OMFG TEXAS guy kills escort and aquitted

[Secret_Amore]

so I just watched the News vid yesterday where my favorite (and only watched new person) covered the story as well briefly he also covered a story about how the Gov. had round up of all call records of all verizon customers on a daily basis.

So friendly reminder use a prepaid hobby phone. ^_^

also GV still has a call record.

here's the vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFASdBZeIuI

also to the people who are saying the provider was a scammer or was in fact ripping him off. I didn't see anywhere in that posted article that they mutually had and understanding there was to be sex involved; and before anyone starts jumping up and saying that's an unspoken universal understanding or whatever. How do you even know the man was trying to looking for a real escort and not just a street hooker/prostitute? hm? there are a few provider who have mentioned having dates where sex didn't take place, as uncommon and that may seem to most of you those kind of agreements do take place. How do you know it wasn't that kind of arrangement and later he tried to push for something more and she stopped feeling comfortable? being an escort is more the just wam bam thank you mam (sometimes without the thank you even >_>)

the article doesn't give any details about what went down, lot of you keep saying she ripped him off because HE (the acquitted man) said she ripped him off but that's coming from a guy who thought it was ok to shoot an unarmed woman, smaller then him. from the size of him he could have gotten his money back without shooting her. but nobody can justly say she actually ripped him off as no one knows what kind of arrangement they actually had. heck maybe he only saw her as some whore he could get off on got aggressive and she felt unsafe and wanted to end the date. I mean that seems fairly likely considering he a GUN on a date. I mean I get paranoid but I don't bring weapons to my dates or even have them close by, but then again I trust complete strangers too much. or maybe I just believe that because I wouldn't hurt someone or "rip them off" that they wouldn't want to do the same to me. but if you've read anything about me, you've read about me being pimped out like a street whore (the most horrible time of my life ever) and you've read about me being ripped of via fraud check, nearly choked out (by the same guy who ripped me off and the ass hole still calls me) and threatened by pimps so Clearly what do I know right?

alot of you are basing arguments off the idea SHE ripped him off.

so I would appreciate if someone of you would stop assuming she ripped him off because some ass hole who had a loaded accessible gun on a date and shot an unarmed woman, said she "ripped him off"


thank you and that's all I have to say on the matter

[johnny punk guy]

The point of the ricochet argument was any bullet can kill unwanted targets. This is a kill by shrapnel not ricochet. Where did the bullet go or who could have been hit? Regardless firing an assault rifle at a fleeing person is reckless. Your comment on one less whatever I'm not rereading this thread for one word but anyway if everyone who was thought negatively of was killed there wouldn't be anyone left. Crime is in a decline statistically speaking only more highly publicized. We are made more aware of crime to scare us. It is not our job to stop crime . How many people are feel justified doing anything? The answer everyone so without the threat of violence should people be discharging fire arms at people no. That's just my opinion. And as for this thread I don't believe in the courts so I dobnt have anything to say about the decision. Just the guy the girl and my views on the incident.

Secret, I've harped on the theft mainly becausethat is the only excuse to pull the trigger this cockstain has. Otherwise It's firing at someone who is unarmed just because.

Satan one last thing. Just because someone shouldnt be shot and killed over money. In my opinion doesn't mean a person can't find away to get said money back or cause trouble for someone who ripped you off. In another thread you mentioned calling the police to someone who got robbed. Hell with minimum info you can wreak havoc on
Someone so why kill em. This seems to me a case where said fuktard felt emasculated and decided to take revenge on this woman. In otherwords I feel my cock is small I need to feel like a man I'll prove it with my ak. Just my opinion.

[Secret_Amore]

So someone PMed me and decided to tell me my post was written in "ignorance" and that I should ask to understand about what's being said before posting

in response to what I said he posted this not even understanding My point.

