News The glory that is the Texas justice system

  • Thread starter Thread starter WannabeNewton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    System
Click For 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.
  • #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)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #51
Office_Shredder said:
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

I'm pretty sure that you must have reasonable proof that theft took place.
 
  • #52
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.
First plausible explanation I've seen that doesn't involve the jury or the law being extremely irrational. But I have to say that I think that paralyzing someone with a bullet to the neck, to a degree where she needs a respirator, is worse than killing someone with a bullet to the neck. (No, I don't mean that people in wheel chairs are better off dead. I think the fact that she needed a respirator shows that her paralysis was far more severe than that). I understand of course that this isn't about what's actually worse, but about what crime he can be found guilty of in a court of law.
 
  • #53
russ_watters said:
The justification for killing her has nothing whatsoever to do with her being a whore!
It obviously doesn't justify it. But neither does anything else that's been mentioned in this thread.

If the verdict had anything to do with the shooting being "justified" (in a legal sense, by a really stupid law), then I find it hard to believe that he would have gotten away with it if some of the minor details in the story was different. If the woman had been there to buy a used iPhone and refused to pay for it, if the shooter had been black, if he had hit her with a baseball bat instead of a bullet fired from a gun,... These are all things that don't matter to a rational person, but someone who finds this justified isn't rational.
 
  • #54
russ_watters said:
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.

The law was put in effect in 1973. I'm pretty sure this law was obsolete back then too. (Heck it was modified in 1993!)
 
  • #55
Office_Shredder said:
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
Drakkith said:
I'm pretty sure that you must have reasonable proof that theft took place.
Good question.

I would think that the prosecution would have to prove non-theft. In an "innocent until proven guilty" society, the burden of all proof is on the prosecution.

It gets even more complicated than that though: what if she thought sex wasn't included but he did? Or in the Zimmerman case, he thought he was in danger but wasn't? Typically, I think self-defense cases can be decided just on what the shooter was thinking even if it was wrong. Perhaps that's even the reason for the "at night" qualifier in the law. It is ambiguity as a defense.
 
  • #56
Fredrik said:
First plausible explanation I've seen that doesn't involve the jury or the law being extremely irrational.
You have it backwards. If the law is irrational, then the jury showed a remarkable degree of rationality in properly and dispassionately applying it. Posters in this thread are acting like a lynch mob here but the jury chose to follow the law even if they didn't like it.
 
  • #57
MarneMath said:
The law was put in effect in 1973. I'm pretty sure this law was obsolete back then too. (Heck it was modified in 1993!)
Good to know -- I'd still like more info about the law and its basis though. Particularly the qualifier about it being at night.
 
  • #58
Office_Shredder said:
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

Both laws are ill advised, but the two situations are different. In Zimmerman's case, his irresponsible acts put him in a situation where the shooting would be justified - at least if it wasn't his own actions that created the situation, which really muddies things up. In this case, the shooter was outside the car and the car was driving away. The shooter was in no danger at all.
 
  • #59
As Perry Mason would say "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!"

I am going to claim deep legal expertise, having gone on one date with the daughter of someone who used to be on Law and Order. And having watched lots of TV, I know that the jury returns a yes/no verdict. They do not opine on the legal arguments presented by the prosecution and defense teams.

Defense lawyers seldom give only a single argument. They want to poke as many holes as they can in the prosecutions theory of the case. We do not know this is the only argument they presented, and based on past experience, it is likely that it was not. We therefore do not know if the jury bought this argument or not.

There is some evidence that things are not as simple as the media - whose job it is to sell soap, remember - portrays. One very odd thing is that Gilbert was not charged with attempted murder while his victim was still alive: he was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
 
  • #60
MarneMath said:
The law was put in effect in 1973. I'm pretty sure this law was obsolete back then too.
The entire penal code was completely rewritten in 1973. Prior versions were used in the rewrite. Rewriting the laws (rather than revising them) is something Texas legislators are won't to do. The penal code was originally written 1879, and completely rewritten in 1895, 1911, 1925, 1956, and 1973.

russ_watters said:
Good to know -- I'd still like more info about the law and its basis though. Particularly the qualifier about it being at night.

From the 1879 version of the penal code,
"Homicide is permitted by law when inflicted for the purpose of preventing the offense of murder, rape, robbery, maiming, disfiguring, castration, arson, burglary, and theft at night ... If homicide takes place in preventing a robbery, it shall be justifiable if done while the robber is in the presence of the person robbed, or is flying with the money or other article taken by him."​

Things moved around a lot between 1879 to 1925, but the wording remained pretty much the same. Texas legislators apparently have a long history of making work for themselves.

The current version doesn't say anything about justifiable homicide. It instead talks about use of deadly force:
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another ... to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property."​