OMFG TEXAS guy kills escort and aquitted

[johnny punk guy]

Did I mention that guy is a asshole. And scammers are assholes aswell. Sometimes its the assholes who luck out. And sometimes it ends up biting them in the ass just takes longer than we like to see.

[Fancyinheels]

Originally Posted by Touchlush

SOOO....What IF the tables are turned and the guy leaves at night without paying for services received....does the provider have the legal right to shoot him?

After all...HE has stolen services that he did not pay for and SHE would only be trying to recoup her losses.


Something to think about guys!!

Touché. I prefer the more personal touch; I'll just take a sword down off my wall. Might be a bitch getting all the blood and guts out of the carpet, however. Can I sue his estate for my cleaning bill?

By the way, that has happened, and for a heck of a lot more than $150. One guy stiffed me for $1,000! He was on the way out the door in the dark with me calling his name. It was even more maddening since I'd seen him before, incredulously, and I had turned away a similar date that eve to fulfill my thieving fellow's fantasy. Somehow I managed to contain my anger and not do him bodily harm. I just blacklisted him. I think the San Antonio guy could have done the same. End of story.

[boobs mcgee]

If the justice system is not to be trusted as you say, then that only encourages vigilante justice. A guy who feels he has no recourse other than to use a gun to get his money back isn't going to call the police and rely on them to tell the girl to give it back either. So with your logic, men who are already thinking violence is the only solution don't have any other recourse, right?

Originally Posted by johnny punk guy

Ok, first thing first fuck shooting someone for money. And if your pride is so important that you cant handle charging a buck fifty to the game rethink your spot in this fucked system. This guy cost himself how much in fees to get this acquittal. Lady you can have my buck fifty and keep your life. Tell you what I'll put out an alert here so no other guys get ripped off. And when you look back at your life do you like what you see. Remember all those times you scammed some one are you happy?

Ok if she was not a thief. People are fucked. We all know this. Everyone here understands we live in a world where people get shot for nothing more than showing up. Kids get shot from random wild shots all the time. Death is the price we pay for living. I just said that if it was theft the guy shouldn't have killed her. So if she wasn't my opinion obviously doesn't change.

Then on to the jury in my opinion they saw it as they did and ruled so. But a jury is made of people and I pointed out above people are fucked. Not only that they don't have to pass a iq test to be jurors. So we have a case where obviously there is some confusing points about the law. We entrust johnny asshat and Jane whatever with understanding these points of the law. Tell all you guys what I talk to hundreds of people a day and I trust half of them to understand the difference between a adjective and an adverb without Google's help. Even less to understand the law or follow it being explained to them. So maybe they got it wrong seems likely to happen.

And lastly we all know the system fails people everyday . And maybe this guy felt he had no recourse. Well he is an asshole who would knowingly shoot someone for a bill 50. So fuck him too. So what have we learned from Johnny nothing. Fuck thieves fuck murders fuck not being able to trust the courts. And most importantly fuck me( please) this whole situation is fucked the girl thief or no thief I feel bad for her but we never know what step is going to kill us. The guy he's fucked out of money and a fucking asshole to boot so he's fucked the system is fucked yet Johnny remains unfucked ( again please). So yeah both sides of this argument there is no winner here. We should stop trying to be right and realize no matter what side your on everyone lost its only arguing should some one deserve to lose more?


Johnny

[Codybeast]

This entire thread is bogus based upon misinformation.....

"But there is no evidence that the jury acquitted based on the defense of property law in the first place. The much more plausible reason for the verdict is that the jury believed the defendant’s claim that he didn’t intend to shoot the victim. Per Texas’ homicide statute, the prosecution needed to prove that Gilbert “intentionally or knowingly” killed Frago or intended to cause her “serious bodily injury.” The defense argued that Gilbert lacked the requisite intent for murder because when he shot at the car as Frago and the owner of the escort service drove away, he was aiming for the tire. The bullet hit the tire and a fragment, “literally the size of your fingernail,” according to Defense Attorney Bobby Barrera, hit Frago. Barrera does not believe the jury acquitted because of the defense of property law. He believes they acquitted because they believed Gilbert didn’t mean to shoot her."


