Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

"Those were Prostitutes? I thought they were raising money for stem-cell research" -Sheldon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiAt4Wyfk_U

There's something so wrong with being allowed to murder people legally.

rubiksnoob wrote:I mean, not wearing anything kevlar? Dressing like that is just asking to get shot.

Victim blamed!

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
misogyny?

Ughhhh

Specter of misogyny raises its head inappropriately! Just another day in the OT forum.

This decision is ridiculous. Truly there is nothing more frightening than the fact that a jury of one's peers are deciding one's guilt. Have you ever met 12 of your peers?

 Crablezworth wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiAt4Wyfk_U

There's something so wrong with being allowed to murder people legally.

If it's legal it's not murder. Murder is the act of killing someone illegally. Soldiers kill people, stabbing a rapist in the throat is killing him, this dude on the other hand got away with murder. Like OJ.

Breotan wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Can this verdict be overturned by any Govt. organization?

Nope. He could be put on trial for any Federal statutes if any were broken (I doubt any were) or he could possibly be tried for some prostitution-related crime (not sure if he was or not) but he can't be tried again for murder nor can any court or government agency overturn the verdict.

If his defense includes the admission that he was paying for sex, then couldn't he be charged for that? And assuming it's a crime to buy sex (and not just a crime ot sell it), then wouldn't this result in a wrongful death during the commission of an offense?

Well at least its not a story about Florida.

 Monster Rain wrote:

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
misogyny?

Ughhhh

Specter of misogyny raises its head inappropriately! Just another day in the OT forum.

Not sure that it is so inappropriate. It's a rather extreme example of what occurs in other cases. A man and a woman come to some joint agreement to exchange sex for money, but in the minds of some she's a dirty slut and he's just some ordinary guy spending his money. So when he shoots her dead, some people are strongly biased against the woman because of her profession and fallen morals and all that rubbish. We don't know what goes through the heads of the jury, but I can't help suspect that's what a bit of it was because its a socially very conservative state and the jury came to a ridiculous decision that doesn't seem rooted in reality.

He did not kill her. He paralysed her, and then months later her respirator suffered a mechanical failure which caused brain damage, and then her family had her killed. He should have been charged with a crime that actually reflected the injury he caused, instead of the prosecution going all-in on murder.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I thought missing property wasn't theft until the property had been missing for seven days.

If you know the property was stolen and not merely misplaced, it's theft the moment it happens. It would be pretty stupid if you could be the victim of a bag snatch and it didn't count as theft for a week.

AlexHolker wrote:He did not kill her. He paralysed her, and then months later her respirator suffered a mechanical failure which caused brain damage, and then her family had her killed let her die. He should have been charged with a crime that actually reflected the injury he caused, instead of the prosecution going all-in on murder.

Fixed that for you.

And in the criminal justice system, you take your victims as you find them.

When people don't really care about the victim, they're a lot more willing to believe all sorts of technical, legalistic bs. When the victim is just some prostitute, then unfortunately a hell of a lot more people are willing to consider some nonsense about self-defence during a night time robbery.

This is basically what life looks like when you're on the bottom of the social heap. The law doesn't work for you quite so well down there.

It fething sucks, and really all any of us can try and do is never dismiss someone's suffering because they're on the bottom, and perhaps more practically make sure we never personally end up down there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlexHolker wrote:
If you know the property was stolen and not merely misplaced, it's theft the moment it happens. It would be pretty stupid if you could be the victim of a bag snatch and it didn't count as theft for a week.

The girl failed to deliver on a contract. That isn't theft, it's a civil matter. It sure as hell doesn't justify shooting someone.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I thought missing property wasn't theft until the property had been missing for seven days.

Perhaps the court mistook a contract dispute -- it seems a mixed up situation.

Still, I am sure we can all take comfort from the fact that the woman (I assume it was a female prostitute) was asking for it. Also, he at least recovered his $150 and that is the main thing.

I've never heard of that before. So your saying it's not grand theft auto if the police happen to recover it 2 days after it's taken?

The value of the item no doubt has a bearing on the nature of the offence. But for example in the UK the law had to be changed to prosecute people for shoplifting. Previously they had the defence that they took the item by mistake or absent-mindedness and would have brought it back the next day, so it was not theft under the 7 day rule. This change happened over 30 years ago so not many people know about it but I was studying basic law at the time and it struck me as an interesting point.

My point is that in this prostitute shooting situation, the man has a contract dispute which is a civil case, and his lawyer has (arguably misused, but successfully) some Texas law about theft to defend him from murder or at least manslaughter. For one thing, the property wasn't missing, he knew exactly where it was.

