OMFG TEXAS guy kills escort and aquitted

[texasfeet]

His reaction seemed a bit extreme for the circumstances...

[Zimmie6942]

This fucking planet is insane, I'm moving to another. Who would shot someone over $150. WTF. Even if you have a basic job thats only a day or so of work. Lets take someones life over a few days of work. So you smoke a joint and get caught 3 times in California and get life in prison or you shot and kill someone and your OK. What a planet. The logic humans come up with is crazy.

[txlakefun]

Insane. No way to justify it. It's amazing how juries can get confused by slick defense attorneys. But the system is still far better than most of the world where the bias in the system is against the accused.

Hopefully karma comes to visit this guy.

[GneissGuy]

Originally Posted by Fancyinheels

The judge could have tossed out the verdict, but no. It's my understanding that now, no matter how many people protest, he can't be put in double jeopardy by being retried unless new evidence is uncovered.

The judge cannot generally throw out a "not guilty" verdict from the jury, except maybe in some very limited circumstances, like maybe if there was something like bribery of the jury, but maybe not even then. "The jury was wrong" isn't a grounds for overturning a not guilty verdict.

This is one of our most important checks and balances of the system. It gives the jury stop a "runaway" system from running over the citizenry. Sometimes the judge is part of the system and is going to do whatever he can to convict the accused. Think of a 1950's southern town and a black man accused of killing a white woman, or where the local corrupt judge is in cahoots with the prosecutor going against a political enemy. It's also important where the jury decides the accused did violate what the law said, but the jury thinks the law is wrong.

It's possible they could charge him with a different crime, like "depriving her civil rights" or manslaughter. That's wrong in my opinion. The system is deliberately designed so that occasionally the guilty go free so that the innocent don't get wrongly convicted.

[utjason77]

So this is just one little 2 cent worth of a comment and BY ALL MEANS please don't think that I am saying the guy isn't a stupid asshole for what he did, BUT....

It says the shot paralyzed her and she passed away 7 months later. Neither article explained what she passed away from. Is the guy guilty of being a Dbag for doing what he did yes. Is she guilty of trying to steal from someone Yes! Did his actions lead to her passing away, I don't know. They fail to explain that tidbit.

I say don't try to steal. If you don't intend to provide to someone who answers your ad, then make sure you aren't in a state where it appears that anyone may have a gun.

This is also a lesson that you don't invite people you don't implicitly trust into your home. If you are going to Hobby it is best to go to the provider and if you get a bad vibe then you book it and live another day.

Again just my take on the situation.

[VictoriaLyn]

She was dependent on a respirator, which became disconnected months after the shooting and caused brain damage.
Neurologist Augusto Parra disagreed with suggestions from the defense that Frago's delayed death wasn't Gilbert's fault.
“When you are bedridden like her — with mechanical support, with tubes for feeding — these patients are prone ... to have complications,” Parra said. “She was in this situation because she was shot.”

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...#ixzz2VYITQ36Y

[Fancyinheels]

Originally Posted by GneissGuy

....It's possible they could charge him with a different crime, like "depriving her civil rights" or manslaughter. That's wrong in my opinion. The system is deliberately designed so that occasionally the guilty go free so that the innocent don't get wrongly convicted.

The system is not doing so hot with that, either. Yes, it could be argued what a small percentage the below numbers represent when you account for the multitude of cases run through the courts, but it still staggers the mind. Can you imagine what it must be like to KNOW that you didn't do anything wrong but are convicted anyway and sitting in prison? And then to read about THIS guy killing a woman over $150 and getting off Scot-free?

http://www.lcag.info/wrongfully-convicted-approximately-10000-a-year/

http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/

http://www.thenation.com/article/168...we-sent-prison

And how do we know that she DIDN'T fulfill her obligation? All we have is his word on what that obligation was. (Doesn't matter what she was advertising, only what deal they bargained.) She might have just agreed to dance naked for him, give him an FBSM, he decided he wanted more but wouldn't pay her more, he got angry, she bolted, he shot her.

The defense attorney demonized her, the jury looked at her as just a slut hooker selling herself (and we sell SERVICES and TIME, not the rights to our bodies, so we ARE NOT property), and there ya go.

[Codybeast]

Hold on just a minute here. First of all I don't ever condone violence as a solution to a non violent threat but .....

Everyone's going on about the poor little provider. Let's get this straight. She went to his place for the purpose of ripping him off and he wasn't having any of it.

If I walk up to any individual on the street and grab their wallet and get shot in the process. I brought it upon myself.

Sadly she suffered for some months before passing. The compassion in us recognizes she was a young girl with a future however she started the game and he finished it.

I would not recommend shooting cash-n-dashers but there is a small part of me that says good for him. Enough is fucking enough.

Sometimes the threat of loss of life or limb is what it takes to keep criminals in check. It's the only thing they understand.

He paid her honorably as agreed and she said "Fuck you" and tried to bolt with his property. I say Fuck her and the horse she rode in on.

[VictoriaLyn]

He gave her every chance to fullfill her end..he didnt shoot until she got into the car and it was driving away

[Fancyinheels]

Hold on for just a minute again.... As I, and others, have pointed out, what makes us so sure that she didn't fulfill her end of the bargain? We don't know what deal they made. Is there video? Audio? Did the driver/pimp testify he sent her into steal? Did she admit to stealing? Did she take anything OTHER than her fee? (That kind of belies the theft argument. Why didn't she grab something else on the way out? She was already there to steal, supposedly, so seems a waste to just walk off with $150.) Quite frankly, without further research, this sounds like any other he said/she said.

I guess we all ought to read the transcripts, huh?

But despite the alleged nefarious nighttime "heist," she didn't warrant a death sentence. I stand by my statement that she deserved to be punished appropriate to the crime.

