Its ok to kill a hooker if she does not provide for you in Texas

[universalenergy]

All you people from out of Texas adding things to the story that I have not read in any newspaper report. Yes her death is tragic and the prosecution tried to say the use of deadly force did not apply but that is not the way the penal code was written. Again the use of deadly force at night applies to your house and your property. During the day time the crime has to be inside the house. Therefore that is by most home break in in Texas happen during the day because nobody is probably home. But at night anybody come on to front yard and tries to steal your property you can drop them in the front yard no problem. That is what is different from alot of states and that is what people do not get it. This is Texas not your state laws. I am happy to see the women hear from Texas that posted here understand the law and carry a gun for their protection. It is tragic to see this happen but I wish the pimp was the one 6 feet under.

[rrabbit6926]

Wow just Wow!

[Roguejet]

Originally Posted by Luxury Daphne

The fact that she was leaving with his money, at night, the courts interpreted as robbery.. Which it was if she took his money and gave him nothing in return. If she had been a junkie or purses snatcher, or had robbed his house as a burglar for that same $150, we would not be having this conversation.

Your point is well taken. However, I think it's important to point out that the Court did not interpret anything. In fact, 12 human beings, seated in the Jury box, applied the law (written by Legislators in Austin) to the facts and, applying the burden of proof required under the Constitution in order to find someone guilty and put him in the Penitentiary, acquitted him - so, did these 12 individuals determine that he was truly innocent and without fault? I seriously doubt it. Did they find that the State did not meet its Constitutional burden of proof? Maybe. Did they find there was a single reasonable doubt presented in Court? Apparently. Point is, 12 individuals decided that man's fate, based on everything they saw, heard, and were allowed to infer. It happens every day in all 50 States, the exact same way. So, we can bitch about the law until our faces turn blue; we can cop-out and call it the "ignorant dumbass Texas red-neck way;" we can use it as a pulpit for the degradation of women and providers, or try and make it unreasonable using contracts law, or turn the woman who was shot into a martyr. But when you boil it down to its raw core, the fact remains: if you use the promise of sex to set someone up for a cash and dash, that's ..... well, that's robbery. No matter who you are.

[Doc Holliday]

Not when you are an escort. The fact remains time is all she's legally allowed to trade. Which, she did. And she was shot and killed because the John demanded illegal services which never should have been included in arguments in a court of law.

[ParisDeJour]

It makes me sick to my stomach after.watching it on cnn the other day he is guilty he took someone life and this world illegal how come they let him get away with being a .john.

[Guest111016]

Why? Because prostitutes are considered to be on the lowest rung of society.

[funluvin4ever]

that's awful. I wish girls and guys had rights in this area and we can all just have fun in peace.

[Fast Gunn]

Well, not by me.

Actually, lawyers and tax collectors are the lowest rungs.

. . . What are 500 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

Originally Posted by Kiera

Why? Because prostitutes are considered to be on the lowest rung of society.

[Old Dingus]

Originally Posted by Kiera

Why? Because prostitutes are considered to be on the lowest rung of society.

I thought thieves were the lowest rung of society.

Old Dingus

[Old-T]

And the dehumanizing of sex workers continues. Guaranteed he would not have gotten away with shooting or killing anyone else he hired to come to his home and provide whatever service because he was unsatisfied with the results.

Yep. Marginalizing humans because of their occupation is such a great way to justify murder. And what type of monster is going to kill another person for $150?

This is terrible. I believe both sides are wrong but the punishment for both parties are on polar extremes; too heavy and too light.

Would the verdict have been the same if he had had sex her and then he refused to pay so in response she shot and killed him? More than likely the stigma of being a "prostitute" would have worked against her. She would have been painted as a money hungry deviant who deserved what she got and she would be facing a life sentence in prison right now...[/QUOTE]

Ladies, you are all spot-on. For all their shouting otherwise, Texas really is a lot closer to Islamic law than they would like to admit.

Originally Posted by waverunner234

Everyone is at fault here but the biggest loser at fault is the state of texas with their idiot laws.

Completely true. I saw this post a few days ago and started to reply. But this one touches home too much for me, and it was painful to write about so I did not post what I had started. I have been to funerals for ladies who were killed by clients and feel nothing but contempt for law enforcement that in some cases really doesn’t see the death of an escort as a high priority crime to investigate. [To be honest, that is not always the case, and I am not condemning all police forces, it varies quite a lot].

But after reading some of the posts on here I have to speak up. Much of my emotions have changed from sad remembrance to anger at the mindset of some of the posters here. I can post in anger much easier than I can post in melancholy sadness.

I am not going to debate the Texas law, as stupid as it is. What else would I expect from a state that adores vigilante justice in so many forms, and that usually turns a blind eye to trafficking underage women up from Mexico? A state that can’t—or doesn’t want to—differentiate between a lady who voluntarily gets into sex work vs a young girl who is forced into it? Texas is proud of their cowboys, both the football type and the macho “rugged individualist” type. No, I won’t argue what the Texas law SAYS. But I will spit upon the Texas law—and the Texan mentality—that praises the killing of anyone, armed or unarmed, threatening or not threatening, for $150. And to be truthful, if the dead woman had charged $30, the jury would have brought in the same verdict since the price tag was irrelevant. So under Texas law, a human life is worth less than $150, less than $30. And for at least one poster here, less than $0.25. And 12 jurors had no problem concurring with that.

