News The glory that is the Texas justice system

  • Thread starter Thread starter WannabeNewton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    System
AI Thread Summary
The Texas justice system has come under scrutiny following a jury's acquittal of a man who shot an escort, raising concerns about the application of laws regarding the use of deadly force. The case highlights the complexities of legal definitions surrounding theft and the legality of actions taken during illegal activities, such as prostitution. Critics argue that the law's interpretation allows for justifications of violence in situations where common morality would deem it unacceptable. The discussion reflects a broader frustration with how the legal system handles cases involving marginalized individuals, particularly women in the sex trade. Overall, the case underscores significant issues within Texas law regarding self-defense and property protection.
WannabeNewton
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,848
Reaction score
552
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/ezekiel-gilbert-acquitted-murder-prostitute_n_3398225.html

The story speaks for itself. I don't even know what to say. I don't know if I should be infuriated or amused by the fact that the adversarial system can still be advertised by some as a means of justice. Seriously, what the hell is wrong with these people.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Brutal! Note to self, don't steal from people in Texas at night.
 
Didn't he read the fine print? The fee is solely for companionship. Whatever sex may (or may not) take place is just the whims of two consenting adults.

If sex were included in the fee, it would be prostitution and prostitution is illegal!
 
It just blows my mind that he got away Scott free for paralyzing an innocent woman, badly enough to eventually lead to her death shortly after.
 
So, he shot her during an illegal act, he's guilty. WTH?

Only in Texas.
 
Not like this is something unique. People fall through loopholes in laws all the time.
Stop knocking on my state. :-p
 
Drakkith said:
Stop knocking on my state. :-p
I think we're at a point where it's physically impossible not to knock on Texas :wink:
Sometimes its fun to point and laugh but for a story like this it is just infuriating.
 
Please tell me this is going to be appealed?
 
Office_Shredder said:
Please tell me this is going to be appealed?

How? He was found innocent of the criminal act.
 
  • #10
nsaspook said:
How? He was found innocent of the criminal act.
It's not criminal in Texas. Common sense and morality don't apply to the law nsaspook cmon man! You know that!
 
  • #11
So it is legal to shoot someone who is stealing from you? A little harsh IMO, but only a little. Personally, I think we coddle criminals too much.
 
  • #12
Honestly I don't think the 'shooting the burglar' part is as bad as using that law as a way of justifying the shooting of the escort (which isn't even the same thing as a prostitute) when she refused sex...and being found not guilty. That is pretty insane.
 
  • #13
She took money and provided no services; How is that not theft? Don't make this into something it isn't. The law is probably overly broad, but it isn't crazy.

The prosecution's argument was basically that its ok to steal from someone if they are also doing something illegal. That should never fly (and I don't think it ever does).
 
  • #14
Actually, it might be closer to a situation where you bought a defective lawn mower from the home and garden store and the store refused to give you your money back. The fact that the escort was presumed to be selling an illegal product probably had a lot to do with the lack of sympathy for her.
 
  • #15
nsaspook said:
Office_Shredder said:
Please tell me this is going to be appealed?
How? He was found innocent of the criminal act.
Just to elaborate, the state cannot appeal. It's in our constitution, the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment.

What could but won't happen is that the pimp could sue for wrongful death or the federal government could try him for civil rights violations. Neither will happen because, as BobG just mentioned, there's not much sympathy for women in the sex trade. There arguably should be as most women don't enter that line of business willingly, but there isn't.
 
  • #16
This is horrible, just absolutely horrible. How on Earth can a ridiculous law about deadly force being acceptable at night be applied to this situation? This man murdered a woman for not having sex with him, how can anyone think he was justified?
 
  • #17
russ_watters said:
She took money and provided no services; How is that not theft? Don't make this into something it isn't. The law is probably overly broad, but it isn't crazy.

The prosecution's argument was basically that its ok to steal from someone if they are also doing something illegal. That should never fly (and I don't think it ever does).

But it's ok to kill someone. So basically, if gang banger # 1 organizes a drug deal with gang banger #2, and #2 takes the drugs and walk away, #1 has the right to use deadly force to get his drug back? Seriously -_-.
 
  • #18
russ_watters said:
She took money and provided no services
She did provide services, she acted as an escort. He then wanted more which she was fully entitled to refuse.
 
  • #19
nsaspook said:
Brutal! Note to self, don't steal from people in Texas at night.

Actually, it's not just limited to theft.

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. 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.

Don't spray paint or TP people's houses in Texas at night, either. Presumably, it would be illegal to shoot someone that was spray painting your house during the day time.
 