A quote from reality check http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/20...s-to-have-sex/

[Fancyinheels]

I don't see this thread as bogus based on misinformation, because at the end of the day, none of our theories or even his defense matters. This is about the fact that he shot someone over $150. Period. Whether he "meant to" or not is a poor excuse. ANYTIME you pick up a gun, you are prepared to use DEADLY force. They aren't toys. They aren't "let me wave this and scare someone" off. They aren't "oh, I'll fire a warning shot and hope I don't hit anything." Even if for hunting, they are still meant to KILL.

He didn't have to do anything but blacklist her. He made the choice to react violently, and with the use of a gun under any circumstances, you have to expect the possibility of death. He was excused for killing someone who in no way threatened him. A lousy $150 was the going price of this woman's life in Texas for stealing. Damn. Sure looking like we have a lot in common with certain Middle Eastern countries. Shall I get out my burqa now or wait until it comes in green?

[boobs mcgee]

It doesnt change much, to be correct. Reckless discharge of a firearm that results in injuries or death to someone other than the intended target is also a crime:

Sec. 9.05. RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON. Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

So if she was not the intended target, then she was an innocent 3rd party. And if that was the case then he could not use any justification under Chapter 9, including 9.42 which is what gave him the "legal" justification to shoot:

Sec. 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.

Also see Deadly Conduct law, where it specifically prohibits shooting at an occupied vehicle:

§ 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense
if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent
danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a
firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless
as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor
knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another
whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation,"
and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section
30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A
misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the
third degree.

Thus the legal reasoning in codybeast's post (two posts above) lacks sufficient legal reasoning if what this article cited was in fact correct. Which in the author's own words was only a guess as to why the jury exonerated him.

You'd figure a half-decent prosecutor could have quashed that defense.

Of interesting note, codybeast's cite says that the guy used an AK-47. Now ask yourselves if that was overkill for $150?

While I agree deadly force is deadly force, be it a baseball bat or a gun, I think shooting an AK-47 at a car over $150 is slightly over the top, albeit in this case justified.

[Codybeast]

Originally Posted by Fancyinheels

I don't see this thread as bogus based on misinformation, because at the end of the day, none of our theories or even his defense matters. This is about the fact that he shot someone over $150. Period. Whether he "meant to" or not is a poor excuse. ANYTIME you pick up a gun, you are prepared to use DEADLY force. They aren't toys. They aren't "let me wave this and scare someone" off. They aren't "oh, I'll fire a warning shot and hope I don't hit anything." Even if for hunting, they are still meant to KILL.

He didn't have to do anything but blacklist her. He made the choice to react violently, and with the use of a gun under any circumstances, you have to expect the possibility of death. He was excused for killing someone who in no way threatened him. A lousy $150 was the going price of this woman's life in Texas for stealing. Damn. Sure looking like we have a lot in common with certain Middle Eastern countries. Shall I get out my burqa now or wait until it comes in green?

What is with this ""for a lousy $150 he took someone's life crap?"
The amount of money is totally irrelevant unless you're implying that he would be justified in discharging his weapon for a greater amount.

At the end of the day there is a BIG difference between he shot a tire to keep a thief from driving off with his property and shooting to inflict bodily harm.

You are correct that a gun is not a toy but at the moment we are licensed to carry them for a reason. They are for the purpose of protecting life AND property.

He did not discharge a gun merely to scare someone or through reckless horseplay. He shot the tire of an escaping thief which turned tragic.

Who are you to say he should have bent over and took the loss for any amount as they drove off laughing?

Now that I am aware he had not intended to inflict bodily harm but rather to hinder the escape of a thief I have NO problem with his actions. It was an unfortunate accident brought on by the actions of the thief.

Originally Posted by Touchlush

SOOO....What IF the tables are turned and the guy leaves at night without paying for services received....does the provider have the legal right to shoot him?

After all...HE has stolen services that he did not pay for and SHE would only be trying to recoup her losses.


Something to think about guys!!

In this case he is not driving off with your property unless he has your vagina in his pocket. This is a small claims court case where service were rendered and the customer refused to pay.

[boobs mcgee]

Originally Posted by Codybeast

At the end of the day there is a BIG difference between he shot a tire to keep a thief from driving off with his property and shooting to inflict bodily harm.

Cody the law justifies deadly force for theft only at night, just for clarification. But the law makes no distinction as to whether one aimed for the thief or their vehicle.