Amusingly, lots of convicts were deported from the UK to Australia or America because it was thought more merciful than hanging them for the theft of property worth a shilling.

Perhaps we have gone back farther than those days.

Well, another pointer as to why religion and justice should never be mixed. You can bet if this was an ordinary girl he had shot he would be hanging now.

As it is i do hope that some sought of "rough justice" is meeted out. This kind of thing is despicable and it always sickens me, especially when someone so obviously guilty is let off because of some little trivial detail or because of something like thgis where the jury where most likely biased because they thought she was a hooker or prostitute. This man should have been doing prison time IMO.

 AlexHolker wrote:
He did not kill her. He paralysed her, and then months later her respirator suffered a mechanical failure which caused brain damage, and then her family had her killed. He should have been charged with a crime that actually reflected the injury he caused, instead of the prosecution going all-in on murder.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I thought missing property wasn't theft until the property had been missing for seven days.

If you know the property was stolen and not merely misplaced, it's theft the moment it happens. It would be pretty stupid if you could be the victim of a bag snatch and it didn't count as theft for a week.

Now we see jury wackjobs are not all in San Antonio.
He should have been charged with:
*Solicitation
*Wreckless use of a firearm
*Disturbing the peace
*Attempting murder

He aimed a firearm at a person with intent to discharge said firearm, and did so with malice aforethought. This guy needs the needle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I thought missing property wasn't theft until the property had been missing for seven days.

Perhaps the court mistook a contract dispute -- it seems a mixed up situation.

Still, I am sure we can all take comfort from the fact that the woman (I assume it was a female prostitute) was asking for it. Also, he at least recovered his $150 and that is the main thing.

I've never heard of that before. So your saying it's not grand theft auto if the police happen to recover it 2 days after it's taken?

The value of the item no doubt has a bearing on the nature of the offence. But for example in the UK the law had to be changed to prosecute people for shoplifting. Previously they had the defence that they took the item by mistake or absent-mindedness and would have brought it back the next day, so it was not theft under the 7 day rule. This change happened over 30 years ago so not many people know about it but I was studying basic law at the time and it struck me as an interesting point.

My point is that in this prostitute shooting situation, the man has a contract dispute which is a civil case, and his lawyer has (arguably misused, but successfully) some Texas law about theft to defend him from murder or at least manslaughter. For one thing, the property wasn't missing, he knew exactly where it was.

Amusingly, lots of convicts were deported from the UK to Australia or America because it was thought more merciful than hanging them for the theft of property worth a shilling.

Perhaps we have gone back farther than those days.

there is no "day" rule or anything like that in the US. Ok maybe California and New York. Do they even prosecute people any more in California?

 Frazzled wrote:
Do they even prosecute people any more in California?

For praying in a public area, or at least that is what Glenn Beck told me.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well, another pointer as to why religion and justice should never be mixed.

And what exactly dose this have to do with religion? Nothing, unless you want to make a convoluted case about how social rules and sexual mores are derived from and bound up in puritanical values.

He got away with this because she was the bottom of the social pile (at least in the view of the jury).

I'm surprised this law even exists. It is basically saying property > life. Someone steals they should die. It is legalizing vigilantism and is way beyond the right to protect yourself or prevent a crime if it is aloud to happen at that point.

I do hope the state have the good sense to appeal this.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I'm surprised this law even exists. It is basically saying property > life.

If I had to guess, I'd say the purpose of the law is to remove the need to second guess a home invader's motives. If someone breaks into your house at night you shouldn't need to worry about being found guilty of assault or murder because you can't prove he wasn't just going after your DVD collection.

I do hope the state have the good sense to appeal this.

That would be a violation of his constitutionally protected rights. The government is not allowed to keep on trying until they get a guilty verdict.

Poor girl, only in her early 20s. A man who shoots an unarmed person like that, in cold blood, deserves the full weight of the law, not let off.

Can this be appealed in some way? It seems a gross miscarriage of justice.

Im sure it didn't help that he was white and she wasnt.

 AlexHolker wrote:
That would be a violation of his constitutionally protected rights. The government is not allowed to keep on trying until they get a guilty verdict.

Appealing isn't the same as charging him again. Of course, they can't just say "we didn't want him to win either". There would have to be a legal reason to appeal, but that usually isn't that hard to come up with. I mean, a lawyer already involved got someone to consider a guy that was assuming he was paying for sex was allowed to shoot a woman down in cold blood because he wanted to protect his $150. You can't imagine they can convince another judge that that interpretation was too broad?

