• 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!

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

I'm still looking for sources....It was reported here:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...ayed-for-Craigslist-escort-killer-4544215.php

Not that The DailyMail is any more reliable, but they give more info....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...escort-refused-sex-him.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


Here's the rub....

Frago's brother wept Thursday as he described to jurors the decision to take her off life support in July 2010. She was dependant on a respirator, which became disconnected months after the shooting and caused brain damage.

So she died because a tube became disconnected, not directly because of the gunshot....

See how the media twists this $hit....
 
Last edited:
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."
Click to expand...

I am so going on a sunset murder rampage the next time my phone company doesn't deliver what was promised, but still takes my money.
 
In Texas, you cannot legally expect sex in exchange for money. Therefore she wasn't stealing anything.
 
THe gist of the defense was really about whether she died from the gunshot.....But still, the defense, apparently tried to justify the shooting on the fact that the woman had stolen the money....
 
lots of websites reporting the acquittal. Apparently in Texas it doesn't matter if you are attempting to get an illegal act with the 'property' that is money to the rest of us. It would be interesting to see if she actually promised sex for money, I didn't think ads could do that, the promise is time for money. (one website says he thought the money would get him sex but didn't say there was any proof she had promised it)

I'm thinking a whole bunch of drug dealers and pimps are going to want to appeal their shooting convictions based on this :shock:

"Ya honor, I didda wanna kill da Ho, I just wanted my property!"
 
spud_meister said:
I am so going on a sunset murder rampage the next time my phone company doesn't deliver what was promised, but still takes my money.
Click to expand...

Better move to Tejas first, most states do not permit this, Oklahoma is one such state that bans using deadly force at night to 'protect' property.
 
csbrown28 said:
I'm still looking for sources....It was reported here:

Murder trial delayed for Craigslist escort killer - San Antonio Express-News

Not that The DailyMail is any more reliable, but they give more info....

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


Here's the rub....

Frago's brother wept Thursday as he described to jurors the decision to take her off life support in July 2010. She was dependant on a respirator, which became disconnected months after the shooting and caused brain damage.

So she died because a tube became disconnected, not directly because of the gunshot....

See how the media twists this $hit....
Click to expand...

Lol, see how the media twists it and see how you bought it into it immediately and started a thread demanding that someone defend it. :roll:
 
csbrown28 said:
I'm still looking for sources....It was reported here:

Murder trial delayed for Craigslist escort killer - San Antonio Express-News

Not that The DailyMail is any more reliable, but they give more info....

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


Here's the rub....

Frago's brother wept Thursday as he described to jurors the decision to take her off life support in July 2010. She was dependant on a respirator, which became disconnected months after the shooting and caused brain damage.

So she died because a tube became disconnected, not directly because of the gunshot....

See how the media twists this $hit....
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding me. Thanks for posting up something we could all get our teeth into about what should be a slam-dunk "WTF?"

A 30-year-old man has been cleared of murder after a jury agreed his actions were justified after he shot an escort when she took his money but refused to have sex with him.

Lenora Frago was shot in the neck by Ezekiel Gilbert on Christmas Eve 2009. The 23-year-old was paralyzed and died several months later.

Read more: Texas jury acquit man who shot dead Craigslist escort who refused to have sex with him | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Click to expand...

This is a disgusting finding. The only thing I can think of is that, since he was tried for murder, they found that he wasn't directly responsible for her death and were not allowed to find him guilty of a lesser charge. Other than that? Grave injustice done here.

We cannot -- must not -- allow people to use their guns in this way and then let them walk away. If someone isn't in reasonable fear for their life? (And I'm willing to stretch this quite a bit.) They shouldn't be able to shoot someone.
 
X Factor said:
To defend what? A jury verdict?
Click to expand...

I was kidding, the story is sensationalized....She died because a breathing tube became disconnected by accident....

So whoever was responsible for maintaining the breathing tube is directly responsible for her death, BUT she was only on a breathing tube because some idiot was pissed a hooker didn't want to have sex with him....

Pretty sad when you can't pay someone and get sex....
 
MaggieD said:
You have got to be kidding me. Thanks for posting up something we could all get our teeth into about what should be a slam-dunk "WTF?"



This is a disgusting finding. The only thing I can think of is that, since he was tried for murder, they found that he wasn't directly responsible for her death and were not allowed to find him guilty of a lesser charge. Other than that? Grave injustice done here.

We cannot -- must not -- allow people to use their guns in this way and then let them walk away. If someone isn't in reasonable fear for their life? (And I'm willing to stretch this quite a bit.) They shouldn't be able to shoot someone.
Click to expand...

If you do something, anything with malice...Be it hit with a bat, throw a phone, cause someone to trip and bump their head, here are some questions.....

