Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 20 of 68 Posts

·
Grr! That is all.
Joined
·
595 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Texas Says It's OK to Shoot an Escort If She Won't Have Sex With You


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

This world is a joke!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,559 Posts
I am not an expert on Texan or US law so cannot comment to specific of the offences. However, if they agreed a service in exchange for a payment and she took the money then refused to perform the service, then it does seem like she either committed fraud or theft.

Whether or not allowing shooting is a silly law, it does seem his actions are - on the facts stated - potentially legal.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,993 Posts
The shooting wasn't meant to kill?

But he shot her in the neck, one of the more lethal locations to get shot all things considered. A sad day that this fuckwit managed to get off, at least in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,232 Posts
Wait... he's pretty much said he's hire a women to have sex with him... In effect, hired a prostitute. Isn't prostitution illegal in the USA everywhere apart from Nevada?

Point being... he's admitted to taking part in criminal activities, and he's gotten away with it.... ?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,559 Posts
Wait... he's pretty much said he's hire a women to have sex with him... In effect, hired a prostitute. Isn't prostitution illegal in the USA everywhere apart from Nevada?

Point being... he's admitted to taking part in criminal activities, and he's gotten away with it.... ?
That would be a separate offence, so - if sustainable - might, I assume, be tried separately. Maybe he did a deal?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,215 Posts
The shooting wasn't meant to kill?
He may have been aiming elsewhere. Maybe an arm or leg (and really missed). Maybe she was moving too much and threw his aim off. Maybe it was supposed to be a warning shot that went horribly wrong for whatever reason.

I personally wouldn't think it was justified. But I guess the jurors were either thrown into a legal tight spot by the defense (home defense laws) or maybe they were just won over for some other reason. I wish we had more information on why the jurors ruled the way they ruled.

Point being... he's admitted to taking part in criminal activities, and he's gotten away with it.... ?
I'm no legal expert but...

He may be put on trial for the attempted prostitution charges later?

That or maybe double jeopardy? I don't think this is the case, though. Could someone with a better knowledge of the law (which is pretty much anyone over the age of 10) fill us in?
 

·
Heresy Online's Pet Furby
Joined
·
8,723 Posts
I don't want to live on this planet anymore..... :suicide:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,523 Posts
Whether or not allowing shooting is a silly law, it does seem his actions are - on the facts stated - potentially legal.
It raises some serious loopholes though...

For example, if I go to Burger King (enter any fast food restaurant here) and as long as it is night time, I may define it as theft and shoot someone to get back my 10$ if they get my order wrong and won't return the money.

Hell, I could shoot the bastard at Future Shop who lied about the computer specs I was buying and then refused a refund when I found out he was lying as LONG as it is at night.

I think the comment on the article page about him being white and her being possibly not white is what did it here. That and people are fucking retarded sometimes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,215 Posts
For example, if I go to Burger King (enter any fast food restaurant here) and as long as it is night time, I may define it as theft and shoot someone to get back my 10$ if they get my order wrong and won't return the money.
I'm pretty sure the ruling was based the Stand-your-ground law. It'd have to take place in your home.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,559 Posts
It raises some serious loopholes though...

For example, if I go to Burger King (enter any fast food restaurant here) and as long as it is night time, I may define it as theft and shoot someone to get back my 10$ if they get my order wrong and won't return the money.

Hell, I could shoot the bastard at Future Shop who lied about the computer specs I was buying and then refused a refund when I found out he was lying as LONG as it is at night.

I think the comment on the article page about him being white and her being possibly not white is what did it here. That and people are fucking retarded sometimes.
I would not say those were loopholes: you would have to prove that it was theft to get the defence, so would probably have to show the order was wrong/fraudulent.

Personally I do not think it is a ideal law because it encourages killing instead of using the police; however, within the context of the US solve-it-yourself-with-force legal system, it is fairly coherent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,523 Posts
pizza delivery guy is screwed then.

joking aside, here is the law and the link:

Houston Safety Net

She must have been one seriously scary escort as there is a caveat to 9.42 which I bolded.

§9.41. Protection of one's own property.



(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is

justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably

believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass

on the land or unlawful interference with the property.



(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by

another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor

reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the

property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the

dispossession and:



(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he

dispossessed the actor; or



(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud

against the actor.



(Chgd. by L.1993, chap. 900(1.01), eff. 9/1/94.)



§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.


I would not say those were loopholes: you would have to prove that it was theft to get the defence, so would probably have to show the order was wrong/fraudulent.