Originally Posted by Codybeast

You are correct that a gun is not a toy but at the moment we are licensed to carry them for a reason. They are for the purpose of protecting life AND property.

The man did not need a license to have a gun in his own home.

Originally Posted by Codybeast

In this case he is not driving off with your property unless he has your vagina in his pocket. This is a small claims court case where service were rendered and the customer refused to pay.

Actually there is a theft statute called Theft of Service:

Sec. 31.04. THEFT OF SERVICE. (a) A person commits theft of service if, with intent to avoid payment for service that he knows is provided only for compensation:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly secures performance of the service by deception, threat, or false token;
(2) having control over the disposition of services of another to which he is not entitled, he intentionally or knowingly diverts the other's services to his own benefit or to the benefit of another not entitled to them; or
(3) having control of personal property under a written rental agreement, he holds the property beyond the expiration of the rental period without the effective consent of the owner of the property, thereby depriving the owner of the property of its use in further rentals.
(b) For purposes of this section, intent to avoid payment is presumed if:
(1) the actor absconded without paying for the service in circumstances where payment is ordinarily made immediately upon rendering of the service, as in hotels, restaurants, and comparable establishments;
(2) the actor failed to return the property held under a rental agreement within 10 days after receiving notice demanding return; or
(3) the actor returns property held under a rental agreement after the expiration of the rental agreement and fails to pay the applicable rental charge for the property within 10 days after the date on which the actor received notice demanding payment.
(c) For purposes of Subsection (b)(2), notice shall be notice in writing, sent by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested or by telegram with report of delivery requested, and addressed to the actor at his address shown on the rental agreement.
(d) If written notice is given in accordance with Subsection (c), it is presumed that the notice was received no later than five days after it was sent.
(e) An offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the value of the service stolen is less than $20;
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the value of the service stolen is $20 or more but less than $500;
(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the service stolen is $500 or more but less than $1,500;
(4) a state jail felony if the value of the service stolen is $1,500 or more but less than $20,000;
(5) a felony of the third degree if the value of the service stolen is $20,000 or more but less than $100,000;
(6) a felony of the second degree if the value of the service stolen is $100,000 or more but less than $200,000; or
(7) a felony of the first degree if the value of the service stolen is $200,000 or more.

[johnny punk guy]

No by my logic we should put pa speakers in the street turn up George Clinton and the parliament funk a de lic and party till the world is eaten by the sun. But the things that stop that from happening is shit like this.
A man with no recourse through a flawed legal system ( which is flawed if only because people are flawed and ant structure built on a broken foundation is bound to have cracks.) But my political views aside. Said man has a choice be a violent vigilante or realize said person is going probably having bigger problems than losing 150. Look at it from the other side. Why do people rob is this action how most people make a living even in this sub economy? Hence bigger problems than the shit im dealing with being out a bill fifty. Now reverse this realizing problems get solved without death being the solution. If you were in the mindset to where robbing seems your only option would you want to die over a hundred and fifty dollars? There is another way to deal with these issues. Again system failed but it was made to fail at least sometimes.the shooter is fucked the woman in a fucked situation ( admit at least this people who rob others are usually in fucked situations.) And if she didn't Rob him she was fucked by being wrong place wrong time. What does johnny say "grab some speakers turn up the music grab a beer and try not to be a asshole"

[boobs mcgee]

I bet the reason why her and her pimp chose 150 over say 300-400 was because they would get much less resistance from guys letting her walk with 150. I bet her demise would have met her sooner if she was ripping off 300-400 at a time. The more you steal the more likely someone is going to be willing to go to extreme measures to get that money back.

Of course, maybe for this guy, 150 was a lot of money, or he had been ripped off before, or whatever. Bottom line is, it was a law of averages and she paid for it with her life sooner rather than later.

I keep wondering where was her pimp protector this entire time...I mean I'm sure he was taking a cut of that money and I'm sure this stupid business model of ripping guys off was partially his idea - why isn't anyone blaming that shitbag.....

[natasteewsym]

Good riddance to this thieving skank. The reason why crime is much more rampant nowadays is because people are afraid to do something, and the criminals feel emboldened. When someone does take a stand, the media coddles and makes excuses for the criminal. When a mainstream media journalist falls victim to the animals they try to glorify, i feel no sympathy.

