PDA

View Full Version : Texas Logic: It is legal to murder prostitute for not having sex with you.



Banned
06-11-2013, 02:36 AM
Seems legit.


A Texas jury acquitted a man of the murder of a prostitute on the grounds that he was entitled to shoot her because she had “stolen” his property by taking his money without having sex with him. The jury accepted Ezekiel Gilbert's claim that he was only trying to retrieve his money when he shot 23-year-old Lenora Ivie Frago -- an escort whom he'd met on Craigslist -- in the neck on Dec. 24, 2009, and hadn’t meant to kill her. Frago was paralyzed by the gunshot wound and died seven months later.
http://www.ibtimes.com/texas-man-ezekiel-gilbert-acquitted-killing-craigslist-escort-lenora-ivie-frago-1295593#

Now I'm just waiting for Team Jesus to come in and explain why it was totally cool for him to do that.

Oops - can't mention religion. My bad.

RobotChicken
06-11-2013, 02:57 AM
" Don't mess with Texas now JOE B.; they get pissed off quick, especially you CA jokers!"

Banned
06-11-2013, 02:59 AM
" Don't mess with Texas now JOE B.; they get pissed off quick, especially you CA jokers!"

And prostitutes who don't pay, apparently.

garhkal
06-11-2013, 04:02 AM
Personally i feel every member of that jury needs to be sent to the nearest psych ward, since they are obviously crazy.. they can share the cell right next to the accused.
So in answer to joe's question.. heck no is what he did right.

TJMAC77SP
06-11-2013, 11:35 AM
Seems legit.


http://www.ibtimes.com/texas-man-ezekiel-gilbert-acquitted-killing-craigslist-escort-lenora-ivie-frago-1295593#

Now I'm just waiting for Team Jesus to come in and explain why it was totally cool for him to do that.

Oops - can't mention religion. My bad.

What would 'Team Jesus' have to say in this case that is of any relevance? There are no religious aspects to the case (except in your world where everyone in a southern state is a right-wing religious nutjob). You are truly getting desperate here Joe.

sandsjames
06-11-2013, 02:44 PM
Sounds crazy...though I've seen several results of court cases that seem pretty obvious go the opposite way once both sides are heard. Though it doesn't seem like the guy was in any imminent threat, so I'm not sure what the deal is.

Pullinteeth
06-11-2013, 04:50 PM
Seems legit.


http://www.ibtimes.com/texas-man-ezekiel-gilbert-acquitted-killing-craigslist-escort-lenora-ivie-frago-1295593#

Now I'm just waiting for Team Jesus to come in and explain why it was totally cool for him to do that.

Oops - can't mention religion. My bad.

I'm assuming you didn't actually read the article you posted since it tells you WHY he was acquitted (and it has nothing to do with religion).

"Texas law allows citizens to use such force to “retrieve stolen property at night” or to hinder a burglar from escaping the scene of a crime during the night, as long as the person “reasonably” thinks that they have no other means of protecting their property."

He didn't kill her for not having sex with him, she took his $$ and tried to bolt...he also claimed he didn't mean to kill her...

raustin0017
06-11-2013, 08:32 PM
Lesson learned.....stay away from professionals. You might get more than you wanted.

E4RUMOR
06-23-2013, 07:39 AM
As already pointed out: Nothing about Joe's news article post mentioned any religious bias in reference to the crime committed.

Any religious or Faith pertaining to the article posted was spewed forth in an off-handed manner with the intent to stir up conflict.

So the major question is this: 1) Are we going to discuss how unjust the Jury's decision was, or 2) Give into Joe's obvious child-like mindset of picking a fight by verbal antagonizing?

Hold up... I think I may have done the same thing by posting a Thread on how much more Awesome that Joe I am.

The tone, however, between this Thread and mine are very different.... dependent upon the Reader.

Rusty Jones
06-24-2013, 10:38 PM
He was an idiot anyway. Common sense; money does not come out of your pocket - you do not even TALK about money - until she is naked.

