt

[surrealAmerican]

79. ... or if your bank mistakenly charges you an overdraft fee ...

... you could just head down to the local branch with an assault rifle to "keep them in line"?

Yeah, there's nothing about this law that could possibly be abused.

[susanr516]

119. That's why the banks here all close before sundown nt

[Dash87]

126. You shorted me a McNugget! *pow* *pow*

[JI7]

69. the piece of shit Thanked God , what i hope happens to this worthless piece of shit

[derby378]

75. I once had a $200 bicycle stolen from me at night in Dallas

The theft happened literally right in front of me. I had just returned from a visit to my brother's place with a couple of new Blu-rays to watch, and this punk kid walked the bicycle out in front of me and jumped on it. I yelled at him to stop, but he just pedaled faster while casting one backwards glance - perhaps to see if I was going to gun him down.

But I never fired a shot. Under Texas law, I would have been justified in doing so, but he was just a stupid punk-ass kid, and even though he stole my bicycle, it still wasn't worth more than his life. So I'm still fat and he's still alive.

This verdict down near San Antonio is completely inexplicable to me. If ChickMagic were still alive, I'm sure she'd be bundling me into the car so we could drive down I-35 at breakneck speed to protest loudly in front of the courthouse next morning.

[dorkzilla]

76. What.The.Fuck. (n/t)

[hughee99]

80. Why isn't this considered murder during the commission of armed robbery?

The escort is legally only allowed to sell companionship, not sex. If she was with him for an agreed upon amount of time, it's not his money, it's hers. He paid her for services she actually performed (companionship), and then attempted to take the money back that she legally received for those services. He's robbing her, and using a gun to do it.

Of course, the other argument is that he wasn't attempting to get the money back with the gun, he was attempting to get sex instead, in which case, he shot her while attempting to commit rape instead of robbery.

In either case, the man was the only one in the room committing a crime (either robbery or rape) and shot her during the commission of it... unless you want to argue that the man is entitled to sex for the money he paid, but since that's illegal, I don't see how one could make that argument in court. Even if you did argue that, I don't think firearms are a legal way to settle a "contract dispute".

[Ilsa]

88. Or attempted rape, which it could have been argued. nt

[geek tragedy]

94. Because Texas''s legislature WANTS people to kill each other over property.

That's the way they wrote their laws.

They don't value human life the way people in other states do.

[Generic Brad]

90. Justice "Texas Style" Is Not Justice At All

The courts down there sure seem to be stacked with judges, prosecutors and jurors who are woefully ignorant of basic right and wrong. I hear of one case after another where the guilty go free if they used a gun, minorities and women get the book thrown at them, and innocent people are given the death penalty despite evidence that exonerates them.

I know that travesties of justice occur everywhere, but there seems to be a concentration of extreme judicial horror and injustice in Texas.

[DeSwiss]

92. And he's such a handsome specimen.....

How could she even think of turning this hunk down???



- Excepting for a potential mass migration of all civilization, I'm not returning to Texas. Ever.

[thelordofhell]

101. Looks like that Big Hoss kid from Pawn Stars

[benld74]

102. Terribly wrong on SO many levels

[Dash87]

122. "If I see guns on TV, I change the channel" Oh, how horrible! You poor thing.

Obviously we're supposed to feel sorry for him, because he's the real victim here. And after all, he was justified in shooting somebody over $150 when they were no threat to him. That'll teach her to steal! - oh wait, she's dead.

[hrmjustin]

129. Good bye my friend!

[uppityperson]

130. Huh. It must sting. New hobby needed?

[freshwest]

131. So her life and body weren't her property that he stole by shooting her?

He could have took her to court to sue, if he hadn't been doing what he didn't want others to know.

The only reason anyone knew what he'd done, was the injury and that inconvenient, worthless body of hers.

So now life and limb are worth less than $150?

No war on women, huh?

Oh, yeah, contract law only.

Yes, he could take her pound of flesh since he didn't get his contracted 'piece of ass.'

No double jeopardy. No respect for life from the Pro-Life state.

Well, it was just a woman...

Do I need a icon?

Fuck him and the jury, too.

[Demo_Chris]

138. The general question is whether or not it is okay to kill to protect property...

Many would say that it is not okay, regardless of the value. Others disagree.

I have spent most of my adult life poor. Like many I have little or nothing I can afford to sacrifice to criminals. And while $150 is not a lot of money to many people, to someone like me that might be the difference between my family having a home or living in my car. If someone stole my car I would literally and quickly have nothing left -- no home, job, no nothing. I would lose everything.

