• 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

it' a good law.... it wasn't applied very well in this particular case though.

If can be so agreigiously misapplied like this then it is not a good law.
 
So does California, ask Robert Blake or OJ Simpson

prosecutorial incompetance does not compete with legislative incompetance.
 
prosecutorial incompetance does not compete with legislative incompetance.

Of course it does, in fact it is worse. And Texas was interpretational not legislative
 
Of course it does, in fact it is worse. And Texas was interpretational not legislative

Again as stated above...a law that can be so agreigiously misinterpreted IS legislative incompetance. As far as proscecutorial incompetance being worse...I would take exception to that. If a prosecutor is incompetant then it is just his/her cases that get screwed up. If the legislature is incompetent then the whole state suffers.
 
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.

I'm generally talking about defending property and defending your life as two separate instances. If somebody is threatening your safety while stealing from you that has quite different implications.

If you are stolen from, killing them as a way to stop the theft and for no other reason is too far.

If you pick a fight and get your ass kicked (Zimmerman), killing them is too far.
 
That was somebody's daughter, sister, friend, etc. You might think she was worthless trash but judging from your comments, you are.

She was a thief.
 
I want to meet the Defense Attorney. This guy is a superstar!!!!!
 
This is why we love to make fun of Texass.
 
Again as stated above...a law that can be so agreigiously misinterpreted IS legislative incompetance. As far as proscecutorial incompetance being worse...I would take exception to that. If a prosecutor is incompetant then it is just his/her cases that get screwed up. If the legislature is incompetent then the whole state suffers.

Fact is, it wasn't the whole legislature yet, it was one courtroom. What we saw in the OJ trial was a circus and a judge uncapable or unwilling to control his court.
 
This is why we love to make fun of Texass.

That's funny. I live in Texas and I never hear anyone make fun of Texas, at least not while they are visiting the state.
 
That's funny. I live in Texas and I never hear anyone make fun of Texas, at least not while they are visiting the state.

Kanstantine you better watch out, you just insulted a person so terrifying nobody dare speak ill in their presence, lol.
 
Kanstantine you better watch out, you just insulted a person so terrifying nobody dare speak ill in their presence, lol.

Oh, I'm not insulted, I know we have a good thing. Also, what kind of a jerk visits a state and complains while they are visiting.
 
Oh, I'm not insulted, I know we have a good thing. Also, what kind of a jerk visits a state and complains while they are visiting.

Sorry, didn't realize Texas was above criticism, carry on with your good thing.
 
Fact is, it wasn't the whole legislature yet, it was one courtroom. What we saw in the OJ trial was a circus and a judge uncapable or unwilling to control his court.

Oh but it was the whole legislature and not just on this. From overly broad castle laws to no overtime your legislature is doing a fine job????? Hell you guys cannot even figure how to hang stop lights.
 
Try to manhandle whore and you might wind up with a razor in your neck.
Try mentioning to someone they took your parking spot and they might do the same thing.
Doesn't make it ok to gun them down in advance for something they *might* do. Nor does the label "prostitute" warrant automatic use of deadly force.

"I felt threatened" is not a blanket excuse, nor should it be accepted unless a jugde or jury agrees that the defendant have had reasonable cause to asses the situation that way.
Since civilans don't have the same training as law enforcements officers, the boundaries for when deadly force may be applied should be somewhat looser, but there should still be boundaries.

Apparently the court did feel that way, but the guy is still a ***** in my book.
 
Try mentioning to someone they took your parking spot and they might do the same thing.
Doesn't make it ok to gun them down in advance for something they *might* do. Nor does the label "prostitute" warrant automatic use of deadly force.

"I felt threatened" is not a blanket excuse, nor should it be accepted unless a jugde or jury agrees that the defendant have had reasonable cause to asses the situation that way.
Since civilans don't have the same training as law enforcements officers, the boundaries for when deadly force may be applied should be somewhat looser, but there should still be boundaries.

Apparently the court did feel that way, but the guy is still a ***** in my book.

A live *****, at that.
 
This thread shows that even on DP, there really are some sick ****s in the world. They have such a pathological hatred of women that they have dehumanized them to the point justifying their murder.

There is absolutely no legal basis for this case whatsoever. Prostitution is obviously a crime so it automatically makes any contract void. Even more important, even if prostitution were legal, failing to provide the agreed upon services would be a breach of contract, not theft. The remedy for breach of contract is civil court, its not even a criminal action.
 
Last edited:
But that's only for celebrities. The Texas law is for anyone including drug dealers.

really, were the members of the jury celebrities?
 
Oh but it was the whole legislature and not just on this. From overly broad castle laws to no overtime your legislature is doing a fine job????? Hell you guys cannot even figure how to hang stop lights.



I'm not from Texas, but nice deflection
 
really, were the members of the jury celebrities?

They were following the idiotic Texas law that allows people to get away with murder. What makes Texans so foolish? Is it the water?
 
They were following the idiotic Texas law that allows people to get away with murder. What makes Texans so foolish? Is it the water?

the would fall into the genius category compared to California or New York
 
Back
Top Bottom