Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 142

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

  1. #121
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Being held hostage is considered being held in imminent danger. Any force, including deadly force would be legal.
    Being held hostage by definition requires force or the threat thereof. The situation you initially described doesn't meet that definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    The law reads that someone standing on your property is not sufficient cause to use deadly force.

    Breaking into your home while you are there is. There is no expectation that one is required to establish a threat level before trying to protect themselves.
    As a matter of fact, under the People v Ceballos ruling, burglary by itself is not enough to establish the necessary threat to justify deadly force. Actual fear of reasonable death/gbh is necessary.

    I put "protect yourself" in bold, because it's an interesting turn of phrase to use in a context where you're alleging that you can use deadly force absent evidence of an actual threat. If you're not under threat, from what are you protecting yourself?

  2. #122
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    Being held hostage by definition requires force or the threat thereof. The situation you initially described doesn't meet that definition.



    As a matter of fact, under the People v Ceballos ruling, burglary by itself is not enough to establish the necessary threat to justify deadly force. Actual fear of reasonable death/gbh is necessary.

    I put "protect yourself" in bold, because it's an interesting turn of phrase to use in a context where you're alleging that you can use deadly force absent evidence of an actual threat. If you're not under threat, from what are you protecting yourself?

    You realize you have created a picture in your mind from which you are arguing your point?

    People v. Ceballos involved the defendant setting up a gun trap in his garage to shot any potential intruder who entered. How could you possibly find equivalence in that versus entering an occupied home and forcing someone to remain as a hostage?

    The very nature of taking one hostage, regardless of the method used, prompts a person to have a reasonable expectation of further harm.

    You are very mistaken about the law in this area.

  3. #123
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

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

    Quote Originally Posted by csbrown28 View Post
    http://gawker.com/texas-says-its-ok-...have-511636423

    Words cannot adequately describe...

    Attachment 67148564

    Is there anyone with the balls to defend this?
    The title is incorrect. That particular jury decided that Ezekial Gilbert was not guilty. Unfourunately, they were wrong because misconception of services is not theft. The dumb fatty thought he was getting a hooker, and got pissed off. Unless there are details of the case that aren't being disclosed, Gilbert should be turning big rocks into little rocks as he awaits lethal injection.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  4. #124
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    You realize you have created a picture in your mind from which you are arguing your point?

    People v. Ceballos involved the defendant setting up a gun trap in his garage to shot any potential intruder who entered. How could you possibly find equivalence in that versus entering an occupied home and forcing someone to remain as a hostage?
    What? I brought up Ceballos in response to this comment:

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    The law reads that someone standing on your property is not sufficient cause to use deadly force.

    Breaking into your home while you are there is. There is no expectation that one is required to establish a threat level before trying to protect themselves.
    Ceballos specifically addresses that contention: "[People v. Ceballos] specifically held that burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'”


    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    The very nature of taking one hostage, regardless of the method used, prompts a person to have a reasonable expectation of further harm.
    But it has to be a method that actually constitutes taking someone hostage. Simply telling someone to sit down doesn't do it. The California false imprisonment statute requires restraining confining or detaining someone using violence, menace, fraud or deceit.

    Simply telling someone to sit down is none of those things (by itself).

  5. #125
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,673

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    The very idea of a law permitting the use of deadly force to protect property demonstrates seriously skewed priorities. Stuff is insured, can be recovered, can be compensated for. There is no property valuable enough to justify killing for. It's absolute insanity. The law is already powerful enough to protect property. This isn't the wild west where a person's rights are only as effective as their ability to defend them. We've progressed 150 years past that nonsense. Relics like that should be left by the wayside.
    I hope the person who plans on coming in my bedroom, to steal from me, in the middle of the night, doesn't believe what you do. I pray the culprit realizes that I value my security and possessions more than I value his/her life. He/she will be sorely disappointed when I inform them otherwise.

    Have a nice weekend!

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  6. #126
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,557

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I support the killing of thieves.


    This particular case though....
    That's cool. But I think you missed the entire conversation.

    Would you kill a person who came into your front yard during a yard sell and attempts to steal a $1.00 item? Or would you kill a kid chasing a runaway football that landed in your yard?

  7. #127
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    I hope the person who plans on coming in my bedroom, to steal from me, in the middle of the night, doesn't believe what you do. I pray the culprit realizes that I value my security and possessions more than I value his/her life. He/she will be sorely disappointed when I inform them otherwise.

    Have a nice weekend!
    Translation: "I fantasize about murdering people over possessions."
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #128
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    What? I brought up Ceballos in response to this comment:



    Ceballos specifically addresses that contention: "[People v. Ceballos] specifically held that burglaries which 'do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm' are not sufficient 'cause for exaction of human life.'”




    But it has to be a method that actually constitutes taking someone hostage. Simply telling someone to sit down doesn't do it. The California false imprisonment statute requires restraining confining or detaining someone using violence, menace, fraud or deceit.

    Simply telling someone to sit down is none of those things (by itself).

    Again, the Cebellos case involved someone setting up a gun trap that shot and killed the person who broke into the garage. That a booby trap, and a completely different scenario than someone breaking into an actual residence while someone is home and then taking them hostage.

    The method of taking someone hostage has very little to do with the qualifier for use of deadly force. I suppose if someone came in with dinner and calmly asked a person to eat while they ransacked their home it might be conceivable a person would not be threatened, but holding someone against their will is kidnapping. That is considered a potentially life threatening situation.

    I guess in the end a jury would have to decide.

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    02-18-14 @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,660

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    And then you should go to prison for murder. Because you attacked people who were not attacking you. Property is no cause to justify violence.
    It is here and I am glad it is. You come in my house uninvited, I do not even have to give you notice before I blow your head off. There would a whole lot fewer robberies if more thieves thought they might not see tomorrow after entering.

  10. #130
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    Again, the Cebellos case involved someone setting up a gun trap that shot and killed the person who broke into the garage. That a booby trap, and a completely different scenario than someone breaking into an actual residence while someone is home and then taking them hostage.
    I know what the case is about. I've read it. As I've explained twice now I didn't bring it up for any reason related to hostage taking. I brought it up because you said this:

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    The law reads that someone standing on your property is not sufficient cause to use deadly force.

    Breaking into your home while you are there is. There is no expectation that one is required to establish a threat level before trying to protect themselves.
    The Ceballos case specifically addresses the contention in bold. Simply breaking into someone's home - even for the purpose of committing a felony (the definition of burglary) - is not enough to justify use of deadly force on it's own. This point that I'm making has absolutely nothing to do with hostage taking, which I think you'll agree is distinguishable from breaking and entering.

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    The method of taking someone hostage has very little to do with the qualifier for use of deadly force.
    No, but again, you actually have to be taken hostage. Simply telling someone to sit on their own couch - absent threat/force/etc - doesn't qualify.

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    I suppose if someone came in with dinner and calmly asked a person to eat while they ransacked their home it might be conceivable a person would not be threatened, but holding someone against their will is kidnapping. That is considered a potentially life threatening situation.
    Holding someone against their will is false imprisonment. And a potentially life threatening situation is distinguishable from a reasonable belief of imminent death/gbh.


    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    I guess in the end a jury would have to decide.
    True enough.

Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •