• 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

In Texas, you cannot legally expect sex in exchange for money. Therefore she wasn't stealing anything.

Then she should have given him his money back, otherwise she was robbing him. It is alright to shoot a robber if he takes your property.
 
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.

Another good reason for me to stay south of the Red River, as if I need a reason.
 
How is the decision and interpretation by 12 people on a jury indicative of the whole 25+ million other people in the state?

Please read the whole thread...You'll understand.
 
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)

Incidentally, Texas is one of a very small number of states (the only one I can think of off the top of my head) that allows for the use of deadly force to recover property (rather than to protect yourself or others).

I do wonder a great deal if the jury would have acquitted if the shooter had been a gangbanger trying to recover his stolen crack. My guess is, not so much.
 
Then she should have given him his money back, otherwise she was robbing him. It is alright to shoot a robber if he takes your property.

She allegedly robbed him.....

The problem with letting people decide the guilt or innocence of another person without an understanding of all the facts ultimately will lead to mistakes. Laws like those in TX are guaranteed, on a long enough timeline, to lead to these types of cases.

We can judge her character as a prostitute and decide her guilt.....But the reality is we really don't know her situation. While very unlikely, maybe her pimp told her to take the guys money without providing services or he'd hurt or kill her. I admit it's far fetched, but not impossible in this situation or another.

Texas lets you be judge and jury, they let you decide if you have the right to take another life in the defense of your property. So the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty fly's out the door.

I could see something like this being abused. Lets say I sold something to someone I didn't like and they came over to my house to pick it up....Upon driving away with it I shoot him and claim he stole it. Well, if he is dead, he can't defend himself....Now what? Again, unlikely? Perhaps, but not beyond belief.

What if she threw the money on the floor before he left and he didn't see it? Do you think that if he lost sight of her for 3 seconds he would assume that? Do you think he announced his intention to attempt to kill her if she didn't give him the money back? (maybe many not).

What about untrained people wielding guns in the defense of their property. What about stray bullets? Are we ok accepting that risk? Is it realistic in a culture that advocates the possession of a weapon with absolutely no training required that they should know, not only how to use it, but all the potential results of their actions under duress?

I think the thing that appalls the average person is that this 23 year old woman was, as the result of her stealing 1-3 days pay, was sentenced to life trapped inside her body for 50 more years (she was paralyzed) assuming she would have lived an average life. Was her freedom or her life only worth $150?

I would have mailed the shooter his $150 if it meant saving her life....Even if she was a prostitute.
 
Last edited:
Then she should have given him his money back, otherwise she was robbing him. It is alright to shoot a robber if he takes your property.

No it's not. Not even in Texas. There is a significant caveat to that law which is that the shooter has to reasonably believes he has no other way to get his property back. If he had contact information for the woman - which seems likely - then he had other means of getting his property back.

Obviously the jury disagreed so there may be more to this picture.
 
It's Texas for crissakes. Nothing surprises me out of Texas.

Don't mess with Texas. They will execute you. But you can mess with Texas hookers. That's okay.

Yeeehaw!
 
I guess the jury disagrees with you. Juries actually make law.

I'd say lawmakers make laws, Juries give their opinion at trial and appeals courts decide if all was kosher. The final arbitrator of any law is the Supreme court.

What amazes me is the defendant can admit he thought he was getting an illegal act for the money rather than just some of her time.

'He stole my dope so I shot him!'
 
No it's not. Not even in Texas. There is a significant caveat to that law which is that the shooter has to reasonably believes he has no other way to get his property back. If he had contact information for the woman - which seems likely - then he had other means of getting his property back.

Obviously the jury disagreed so there may be more to this picture.

The other issue that no one's raised yet is that depending on how you look at it, she didn't necessarily steal his money. Most prostitutes who advertise online (and I don't think they're allowed to advertise on craigslist anymore) have disclaimers stating that you're paying for their time and their company, and not for sex. If she delivered her time and company, the legal transaction was technically complete. Of course obviously the illegal transaction (i.e. sex for money) is obviously what this guy signed up for; but contracts to do something illegal are void anyway. So can you really claim that someone you've voluntarily given money to -who has completed the terms of the legal agreement as advertised - has stolen your money?
 
I guess the jury disagrees with you. Juries actually make law.

No, actually Juries don't make law. Legislatures make law. The fact that you believe juries make laws puts a lot of your other posts into context, however. This is just another example of Justice, Texas style. Makes winning the Civil War look like it might have been a mistake.
 
She allegedly robbed him.....