I posting a duplicate of my response so others you may have developed a similar opinion can also see what's I'm really trying to say and maybe I won't have to repeat myself or re-defend my stance

Originally Posted by that guy who messaged me

"she accepted $150 from Gilbert and left his home without having sex with him"

I know... I know..... Actually understanding the facts that are available make it much less sensational......

but hey.... You got people to see you in a light they might not have seen you before....

so he basically just said in his opinion i've shown everyone how stupid I am

I replied

that implies she literally left immediately afterwards. that could simply be worded that way to spin the story. in does NOT shine light on how much what or what may have happened between the time she was handed the money and the time she left. so yea I stand by what I said considering my whole point was no one knows what kind of arrangement they really agreed to. also no where in that sentence does it say under they has an understanding that she was suppose to have sex with him.

beside some people don't even count a bj as sex. so really they could have done things together and maybe she didn't wish to have intercourse and he got mad. and then claim she didn't have "SEX" with him because alot of people only consider vaginal intercourse as true "sex"

so No it Not "Ignorance" as much as pointing out that y'all don't even know What really went down, just some guy are justifying her shooting based off what some man with a gun said about a dead woman who couldn't even tell her side of the story because why? oh because she's Dead

Originally Posted by that guy who messaged me

LMAO!

Yes darlin... Ignorance..... You rant about the man bringing a gin to a date.... the date was in the man's home. Many men have guns in their homes.

The FACT here is.... 12 people heard a lot more than any of us did and decided the man was not guilty of the charges based on the case presented.....

Another FACT here..... Is that Texas,,,,, in the form of a LAW... empowers people to protect their homes and belongings in a manner that other states do not. If any lesson is to be learned here it is to NOT try to take advantage of a man in his home....

You keep posting though..... You make my point for me....

ME: can you please go back and read what I said to confirm my copy and pasted quotes before you start insulting me and laughing at me for things you say I "rant" about

Also your first message was like you were trying to give a gentle reprimand then when I replied that yes I stand by what I said mainly because No One knows what really went down and I'm trying to point out that there may in fact be another side to the story, Her side in fact which No One can deny not even you. and those people in court most likely didn't even get her side so they made a decision base off what one man said happened as she wasn't there to be cross examined. THAT is the real fact.

and what no one really knows if the man was really being taken advantage of to begin with 'cause as I pointed out before. alot of things could have happened between the time she accepted the money and the time she tried to leave. she may have actually provided "services" for him but, as I also pointed out a lot of people don't consider bj, russian, and/or greek as "sex" alot people only think of vaginal intercourse as "sex" so he could technically say she did not have "sex" with him if his idea of sex is only vaginal intercouse

and then your second message you're outright laughing at me and attempting to put me down based off what I said

as when you said this "You keep posting though..... You make my point for me.... "

I know what you were really saying was
you just keep on writing stupid post and showing everyone how stupid you sound because you're too dumb to even realize how stupid you really are and you'll just prove my point for me

that's was uncalled for and really just the kind of thing you say to insult some you think is SO much less intelligent than you are they won't even understand that they are being insulted.

I honestly hope that we never met in life cause I personally don't like people who think its ok to insult and put someone down when I have done nothing to you except trying to show another side to a story I believe others are overlooking and then standing by that.

if you want to continue thinking so little of me and my "rant" please do so but leave me in peace.

[fun2come]

[boobs mcgee]

I guess the providers keep believing she was somehow entitled to the $150 for merely showing up.

And the guys here see taking $150 and leaving as theft, regardless of whether or not the condoned the gun used later.

That is in my opinion where the logic appears to diverge.

If it isn't theft, what is it? A big misunderstanding?

[Spacemtn]

Let's remember that posting PM's or any form of private message (text, e mail, etc) is forbidden per the following:
#9 - No form of private communications between members are to be posted in our forums. This includes the contents of emails, PMs, IMs, private chat logs, privately shared images, etc. This is an invasion of another's privacy and will not be allowed.


Spacemtn
AustinModStaff

[Secret_Amore]

Originally Posted by Spacemtn

Let's remember that posting PM's or any form of private message (text, e mail, etc) is forbidden per the following:
#9 - No form of private communications between members are to be posted in our forums. This includes the contents of emails, PMs, IMs, private chat logs, privately shared images, etc. This is an invasion of another's privacy and will not be allowed.


Spacemtn
AustinModStaff

fine. although paraphrasing probably can be against the rules....

[78704]

Originally Posted by sue_nami

if she was in her car when it happened, he can't claim he was defending his property or home.

Sure he can. His property - $150 - was in her purse.

[78704]

Originally Posted by boobs mcgee

The scenarios you present are all robbery not theft.

Safe is theft, not robbery.

This case was a theft. The dead escort did not rob the defendant. Guys please read the law books before you attempt to make a comparison or analogy...

