# In Texas you can shoot a prostitute for $150 **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 7, 2013, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365 "2013-06-07T08:44:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/41 "2013-06-07T16:18:40Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Well, lucky for that guy, he doesn’t have to even prove deception. “Hey, let me get some condoms first at the store with the money you just gave me”-“Nah, I’ll just shoot you instead” could just be taken care of without clogging up the courts. Or do we know that “here’s $150 and we will have the beej in a week when those sores clear up” defense. Since we don’t know the dead’s side of the story, we really don’t know if deception was caused or not. I haven’t seen a detailed write-up of the evidence - is there even proof she offered him sex for the $150? It’s even more horrible if you imagine she’s just an escort - and the only promise of sex was one that the man invented in his own mind. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/42 "2013-06-07T16:20:32Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > I’ve been searching the Texas Penal Code and so far have found no definition of “nighttime.” > > Maybe they use the “black thread/white thread” test. 😛 At common law, the test was whether the face of a human being could be distinguished by natural light. If it got too dark to recognize someone’s facial features, it was nighttime at common law. I don’t know to what extent, if any, Texas has adopted common-law definitions for that word. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/43 "2013-06-07T16:20:36Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Well, lucky for that guy, he doesn’t have to even prove deception. “Hey, let me get some condoms first at the store with the money you just gave me”-“Nah, I’ll just shoot you instead” could just be taken care of without clogging up the courts. Or do we know that “here’s $150 and we will have the beej in a week when those sores clear up” defense. Since we don’t know the dead’s side of the story, we really don’t know if deception was caused or not. The woman who was shot lived for several months, and her pimp was in the same vehicle. Why would you assume that their side of the story went unheard? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/44 "2013-06-07T16:22:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > At common law, the test was whether the face of a human being could be distinguished by natural light. If it got too dark to recognize someone’s facial features, it was nighttime at common law. > > I don’t know to what extent, if any, Texas has adopted common-law definitions for that word. Thank you. I did not know that fact. Ignorance fought. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/45 "2013-06-07T16:25:48Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Easily. Not having proper legal training on how to access and interpret laws, I formed an opinion as a layman. “]In reaching this conclusion, did you consider Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(b)(1)?” indeed. :rolleyes: Am I supposed to crawl away in shame because I’m not a lawyer now? Not at all. But you craft confident, brook-no-room-for-error declarations like: > [@](#): > > It’s not theft, either. He gave her the money willingly, and since there could not be a legal contract involved the only other possibility is that it was a gift. And that certainly suggests some… well… certainty about the matter. I am a lawyer. But since I don’t know Texas law apart from specific stuff I just looked up, I say things like this: At common law, the test was whether the face of a human being could be distinguished by natural light. If it got too dark to recognize someone’s facial features, it was nighttime at common law. _Stuff I know for sure, stated without qualifier._ I don’t know to what extent, if any, Texas has adopted common-law definitions for that word._Stuff I don’t know and therefore highlight that lack of certainty to avoid giving the impression that I do._ Obviously, you should continue to post in whatever manner pleases you. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/46 "2013-06-07T16:27:33Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > The woman who was shot lived for several months, and her pimp was in the same vehicle. Why would you assume that their side of the story went unheard? On review, that sounds snarkier than I’d like. Amended: It is likely that her (and the pimp’s) side of the story was heard, an article linked to by the article in the OP features some comments from the woman’s brother about how depressed she was and such, so she wasn’t in a coma or anything. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/47 "2013-06-07T16:32:31Z")
> [@nate](#): > > Would you be OK with the death penalty for a convicted thief? The issue is not thievery per se. The issue is theft/burglary/whatever at night, where the victim’s personal safety is much more at risk. IIRC, this derives from the good old days of horse theft and cattle rustling, but I stand to be corrected on that. I will say that I think that applying it to the case described was a real stretch. It’s one of those things that comes down in a “grey area” of the law and the defense got lucky. However, since you asked for my personal opinion…having been a victim of burglary and theft, I personally think that thieves have about as much value to humanity as dog shit on the bottom of a shoe, and there is a part of me that would like to see them all shot at sunrise after their conviction. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/48 "2013-06-07T16:33:33Z")
> [@babygoat666](#): > > All I learned from that is that you value property. You could have just said “no”. You didn’t learn much, then. I value life. I don’t value thieves. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/49 "2013-06-07T16:34:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not at all. > > But you craft confident, brook-no-room-for-error declarations like: > > And that certainly suggests some… well… certainty about the matter. > > I am a lawyer. But since I don’t know Texas law apart from specific stuff I just looked up, I say things like this: > > At common law, the test was whether the face of a human being could be distinguished by natural light. If it got too dark to recognize someone’s facial features, it was nighttime at common law. _Stuff I know for sure, stated without qualifier._ > > I don’t know to what extent, if any, Texas has adopted common-law definitions for that word._Stuff I don’t know and therefore highlight that lack of certainty to avoid giving the impression that I do._ > > Obviously, you should continue to post in whatever manner pleases you. Thank you. The only “certainty” in my post was the certainty that that was how I felt about the matter. Would it be better if those that do not have your background in law prefaced their opinions with IANALAMPOIWA(I am not a lawyer and my personal opinion isn’t worth anything)? ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/50 "2013-06-07T16:36:49Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Yes, it is a stupid question. Very stupid, actually. We value life. What we don’t value are burglars and thieves. > > The actual text of the Texas Penal Code reads as follows. > > 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. This needs to be read in conjunction with 9.41 > [@](#): > > § 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in > lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is > justified in using force against another when and to the degree the > actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to > prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful > interference with the property. > (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, > movable property by another is justified in using force against the > other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force > is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the > property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit > after the dispossession and: > (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no > claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or > (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using > force, threat, or fraud against the actor. So what the defense sold, and the jury bought, was > [@](#): > > A person in lawful possession tangible, movable property was justified in using deadly force to prevent the other, who is fleeing immediately after committing theft in the nighttime, from escaping with the property because the other accomplished the dispossession by using fraud against the actor and he reasonably believes the property cannot be recovered by any other means. I will refrain from passing judgment myself because I am not a member of the jury and did not see the evidence or hear the arguments. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/51 "2013-06-07T16:36:52Z")
We should just give Texas back to Mexico. They deserve each other. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/52 "2013-06-07T16:37:06Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > You didn’t learn much, then. I value life. I don’t value thieves. Thieves are human beings. They have life. What is the price of their human life to you? ---
**Author:** ![Aquadementia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aquadementia/32/555_2.png) [@Aquadementia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aquadementia)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/53 "2013-06-07T16:39:11Z")
What he did is shot someone while in commission of a crime. That doesn’t sound like robbery to me. If you pay someone to commit an illegal act I don’t know of a legal recourse to reclaim your money. If you lose your money because someone didn’t steal a car of kill for you, you’re out of luck. Well, unless you want to track then down with a gun, but that would a crime. Stupidly, if this was a drug deal taking place at his residence they may have looked at this different. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/54 "2013-06-07T16:45:00Z")
Isn’t her death directly linked to the crime of prostitution-a crime that he was a willing participant in? Is Texas one of those states where an accomplice to a crime can be charged if a death ensues? edited to add: Where is his conviction for solicitation? ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/55 "2013-06-07T16:45:12Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > I haven’t seen a detailed write-up of the evidence - is there even proof she offered him sex for the $150? It’s even more horrible if you imagine she’s just an escort - and the only promise of sex was one that the man invented in his own mind. This is exactly what I came in to say-- the OP here misrepresents the facts of the case somewhat. This woman was an escort, he paid her for _her time_, not sex. That’s the whole loophole escorts operate in, after all-- you’re paying them for their company and if they decide to have sex with you, that’s their own decision supposedly unrelated to the money. Now, in practice, most escorts are just thinly veiled prostitutes, but I think the distinction here is a key thing. He _did_ get what he paid for, some time with her. I suspect the jury thinking escort = prostitute is what let this man walk. Shameful either way. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/56 "2013-06-07T16:46:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Thank you. The only “certainty” in my post was the certainty that that was how I felt about the matter. Would it be better if those that do not have your background in law prefaced their opinions with IANALAMPOIWA(I am not a lawyer and my personal opinion isn’t worth anything)? (a) It’s not theft. (b) I feel it’s not theft. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/57 "2013-06-07T17:02:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > (a) It’s not theft. > (b) I feel it’s not theft. > > YMMV. (a) This isn’t a court of law. (b) Since I have never claimed to have a legal background, why don’t you go ahead and assume I, a layman, am giving a layman’s opinion that is open to correction when facts are presented(preferably without a snotty “Why didn’t you consider Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(b)(1)?” type attitude). ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/58 "2013-06-07T17:12:31Z")
You guys are stealing my time. If it was nightime in Texas I’d shoot you. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/59 "2013-06-07T17:12:32Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Easily. Not having proper legal training on how to access and interpret laws, I formed an opinion as a layman. “]In reaching this conclusion, did you consider Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.01(b)(1)?” indeed. :rolleyes: Am I supposed to crawl away in shame because I’m not a lawyer now? You could alternatively crawl away in shame because you tried to argue in apparent seriousness that money given to a prostitute should be viewed as a “gift” should she not happen to feel like (a) going through with the deal or (b) giving the money back :rolleyes:. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/60 "2013-06-07T17:15:05Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > You didn’t learn much, then. Because you didn’t teach much. There’s nothing in your post that shows you, or Texas, value life. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365.md?page=4)