• 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

Paschendale said:
If you are at home, and someone breaks in, you get the hell out and call the police. Any other course of action is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

You must be crazy!

So, you allow someone else to come into your home and your reaction is to run? And you ask someone else what color the sky was in their world? I think by running you would be doing a cowardly act, but if that's how you protect what you have worked for, if you have worked, so be it.

We Texans don't see it that way. I understand that you live in New York, but even with that, you should at least have a little manliness about you.
 
Muhammed said:
Here's the details that I've heard. They might be accurate or might not be.

Gilbert found Frago's craigslist ad under "escort services" that advertised 20 minutes for $150. After she arrived at his apartment he gave her the $150. But when he made sexual advances she informed him that the $150 was for her driver (pimp) and that any sexual favors would cost him extra.

Apparently he did not want to pay extra or did not have the extra money and was under the impression that the initial $150 fee was supposed to include sex.

After 20 minutes she left with the $150, but he wanted his money back. Then he came out with an AK and started shooting at the passenger side of the car. He said that he was just trying to shoot out the tires to stop it and get his money back. But she was hit in the back and the neck.
Click to expand...



Assuming that is how it went down, there is only one conclusion I can come to....


Under Texas law, he should be hung by the neck until dead in the public square....


... for extremely poor marksmanship.



:mrgreen:
 
ocean515 said:
Yes. California is the "crooks are just misunderstood angels" state.
Click to expand...

Nah, more like the "we don't condone unprovoked deadly assaults" state.

ocean515 said:
Just one of many explanations for California's demise.
Click to expand...

Probably explains the high property values and standard of living in my area.

ocean515 said:
However, the definition of "reasonable" allows for quite a bit of latitude doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Not as much as you might think. We've got decades of caselaw narrowing the range of what is reasonable.

ocean515 said:
That's why it's best to practice gun safety and become a good shoot. One clean shot to solve the problem for eternity is easier to explain than unloading a clip of wild shots into the person stealing your car stereo.
Click to expand...

The best practice is to be a lot less eager to shoot people than you appear to be.
 
Paschendale said:
If presence of a weapon is enough, then why I can't I just shoot someone who is "exercising their right to carry"? Presence is not enough to justify the use of force. An overt action so that a person has a reasonable belief of imminent bodily harm is. You are suggesting that merely taking something creates a reasonable belief. That's not true. If you are at home, and someone breaks in, you get the hell out and call the police. Any other course of action is just plain stupid.



You clearly do not live in this world. I am sitting in a library right now. There are a great many things besides the fear of violence that keep me from stealing something. The vast vast majority of people think the way I do in this situation. Only a very deranged few take the position that you are asserting.
Click to expand...


A course of action that isn't always possible. Let's say your 2yo is asleep on one side of the house and you're on the other side.
 
Aderleth said:
Nah, more like the "we don't condone unprovoked deadly assaults" state.



Probably explains the high property values and standard of living in my area.



Not as much as you might think. We've got decades of caselaw narrowing the range of what is reasonable.



The best practice is to be a lot less eager to shoot people than you appear to be.
Click to expand...


Nah. The best practice involves a target and a range.

All joking aside, California is on a quest to restrict gun ownership a far as legally possible, so the point you're attempting to make is quickly becoming moot.

As to demise, I guess that for another thread.
 
ocean515 said:
Nah. The best practice involves a target and a range.

All joking aside, California is on a quest to restrict gun ownership a far as legally possible, so the point you're attempting to make is quickly becoming moot.

As to demise, I guess that for another thread.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. To be clear: I have no particular problem with gun ownership. I do, however, have a problem killing someone who is not actually a danger to you. That's murder, and California state law agrees with me.
 
Aderleth said:
Fair enough. To be clear: I have no particular problem with gun ownership. I do, however, have a problem killing someone who is not actually a danger to you. That's murder, and California state law agrees with me.
Click to expand...

California law allows the use of deadly force when someone enters your home, and starts stealing your property, while holding you hostage.

Best check your understanding of the law.

Now, using deadly force for stealing your pink flamingo from the front lawn? Questionable. Depends on how long you've owned it...:)
 
ocean515 said:
California law allows the use of deadly force when someone enters your home, and starts stealing your property, while holding you hostage.
Click to expand...

