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.

Via Gawker:


A jury in Bexar County, Texas just acquitted Ezekiel Gilbert of charges that he murdered a 23-year-old Craigslist escort—agreeing that because he was attempting to retrieve the $150 he'd paid to Frago, who wouldn't have sex with him, his actions were justified.

Gilbert had admitted to shooting Lenora Ivie Frago in the neck on Christmas Eve 2009, when she accepted $150 from Gilbert and left his home without having sex with him. Frago, who was paralyzed by the shooting, died several months later.

Gilbert's defense argued that the shooting wasn't meant to kill, and that Gilbert's actions were justified, because he believed that sex was included as part of the fee. Texas law allows people "to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft."

The 30-year-old hugged his defense attorneys after the "not guilty" verdict was read by the judge. If convicted, he could have faced life in prison. He thanked God, his lawyers, and the jury for being able to "see what wasn't the truth."

It's so disgusting that it's come full circle to hilarity. This has to be a joke, surely?

Yeah.. just awful.

"Hadn't meant to kill her".. erm, always a danger surely when you shoot at someone?

So killing someone over $150 (which can buy what these days?), you would hope the act of murdering someone will stay with him till his dying day, although he's probably too thick to realise the value of human life.

Oh Texas, you so crazy.

 Pacific wrote:


So killing someone over $150 (which can buy what these days?).

Thanks to the article, we know what it doesn't buy...

Can this verdict be overturned by any Govt. organisation?

 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.

His name is actually Ezekiel?
Like, Zeke?

This is a joke, right?

Murica! Seriously how does the theft of 150$ warrant murder?

He was shooting to injure. The reason he shot her in the neck is simple; It's easy to scoop the money out of the handbag of a quadriplegic hooker.

It's incredulous that this guy is going to live the rest of his life as a free man. You would think if any prostitution charges could be brought against him they would have. Maybe Texas doesn't care because this woman was "immoral".

From most anecdotes in my life concerning Texas, it seems about three steps away from crazy at any given moment.

Does seem a bit much to shoot someone you know isn't armed or actually threatening you. She was walking off with money he thought was going to get him sex. That's not your typical burglary, in fact it could be a miscommunication as to what the 'deal' was.

Say you were going to buy drugs and the dealer visits your house and tries to make off with your money and not give you drugs, so you shot them dead. Would that be okay too? Or is there a tiny bit of a suspicion that the finding of this reported case is just a little based in misogyny?

I think the wierdest part is that "Escort" was turned into "Prostitute". If this woman advertised herself as an Escort there is no reason to believe she would be sleeping with the gent in question. Certainly Escort implies Prostitute, but doesn't strictly mean that.

Was he charged with attempting to solicit?

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

Whoever his lawyer is, you want that lawyer if gak ever goes down.

 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?

 Frazzled wrote:
Whoever his lawyer is, you want that lawyer if gak ever goes down.

My Johnnie Cochran isnt really dead

 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.

A contract is a civil matter, as is the breach of a contract. But what she did was a crime. She used deceit to get his money, never intending to perform. (or at least that is what the jury believed) That is criminal in many jurisdictions. You might not agree with the distinction in being able to use force to stop a crime. But it is still an important distinction.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
misogyny?

Ughhhh

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
misogyny?

Ughhhh

What's the matter? I've never heard that word before. No clue what it means.

Right.. but he shot her and she ultimately died.. you've got to keep these things in perspective surely?

This is a step away from hanging someone for stealing a loaf of bread, in that the state has effectively sanctioned this guy's actions with this decision.

 daedalus wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
misogyny?

Ughhhh

What's the matter? I've never heard that word before. No clue what it means.

Someone suggested something similar when commenting that the woman being 'immoral' counted against her in this case. It wouldn't surprise me one bit.

 CptJake 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.

A contract is a civil matter, as is the breach of a contract. But what she did was a crime. She used deceit to get his money, never intending to perform. (or at least that is what the jury believed) That is criminal in many jurisdictions. You might not agree with the distinction in being able to use force to stop a crime. But it is still an important distinction.

Is prostitution legal in that jurisdiction?

I would think the law would consider the loss of funds his own fault if he lost them in the attempt to commit a crime, and he wouldn't be permitted to claim that he was defending himself from theft when he subsequently ended a human life by a violent act trying to recover the money he employed in the commission of a crime.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Someone suggested something similar when commenting that the woman being 'immoral' counted against her in this case. It wouldn't surprise me one bit.

To be fair, the same nutca...err, "social conservatives" that might think that murder is acceptable for being "immoral" might feel the same way about a man having cheated on his wife, or even this guy were he to have actually committed the act he was attempting to do.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 CptJake 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.

A contract is a civil matter, as is the breach of a contract. But what she did was a crime. She used deceit to get his money, never intending to perform. (or at least that is what the jury believed) That is criminal in many jurisdictions. You might not agree with the distinction in being able to use force to stop a crime. But it is still an important distinction.

Is prostitution legal in that jurisdiction?

I would think the law would consider the loss of funds his own fault if he lost them in the attempt to commit a crime, and he wouldn't be permitted to claim that he was defending himself from theft when he subsequently ended a human life by a violent act trying to recover the money he employed in the commission of a crime.

Prostitution is not legal in Texas, except by politicians. Any decent prosecutor can appeal this on a question of law. He's basically asserting self defense statutes to wack a hooker. Um...no.
But this is so weird something else is going on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Someone suggested something similar when commenting that the woman being 'immoral' counted against her in this case. It wouldn't surprise me one bit.

To be fair, the same nutca...err, "social conservatives" that might think that murder is acceptable for being "immoral" might feel the same way about a man having cheated on his wife, or even this guy were he to have actually committed the act he was attempting to do.

Indeed, whoever the jury consultant was is sheer genius.

 Ahtman wrote:


Oh Texas, you so crazy.

What the --- Those are AK47s! Those damned commy texans!

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:


Oh Texas, you so crazy.

What the --- Those are AK47s! Those damned commy texans!

Thats not how it works. We're perfectly free to pick an enemy gun if we deem it superior, while the commies will copy an enemy invention and pass it off as their own.

 Medium of Death wrote:

It's incredulous that this guy is going to live the rest of his life as a free man.

Which might not be that long anyway. This is one of those cases where I wouldn't be surprised if street justice would supplant the judiciary system.

Gotta keep it real, ya'know?

Do some blow, drink some booze, kill a prostitute or two, it's just saturday night you know? In Miami any way.

This is ludicrous across the board, but I really do want his defense lawyer's number.