• 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

Oh my god! :roll:

I half deserve that (I'm admitting that my response, at least to some extent, falsely characterized TX's law), as I didn't read the law, This is what I get for being bored and lazy where usually I'm more careful....I didn't realize that you aren't justified to shoot a robber unless they are using force to take away your property, which under some, maybe even most circumstances could be justifiable. Theft is the taking of property without the element of force.

Based on the information given, it seems unlikely that she threatened the man with force and he was (I assert based on the information I have) unjustified in shooting her.

However, the Jury was correct in finding him innocent of her murder (again based on the information I have) as the shooting didn't cause her death, it would appear equipment failure caused her death.

The prosecutors in this case should be fired for attempting to seek a murder charge....
 
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.
 
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, she was an "escort." He was paying for her time. All the craigslist ads say so!
 
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.

The problem is thieves often commit bodily harm and murder even after recieving the property they demand.
 
The problem is thieves often commit bodily harm and murder even after recieving the property they demand.

And there are laws to protect state residents who defend themselves against such intruders, however there HAS to exist a kind of a gray area for a situation like this. Otherwise, this just sets a really bad precedent where it is alright to just shoot a hooker who won't **** you or deal you drugs and decides to walk away. This guy tried to murder somebody who wasn't trying to attack him while he himself was in the process of committing an illegal act. What? If I go broke tomorrow and my partners don't, can I shoot up a business partner if I feel they stole from me? How does it work? If I hire a hooker to give me head, and instead she walks away with my money, can I shoot her? No. Castle doctrine laws, stand your ground laws, etc aren't created to defend people who are in the process of committing an illegal act. They're there to protect people from illegal activities that put them in bodily harm.
 
SO...I read the cited article and a few others and before I could answer the question as to if the mans actions were illegal or not there would certainly have to be more info. If he got robbed, then hunted her down and shot her...case closed...he should go to prison and earn back his $150.00 the hard way. But the story mentions a hooker/thief and her driver/pimp. So...whahappun? Did dood just confront her and shoot her? Did he confront the pimp? How did she get shot?

At the end of the day...he probably doesnt have a legal leg to stand on no matter what. He paid 150 bucks to get screwed...and by all accounts...he did.
 
The problem is thieves often commit bodily harm and murder even after recieving the property they demand.

Defense of self and defense of property are two entirely different issues. Did you see me advocate not being able to defend against bodily harm or murder? No. Just property. Protecting people with force is entirely justified. Protecting stuff with force is nonsense.
 
Defense of self and defense of property are two entirely different issues. Did you see me advocate not being able to defend against bodily harm or murder? No. Just property. Protecting people with force is entirely justified. Protecting stuff with force is nonsense.

Whats that make stealing stuff with force?
 
And there are laws to protect state residents who defend themselves against such intruders, however there HAS to exist a kind of a gray area for a situation like this. Otherwise, this just sets a really bad precedent where it is alright to just shoot a hooker who won't **** you or deal you drugs and decides to walk away. This guy tried to murder somebody who wasn't trying to attack him while he himself was in the process of committing an illegal act. What? If I go broke tomorrow and my partners don't, can I shoot up a business partner if I feel they stole from me? How does it work? If I hire a hooker to give me head, and instead she walks away with my money, can I shoot her? No. Castle doctrine laws, stand your ground laws, etc aren't created to defend people who are in the process of committing an illegal act. They're there to protect people from illegal activities that put them in bodily harm.

Thats legal 101, laws arent meant to protect someone from engaging in an illegal act. Which is why Paschendale's response is so bad.
 
I don't think there's anything wrong with the law as written, nor did Texas say it was okay to shoot this escort. The jury bought the defense's argument that this law pertained to the defendent's actions. The prosecution dropped the ball in several aspects. Chief among them - not educating the jury properly on the meaning and spirit of the law and not giving the jury the option of other charges.
 
Thats legal 101, laws arent meant to protect someone from engaging in an illegal act. Which is why Paschendale's response is so bad.

We have plenty of laws that protect accused criminals, and even convicted criminals. The fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments to the constitution, for instance.
 
Defense of self and defense of property are two entirely different issues. Did you see me advocate not being able to defend against bodily harm or murder? No. Just property. Protecting people with force is entirely justified. Protecting stuff with force is nonsense.