The purpose is to make sure that you're not dealing with a cop. But now, it looks like there's two good reasons for this...

Banned
06-24-2013, 10:40 PM
Didn't pay attention to this thread for a while.


I'm assuming you didn't actually read the article you posted since it tells you WHY he was acquitted (and it has nothing to do with religion).

"Texas law allows citizens to use such force to “retrieve stolen property at night” or to hinder a burglar from escaping the scene of a crime during the night, as long as the person “reasonably” thinks that they have no other means of protecting their property."

He didn't kill her for not having sex with him, she took his $$ and tried to bolt...he also claimed he didn't mean to kill her...

Actually I did read it. And you're actually DEFENDING his actions? I don't find this surprising.

Banned
06-24-2013, 10:42 PM
As already pointed out: Nothing about Joe's news article post mentioned any religious bias in reference to the crime committed.

Any religious or Faith pertaining to the article posted was spewed forth in an off-handed manner with the intent to stir up conflict.

So the major question is this: 1) Are we going to discuss how unjust the Jury's decision was, or 2) Give into Joe's obvious child-like mindset of picking a fight by verbal antagonizing?

Hold up... I think I may have done the same thing by posting a Thread on how much more Awesome that Joe I am.

The tone, however, between this Thread and mine are very different.... dependent upon the Reader.

I put that statement in there because I did seriously think the religious members would come in here in full force to defend him. But so far the results are dissapointing - the only person who's explicitly attempted to justify this murder is Pullinteeth. SandJames decided to straddle the fence... I guess he wanted to wait until he knew which side was "cool" to be on.

Juggs
06-25-2013, 12:02 AM
Joe why do you think "team Jesus" would come in here in full force and defend him? So far your complete condescending tone with ANYBODY showing the littlest sign of having religious faith is sad. From what I gather you're a prior service Marine and current California Guardman. You swore to up hold and defend the constitution and have decided to use your right of free speech to mock and put down those that practice freedom of religion.

I've just gathered that from reading over these threads. I've also seen you've made other valid points then some how try to tie religion into it. Why? Why do you mock those of faith? It appears you HAD a knack for lumping all Christians together in a sour light, but now it seems you're working on your generalizing.

Just a recent perspective from reading over the forums.

One more thing. The person in the article doesn't appear to be playing with a full deck. While in the commission of a crime, another crime is committed and the original criminal shoots the other. While not "legal" accountable for her death, he is certainly morally responsible for her death and I sincerely hope he is losing sleep over it nightly.

Pullinteeth
06-25-2013, 04:34 PM
He was an idiot anyway. Common sense; money does not come out of your pocket - you do not even TALK about money - until she is naked.

The purpose is to make sure that you're not dealing with a cop. But now, it looks like there's two good reasons for this...

That doesn't work either....I have read police reports where they get naked and he is a cop....


Didn't pay attention to this thread for a while.

Actually I did read it. And you're actually DEFENDING his actions? I don't find this surprising.

Apparently you didn't because otherwise you wouldn't have given the thread the title you did. I am not defending him or his actions. I am merely pointing out the defense he used SUCCESSFULLY-and it isn't because she wouldn't have sex with him....but apparently you didn't read my post either.


I put that statement in there because I did seriously think the religious members would come in here in full force to defend him. But so far the results are dissapointing - the only person who's explicitly attempted to justify this murder is Pullinteeth. SandJames decided to straddle the fence... I guess he wanted to wait until he knew which side was "cool" to be on.

Show me where I explicitly attempted to justify anything.

Was he retried? The courts decided it wasn't murder yet you still claim it was...

Rusty Jones
06-25-2013, 04:41 PM
That doesn't work either....I have read police reports where they get naked and he is a cop....

I'm talking about a john protecting himself from cop posing as a prostitute, not the other way around.

If she's a cop, she's not going to get naked. If you want to take it another step further just to be extra sure, you can ask her to let you touch her tits and/or vag; and if she's real, she'll have no problem with it. No way in hell a cop is going that far.