Since I wasn’t in the courtroom, I am frustrated at the verdict, but as some have said, bad verdicts occur all the time. Maybe they saw something that convinced them that shooting a person in the neck isn’t REALLY trying to kill them. Maybe they saw something that convinced them that a person who was DASHING (“away” one assumes) really WAS somehow a threat. Maybe they would have rendered the same verdict if it was a carpet cleaner who was killed over $150 because the shooter felt the carpets weren’t clean enough. Or a waiter could shoot a patron who walked away without leaving a tip, because after all the waiter can “reasonably assume” that restaurant customers leave tips. I know, some myopic idiot will say “a restaurant isn’t a home”, so make it a B&B instead.

But what brings this to a boil for me are the posts here that

Originally Posted by chiwawa

i cant lie though..i have slapped a hoe once for taking m money and not doing what she was supposed to ;(. but i aint killing no one

Originally Posted by hd

Occupation has nothing to do with, only b/c what she does and he was asking for is illegal so it made headlines. But in the end, she was stealing and he has the right to stop her. Whether it was 0.25 cents or 25K, he's still in the right.

Originally Posted by hd

She was alive for a few months, she was shot in the neck and I think paralyzed and died a few months later, I assume she was coherent and no doubt questioned by authorities. But Texas law states that at night, you can use deadly force since you may not see if the perp has a weapon. He chased her outside where it was dark and shot her, not knowing if she had a weapon on her person.

Yep, running away, with or without a weapon, she was a clear and present danger to him.

Originally Posted by Old Dingus

Sleazy thievin' bitch! Should've shot her damn dog, too!

Old Dingus

Originally Posted by Kiera

Why? Because prostitutes are considered to be on the lowest rung of society.

Originally Posted by Old Dingus

I thought thieves were the lowest rung of society.

Old Dingus

Maybe in your mind, but I personally believe that some posters on here very clearly fall below that on the societal sleaze ladder. HD, Old Dingus, I tried very hard to find a way to say it more politely, but it is difficult. The very best I could come up with is: You are a pair of callous, chauvinistic, evil bastards—whether you are legally correct or not. Both of you are willing to kill a human being for less than a dollar, and justify it with “the law lets me”. Either of you PRETEND to have any religious beliefs? If you claim to be Christians I hope for your sakes you have a serious change of heart before you meet your god for judgment. I suspect the argument “Texas law lets me shoot her” is not going to go very far with your god.

[CJOHN]

[Guest070818-1]

What amazes me is that this woman was paralyzed for seven months after the incident.

I assume she wasn't able to pick up a GUN and go after that SOB. That would've seemed logical to me!

After all, It seems like the pimp pulled a harry Houdini when it was all said and done. *POOF*

[texasjohn1965]

They both chose poorly, there are no winners.

The state should have tried for a lesser charge. They went for a home run, and missed.

He should be in prison for sheer stupidy at the least.

[Laz]

You can make all of the legal arguments you want about how a contract for sex is unenforceable but it does not matter. Everyone here as well as on the jury knows that she went there letting him believe she was there to have sex. If she had said no and left without the money she would be alive. If she had done what she led him to believe would occur and left with the money she would be alive. She and her pimp went there to steal his money and one report I read stated that they did this on several occasions. They were THIEVES. I will agree that I would not shoot at someone for $150 but I can understand his anger. We have read many posts on here where people are mad because they were robbed.

Saying silly things like Texas laws are close to Islamic laws or that Texas juries are backwards is simply stupid. The jury followed the law. You can disagree with the law but at what point would you allow someone to protect their property. To Bill Gates just about any dollar amount you come up with is trivial. To a guy living paycheck to paycheck $150 is a lot of money. There is no perfect answer. As for those thinking if the roles were reversed that the prostitute would have been convicted all I can say is that until it happens you are just making assumptions. I would like to believe that this jury would have come to the same decision. The reality is that a different group of jurors might have found him guilty. Actions have consequences and this one comes with huge risk.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Laz

Saying silly things like Texas laws are close to Islamic laws
In the sense that the "acceptable" punishment is way out of line with the crime--summary execution with no trial for stealing $150 or less--yes, I stand by my comment that Texas laws in this case are close to Islamic laws.

or that Texas juries are backwards is simply stupid. The jury followed the law.
I acknowledged that the law is what it it--and that the jury may well have interpreted it as written--my major complaint is with some of the posters here, secondarily with the TX laws. Not much of a gripe with the jurors.

You can disagree with the law but at what point would you allow someone to protect their property.
Yes I can disagree, and in this case I do. If a 6 year old swipes some candy from my house at night and runs down the street I can shoot the robber (hyperbole of course)? Of course there is a gray area, but to me this example as far as I have seen the arguments, is not moral. Legal in Texas--apparently so; but not moral.

.