Texas jury rules - it's OK to kill escorts and prostitutes

Post Reply New Topic

^^^^^A coward took out Jesse,our folk heroes here are the James bros.They were the Robin Hoods of their time.

From the little I have read about this case I am surprised that people here are saying this was justified. It seems like there was some antagonism that has been cleansed from the records, is the NSA watching?

Sounds like a standard scam that went seriously wrong, to part with cash for services that have not been specifically outlined sets him up as a 'mark'.

He said he did not mean to kill her but fired four shots, one entered her skull and paralyzed her. Even if her death was due to poor medical care she would not be in that situation without being shot first. His interview tapes state that he shot her because he was angry at being set up and not having sex.

It was his defence council that used this law to get him off, as they should if it's available.

My real world, non-americanised opinion is that she played a big gamble and lost in a state that encourages gun owership. Back to the thorny subject, should idiots like this be allowed to have guns?

It was an example of a Jack the Ripper mentality people have, that sex workers are a legitimate target... the Social Darwinistic mindset people have... slash slash slash away Jack the Ripper, their fates are their fault.

I hope someone guns down Ezekiel Gilbert.

^^^^^That's true,many "working girls" are targets of predators,such as the Green River Killer but no one cares because they are considered less than human.

I didn't say he was a hero, I said he was a prolific killer of notable skill with a large body count; that he once killed a man for snoring just kind of adds some icing to his mystique.

Couldn't find the original post this is quoted from so I'm answering from this one.

First off, why do you automatically assume that a girl who agrees to have sex for money is oppressed? Could it not possibly have been her own choice to turn a trick?

Also, it doesn't cause her to be murdered over a few bucks. The guy who shot her caused her to be murdered.

The law says that you can use deadly force if you are robbed at night. I think that's ridiculous because you can be hurt just as easily during the day but that's their law. The loophole in the law is what got him acquitted. Should he have shot her over $150? No, I don't think so. I also don't think she should have conned him either. However, in the heat of the moment sometimes people overreact. When I was 21 I shot "at" a guy over $45. I purposefully shot above his head and missed him. Way above his head. Should I have done even that? No I shouldn't have, but I did get my money back and then some.

Also, to the OP who created the thread - it's not about "It's ok to shoot hookers" it's about "It's ok to shoot someone if you are robbed at night". I think that law should be changed and you should only be able to use deadly force under stricter circumstances, but that's their law. I don't live in Tx so I have absolutely no say so over their laws, only opinions.

Not saying it's ok what he did, but I've heard of people being killed over a whole lot less than $150. I personally think he should have talked with the cops and then set her up with proof of what she was doing if he wanted to get back at her. And I certainly think he should have got back at her, but not by shooting. There are plenty of other better ways that wouldn't kill her and that would have f****d her situation up good. Dude did not think.

I don't think he was in fear of his life . . . he was angry over being duped over $150. Obviously his legal claim is invalided by the transaction being illegal in the first place; so then why is his claim to shoot her being upheld? This doesn't make sense to me. I'm really not convinced that giving a supposed hooker a $150 and not getting sex in return is a violation of human rights. Is this really what things have come to?

Theft is theft, no matter who commits it, and if the law allows the use of "deadly force" to defend one's self against theft, then either learn to live with it (if you're a Texan) or work to get the law changed (again, if you're a Texan).

What is baffling about this case is how many people who are not citizens of Texas (or even the United States) are up in arms and shooting their mouths off as if they were of the caliber to bring down such small game.

Heck, even the Canadians are acting like Americans!

Stealing a small sum of money like that from anyone isn't a violation of human rights, it's a violation of civil rights though. He got away with it because of a loophole in the law that allows you to use deadly force if you are being robbed after dark. That was probably there to begin with so people would be able to shoot an armed mugger which is more likely to be out at night, not for something like that. I'm sure that law will be looked at a lot closer and there will be folks trying to get it changed.

No, dear Olive; stealing $150 is a crime, not a civil rights violation.


It's the blood-thirsty media and ignorant reactionaries who are hyping and spinning this case into "Rabid Madman Shoots Innocent Woman Over a Case of Blue Balls!! !"

If people are so all-fired against the laws that a sovereign State has on the books, then they should become citizens of that State and work to have those laws changed, and not sit comfortably in their mothers' basements posting hate-filled rants against someone else's right to protect himself from crime.

Oh, you know better than that . . . I can talk about something that happens in Texas, just like I can talk about things that happen in any part of the world.
If that's the best you've got, I think you're on slippery ground.

Oh, I'm not saying people should stop whining and complaining about something beyond their control (and their borders). What I'm saying is that the sheer number of people doing so is baffling - maybe I should have said 'surprising' - and that if they are really interested in change, then they should go where their efforts would do the most good, and not just sit on their over-stuffed backsides and point their fat fingers and sneer at someone else's problems.

Nice how the moderator deleted my posts, but left the posts of those defending murder. How Just! I think WP should be a place grownups can discuss things without worrying about overzealous moderators. If the moderator was going to interfere, he should have deleted some of the pro-murder peoples sick violent posts, and not mine. I was only defending the right of people to not be murdered. I think I was being nice, considering the viles posts I was up against.

There are reasons that your posts were deleted. A quick perusal of This Website's Rules might reveal to you what they were.

Personally, I can't even remember anything else that you've posted in this thread.

Was it important?

Moderation is not view point based, but WP TOS based; you broke the rules, so your posts were edited. If you can argue your points without being rude and abusive, you won't have a problem with the mods, if you can't, you will.

Well, why isn't it considered to be both?