 Ahtman wrote:
Appealing isn't the same as charging him again. Of course, they can't just say "we didn't want him to win either". There would have to be a legal reason to appeal, but that usually isn't that hard to come up with. I mean, a lawyer already involved got someone to consider a guy that was assuming he was paying for sex was allowed to shoot a woman down in cold blood because he wanted to protect his $150. You can't imagine they can convince another judge that that interpretation was too broad?

You can't simply charge him again.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
I'm surprised this law even exists. It is basically saying property > life.

If I had to guess, I'd say the purpose of the law is to remove the need to second guess a home invader's motives. If someone breaks into your house at night you shouldn't need to worry about being found guilty of assault or murder because you can't prove he wasn't just going after your DVD collection.

I do hope the state have the good sense to appeal this.

That would be a violation of his constitutionally protected rights. The government is not allowed to keep on trying until they get a guilty verdict.

Its a part of the statutes in regard to self defense and others. The use f it in this context is grossly wrong and twists the intent into a pretzel, deep fries that pretzel, and then throes said pretzel right at the head of Lady Justice. I don't see how the judge could have even permitted the defense on a legal basis. Its completely wrong. With judges like that in San Antonio, I should be one. Jeez.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Poor girl, only in her early 20s. A man who shoots an unarmed person like that, in cold blood, deserves the full weight of the law, not let off.

Can this be appealed in some way? It seems a gross miscarriage of justice.

yes it can be appealed on points of law related to the actual defense. In any other case I'd say it will be, and would be done successfully. In this instance, either the judge was crooked, the jury was paid off or the prosecutor was. Its almost malpractice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Appealing isn't the same as charging him again. Of course, they can't just say "we didn't want him to win either". There would have to be a legal reason to appeal, but that usually isn't that hard to come up with. I mean, a lawyer already involved got someone to consider a guy that was assuming he was paying for sex was allowed to shoot a woman down in cold blood because he wanted to protect his $150. You can't imagine they can convince another judge that that interpretation was too broad?

You can't simply charge him again.

Thats not what an appeal is. Its going to a higher court sayign the lower court ed up, typically on a question of law applied (or not applied).

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Appealing isn't the same as charging him again. Of course, they can't just say "we didn't want him to win either". There would have to be a legal reason to appeal, but that usually isn't that hard to come up with. I mean, a lawyer already involved got someone to consider a guy that was assuming he was paying for sex was allowed to shoot a woman down in cold blood because he wanted to protect his $150. You can't imagine they can convince another judge that that interpretation was too broad?

You can't simply charge him again.

Well no gak. Thank god I didn't say any such thing. It is like people woke up and forgot that there is an appeals process.

 Ahtman wrote:
Well no gak. Thank god I didn't say any such thing. It is like people woke up and forgot that there is an appeals process.

Then I misunderstood what you were saying.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
misogyny?

Ughhhh

Specter of misogyny raises its head inappropriately! Just another day in the OT forum.

Not sure that it is so inappropriate. It's a rather extreme example of what occurs in other cases. A man and a woman come to some joint agreement to exchange sex for money, but in the minds of some she's a dirty slut and he's just some ordinary guy spending his money. So when he shoots her dead, some people are strongly biased against the woman because of her profession and fallen morals and all that rubbish. We don't know what goes through the heads of the jury, but I can't help suspect that's what a bit of it was because its a socially very conservative state and the jury came to a ridiculous decision that doesn't seem rooted in reality.

Hanlon's razor.

The more likely explanation is that the decision was based off of a warped sense of property rights, as outlined in the article.

We can mix the two. Women were considered (well, in some places still are) property for a long time, after all. No reason it can't be both misogyny and real estate.

In case this is missed, San Antonio has some of the finest queso on planet Earth. Just as an aside.

http://www.ksat.com/news/accused-call-girl-killer-faces-jury-in-trial/-/478452/20421926/-/14rid8mz/-/index.html

This person is clearly a lunatic.

I don't know how firing a gun at two people in a residential area doesn't carry at least some kind of legal penalty.

His sentence starts with "Appealing isn't the same as charging him again" (and it isn't)

 Monster Rain wrote:
http://www.ksat.com/news/accused-call-girl-killer-faces-jury-in-trial/-/478452/20421926/-/14rid8mz/-/index.html

This person is clearly a lunatic.

I don't know how firing a gun at two people in a residential area doesn't carry at least some kind of legal penalty.

Wait this is dated June 4. Has the jury trial already occurred?

Popping rounds with an AK? Seriously?