• 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:
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.



Yes! You have to wait until someone uses force against you before you are allowed to do the same. Otherwise, YOU are the attacker.
Click to expand...

The presence of a weapon allows use of force. Stop being silly. Fear for safety is even enough in many instances, even when the attacker is unarmed---expectation of harm allows for defense you dont HAVE to wait to be harmed, especially if within your own property and B&E has already occurred.
 
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...

I live in a world where the fear of getting blown away is the thing that supports property rights. Looks what happens when looting starts--people steal everything they can under the sun, even if they don't need it, because they can.
 
Aderleth said:
Did you even read what you're responding to? I've already addressed this point:





Of course he was making a legal defense. The jury bought it, which is why he was acquitted. The lift 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.
Click to expand...

I dont agree with the jury's decision in this case. shrug.
 
shlunka said:
I'm moving to Texas, hell yeah.
Click to expand...

You'll need to bring a gun and bible to cross the state line to enter into Texas. Otherwise, if the State Troopers stop you and you don't have a gun and bible...Perry requires lethal force be used.
 
OpportunityCost said:
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.
Click to expand...

The contract may or may not be void in such a situation. It depends on representations made and the degree to which the buyer relied on the odometer reading. There are several possible remedies in such a situation. Voiding the contract is only one of them.

OpportunityCost said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually it's a lot more complicated than that. In this case, the fact that the service contract was for an illegal act (money for sex) the contract is void. That fact, by itself, does not mean that the prostitute didn't also steal the guy's money (she doesn't somehow obtain legal ownership of that money just because the guy was trying to use it for an illegal purpose). However, depending on what this woman advertised, that might bar conclusions of theft. If she advertised a "cash for time/company" deal, and followed through with her end of that deal, then she could reasonably argue that she didn't steal the money.


OpportunityCost said:
Legal defenses hold almost no weight when illegal behavior triggers the defense.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's a little more complicated than what you're describing. How is this at all relevant to your contentions re: defense of property?
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the owner isn't himself committing an illegal act by putting his property up for sale. This guy is being protected while soliciting sex, which if memory serves well, is pretty illegal in Texas. So, if he is in the process of doing something illegal, should he receive protection from the law in said situation? Again, all around a terrible descicion which sets a TERRIBLE prescedent.
 
OpportunityCost said:
The presence of a weapon allows use of force.
Click to expand...

Not usually. Otherwise it'd be legal to (e.g.) execute someone with a holstered gun, or someone carrying a baseball bat in a non-threatening manner.

OpportunityCost said:
Fear for safety is even enough in many instances, even when the attacker is unarmed---expectation of harm allows for defense you dont HAVE to wait to be harmed, especially if within your own property and B&E has already occurred.
Click to expand...

A reasonable fear of death or imminent bodily harm is usually enough to use deadly force. "Reasonable" in this context requires both an actual fear of death/GBH, and a jury/judge finding that that fear was reasonable under the circumstances.
 
OpportunityCost said:
The presence of a weapon allows use of force. Stop being silly. Fear for safety is even enough in many instances, even when the attacker is unarmed---expectation of harm allows for defense you dont HAVE to wait to be harmed, especially if within your own property and B&E has already occurred.
Click to expand...

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.

Fisher said:
I live in a world where the fear of getting blown away is the thing that supports property rights. Looks what happens when looting starts--people steal everything they can under the sun, even if they don't need it, because they can.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

In Texas, you can only use deadly force if the item being stolen is valued more than .98 cents.
 
Paschendale said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...



So you forget to shut the front door, some people walk in, tell you not to fear they are just going to steal all your electronics and belongings and you should just take their picture and call the police.


Insane.

The Police would be calling the coroner when they arrived at my house.
 
ocean515 said:
So you forget to shut the front door, some people walk in, tell you not to fear they are just going to steal all your electronics and belongings and you should just take their picture and call the police.
Click to expand...

Or, you could, y'know point your gun at the guy and tell him to freeze while you wait for the cops to arrive. Or taze him, or any number of other things that don't involve killing someone.
 
Hatuey said:
The problem is that the owner isn't himself committing an illegal act by putting his property up for sale. This guy is being protected while soliciting sex, which if memory serves well, is pretty illegal in Texas. So, if he is in the process of doing something illegal, should he receive protection from the law in said situation? Again, all around a terrible descicion which sets a TERRIBLE prescedent.
Click to expand...

I'm not passing judgement on the shooting of the escort. I can't see how that was justified. I'm mearly taking exception to the opinion that deadly force is never approproiate when property is involved.

That's just to quaint and convenient a position to take. The blatent theft of property is such an aberation that it would be almost impossible for someone to assume they were safe while the crime was being committed.
 
Paschendale said:
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...

You are correct, I do not reside in a castle in the sky like you. Join the PD's office as see how soon it is before them evil oppressive rights violating po po's and deputies are there to protect you from your own cracked out or mentally deranged client too and get back to me about reality.
 
ocean515 said:
So you forget to shut the front door, some people walk in, tell you not to fear they are just going to steal all your electronics and belongings and you should just take their picture and call the police.

Insane.

The Police would be calling the coroner when they arrived at my house.
Click to expand...

And then you should go to prison for murder. Because you attacked people who were not attacking you. Property is no cause to justify violence.
 
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 understand how you feel. However, the jury heard all the evidence, we didn't. They found him not guility; I'm willing to accept it.

I don't know that I would shoot someone stealing my truck, but I do have that right, and I support the law the way it is. If one doesn't want to take a chance on being shot and killed, don't rob and steal.

One good by-product of this law is that people who steal and rob now are very likely to escalate to other more violent crimes in the future. This isn't a given, but it is generally true. So in this sense, it makes the job easier to rid society of this now rather than wait until they graduate to murder.
 
Paschendale said:
And then you should go to prison for murder. Because you attacked people who were not attacking you. Property is no cause to justify violence.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, you're not the one writing the book. Which is a very good thing.
 
Deuce said:
No, she was an "escort." He was paying for her time. All the craigslist ads say so!
Click to expand...

Right, she probably worked as a nun when she wasn't escorting men around, but she certainly couldn't be a prostitute. :roll:
 
ocean515 said:
Fortunately, you're not the one writing the book. Which is a very good thing.
Click to expand...

You live in California. You can't use deadly force to protect property in California. California has a limited stand your ground law in the case of home invasions, but generally speaking, if you use deadly force here when you're not in reasonable fear of imminent death/gbh, you're going to go to prison for a very long time.
 
Goshin said:
Sounds pretty fracked-up on the surface, but I'd need a lot more detail to form a conclusive opinion.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Texmex said:
I understand how you feel. However, the jury heard all the evidence, we didn't. They found him not guility; I'm willing to accept it.
Click to expand...

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.

I don't know that I would shoot someone stealing my truck, but I do have that right, and I support the law the way it is. If one doesn't want to take a chance on being shot and killed, don't rob and steal.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a start.

One good by-product of this law is that people who steal and rob now are very likely to escalate to other more violent crimes in the future. This isn't a given, but it is generally true. So in this sense, it makes the job easier to rid society of this now rather than wait until they graduate to murder.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Aderleth said:
You live in California. You can't use deadly force to protect property in California. California has a limited stand your ground law in the case of home invasions, but generally speaking, if you use deadly force here when you're not in reasonable fear of imminent death/gbh, you're going to go to prison for a very long time.
Click to expand...

Yes. California is the "crooks are just misunderstood angels" state. Just one of many explanations for California's demise.

However, the definition of "reasonable" allows for quite a bit of latitude doesn't it?

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