  • #20
BobG said:
Actually, it's not just limited to theft.



Don't spray paint or TP people's houses in Texas at night, either. Presumably, it would be illegal to shoot someone that was spray painting your house during the day time.

Being a Texas native I understand the mindset. People don't take kindly to low down night crawling scum.

Hey that guy took my lawn gnome, stop him!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
Just to be safe, try to avoid stealing the Gideon's Bible from a Texas hotel room.

Shoot, there's somebody stealing one now!
250px-Gideon_member_distributing_scripture_in_motel_room.jpg


No, wait! Actually I think he's sneaking one into the hotel room instead of out of the hotel room!
 
  • #22
Ryan_m_b said:
She did provide services, she acted as an escort. He then wanted more which she was fully entitled to refuse.
According to one of those articles, she spent 20 minutes in his apartment and then left. So it sounds like the entirety of the "services" she provided was an argument about whether he bought sex. She didn't "escort" him anywhere.
How on Earth can a ridiculous law about deadly force being acceptable at night be applied to this situation? This man murdered a woman for not having sex with him, how can anyone think he was justified?
Honestly, I think the problem here is you (and others) need to compartmentalize your thought processes more. Treat the issues separately - because they are - and don't mix and match and let one prejudice the other:

1. Is taking money and not providing promised services (or providing defective services as Bob described it) theft?
2. "Murdered a woman for not having sex with him" is an inaccurate description of what happened because it ignores the fact that they exchanged - and argued about - money. "Murdered a woman for stealing from him" was the question of the trial. The prosecution basically argued (according to the first article) that since prostitution is illegal, the defendant shouldn't be protected by the law that protects people from theft. A very illogical argument.
3. If you find the law ridiculous, that's fine, but the ridiculousness of the law has nothing at all to do with whether or not it applies to the situation.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Where I used to live, we had those guys that would sell meat from the back of their truck. Say I thought this was a good idea and I ordered a package of steaks, but a guy delivers me ground beef instead. The guy, refuses a refund, then leaves. Am I entitled to kill this guy?
 
  • #24
MarneMath said:
Where I used to live, we had those guys that would sell meat from the back of their truck. Say I thought this was a good idea and I ordered a package of steaks, but a guy delivers me ground beef instead. The guy, refuses a refund, then leaves. Am I entitled to kill this guy?
Sounds like under Texas law, you are (if it is at night). But since a product was provided, you'd better be sure you can prove you were bait-and-switched.

Maybe I've just watched too many cowboy movies, but the law sounds to me like a relic of a time when the reach of the law wasn't as far and people had to defend themselves more than they do today. I think it is out of date, but I don't consider it so horrible as others do.
 
  • #25
So, if you want to kill someone in Texas, invite them over tonight, ask them to hold your watch and then blow them away.
 
  • #26
Russ even if she had stolen his money by not providing any service that he paid for (legal or otherwise) there is zero justification for her cold blooded murder. If letting this man walk free is a possible application of the law in question then the law is not fit for purpose and is ridiculous.
 
  • #27
The problem seems to be that nobody knows what their actual agreement was, and what was paid for. I've read that he paid for her to stay for half an hour - maybe the point was to do a lap dance or something, maybe the point was just to hang out for half an hour, maybe the point was to have sex, but nobody really knows.

Googling, it seems like escorts are pretty expensive (200 dollars an hourish) (I swear, I don't know what escorts cost off the top of my head!) so the price isn't totally out of line. And since you are in fact paying them ostensibly just to spend time with you, if you don't get sex out of it you still got the service you paid for, even if you were hoping for more. A seemingly exaggerated but actually analogous situation would be a woman hiring a plumber to fix her leaky sink, then demanding sex, then demanding her money back after the sink is fixed because she didn't get sex, then killing the plumber
 
  • #28
What kills my is that he said he didn't shoot to kill. He shot her in the neck, depending on how bad of a shot he was, either aiming for the head or the heart. Now, shooting her in the leg might be believable. Also, he's a BIG guy, he couldn't have just punched her and knocked her out? I don't recommend doing any of these things over "I thought we were going to have sex". If she was "legit" she came to take him out, he wanted sex, they argued, he killed her.
 
  • #29
russ_watters said:
I don't consider it so horrible as others do.

You don't consider it horrible that a defenseless woman got shot in the back? Because that is what happened.

OK, the woman was a thief (according to the guy, I think we'll never know the details). But does that really make the crime less horrible to you? In my opinion, there is zero justification for murder, unless you act out of self-defence. I see no single justification for this murder. The law might allow such things to happen, but then the law is wrong.
 
  • #30
Evo said:
he couldn't have just punched her and knocked her out?

I'm starting to think that if he punched her, then he would get convicted for assault. While if he killed her, he gets set free.
 
  • #31
Evo said:
What kills my is that he said he didn't shoot to kill. He shot her in the neck, depending on how bad of a shot he was, either aiming for the head or the heart. Now, shooting her in the leg might be believable. Also, he's a BIG guy, he couldn't have just punched her and knocked her out? I don't recommend doing any of these things over "I thought we were going to have sex". If she was "legit" she came to take him out, he wanted sex, they argued, he killed her.

In some of the older articles

http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Woman-in-critical-condition-after-shooting-627643.php

It says that he shot the car that she got into. The article also cites a witness that says he specifically paid for her time, not sex, but it's unclear if that witness is the person who drove her (which would make his statement useless) or a more impartial observer (who else would know he was trying to hire a prostitute? I guess nobody)
 
  • #32
Office_Shredder said:
In some of the older articles

http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Woman-in-critical-condition-after-shooting-627643.php

It says that he shot the car that she got into. The article also cites a witness that says he specifically paid for her time, not sex, but it's unclear if that witness is the person who drove her (which would make his statement useless) or a more impartial observer (who else would know he was trying to hire a prostitute? I guess nobody)
He chased her outside and shot her in the back in a car over a dispute over whether sex was included? For $150? And he's not guilty? He could have taken her to small claims court. So if a plumber makes an emergency call to your house at night (night, when is night? 5 pm in the winter 9:30 pm in summer? And you don't like the plumber's work, you can kill him?
 
  • #33
If he wasn't trying to kill her, what was he trying to do? Cut her hair?

This woman had done the equivalent of stealing 150 dollars from him. The theft was complete. There was no danger that she was going to harm him, or take more of his stuff. So the only significance of the theft is that it had a) hurt his feelings, and b) created a situation where she owed him 150 dollars and wasn't willing to give it to him.

You're not allowed to kill people just because they have hurt your feelings. You're not allowed to kill people because they refuse to give you the 150 dollars they owe you. But apparently, if a woman has hurt your feelings, refuses to give you the 150 dollars she owes you, and is a whore, it's OK to shoot her in the neck as long as you don't intend to kill her.
 
  • #34
russ_watters said:
1. Is taking money and not providing promised services (or providing defective services as Bob described it) theft?
It's dubious whether there were any promised services of the sort this man expected. Go look at craigslist. The ads are quite explicit: Any money provided is a gift. There is no promise of illegal activity. That's how they get away with it.

The prosecution basically argued (according to the first article) that since prostitution is illegal, the defendant shouldn't be protected by the law that protects people from theft. A very illogical argument.
The prosecution was correct. The person who uses deadly force has to be on the right side of the law to claim that defense. He wasn't. He was expecting an illegal service. Once he gave her the money, it was hers. She wasn't the thief. He was. Because he used a gun, it was attempted armed robbery, minimum. Since she died, it was murder.This is a case of jury nullification, where the jury ignores the law.
 
  • #35
micromass said:
In my opinion, there is zero justification for murder, unless you act out of self-defence.

Killing someone out of self defense is not murder. Murder is the illegal act of killing someone. But I take it to mean you don't think it's all right to kill someone except in self defense, even if that person is performing a crime.

I have to say I disagree. I believe I have the right, in certain circumstances, to use lethal force to stop the person committing the crime, even if they aren't an immediate threat to myself.

All I'll say about the topic of this thread is that it is very very easy to assume a wide range of things which may or may not be true about both parties. Up until Office_Shredder's post, it was believed by at least a few people that he just shot her from up close and there was no way he could have been trying to wound her.

Remember that whatever the law says, in the end it comes down to the people in the jury box that decided it, not the law. Which, if I may say, is part of the good and the bad that comes with our justice system. One cannot have absolutely rigid laws, as there are plenty of times someone breaks a law but is obviously not intending to commit a crime. On the flip side, we obviously must have guidelines for our society, so some laws are necessary.
 
  • #36
Drakkith said:
Up until Office_Shredder's post, it was believed by at least a few people that he just shot her from up close and there was no way he could have been trying to wound her.
So he shot at the car after she got into it. That's not much better.
 
  • #37
Does anyone have any link to the actual trial transcripts and decision?

One thing I would like to see is what the jury's options were with regard to lesser included offenses. The victim was injured in the shooting, placed on a respirator which subsequently failed and caused the victim (now patient) to experience brain damage, and the family to later issue a DNR order. He was initially charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, but it appears (http://www.mysanantonio.com/default...in-shooting-of-alleged-prostitute-3689192.php) that these charges were dismissed and replaced with murder when she died.

