• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jury acquits escort shooter

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,822
Reaction score
8,296
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
This is simply bizarre. Texas has some very strange laws

Jury acquits escort shooter
A Bexar County jury on Wednesday acquitted Ezekiel Gilbert of murder in the death of a 23-year-old Craigslist escort.

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.

<snip>

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.

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.

Here's the law used as justification for the acquittal - Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws
 
So if I am in Texas I am legally permited to gun someone down if they try to steal my crack? Good to know.
 
LAST WORDS: "Is that a pistol in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?"
 
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property: <snip>
(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.

She must have been a powerful woman indeed, if her bare hands constituted a deadly threat.
I'm thinking a prostitute ninja with nunchucks.
 
This is simply bizarre. Texas has some very strange laws

Jury acquits escort shooter
A Bexar County jury on Wednesday acquitted Ezekiel Gilbert of murder in the death of a 23-year-old Craigslist escort.

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.

<snip>

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.

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.

Here's the law used as justification for the acquittal - Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws


Sounds to me like a law that was put into place for a legitimate purpose, but which is here being applied in a manner that is technically-correct, but likely not in keeping with the original intent behind it.

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property

§ 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 doubt that the authors of this law were thinking of a would-be prostitute trying to cheat a customer when they wrote “theft during the nighttime”, but the way the law was written, I can see how it might end up being applied here, exactly as it was.

But I am left wondering one thing. There is a difference between an “escort” and a prostitute, though “escort” is often used as a euphemism for prostitute. A legitimate escort will go on a “date” with a client, often in contexts where a client doesn't have a real date, and it would be socially-awkward to appear without a date. The services of a legitimate escort don't include any expectation of sex or a genuine relationship. But I think it is generally understood and expected that most “escort services” are really fronts for prostitution.

It may be that there was a genuine misunderstanding that led to this conflict. Ms. Frago possibly intended to offer her services as a legitimate social escort, and not as a prostitute, while Mr. Gilbert possibly thought he was buying the services of a prostitute. Perhaps Ms. Frago believed that she had genuinely provided the service she was being paid to provide, and therefore thought she was entitled to keep the money she had been paid for that service; while Mr. Gilbert thought he was buying sex, and felt he had been cheated because he did not get it.
 
If prostitution is not legal in Texas, than how can he be a "law-abiding" citizen?

A good point. Even though Mr. Gilbert got off on the murder charge, perhaps they can nail him on charges relating to prostitution. Whether Ms.Frago was actually a prostitute or not, it is clear that Mr. Gilbert's defense is heavily dependent on the presumption that he thought he was buying the services of a prostitute.
 
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property: <snip>
(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.

She must have been a powerful woman indeed, if her bare hands constituted a deadly threat.
I'm thinking a prostitute ninja with nunchucks.

Note the or. Only condition A or condition B needs to be met. It seems that Mr.Gilbert was able to successfully argue that he didn't reasonably believe that he would be able to recover his $150 by any other means.

I'm not saying that Mr. Gilbert's actions were ethically or morally justifiable; but by the technicalities of this law, his actions were found to be legally-justified.
 
Note the or. Only condition A or condition B needs to be met. It seems that Mr.Gilbert was able to successfully argue that he didn't reasonably believe that he would be able to recover his $150 by any other means.

I'm not saying that Mr. Gilbert's actions were ethically or morally justifiable; but by the technicalities of this law, his actions were found to be legally-justified.

It means he was able to convince the court that he was either unable to simply wrest away the cash, or that he would be exposing himself to lethal danger by doing so.
She may have been a big woman or he could possible be a physically weak specimen, so it is indeed possible that he had no other recourse. Either way, I'm not exactly impressed by his manliness.
 
I'd suggest giving Texas to Mexico, but they wouldn't take it.
 
Irregardless of the law being applied "improperly", I think its still a bad law. It basically says property is more important than life. Similar to the stand your ground law, it is far too disproportionate. Murder as retaliation for theft, murder as retaliation for assault.
 