Please read the post.

I agree, she shouldn't have gone in with a plan to take his money and leave. She had an opportunity to return it and did not. Unfortunately he used a gun but the court system acquitted him, like it or not.

She paid for her "mistake" with her life. I would hope no other escort goes into a man's residence attempting the same thing because somewhere out there, there is another guy who will do the same thing. Don't think he is the only one!

Amen.

[78704]

Originally Posted by boobs mcgee

No. The last two examples are burglary of a habitation and the law specifically states you can use deadly force for unlawful entry into your home.

Again not a parallel example, she was invited in.

In other words, not robbery.

[RALPHEY BOY]

moral of the story is, as a Provider if you are going to take money and not do anything regardless of what is implied or stated, then do so at your own risk...and guys if you rip off a girl be prepared to have consequences

[Poet Laureate]

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!!

No, Touch. Under the law as it is written, she is NOT justified in shooting him. The law gives the right to recover property stolen after dark by the use of deadly force; he didn't steal property, he stole services. If he never paid her, then the 'property', meaning the cash, was never hers in the first place. It's a distinction the law would make, and the lady would likely face a criminal conviction. That's not to say that I agree with it, but that's probably how it would turn out.

[Poet Laureate]

I read the first couple pages of these posts but not all of them, so I hope my observations don't duplicate those of others.
-
Please do not misunderstand what I'm about to write. I don't agree with what this guy did. I can't think of any instance in which I would kill or even threaten to kill over $150. But we need to look at this dispassionately, like the jury did. They took eleven hours to come to a unanimous verdict. Have any of you ever been in a jury room? I have, more than once. It gets heated, nasty, sometimes even vicious, but in the end they usually get it right according to the law.
-
So look only at the law, not at what the young lady did for a living.
1. The law says that if you steal after dark, your victim has the right to use deadly force to recover the stolen property.
2. Trial law says that the jury must decide who is telling the truth. In this case the lady couldn't testify for herself; other than her driver/pimp there is no one to contest the defendant's version, and it is just as believable that he would get angry and chase down the girl because she failed to perform as expected as it is that he expected more than she promised. So it's clear that the jury believed that part of the defendant's story.
3. When this point is reached, applying the law is pretty straightforward, and the way this particular law was written it doesn't give a jury much leeway. They decided to believe that she stole from him, the incident happened at night, and the law gives him the legal right to use deadly force to recover the stolen property. Whatever else happened, the jury appears to have followed the law once they agreed on which pieces of evidence and whose testimony they were going to believe.
4. Once the jury renders a verdict to acquit, that's not always it. There are legal avenues for the prosecution to pursue appeals under certain circumstances.
5. This verdict DOES carry significant impact on future cases, because there is now legal precedent that the law allowing recovery of stolen property after dark by use of deadly force does not necessarily have to involve a legal transaction. And neither the County nor the State can appeal, because of double jeopardy laws.
-
I too have been ripped off occasionally by a provider. Regardless of the law, I don't believe that this gives me the right to end a life. Instead of railing against what some perceive to have been an unjust verdict, which doesn't appear to apply, we should be working to repeal a law that gives every person, regardless of gender, the right to kill just because they've been the victim of a minor theft after dark.

[Randall Creed]

Originally Posted by RALPHEY BOY

moral of the story is, as a Provider if you are going to take money and not do anything regardless of what is implied or stated, then do so at your own risk...and guys if you rip off a girl be prepared to have consequences

Reasonable assessment. Both sides should be wary of the worst from the other in the event one side feels scammed. I mean, what's stopping a provider from bussing a cap in a guy's back if he stiffs her (no pun intended) on leaving the donation as he's walking out?

[boobs mcgee]

Originally Posted by 78704

Safe is theft, not robbery.

In other words, not robbery.

It is burglary of a habitation which is not theft. And Texas law specifically allows someone to use a gun to shoot someone simply for being a burglar in their home.

different than robbery because it is a non violent crime but similar in the fact that a gun can be used to protect the victim of the crime and it is written so specifically in Chapter 9 of the Penal Code.

Much different than theft because consent was given to let the escort into the home whereas in the "safe" scenario someone entered without permission. Completely different law - one is a 2nd degree felony and one is a Class B Misdemeanor.

This situation in question is theft at best - not burglary of a habitation, and not robbery.