Texas man shoots and kills escort, and is acquitted of murder

[duldej]

Jury acquits escort shooter - San Antonio Express-News

Not sure if you guys/gals have read this one yet.

Read More

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

Yes, I saw that, and as I understand it, it is a quirk with Texas law... The escort was stealing from him after dark, and Texas allows for deadly force to retrieve property. Wouldn't fly up here.

 

[michaels]

No, its not a quirk. It's f#####d plain and simple.
Imagine a prostitute explaining to a jury that she "accidentaly" killed her customer because he didn't pay her.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

Well, hmm... wouldn't that be stealing after dark, as well? Under the law, that would justify the use of deadly force, too...

 

[misplacedtexan]

I love the wide protection that the law that was used in this case gives people.

Along the same lines is if someones on your property, marked or not, at night, they can be shot without any effective warning.

Brings No Trespassing to a whole new level.

 

[michaels]

Christ. This is my problem with laws that expand use of deadly force beyond a strict self defense usage.

They essentially are made to keep and reinforce a social hierarchy.

Seriously, you really think a hooker could argue before a jury that she "accidentally" killed her customer because he didn't pay her?

 

[oknow]

Christ. This is my problem with laws that expand use of deadly force beyond a strict self defense usage.

They essentially are made to keep and reinforce a social hierarchy.

Seriously, you really think a hooker could argue before a jury that she "accidentally" killed her customer because he didn't pay her?[/QUOTE]

with the way juries have been awarding to some cases she would probably be able to win a settlement from the family for mental anguish or some such nonsense

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

Seriously, you really think a hooker could argue before a jury that she "accidentally" killed her customer because he didn't pay her?

No, not accidentally, purposefully. In Texas, if you are stealing property after dark, the use of deadly force is authorized.

Now, while I don't necessarily agree with the law, in our society, when the police are NOT required to come to our aid, and, in fact, won't even show up to robberies in some cases, what is a citizen supposed to do, follow the Queen's advice and "close your eyes and think of England?"

 

[michaels]

I don't know what your or the queens' advice is, so, do what you like, I guess.

That fine young man said it was an "accidental" killing.

And, as far as I know, illegal transactions are " caveat emptor"

Again, reverse the victims, and think of the likely jury outcome.

 

[michaels]

I don't know what your or the queens' advice is, so, do what you like, I guess.

That fine young man said it was an "accidental" killing.

And, as far as I know, illegal transactions are " caveat emptor"

Again, reverse the victims, and think of the likely jury outcome.

 

[Stomper]

So its safe to say there was no, "happy ending"?

 

[duldej]

The prosecution apparently used the phrase "law abiding citizen," in an attempt to condemn the defendant, and claimed that the law pertained only to those "law abiding citizens." This defendant passed that test, but I am not sure that if the shoe were on the other foot, that the prostitute would still fit under the rubric of this law, especially taking into account the testimony of her "manager," which was PG-rated... almost, but suggestive of lots of potentially illegal activity.