Personally I do not think it is a ideal law because it encourages killing instead of using the police; however, within the context of the US solve-it-yourself-with-force legal system, it is fairly coherent.
loophole is perhaps the wrong word. however, under the law above, it raises the possibility. the actuality is that she was a hooker and no one really gives a shit about hookers. had she been a contractor that guy would be in jail for life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,861 Posts
She doesn't have a 'Western' name. So I imagine she's either Colombian or Mexican - both of which pass as second rate citizens in 'Murica anyway.

So the law would never be on her side...

EDIT:

Not overly happy I said this in this way - In hindsight there was a much simpler/politically correct way to make this comment.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,993 Posts
He may have been aiming elsewhere. Maybe an arm or leg (and really missed).
All in all, a leg isn't even close to the neck, assuming she didn't have her head up her ass or anything. An arm is honestly not much better; kinda like saying he mistook her head for her foot.

Maybe it was supposed to be a warning shot that went horribly wrong for whatever reason.
Isn't a warning shot delivered away from a body? I always thought the point of them was to warn the target that you meant business and future shots would be more lethal.

I wish we had more information on why the jurors ruled the way they ruled.
Indeed, and hopefully this is not the end of things for him; ultimately his actions killed another human being who did not threaten his life. His reason for causing her such harm is weak at best.

That or maybe double jeopardy?
Last I recall, double jeopardy prevents you from being prosecuted for the same crime if you are acquitted the first time (if they later find out he did mean to kill her, theres nothing they would be able to do about it since he was found innocent of the murder charge, for example.)

Soliciting a prostitute would be an entirely different charge, and hopefully the go after him for that since he did admit to it already.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,232 Posts
He'd paid for her to be an escort. Basically someone who accompanies you to a function of some sort as a dinner date or whatever.... Assuming this is a legitimate company, she did what she was oblidged to do.. escort the guy to an event, which she did, and she was paid for that....

Now, its the guy that's assumed sex was part of the deal and because she hasn't slept with him, he's shot her....


Anyone else starting to think this is highly dodgey? Its pretty much setting a president that if you take a girl home after a night out and she won't sleep with you, you just shove some cash in her purse and say you paid for her and can get away with killing her...


Texas....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
Nah, the crime of shooting the woman is related to the crime of prostitution, but not the same. He could have shot her without hiring her, or could have hired her without shooting. Hence, he could still be tried for the prostitution.

Shame there's no law in America against being the kind of despicable, cowardly trash that would shoot a woman in the back for $150.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,215 Posts
All in all, a leg isn't even close to the neck, assuming she didn't have her head up her ass or anything. An arm is honestly not much better; kinda like saying he mistook her head for her foot.
I haven't fired a fire arm (BB guns don't count, right?) I'd imagine if I was trying to hit someone's arm or leg I could wind up shooting them in the neck by accident. Even if they were 15-20 feet away (~5 meters). And that's assuming the person was standing still. If she was moving or running or even just casually bending over to get her purse to walk out...

I always thought the point of them was to warn the target that you meant business and future shots would be more lethal.
Maybe a shot over the head that dipped low? You see it in the movies. A character puts a bullet a couple inches off another character's face to show that he or she means business. Unfortunately trying to mimic a movie character without the same level of skill can and does have disastrous results.
~~~~~~

It's really hard to judge whether he deliberately aimed for her neck/head or he just screwed up. The only people that could tell us would be the shooter and he's hardly a reliable source given the stock he has in the case.

I'd err on the side of him being a major dumb ass for firing at a person in the first place. But I'd also need to know some more facts about him to really make that a solid judgement.

For example, if he was a former soldier with several marksmanship awards with pistols, I'd call bull shit he missed that badly. On the other hand, if he was a random guy that thought having a gun makes him more of a man, and had never fired a shot before this fatal shot, I could more readily believe he fucked up.

Still, unless the woman was coming at him with a knife or something, there's no reason he should have shot her. Self-defense should only extend to equal force.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
She doesn't have a 'Western' name. So I imagine she's either Colombian or Mexican - both of which pass as second rate citizens in 'Murica anyway.

So the law would never be on her side...
Wow, careful you don't drown in the paint splatter coming off that huge fucking brush you're painting with, Prick.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,889 Posts
All in all, a leg isn't even close to the neck, assuming she didn't have her head up her ass or anything. An arm is honestly not much better; kinda like saying he mistook her head for her foot.
Either way shooting someone in the leg or arm does not show you didn't mean to kill them. A shot in the arm of leg can be just as deadly as a shot to the chest or head.
 
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
Top