This was a gross overreaction and rewarding it by letting him go is basically opening the door to more vigilante action. It's a slippery slope.

[sue_nami]

I would like to say again, that fbsm is probably considered escort by court. who's to say that for that paltry price it was not supposed to be rub and tug only and he is the one who was trying to force her into more services than she offered. if she was in her car when it happened, he can't claim he was defending his property or home. he is a vigilante and murderer. shameful that our Texas juries are so misogynist and allowed this wrong decision to happen. Regardless of the true facts, her behavior didn't warrant a death penalty.

[rockerrick]

Maybe a little more whining , and making assumptions about the services , and make up of the jury will change it ? Perhaps the majority of jurors were female hard corp feminist that hate " escorts " . MAYBE , IF , whaaaa whaaaa whaaaaa !

[Codybeast]

Originally Posted by Fancyinheels

Hold on for just a minute again.... As I, and others, have out, what makes us so sure that she didn't fulfill her end of the bargain? We don't know what deal they made. Is there video? Audio? Did the pimp testify he sent her into steal? Did she admit to stealing? Did she take anything OTHER than her fee? (That kind of belies the theft argument. Why didn't she grab something else on the way out? She was already there to steal, supposedly, so seems a waste to just walk off with $150.) Quite frankly, without further research, this sounds like any other he said/she said.

I guess we all ought to read the transcripts, huh?

But despite the alleged nefarious nighttime "heist," she didn't warrant a death sentence. I stand by my statement that she deserved to be punished appropriate to the crime.

This was a gross overreaction and rewarding it by letting him go is basically opening the door to more vigilante action. It's a slippery slope.

At some point common sense has to kick in. It has all the signs of a typical cash n dash.
Why didn't she grab something else on the way out? Simply put that is not what these scammers generally do.
They expect to be able to walk in take the money up front and then inform you that you have paid for time and companionship only when both parties knew the agreement.
Typically the monger gets upset and sends her home early (Which she counts on).

Why the hell would a monger with no history of violence lose it and shoot a provider who provided as agreed especially as she drove away? There is zero logic to that and you are reaching for straws.

No we didn't see the transcript but assuming things are as they appear she made her own bed so to speak. The jury certainly saw it that way.

Neither you nor I would shoot someone over $150 but I don't think it was an issue of money for him.

I suspect it was an issue of him not allowing some provider to stick it to him like she and many like her expect to get away with.

It comes down to his ability to recover his $. If he allowed her to drive away there would have been ZERO recourse to do so.

What amount of $ makes it justifiable to shoot the scammer? $1000, $10,000?

As I said it's about being unwilling to bend over and take in the ass more than it is about any dollar amount.

We all have a breaking point of what we will tolerate. She unfortunately found his.

[GneissGuy]

Originally Posted by Fancyinheels

The system is not doing so hot with that, either. Yes, it could be argued what a small percentage the below numbers represent when you account for the multitude of cases run through the courts, but it still staggers the mind. Can you imagine what it must be like to KNOW that you didn't do anything wrong but are convicted anyway and sitting in prison? And then to read about THIS guy killing a woman over $150 and getting off Scot-free?

So, in order to make up for those who are wrongfully convicted, should we make it more difficult for a jury to decide someone is "not guilty?" Or let the courts bypass a "not guilty" verdict when it's politically correct or advantageous for them to do so?

Remember, Big Brother is out there, using any excuse he can to increase his power over the peasants. Any time we tamper with the legal system, Big Brother usually comes out on top.

Once again, this guy was wrong. Don't further weaken one of our few remaining protections from Big Brother because you don't like the result in this one case. Our legal protections have already been weakened enough.

Also don't forget that many times when the jury "ignores the law" and votes "not guilty," they're doing so because the defendant was technically guilty, but not morally guilty.

[greymouse]

I avoided reading it for a while, maybe because of the red thumbs down someone slapped on it - what is that supposed to mean? That it is about a particularly horrible crime or that the criminal should not be criticized because he has one swinging and is therefore a member of the Blue Team and must be supported no matter what by all his "brothers"?

This is a vicious murder of a woman sex worker by a customer guy. Any one who defends the murdered is making himself an accessory to the violent crime wave against women and particularly sex workers by men that has been going on forever and looks to continue until our deeply flawed species takes its pace on evolutions' discard pile. It is dangerous being a woman in world ful of violently misogynistic men and much more dangerous to be a woman in the commercial sex business.

The truth of that is why I have no objections to the means women use to attempt to avoid finding themselves naked and alone in a locked room with a man who hates women (all of them), is larger and stronger than they are, is experienced with violence and may have armed himself. The means, screening, are not very good but some Customer Guys object to any effort at all to determine whether they might be psycho killers and prefer to rave about their supposed risk : "My wife might find out!!!"

While I appreciate Gneiss Guy's efforts to explain to the more stupid why they really do not want to attempt to "Pull an Ezekiel" the next time they are unhappy with a session, the fact it was necessary is appalling. That is was necessary was quickly established by the Band of Brothers who self posted alerts on themselves.

I would disagree with the nearly always reasonable GG about the sacredness of "jury nullification" as always an effective means of restraining government power. Juries that enforced a law other than the one in the law books protected a reign of terror for a hundred years throughout the former confederate Sourh against people the jury men hated and feared. A lot of people hate and fear sexworkers.

I very much hope the "Feds" bring deprivation of civil rights charges against the San Antonio murderer- subjecting the victim to seven months paralyzed torture on a ventilator until the consequences of the wound he chose to inflict finally killed her would seem to qualify. Not that is not very likely given the passive nature of the present Administration but perhaps the Federal Prosecutor for San Antonio is feeling as humiliated by the state jury's actions as I am.