California law allows use of deadly force when you are reasonably in fear of imminent death/gbh. That might very well include a hostage situation. It depends on the details.
 
Goshin said:
A course of action that isn't always possible. Let's say your 2yo is asleep on one side of the house and you're on the other side.
Click to expand...

Let's say any number of improbable possibilities. Let's add an erupting volcano to the mix, too. If there is an infant in the mix, and reasonable proof to suspect danger, you can use violence. The whole argument here is that mere presence in someone else's home, or the taking of property, create a reasonable belief in imminent harm. That's complete nonsense.

Regardless, you still make the situation worse by escalating violence.
 
Aderleth said:
California law allows use of deadly force when you are reasonably in fear of imminent death/gbh. That might very well include a hostage situation. It depends on the details.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Someone walks into your home and tells you to sit down while they steal your property is now holding you hostage. Deadly force would be justified.

Breaking into an occupied home in California is grounds for using deadly force on the part of it's occupants.

However, chasing them down the street firing off rounds is going to result in some real close questioning by appropriate authorities.
 
Paschendale said:
I'm really not talking about this case, and I gather that even this argument wasn't the crux of his defense. I'm saying that the law in question is extremely flawed and should be changed.



Well, that's a start.



That is a TERRIBLE by-product. Situations that could have been completely devoid of violence and injury are now more likely to end with someone hurt or dead. That's awful. Completely contrary to any sane person's objectives in crafting a law or protecting society. "Makes it easier to rid society" of thieves? No, you're just creating incentive for them to attack first and kill you before you can defend yourself. The only result of this is a lot more dead innocent people.
Click to expand...

We just see life completely differently. We value our freedom and our property and will defend them. Some would say it's not worth it or I just don't want to deal with it and run away, but overall this attitude will likely cause more problems than standing up to criminals. If the criminal element knows you won't run, many will go elsewhere.
 
ocean515 said:
Exactly. Someone walks into your home and tells you to sit down while they steal your property is now holding you hostage. Deadly force would be justified.
Click to expand...

No. If they've just told you to sit down without brandishing a weapon or even displaying any type of aggression deadly force would not be justified.

ocean515 said:
Breaking into an occupied home in California is grounds for using deadly force on the part of it's occupants.
Click to expand...

Maybe. It depends on the circumstances.
 
this is un****ingbelievable, and apparently, it's real. that's one dumb jury.
 
Aderleth said:
No. If they've just told you to sit down without brandishing a weapon or even displaying any type of aggression deadly force would not be justified.



Maybe. It depends on the circumstances.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

If one should see someone break into their garage, the standard is different. Better have strong evidence to support deadly force in that type of circumstance.
 
 
I have very little actual understanding of how law enforcement/justice system operates. It would seem that if the charges brought against him fit his crime, shooting someone in the neck because he was angry, then surely he'd have been found guilty. If they went for murder and it wasn't murder, that was the prosecutions fault right?
 
Muhammed said:
After 20 minutes she left with the $150, but he wanted his money back. Then he came out with an AK and started shooting at the passenger side of the car. He said that he was just trying to shoot out the tires to stop it and get his money back. But she was hit in the back and the neck.
Click to expand...

Good lord, shot up the car with an AK? It would be funny if it weren't so tragic. What the hell kind of society do we have? Maybe this guy never bought a health club membership where he thought he paid monthly, only to find out he owes $800, or that the SUV raffle lead to the time share which had so many strings attached that made it more painful to use than not, etc. Good gods. An escort on craigslist and he excepted it to be BBB verified eh?
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Being held hostage by definition requires force or the threat thereof. The situation you initially described doesn't meet that definition.

ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Aderleth said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
csbrown28 said:
http://gawker.com/texas-says-its-ok-to-shoot-an-escort-if-she-wont-have-511636423

Words cannot adequately describe...

View attachment 67148564

Is there anyone with the balls to defend this?
Click to expand...

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.
 
ocean515 said:
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?
Click to expand...

What? I brought up Ceballos in response to this comment:

ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.'”


ocean515 said:
The very nature of taking one hostage, regardless of the method used, prompts a person to have a reasonable expectation of further harm.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom