Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Ms. Milani · 06-07-2013, 08:20 AM

I looked into more about this. He was shooting at the tires and a piece of metal the size of a fingernail went through her seat and into her spinal cord. To be honest....I am glad he was acquitted. She should not have stolen his money and he wasn't trying to kill her. If someone stole something from me I am happy Texas has the Castle Law.

I guess on the other hand they could say he was trying to rape her by forcing her to have sex. It all depends if she ever verified that she was going to have sex with him. Or if she just said that it was for her time. If it was never verified that it was for sex then yes he should be charged with murder AND attempted rape since technically she did follow through and he was trying to force her to have sex with him. Simply because she only agreed that he was paying for her time. Although he said she agreed that it was for sex but as I know most of the BP ads do sometimes state that you're purchasing time only and he could've made it up. I need more information to make a complete decision about this case.

promdate · 06-07-2013, 09:36 AM

hookworm,i remember that shooting... not expressing an opinion one way or another BUT an interesting side note on the pasadena case...the shooter actually saw the thief coming out of the backyard of his neighbors house(she was not home)carrying assorted booty. thus the dilemma for the jury was >>>it wasn't "his castle". i think they found him not guilty. an element that even made this an even more super-charged incident>> the shooter was middle-aged asian man, the thief was young black man(maybe teen), the homeowner was old retired widowed white woman. i remember this incident cuz a relative of mines lives in pasadena(in the neighborhood) & relayed the story to me, she told me that 'community was very pro-shooter". it was a very interesting & thought provoking incident.

Laz · 06-07-2013, 10:56 AM

Malaya has an interesting point. How many providers put it in clear terms that the money is for sex? The ones I know all say it is for time and I am just to hot to resist. They do lie well about that. However, if there was no clear statement that the money was for sex, was it theft? If it was not theft then he is guilty. I don't like theft or weasel arguments so I am comfortable with the verdict. I just hope a prostitute that has her money stolen by a customer that refuses to pay is given the same respect if she shoots the customer.

Joe Buck · 06-07-2013, 02:30 PM

Texas Law provides you have the right to protect your self and your property and you do have the right to fire on someone outside your home at NIGHT TIME to protect your property.
I am no lawyer either but in most cases I have seen where both parties are engaged in a criminal activity, (him soliciting and her fraud/theft) he did would not have been able to claim he was protecting his property when he fired on her car.
He was dam lucky the jury didn't convict.

winnietherpooh · 06-07-2013, 02:36 PM

I agree that he had a right to try to retrieve is property, but on a practical note, is $150 worth all that he has gone through?

do your research, read your reviews, and really evaluate what its worth wasting years of your life on if you pull a gun on someone much less fire it and kill someone.

Woodduck82 · 06-07-2013, 08:18 PM

What's the difference between trespassing and criminal mischief? Two things, day vs night and only one of those is deadly force authorized. Criminal mischief is trespassing at night and you can shoot someone. I don't think the amount is necessarily the issue of worth it or not, in my opinion it's about principle. This guy may have gotten off in a criminal court, but her family could probably sue and win for wrongful death in civil court. The use of deadly force is a tricky subject. He got lucky he wasn't convicted in my opinion. Trying to disable the vehicle..... Ok. Lets look at another angle. You are robbed in a public place and you pull your concealed weapon and fire on the person hitting them. Trick is, the bullet passes through and hits an innocent bystander. Guess what? That person is fucked because he will be charged for the collateral damage.

sanan · 06-07-2013, 09:40 PM

There have been so many of these scams that this was bound to happen sooner or later.

Yes folks should screen and screen again because it is the only way to protect yourself.

However for those occasions when you don't want to be robbed by some scammer it might be better not to shoot her/him, or the car because the amount of money involved is nowhere near what the resulting legal consequences will cost.

I attended a LE seminar for residents a while back where we all agreed that for minor thefts during home invasion it is better to let the criminal go than to shoot him/her. However if your safety is on the line, don't give it a second thought.

The same applies in public where you are being threatened with a weapon. Knife or gun, as soon as you can make the shot to end the fight, do it, as you may not live to tell the tale.

FYI a fire fight lasts but a few seconds, so, A learn how to use, and B get a CCL, then carry whenever you feel it is necessary.

natasteewsym · 06-08-2013, 07:07 PM

Good riddance to Miss Cash N Dash. Gilbert is a hero.

Jimmiwad · 06-08-2013, 08:55 PM

She took a fuckn $150 from this ass hole. Big fuckn deal. She didn't deserve what she got. Hopefully this dick head will get what he deserves some day soon, and that will be a bullet behind his ear.

natasteewsym · 06-08-2013, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmiwad

She took a fuckn $150 from this ass hole. Big fuckn deal. She didn't deserve what she got. Hopefully this dick head will get what he deserves some day soon, and that will be a bullet behind his ear.

Hopefully, all your future encounters with providers, as well as other business entities, end in a cash n dash. Big fuckn deal.

Dopa-- · 06-09-2013, 08:57 AM

Texas law provides for violent response to nighttime robbery if there is minimal chance of retrieving the stolen money or property. This goes hand in hand with the Texas laws on trespassing -- at night, deadly force is allowed when there is threat of vandalism or bodily harm. These laws go back to earlier times when they were made to empower people at risk for intimidation by criminal elements and loss of property to cattle rustlers. The common sense is as so: If you're stupid enough to risk your life for $150, then it's YOUR fault you were shot -- just like if you were, in 1920, stupid enough to steal another man's cattle or horse or saddle or whatever, then you deserve the consequences of your actions. When you operate outside the law AND morality, the risk will always be present and your choices have bearing on whether you live to see the next day or not.

This cash-n-dash did a very, very stupid thing. It's a shame she had to die for such a small amount of money and such a foolish thing, but she had no business tricking the man and stealing the money in the first place. She got her just desserts.

I'm of the belief the man does carry the regret of killing another human being, even indirectly, with him every day. He shot to stop, not to kill -- but resultant death falls within Texas law. And truly, this is a law that should not be repealed because it protects people who protect themselves.

Precious_b · 06-09-2013, 11:33 AM

Your last paragraph has it down, Dopa.

What played out in court is, at its base, the law.
Interpreted to its written meaning.

What a terrible way to be remembered how you died.

greenhorn1960 · 06-10-2013, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Your last paragraph has it down, Dopa.

What played out in court is, at its base, the law.
Interpreted to its written meaning.

What a terrible way to be remembered how you died.

I do not know I would have done the same. Probably not.

nativetexan2708 · 06-10-2013, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmiwad

She took a fuckn $150 from this ass hole. Big fuckn deal. She didn't deserve what she got. Hopefully this dick head will get what he deserves some day soon, and that will be a bullet behind his ear.

If she wouldn't have stolen from him, she wouldn't have got what she got.

hebman · 06-10-2013, 11:34 PM

i am really confused by this verdict. I truly believe she got what she had coming to her, but I cant help think of how this could play out way differently. if I was to buy say Cuban cigars from someone and I gave them my money then they drove off im involved in an illegal activity. I tell the cops hey look I was buying illegal items and they took my money so I shot them, or what if it was drugs. hey mr police man I wanted a g. of "______" they then took m money so I shot them. im just curious how this case is any different then those cases that have popped up. I don't know its just late and im thinking about this. it worries me. guess that's why I would never shoot at a car in a cash n dash...