The problem with letting people decide the guilt or innocence of another person without an understanding of all the facts ultimately will lead to mistakes. Laws like those in TX are guaranteed, on a long enough timeline, to lead to these types of cases.

You talk about not understanding all the facts, then you assume to know them and accuse this man of murder.

We can judge her character as a prostitute and decide her guilt.....But the reality is we really don't know her situation.

And you don't know his situation either. It looks like she attempted to rob the wrong man.

While very unlikely, maybe her pimp told her to take the guys money without providing services or he'd hurt or kill her. I admit it's far fetched, but not impossible in this situation or another.

Did you just make this up? I guess it could be, or maybe she was in the process of beaming up to the mother ship and this was his only sure way to get his money back. I admit it's far-fetched but anythings possible, right?

Texas lets you be judge and jury, they let you decide if you have the right to take another life in the defense of your property. So the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty fly's out the door.

Simple solution. Stay off of other's property unless invited. In this case, what flew out the door was this woman's right to steal his money.

I could see something like this being abused. Lets say I sold something to someone I didn't like and they came over to my house to pick it up....Upon driving away with it I shoot him and claim he stole it. Well, if he is dead, he can't defend himself....Now what? Again, unlikely? Perhaps, but not beyond belief.

More fiction I see, chapter 2.

What if she threw the money on the floor before he left and he didn't see it? Do you think that if he lost sight of her for 3 seconds he would assume that? Do you think he announced his intention to attempt to kill her if she didn't give him the money back? (maybe many not).

Chapter 3.

What about untrained people wielding guns in the defense of their property. What about stray bullets? Are we ok accepting that risk? Is it realistic in a culture that advocates the possession of a weapon with absolutely no training required that they should know, not only how to use it, but all the potential results of their actions under duress?

You assume a lot, don't you? Why assume this man or any other gun owner doesn't have any training, just because you don't.

I think the thing that appalls the average person is that this 23 year old woman was, as the result of her stealing 1-3 days pay, was sentenced to life trapped inside her body for 50 more years (she was paralyzed) assuming she would have lived an average life. Was her freedom or her life only worth $150?

Evidently, she didn't value her freedom enough to understand that robbing people can have bad consequences.
 
No it's not. Not even in Texas. There is a significant caveat to that law which is that the shooter has to reasonably believes he has no other way to get his property back. If he had contact information for the woman - which seems likely - then he had other means of getting his property back.

Obviously the jury disagreed so there may be more to this picture.

Who lives in Texas, me or you? I was born in Texas and have both taken the CCL course and carry a pistol regularly. I suggest you worry about the repressive gun laws you deal with in New York and leave us alone. We don't need or want your input.
 
I guess the jury disagrees with you. Juries actually make law.

Nullification gives juries the ability to not apply a law that they disagree with. They cannot remove a law from the books nor can they propose new laws
 
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.

Just a shot in the dark, but her actions were characterized as theft? So he shot her like he would a normal burglar. Shooting her was wrong, but I don't know what would've been the right course of action if I were in his shoes. Moral of the story: don't use escorts.
 
Who lives in Texas, me or you? I was born in Texas and have both taken the CCL course and carry a pistol regularly. I suggest you worry about the repressive gun laws you deal with in New York and leave us alone. We don't need or want your input.

So what? I have a New York State pistol permit. BFD. I can read a statute as well as the next guy. I suggest you read it so you understand the laws of the state you live in.
 
Just a shot in the dark, but her actions were characterized as theft? So he shot her like he would a normal burglar. Shooting her was wrong, but I don't know what would've been the right course of action if I were in his shoes. Moral of the story: don't use escorts.

They would have to have been for this guy to get away with what he did. Even so, that wouldn't fly in most states. Texas is one of a very small number of places in the US where you can use deadly force in defense of property.
 
So what? I have a New York State pistol permit. BFD. I can read a statute as well as the next guy. I suggest you read it so you understand the laws of the state you live in.

Texas has a self-defense law based on the castle doctrine. The law has a “stand your ground” clause, meaning the person using physical or deadly force against an attacker does not have a duty to retreat. Deadly force is permissible under the law when a person is attempting to defend himself from deadly force of an attacker in his home, vehicle or place of employment, or against attackers who are committing crimes of kidnapping, murder, sexual assault or robbery.
 
Texas has a self-defense law based on the castle doctrine. The law has a “stand your ground” clause, meaning the person using physical or deadly force against an attacker does not have a duty to retreat. Deadly force is permissible under the law when a person is attempting to defend himself from deadly force of an attacker in his home, vehicle or place of employment, or against attackers who are committing crimes of kidnapping, murder, sexual assault or robbery.