In this case, the law protected someone from being robbed by a prostitute. If that were all this law did it would be silly, but that's not the purpose. It was written to protect someone like me -- or, rather, to allow someone like me to protect myself.

[geek tragedy]

140. Shooting someone over property is not protecting yourself.

It's murder in every civilized state.

But thank you for confirming that the 2nd amendment is really about allowing people to use violence to defend property.

[Demo_Chris]

142. Nonsense...

Unless you happen to be some alien creature capable of existance without food or shelter, property is essential to life. It is not only a necessity in terms of making life possible (food and shelter), in most people's minds it is essential to making life enjoyable and worth living. Stealing someone's car can EASILY cause them to lose their job. In many parts of the country there is no public transportation at all, let alone transportation that takes them from their home to their work in a timely manner. The victim of such a crime might well find themselves not only unable to work, but unable to even get to the grocery store to purchase food (with the money the are no longer recieving). This one simple crime -- a crime you seemingly dismiss -- could cause someone to lose everything they own and value including their kids. The thief did not simply steal a car, he or she stole a life.

That's what happens on the ragged edge. There is no leeway or net. Not in this country.

But it doesn't need to even be that extreme. If a TV is all a person has, if chilling in front of the idiot box is all that gets them through their day, stealing that TV is a pretty big deal. Stealing a hundred bucks from Bill Gates (or to some of the wealthy posters here) might not matter to him all that much, but to a widow on Social Security it's her medication or rent.

And ultimately every theft -- no matter how tiny -- is the theft of an irreplacable slice of someone else's life. The minutes or hours or days the victim worked to earn that property are now lost forever. They weren't squandered, they were stolen.

So yes, I believe that everyone has the RIGHT to protect their property, and no, I have no problem with the idea that robbery is not a risk free occupation. If grandma blows someone away who is trying to take her social security check, I will shed no tears for the perpetrator.

EDIT: I do not see this as a second amendment issue.

[geek tragedy]

143. I do not share your Ayn Rand view that property is more valuable than human life. nt

[Demo_Chris]

144. Since that is not my position I guess we are in agreement...

For my ACTUAL position you will need to reread my post.

[geek tragedy]

145. Anyone who thinks it's okay to kill another human being over money

or property is per se elevating the value of that property over that of human life.

You yourself have just placed the value of human life at "grandman's social security check."

So, around $1230 is about the cap of a value for human life.

[Demo_Chris]

147. Ah, I see your point, but I am not the one assigning the value. That would be the thief. nt

[geek tragedy]

148. What dollar amount is too low to justify shooting someone in the back?

$150? $50?

Under your construction, if 10 year old child steals money, it's okay to shoot them as they run away. After all, that money is what counts.

[Demo_Chris]

149. I think that would depend upon the circumstances, but a $1 bottle of water...

Could certainly qualify in the right location and situation. And I imagine you would agree.

In any case, you seem incredibly concerned over the wrong people. In a crime like this, it was the decision of the criminal to steal something from an innocent victim that started the chain of events. The thief made that choice without the slightest knowlege or concern over how his greed would impact or potentially devistate the victim -- he didn't care. If the victim loses their car or job or house, so what. If grandma can't afford her medication so what.

I put the victim ahead of the criminal. If you don't want to be shot while stealing things DON'T STEAL.

[Romulus Quirinus]

146. Rather than have my day ruined by the notion that your soul is blackened enough

to actually believe what you wrote, I am going to assume that you are trolling.

[nomorenomore08]

158. I assume he's using hyperbole, at least somewhat, to make a point.

Though he does, unfortunately, also describe some of the real psychology of those who have little and fear losing it. And that life is cheap, as the OP also demonstrates...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

151. LOL

i mean i assumed you wanted us to laugh at your poor logic. so i am obliging.

[nomorenomore08]

159. As others have noted, satire is a dying art these days. With good reason.

nt

[Lunacee_2013]

160. God, my state is just embarrassing sometimes.

Ok, a lot of the time...

On edit: I know I just poked fun at my state, but judging by some of the posts here, Texas may as well be the root of all evil and stupidity. As if horrible things don't happen in other states. Just a note, but before bashing Texas, along with the rest of the south, just remember that there are liberal folks living there. And before anyone tells me to move, I'm not rich enough to do that. Besides, what would that solve? If every liberal/democratic person moved out of the south, they'd become even more red and they'd still vote.