This is why I would not live in Texas. They have legalized murder.

I should make this my signature, unfortunately it's not as good as the one I have. Anyway, that statement is an oxymoron.
 
Looks like she shoulda just gave up some of that ass.
 
It means he was able to convince the court that he was either unable to simply wrest away the cash, or that he would be exposing himself to lethal danger by doing so.
She may have been a big woman or he could possible be a physically weak specimen, so it is indeed possible that he had no other recourse. Either way, I'm not exactly impressed by his manliness.

Try to manhandle whore and you might wind up with a razor in your neck.
 
Looks like she shoulda just gave up some of that ass.

That was somebody's daughter, sister, friend, etc. You might think she was worthless trash but judging from your comments, you are.
 
I saw this in another thread about this topic and thought I would toss it out there. It is illegal to buy sex in the state of Texas, therefore wouldn't that mean the woman wasn't the man's "property" in the first place. Essentially make his defense invalid. Of course i'm just playing off another poster so feel free to correct me if I'm not interpreting the law correctly
 
I saw this in another thread about this topic and thought I would toss it out there. It is illegal to buy sex in the state of Texas, therefore wouldn't that mean the woman wasn't the man's "property" in the first place. Essentially make his defense invalid. Of course i'm just playing off another poster so feel free to correct me if I'm not interpreting the law correctly
I don't think he was claiming the woman as his property - just the $150 she stole.
 
Irregardless of the law being applied "improperly", I think its still a bad law. It basically says property is more important than life. Similar to the stand your ground law, it is far too disproportionate. Murder as retaliation for theft, murder as retaliation for assault.

I tend to disagree.

Given a conflict between a criminal who is willfully attempting to violate another person's rights, to deprive someone of his rightful property or to unjustly cause harm to another; I think the balance should be strongly in the victim's favor with regard to how much force the victim is allowed to use to defend himself and his property. It's not to much that property is more valuable than anyone's life, as it is that the right of an intended victim not to have his property stolen or his person harmed is greater than the criminal's right to steal that property or harm that person, to a sufficient degree as to justify what would otherwise be a disproportionate use of force to prevent the crime.

It is the criminal who chose to create the situation where this conflict occurs, and I see no reason why the intended victim should be compelled to bear any adverse consequences in order to protect the criminal from bearing greater adverse consequences.

If you don't want to be shot, then it's best not to commit a crime that would give anyone a good reason to shoot you. This choice is on the criminal, not on the intended victim.
 
Last edited:
Sounds to me like a law that was put into place for a legitimate purpose, but which is here being applied in a manner that is technically-correct, but likely not in keeping with the original intent behind it.

Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property

§ 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 doubt that the authors of this law were thinking of a would-be prostitute trying to cheat a customer when they wrote “theft during the nighttime”, but the way the law was written, I can see how it might end up being applied here, exactly as it was.

But I am left wondering one thing. There is a difference between an “escort” and a prostitute, though “escort” is often used as a euphemism for prostitute. A legitimate escort will go on a “date” with a client, often in contexts where a client doesn't have a real date, and it would be socially-awkward to appear without a date. The services of a legitimate escort don't include any expectation of sex or a genuine relationship. But I think it is generally understood and expected that most “escort services” are really fronts for prostitution.

It may be that there was a genuine misunderstanding that led to this conflict. Ms. Frago possibly intended to offer her services as a legitimate social escort, and not as a prostitute, while Mr. Gilbert possibly thought he was buying the services of a prostitute. Perhaps Ms. Frago believed that she had genuinely provided the service she was being paid to provide, and therefore thought she was entitled to keep the money she had been paid for that service; while Mr. Gilbert thought he was buying sex, and felt he had been cheated because he did not get it.

You should have quit while you were ahead and stopped at...I doubt the authors of this law were thinking...period...end of statement...no qualifications.
 
Back
Top Bottom