1) If the person you assaulted dies in the future, how far in the future do we have to go before you're not responsible for the death....

2) If they die as a result of defective care, that they are under because of what you did, are you responsible for the death?
 
csbrown28 said:
If you do something, anything with malice...Be it hit with a bat, throw a phone, cause someone to trip and bump their head, here are some questions.....

1) If the person you assaulted dies in the future, how far in the future do we have to go before you're not responsible for the death....

2) If they die as a result of defective care, that they are under because of what you did, are you responsible for the death?
Click to expand...

I don't have the answer. But I do know the answer's out there. If a shooting victim dies in the future as a direct result of someone's negligent act - or criminal act - they can be prosecuted for it. That's not new.

BUT he should have been prosecuted for shooting her in the first place and leaving her paralyzed. You don't get that?
 
X Factor said:
Lol, see how the media twists it and see how you bought it into it immediately and started a thread demanding that someone defend it. :roll:
Click to expand...

Haha....You can think that, I was, I admit, trying to stir things up to demonstrate your point....
 
MaggieD said:
I don't have the answer. But I do know the answer's out there. If a shooting victim dies in the future as a direct result of someone's negligent act - or criminal act - they can be prosecuted for it. That's not new.

BUT he should have been prosecuted for shooting her in the first place and leaving her paralyzed. You don't get that?
Click to expand...


Here are the facts....

She didn't die as a direct result of his actions.

Now why do you assume that he's going to walk free? He will still be charged with attempted murder, is my understanding.
 
csbrown28 said:
Here are the facts....

She didn't die as a direct result of his actions.

Now why do you assume that he's going to walk free? He will still be charged with attempted murder, is my understanding.
Click to expand...

The article I read mentioned no such other charges. That would seem a whole lot like double jeopardy to me. Well, we didn't get you for murder, so we'll retry you for negligent homicide, or like someone else we know, Murder 2. No, I don't think they can do that.
 
I think it's important to note that this was a verdict by jury - it is not in the least fair to claim "Texas" says it's okay or that even a majority of Texans would agree with this verdict if it is as grossly misrepresented.

If I understand the issue correctly, the jury found that the man had the ability to shoot if he was being robbed at nighttime. It's not specifically related to the "product" being sold/bought, but the act of fraud/theft of not producting the goods after monies were exchanged. It would be the same verdict, on the facts and the law, if she had offered to sell a bike for $150 and once she got the cash she tried to ride away on the bike with the cash.

All that said, I think there are lots of situation where juries make what everyone else thinks of as outrageous mistakes in acquitting people of crimes - OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, Casey Anthony, etc. I don't think fair people go around saying that California or Florida says it's OK to shoot, stab, drowned, whatever simply because 12 people in that state feel that way. But I guess Texas is an easy target for some.
 
MaggieD said:
You have got to be kidding me. Thanks for posting up something we could all get our teeth into about what should be a slam-dunk "WTF?"



This is a disgusting finding. The only thing I can think of is that, since he was tried for murder, they found that he wasn't directly responsible for her death and were not allowed to find him guilty of a lesser charge. Other than that? Grave injustice done here.

We cannot -- must not -- allow people to use their guns in this way and then let them walk away. If someone isn't in reasonable fear for their life? (And I'm willing to stretch this quite a bit.) They shouldn't be able to shoot someone.
Click to expand...

I thought you were a big proponent of jury nullification (despite my excellent arguments against it)? This is what nullification is, rendering a verdict contrary to the law and evidence to make a statement. It's what you support.
 
X Factor said:
I thought you were a big proponent of jury nullification (despite my excellent arguments against it)? This is what nullification is, rendering a verdict contrary to the law and evidence to make a statement. It's what you support.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do support it. Not sure that's what happened here, though. Nonetheless, you've made your point. ;) If they tried him for murder and she didn't die because of the injury he caused, I'm not sure "guilty" was the right one. But, in my opinion, they should have structured their prosecution so he could have been found guilty of a lesser charge. :rofl Just listen to Smarty Pants Maggie who knows nothing about the law. ;)
 
MaggieD said:
This is a disgusting finding. The only thing I can think of is that, since he was tried for murder, they found that he wasn't directly responsible for her death and were not allowed to find him guilty of a lesser charge. Other than that? Grave injustice done here.
Click to expand...

Texas, at least as I read the statute, doesn't strictly require that you intend to kill someone for it to be murder. If you intend to cause serious bodily harm, and intentionally shooting someone meets that criteria, and the person dies that still qualifies as murder. On the surface it does sound like a grave injustice but there's just got to me more to this. I personally don't buy the life support idea.
 
Deuce said:
In Texas, you cannot legally expect sex in exchange for money. Therefore she wasn't stealing anything.
Click to expand...

I guess the jury disagrees with you. Juries actually make law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom