The glory that is the Texas justice system

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter WannabeNewton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    System
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on a recent case in Texas involving the acquittal of a man who shot an escort, raising questions about the legal implications of the state's laws regarding the use of deadly force, particularly in the context of theft and illegal activities. Participants explore the nuances of the law, the morality of the actions taken, and the broader implications for justice in Texas.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express disbelief at the acquittal, questioning the justice system's effectiveness and the morality of the law that allows for deadly force in property protection.
  • Others argue that the escort's actions could be interpreted as theft since she took money without providing the agreed-upon services, complicating the legal situation.
  • A few participants highlight the distinction between escort services and prostitution, suggesting that the legal definitions impact the case's outcome.
  • Some contributions emphasize the broader implications of Texas laws on the use of deadly force, suggesting that they may lead to unjust outcomes in various scenarios.
  • There is a discussion about the potential for appeals, with some participants noting that the state cannot appeal due to double jeopardy protections.
  • Several participants share personal opinions on the appropriateness of using deadly force in such situations, with mixed views on whether the law is overly broad or justified.
  • Some participants challenge each other's interpretations of the events, arguing over the characterization of the shooting and the legal arguments presented during the trial.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the interpretation of the law and the morality of the actions taken in this case. There is no consensus on whether the acquittal was justified or if the law itself is flawed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals a lack of clarity regarding the application of Texas laws on deadly force, particularly in cases involving illegal activities and the definition of theft. Participants express varying degrees of understanding and interpretation of these legal concepts.

WannabeNewton
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
5,850
Reaction score
553
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.