Another thing you can do - only do incalls. Call one up on one of the local classifieds and have her come to you. Police departments don't do incall sting ops, because soliciting the services of a prostitute is a low level misdemeanor and incall sting ops are considered to be too dangerous to be worth it. Incalls are more expensive, but some might consider the peace of mind to be worth it.

garhkal
06-25-2013, 10:36 PM
He was an idiot anyway. Common sense; money does not come out of your pocket - you do not even TALK about money - until she is naked.

The purpose is to make sure that you're not dealing with a cop. But now, it looks like there's two good reasons for this...

Yup.. Get starkers before talking cash.

Chief Bosun
07-29-2013, 07:10 PM
Stupid.

But then, years ago Texas had a law that said if you caught your wife in the act of maritial infidelity you could shoot both her and her paramour. One person did that, was convicted of murder, and then released when his lawyer found the law on the books. Fortunately that law was quietly changed shortly after this occurred.

garhkal
07-29-2013, 08:39 PM
Yes its amazing the # of laws that get passed without any furor or public awareness.

Pullinteeth
07-30-2013, 01:23 PM
Stupid.

But then, years ago Texas had a law that said if you caught your wife in the act of maritial infidelity you could shoot both her and her paramour. One person did that, was convicted of murder, and then released when his lawyer found the law on the books. Fortunately that law was quietly changed shortly after this occurred.

So you think it is stupid to have a law that allows you to defend yourself from robbery? THAT is the law they used to get this guy off....

Assaultdog0351
07-30-2013, 03:56 PM
The good news is that he is NOT the father.

Assaultdog0351
07-30-2013, 03:59 PM
Another thing you can do - only do incalls. Call one up on one of the local classifieds and have her come to you. Police departments don't do incall sting ops, because soliciting the services of a prostitute is a low level misdemeanor and incall sting ops are considered to be too dangerous to be worth it. Incalls are more expensive, but some might consider the peace of mind to be worth it.

Damn, Bro. Do you even pro? Sounds like you do, yo.

Chief Bosun
07-31-2013, 02:59 PM
So you think it is stupid to have a law that allows you to defend yourself from robbery? THAT is the law they used to get this guy off....

I've gone back and read the article in the original post.

1. Yes, Texas law apparently allows this conduct. But then, it sounds like the law is a holdover from the days of the Wild West when law enforcement could be sporadic at times and you had to rely on your own devices to retrieve what belonged to you. Not one intended for use in the 20th and 21st centuries.

2. All that was lost was property - in this case money. You can (under normal circumstances) earn more money. If you are that hard up you can't, then you have no business engaging the services of a lady of the evening. I saw nothing that indicated his life was in peril, or that he (or someone else in the immediate area) was at risk of grievious bodily harm. Normally you have to meet that standard to employ deadly force.

I would not be surprised to find that the Texas Legislature quietly repeals this law and any others like it in order to avoid a repeat event.

Pullinteeth
07-31-2013, 05:32 PM
I've gone back and read the article in the original post.

1. Yes, Texas law apparently allows this conduct. But then, it sounds like the law is a holdover from the days of the Wild West when law enforcement could be sporadic at times and you had to rely on your own devices to retrieve what belonged to you. Not one intended for use in the 20th and 21st centuries.

2. All that was lost was property - in this case money. You can (under normal circumstances) earn more money. If you are that hard up you can't, then you have no business engaging the services of a lady of the evening. I saw nothing that indicated his life was in peril, or that he (or someone else in the immediate area) was at risk of grievious bodily harm. Normally you have to meet that standard to employ deadly force.

I would not be surprised to find that the Texas Legislature quietly repeals this law and any others like it in order to avoid a repeat event.

Not in TX and this isn't some holdover law that no-one has heard of. This is a commonly known and followed law. That is what makes being a repo man in TX so dangerous. You CAN'T go onto someone's property after dark and take property or you CAN be legally shot.