[johnny punk guy]

How reckless can you be. Shooting at tires to stop a thief? One word ricochet ring a bell ? That's being ready to kill innocent bystanders for money this isn't a movie for fuck sake. Again he is an asshole. You really think that's a appropriate reason to open fire where your bound to hit concrete. That just shows a lack of respect for life even his own

[natasteewsym]

Well, it ricocheted into her spine, resulting in paralysis and later her death, so all ended well.

By the same philosophy, any bullet can hit the wrong target, so........... Yeah. Your argument is weak, kid.

[Fancyinheels]

Originally Posted by Codybeast

What is with this ""for a lousy $150 he took someone's life crap?"

The amount of money is totally irrelevant unless you're implying that he would be justified in discharging his weapon for a greater amount.

You're right. The amount of money doesn't matter. It was a non-violent offense met with very deadly defense. He COULD have just written down the car license number and reported it to the POLICE, and THEY could have retrieved his money, or was he thinking he had just engaged in an illegal activity? If he did, that makes any action he took subsequent part of the commission of HIS crime. And by the way, WHY wasn't he prosecuted for solicitation, too?

At the end of the day there is a BIG difference between he shot a tire to keep a thief from driving off with his property and shooting to inflict bodily harm.

You are correct that a gun is not a toy but at the moment we are licensed to carry them for a reason. They are for the purpose of protecting life AND property.

He did not discharge a gun merely to scare someone or through reckless horseplay. He shot the tire of an escaping thief which turned tragic.

Who are you to say he should have bent over and took the loss for any amount as they drove off laughing?

Uh, yeah, actually. See my "could have reported it to the POLICE" statement.

Now that I am aware he had not intended to inflict bodily harm but rather to hinder the escape of a thief I have NO problem with his actions. It was an unfortunate accident brought on by the actions of the thief.

You pick up a gun, you have to be prepared to accept any consequences of its use. "Unfortunate accident" is crap when you're firing AT someone. Did he have marksmanship training? Then shooting at a tire just isn't that easy. What if that tire had blown out causing the driver to lose control, the car to roll over, resulting in the deaths of ALL occupants and maybe a bystander or two? What if he had missed and accidentally shot, say, a child asleep in his bed at a neighbor's house?

In this case he is not driving off with your property unless he has your vagina in his pocket. This is a small claims court case where service were rendered and the customer refused to pay.

NO. It is EXACTLY the same. He paid for a SERVICE he didn't get. His property was his MONEY. He was trying to get it back. I was not paid for a service I gave. My property was my MONEY. I should have shot the tire of the guy running off with my $1,000 at night, evidently, and just hoped he didn't have an accident killing himself or anyone else.

Yes, we are at odds and neither of us will compromise, Codybeast. I just don't think his actions were appropriate to the crime, and I believe he should be further prosecuted. This isn't a good precedent and needs to be challenged. I'm done.

Have a lovely day.

[irishlad]

My reactions to this in order...

First, I am assuming this is a flat our cash and dash where she staged a visit for the purpose of robbing this guy...and not a misunderstanding or disconnect. I could be wrong (I'll give myself 60% odds), but I don't need to be right because I'm not on the jury. However IF my assumption is correct, my reaction to this whole mess is as follows.

1. This isn't about a "hobbyist" killing a "provider", this is about a homeowner shooting a thief. Sounds like it could have been a plumber. This woman was not apparently an innocent victim or someone preyed upon just because she was rendered vulnerable by choosing a line of work that is illegal and stigmatized when it should not be. I don't see how providers on this site, who I imagine worry about this kind of potential vulnerability but are not thieves, should be relating to or feeling any kind of solidarity with this person.

2. Under TX law, shooting someone stealing from your home at night is legal.

3. In my opinion as a gun owner shooting someone or even in their general direction for ANY reason other than to stop a credible threat of serious violence is dumb and morally wrong. I would allow someone who kicked in my front door to run out with any possession I own even if I had a gun in hand before I would shoot them down.

4. Robbing people is dangerous. There are tragedies I read about every day that make me truly sad and others that just make me shake my head, this is one of the latter not the former..

I also think it is a real bad thing that this is being characterized the way it is, as in "it's OK to shoot a provider who doesn't deliver". About the only thing that can come of that that I can think of, aside from ratings, is that right now there are any number of borderline wack jobs with low IQs reading the news and thinking "ah, OK, good to know".