It's certainly imaginable that the jury felt that aggravated assault with a deadly weapon better fit the crime than murder, and if they did not have the option of convicting Gilbert for that, they felt it was less unjust to acquit than to convict for a greater offense when he had committed a lesser offense. If this were the case, the prosecution made a tactical error when they "went all in" on the charges.

Hence the request for something official to look at.
 
  • #38
I've found it fairly difficult to find anything online
 
  • #39
Vanadium 50 said:
It's certainly imaginable that the jury felt that aggravated assault with a deadly weapon better fit the crime than murder, and if they did not have the option of convicting Gilbert for that, they felt it was less unjust to acquit than to convict for a greater offense when he had committed a lesser offense. If this were the case, the prosecution made a tactical error when they "went all in" on the charges.
That does happen, and jury nullification sometimes is one of the sorry consequences of prosecutorial excess.
 
  • #40
Does the fact that the victim accidenty lived as a complete invalid for a while lesson what he did? What difference does it make if she had died instantly (and mercifully) from the shots instead of lingering as she did? If anything, the charge should be increased due to the increased suffering.
 
  • #41
Fredrik said:
So he shot at the car after she got into it. That's not much better.

That's not what I'm saying. It's easy to judge someone, but most of the time, in my experience, you don't have all the facts if you have any at all really. As this thread clearly shows.

The argument of whether he should have been found guilty can be argued forever, as it's nothing but a personal opinion. The fact of the matter is the jury found him not guilty for reasons that we don't know. I'm with Vanadium. I'd have to see the actual transcripts to give my own personal opinion on the matter.
 
  • #42
Evo said:
Does the fact that the victim accidenty lived as a complete invalid for a while lesson what he did? What difference does it make if she had died instantly (and mercifully) from the shots instead of lingering as she did? If anything, the charge should be increased due to the increased suffering.

I don't see how you can blame someone for a piece of equipment failing that they had nothing to do with, regardless of whether their actions put them in the situation in the first place.
 
  • #43
One has to wonder what the outcome of this trial would have been if the shooter had been black.
 
  • #44
Evo said:
So, if you want to kill someone in Texas, invite them over tonight, ask them to hold your watch and then blow them away.
You really think you could prove theft in that case? C'mon.
 
  • #45
Ryan_m_b said:
Russ even if she had stolen his money by not providing any service that he paid for (legal or otherwise) there is zero justification for her cold blooded murder.
Um...that is the justification!

Let me explain more about what I was saying earlier: This law may have been written 100 years ago when the population in Texas was sparse and the reach of law thin (speculation). If the law isn't going to help you get your stolen property back, you should be allowed to try to get it back yourself, by force (heck, even today, the legal system is not a guarantee). Sure, this type of justice is now usually considered obsolete or excessive, but people here should be able to at least understand why it would have made sense at one time.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Fredrik said:
But apparently, if a woman has hurt your feelings, refuses to give you the 150 dollars she owes you, and is a whore, it's OK to shoot her in the neck as long as you don't intend to kill her.
[emphasis added]
See, this sort of thing is just the type of prejudiced thought process that people need to set aside here. The justification for killing her has nothing whatsoever to do with her being a whore!
 
Last edited:
  • #47
D H said:
The prosecution was correct. The person who uses deadly force has to be on the right side of the law to claim that defense. He wasn't. He was expecting an illegal service. Once he gave her the money, it was hers. She wasn't the thief. He was.
That makes no sense to me. They were both on the wrong side of the law (different laws), so why would that cancel his protection but not hers? Does it actually say that in the law?
 
  • #48
Integral said:
One has to wonder what the outcome of this trial would have been if the shooter had been black.
Well clearly since all white Texans are racists, so we should assume a black perp would be found guilty! :bugeye:

There should be a Goodwin's Law for randomly throwing racism into a thread where it doesn't belong.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
russ_watters said:
You really think you could prove theft in that case? C'mon.

Do you have to prove theft, or does the prosecution have to prove non-theft (my understanding is that with the Trayvon Martin case, this is precisely the difficulty with prosecuting the case - even if Zimmerman is 100% guilty, proving that he was not covered by the stand your ground law beyond a reasonable doubt is exceedingly hard to do). I would guess the weight is on the prosecution
 
  • #50
Wow this thread took off O.O! I think that's my 3rd one in a row :) I like all the points I'm seein'!. The icing on the cake, with regards to this story, is when the man apparently "thanked God" for his fate. I just hope the poor girl rests in peace.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top