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

Post Reply New Topic

Well, well, well, someone was confused about the nature of the service of an escort and expecting prostitution, he gunned down the woman. A jury in Texas has ruled he is not guilty because it was his right to gun down someone stealing from him in the night, and as she refused sex that was considered a theft of $150. Ezekiel Gilbert is the killer who got away with it.

Why Ezekiel Gilbert’s Acquittal Proves the Lunacy of Texas’s Gun Laws

Both the Associated Press and the Huffington Post have a slightly different take. Gilbert paid the woman $150 to have sex; then she refused, and further refused to return the money. Instead, she gave the cash to her driver. Gilbert's actions were justified because he was trying to retrieve stolen property and the driver was part of the theft scheme. 12 men and women confirmed this reasoning, and acquitted him of the charges.

It may have helped his case that the woman died 7 months after he shot her for stealing his money and not for refusing sex.

Private citizens are within their rights to defend themselves from burglary, kidnap, rape, theft, and any other form of assault on their persons, their families and their properties.

Get over yourselves, boys! You don't decide the laws made in America ... wait ... you're not even Americans, are you?

I found the Criminal Code in Texas Gun Laws section here:

http://www.texasgunlaws.org/chap9.htm

Subchapter D, Section 9.42. Deadly force to protect property. To wit:

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.

Very good! Everything all laid out, nice and neat.

Now, if the woman had died immediately, then the prosecution might have won its case; but since it took her 7 months to die there is reasonable doubt that the gunshot led directly to her death. It could have been inadequate hospital care, improper medication, or some other unrelated event that actually killed her.

"Reasonable Doubt" is all that it takes for an acquittal.

The man could have recovered his money by mean other than deadly force. He could have informed the police that the prostitute absconded with the money he paid her for the service he did not received.

Which means deadly force was not the only means of recovery so he was not justified in shooting the prostitute.

ruveyn

True, but think about it a moment - a prostitute robs you and runs off with your money, so you report it to the police. Does "Well, you got screwed anyway, didn't you?" seem like an unexpected response?


12 duly-sworn and empaneled jurors would disagree with you ... and did. The rule of law prevails.

I'm sorry, Ruve, but this time I have to take the opposite position from yours.

Here's a longer story from the San Antonio news and the last paragraph:

The Texas law that allows people to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft was put in place for “law-abiding” citizens, prosecutors Matt Lovell and Jessica Schulze countered. It's not intended for someone trying to force another person into an illegal act such as prostitution, they argued.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... 581027.php

What's interesting is they made a distinction in Texas between day time and night time crime. I guess in the day the shooting wouldn't have been justified?

Fnord and others bringing light to this matter instead of heat, as a proud Texan, I say thank you.

Isn't being allowed to defend one's life and property some kind of human right? And even if this jury were objectively wrong, why is it okay to stereotype all Texans by the actions of a few? Would our critics do this to any other group? Sounds like another case of all animals being equal, but some being more equal than others.

Last edited by Thelibrarian on 08 Jun 2013, 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You're very much welcome!


Of course not! The "Liberal Worldview" dictates that if you have a gun, you should let yourself be the victim of every crime imaginable because owning a gun is a "Crime Against Humanity", which apparently burglary, robbery, rape and murder are not.


More like "Let's bash the righteous because being counted among losers really sucks".

You could take heart from the fact that the most vociferous of detractors aren't even Americans!

"Of course not! The "liberal Worldview" dictates that if you have a gun, you should let yourself be the victim of every crime imaginable because owning a gun is a "Crime Against Humanity", which apparently burglary, robbery, rape, and murder, are not."

Yes, the Stalinist tactic of refusing to allow a person to defend themselves is tantamount to declaring they have no right to exist. And also in keeping with our critics' Stalinist forbears, thoughtcrime is treated far more seriously than real crime. In Soviet Russia, one would get five to ten years hard time for murder; being declared an "enemy of the people" would net one twenty-five years.

"You could take heart from the fact that the most vociferous of detractors aren't even Americans!"

Perhaps allowances should be made for those coming from less fortunate parts of the world

In your opinion, just how much money would have to be involved to justify a man's right to defend that money with deadly force? I can't help but think you might feel a little differently if it were your own money being stolen.

"Most" Americans? Really? You've never been robbed, have you?

A Liberal is a person who been arrested. A Conservative is a person who has been robbed.

I've been robbed. The perp is dead. Good riddance.

We shouldn't be surprised at this. Liberals are notorious for being generous with other people's money.

Stop "forcing labels"? We have an entire class of words that are labels: Nouns. Are you seriously advocating we do away with nouns, or are you trying to counsel ignorance to we poor, backward rubes?

As far as "white trash" media go, if FOX news were to declare two and two to be four, would it become false? Or should we set aside our ignorant prejudices and judge arguments by their merits rather than on who makes them?

It sounds to me as if you think you're better than people like me. Are you some kind of aristocrat?

A jury of Texans disagrees with you. It sounds to me as if you think you should be deciding for us how we do things down here--that you know better than we do. Just how much better are you than us? Should we have any say over our own affairs at all?