I see. So for example, if someone has a yard sale, people should be able to walk up and steal anything they want, and you advocate the owner shouldn't be allowed to do anything about it.
 
Illegal, like it's always been. So what?

Thats part of why people shoot thieves, because after you give them your stuff you dont have a guarantee they wont use force on you anyway.
 
Thats part of why people shoot thieves, because after you give them your stuff you dont have a guarantee they wont use force on you anyway.

That's a terrible argument. If they actually use force, or you reasonably fear they will, you're within the realm of self defense/defense of others law. If, by contrast, you're just trying to protect your stuff, use of deadly force is ludicrous.
 
We have plenty of laws that protect accused criminals, and even convicted criminals. The fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments to the constitution, for instance.

Lets go over this again in a more nuanced way.

A law describing legal behavior is not intended to be applied as a defense to someone knowingly engaging in an illegal act.
 
I see. So for example, if someone has a yard sale, people should be able to walk up and steal anything they want, and you advocate the owner shouldn't be allowed to do anything about it.

Not with violence. Take a snapshot and call the cops. Tell the person you've seen them and will be doing so. If you're in a position to do violence upon someone, and they're not in a position to do violence upon you, you always have better options. Property should not be a viable justification of violence. Ever.

Thats part of why people shoot thieves, because after you give them your stuff you dont have a guarantee they wont use force on you anyway.

And when they do, then you can shoot them. Not until then. You're advocating murdering people because of things they might do. That's insane.
 
Lets go over this again in a more nuanced way.

A law describing legal behavior is not intended to be applied as a defense to someone knowingly engaging in an illegal act.

Do you have something specific in mind? Because that doesn't make any sense.
 
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.

Yeah I 100% disagree with you on that. If we are not allowed to shoot people, then people will be breaking into houses and stealing stuff all day long. In this particular case, I do not think the guy should have gotten off because he was engaged in what I presume was a criminal act himself--solicitation of prostitution.
 
That's a terrible argument. If they actually use force, or you reasonably fear they will, you're within the realm of self defense/defense of others law. If, by contrast, you're just trying to protect your stuff, use of deadly force is ludicrous.

What, youre supposed to wait for a thief to shoot you before you get to shoot back?

In this instance, this guy was an idiot and is not making a legal defense---on the life support thing he may have a leg to stand on.
 
Yeah I 100% disagree with you on that. If we are not allowed to shoot people, then people will be breaking into houses and stealing stuff all day long. In this particular case, I do not think the guy should have gotten off because he was engaged in what I presume was a criminal act himself--solicitation of prostitution.

What color is the sky in the world you live in? It's blue here on Earth, where people aren't crazy and don't steal everything in sight but for the potential to be murdered for doing so. This may be the most insane thing I've heard in a while.

What, youre supposed to wait for a thief to shoot you before you get to shoot back?

Yes! You have to wait until someone uses force against you before you are allowed to do the same. Otherwise, YOU are the attacker.
 
Do you have something specific in mind? Because that doesn't make any sense.

Easiest example is a used car. Guy sells a used car with a changed odometer. Signed contract is void because the salesman engaged in illegal behavior to make it sellable.

If you solicit a prostitute and get ripped off, you dont have a legal right to the money because it was being used for an illegal act. Its not "theft", but both parties are in trouble. You sure cant claim you are defending your property and shoot someone after engaging in an illegal act.

Legal defenses hold almost no weight when illegal behavior triggers the defense.
 
What, youre supposed to wait for a thief to shoot you before you get to shoot back?

Did you even read what you're responding to? I've already addressed this point:

If they actually use force, or you reasonably fear they will, you're within the realm of self defense/defense of others law.

In this instance, this guy was an idiot and is not making a legal defense---on the life support thing he may have a leg to stand on.

Of course he was making a legal defense. The jury bought it, which is why he was acquitted. The life support thing is less important than you might think. Best case scenario, that gets him from murder to attempted murder, and even that's dubious. An acquittal in this context requires acceptance of the weirder aspects of Texas deadly force law.
 
Last edited:
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.

Exactly, this verdict is no more "out there" than any of the ones you mention above.
 
Back
Top Bottom