First of all robbery is a violent crime. Robbery - even in Texas - requires actually causing bodily harm or using the threat of force. Neither appears to be case here since the media reported it as a "theft" and quoted a statute that deals with "theft".

That means the castle doctrine and stand your ground do not apply but Texas 9.42 (copied from Bloomberg law) does -

§ 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.
 
You talk about not understanding all the facts, then you assume to know them and accuse this man of murder.

I made no such claim, only that he shot her and what the result was.

And you don't know his situation either. It looks like she attempted to rob the wrong man.

Well, as it was pointed out, since you can't sell sex on Craigslist, only your "time", it would seem to muddle your theory that he was "robbed", he got what he paid for (allegedly). So again, she allegedly robbed him (though it would appear as though she provided the services advertised) and he allegedly shot her....The reason I feel qualified in the latter, is that in his defense, I don't believe he denied shooting her in court.

Did you just make this up? I guess it could be, or maybe she was in the process of beaming up to the mother ship and this was his only sure way to get his money back. I admit it's far-fetched but anythings possible, right?

My example is possible within the boundaries of experiences we've all shared, since none of us has ever seen evidence of "mother ships" or "beaming" (in reality), I'd say that my hypotheticals are within the bounds of everyday experience, where your hypotheticals are, ironically, only ever seen in fiction.

Anything may be possible, but everything that is possible does not have an equal probability of occurring.

Simple solution. Stay off of other's property unless invited. In this case, what flew out the door was this woman's right to steal his money.

Again, what is your evidence that she robbed him?

More fiction I see, chapter 2. Chapter 3.

So you result to deflection because you know these aren't easy questions to answer. Theoretical or not, if you disagree, your job is to prove that the hypotheticals are absurd, otherwise, just keep deflecting.

You assume a lot, don't you? Why assume this man or any other gun owner doesn't have any training, just because you don't.

Where did I say that he didn't have any training. I said that the average gun owner isn't expected to have training. Reading is fundamental....

Evidently, she didn't value her freedom enough to understand that robbing people can have bad consequences.

So let me get this straight, he intended (I allege) to break the law by soliciting sex online. Since they didn't agree to it in writing (due to laws that prevent it), they had to work in "code". When she didn't deliver on their unspoken or verbal contract, she exploited the only written "contract" they had (that she agreed to spend "time" with him via a Craigslist ad). This pissed him off (I allege) and he shot her in the neck.

I would say they are both guilty of something to varying degrees, but neither deserves to be bedridden for life for their (alleged) crimes.
 
Last edited:
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?

It's the old question, man jumps off a 30 story building, on his way down someone shoots him. Is his death a suicide or a murder.
 
She allegedly robbed him.....

The problem with letting people decide the guilt or innocence of another person without an understanding of all the facts ultimately will lead to mistakes. Laws like those in TX are guaranteed, on a long enough timeline, to lead to these types of cases.

We can judge her character as a prostitute and decide her guilt.....But the reality is we really don't know her situation. While very unlikely, maybe her pimp told her to take the guys money without providing services or he'd hurt or kill her. I admit it's far fetched, but not impossible in this situation or another.

Texas lets you be judge and jury, they let you decide if you have the right to take another life in the defense of your property. So the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty fly's out the door.

I could see something like this being abused. Lets say I sold something to someone I didn't like and they came over to my house to pick it up....Upon driving away with it I shoot him and claim he stole it. Well, if he is dead, he can't defend himself....Now what? Again, unlikely? Perhaps, but not beyond belief.

What if she threw the money on the floor before he left and he didn't see it? Do you think that if he lost sight of her for 3 seconds he would assume that? Do you think he announced his intention to attempt to kill her if she didn't give him the money back? (maybe many not).

What about untrained people wielding guns in the defense of their property. What about stray bullets? Are we ok accepting that risk? Is it realistic in a culture that advocates the possession of a weapon with absolutely no training required that they should know, not only how to use it, but all the potential results of their actions under duress?

I think the thing that appalls the average person is that this 23 year old woman was, as the result of her stealing 1-3 days pay, was sentenced to life trapped inside her body for 50 more years (she was paralyzed) assuming she would have lived an average life. Was her freedom or her life only worth $150?

I would have mailed the shooter his $150 if it meant saving her life....Even if she was a prostitute.

Oh my god! :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom