# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/81 "2013-06-07T18:51:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No – my analysis was based on the hypothetical facts being discussed as presented in the OP. It was not intended to, nor did it purport to be, a comment on the evidence of the actual case. Sorry. When folks make such strong statements (and then stick by them) you usually call them on it and ask for stronger sources than what’s presented in an OP or general article. I thought for a moment you had found a cite with transcripts (which have been posted later in the thread after I started drafting–I believe the transcripts back up the assertion that the ad itself did not deceive). ---
**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, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/82 "2013-06-07T18:53:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Perhaps the jury thought the victim was a con artist, who pretended to be a whore in order to scam a potential John out of money. She was an escort-it’s her job to get the money and deliver what was verbally agreed upon, no more and no less. Unless I see something that shows that she promised sex for that money, I have to assume she was there as an escort only, his expectations notwithstanding. Does this verdict mean that all escorts have to have sex with their clients? What about the aforementioned “model” shops where the client is expected to sit and watch(but not touch) the “model”? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/83 "2013-06-07T18:54:51Z")
I think there are a couple points here which need to come out. First, the Defendant’s position was apparently that he was shooting at the tires of the car to try to stop it from getting away. Second, the jury was apparently not given an option of manslaughter – it was either murder or acquittal. I got these facts from the video at one of the links upthread. If you shoot at an occupied vehicle with the intent to stop the vehicle, can that supply the necessary intent for a murder conviction? Probably, but under these circumstances I think most people would agree that the defendant should have been charged with and convicted of something like negligent homicide or manslaughter but not murder. ---
**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, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/84 "2013-06-07T19:01:07Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I think there are a couple points here which need to come out. > > First, the Defendant’s position was apparently that he was shooting at the tires of the car to try to stop it from getting away. > > Second, the jury was apparently not given an option of manslaughter – it was either murder or acquittal. > > I got these facts from the video at one of the links upthread. > > If you shoot at an occupied vehicle with the intent to stop the vehicle, can that supply the necessary intent for a murder conviction? Probably, but under these circumstances I think most people would agree that the defendant should have been charged with and convicted of negligent homicide not murder. I can see the prosecutor telling the victim’s family “We have to change the plea from murder to manslaughter because he said he was only aiming for the tires.” Defense lawyers around the country would have a field day referring to case for years to come. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/85 "2013-06-07T19:18:18Z")
IIRC there are all sorts of reasons the jury may have only been presented with murder or aquittal. ---
**Author:** ![Blue\_Mood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac91a4/32.png) [@Blue\_Mood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blue_Mood)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/86 "2013-06-07T19:26:12Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I have no problem with people making complaints about this particular ruling or even arguing the merits of the deadly force laws in Texas. I’m not so keen on the condemnation of an entire state though. Agreed completely. Of course there’s going to be back-and-forthing about specifics, but what I’m really wondering is how these laws came into being. Whether it’s an oversight, or aiming to be a deterrent, or something the public demanded. There will always be cases that cause RO - what’s different about this one (from my point of view) is that it reveals a law I never would have believed could have existed. ---
**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, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/87 "2013-06-07T19:39:40Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > She was an escort-it’s her job to get the money and deliver what was verbally agreed upon, no more and no less. Cite? > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Unless I see something that shows that she promised sex for that money, I have to assume she was there as an escort only, his expectations notwithstanding. Why? Is withholding judgment out of lack of information not an option? Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/88 "2013-06-07T19:47:30Z")
> [@Blue\_Mood](#): > > Agreed completely. Of course there’s going to be back-and-forthing about specifics, but what I’m really wondering is how these laws came into being. Whether it’s an oversight, or aiming to be a deterrent, or something the public demanded. There will always be cases that cause RO - what’s different about this one (from my point of view) is that it reveals a law I never would have believed could have existed. If you live in Texas long enough these kinds of cases will pop up from time to time. In Dallas back in the late 80s or early 90s someone shot and killed a young man who was stealing hubcaps. Not too long after that a guy in the D/FW area was shot and killed while repossessing a car that was sitting on private property. I don’t think the shooter was charged with murder in that case either. I suspect Texas has this provision in their deadly force laws because they feel people should be able to defend their property. ---
**Author:** ![Dag\_Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@Dag\_Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dag_Otto)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/89 "2013-06-07T20:23:33Z")
> [@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. It would be odd for the law to say that it is legal to shoot someone when you specifically cannot identify the target. So, being Texas, that probably is the case. Is that one of those rules they teach responsible gun owners at a concealed carry class? It’s OK to shoot when you can’t identify your target? ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/90 "2013-06-07T20:27:49Z")
> [@Dag\_Otto](#): > > It would be odd for the law to say that it is legal to shoot someone when you specifically cannot identify the target. So, being Texas, that probably is the case. > > Is that one of those rules they teach responsible gun owners at a concealed carry class? It’s OK to shoot when you can’t identify your target? I thought the quoted response was to the common law definition of ‘night time’. The two issues are related, but not so closely linked to make such inferences. ---
**Author:** ![Dag\_Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@Dag\_Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dag_Otto)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/91 "2013-06-07T20:36:31Z")
I see that, but how else would it be determined if ‘night time’ isn’t specifically defined elsewhere? ---
**Author:** ![Vicullum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/6de8d8/32.png) [@Vicullum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vicullum)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/92 "2013-06-07T20:46:05Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > So deadly force is permissible to stop someone from minimal vandalism or graffiti. We have fruit trees growing near our driveway. Sometimes people grab fruit and break branches on the trees. If this were Texas, I could set up a sniper nest on my roof and take them out (driveway is about 400’ long–by the time I shouted ‘stop’ the crime would be committed and the perpetrators would get away. I’d be within the staute). Yeah, good luck with that. [There was a similarly creative](http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/texas-stand-ground-shooter-headed-prison-210731482.html) individual who thought he could use the state’s “stand your ground” laws to blow away his neighbor who was annoying him by playing loud music. Guess what, he was found guilty and given a life sentence. ---
**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, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/93 "2013-06-07T20:54:37Z")
> [@Dag\_Otto](#): > > It would be odd for the law to say that it is legal to shoot someone when you specifically cannot identify the target. So, being Texas, that probably is the case. > > Is that one of those rules they teach responsible gun owners at a concealed carry class? It’s OK to shoot when you can’t identify your target? Considering the common law formed that definition prior to the year 1800, I would opine that your speculation is not correct. Please remember that this definition refers simply to when “nighttime” is; it has nothing to do with shooting. ---
**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, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/94 "2013-06-07T20:56:02Z")
> [@Dag\_Otto](#): > > I see that, but how else would it be determined if ‘night time’ isn’t specifically defined elsewhere? When a statute contains a word that it does not define, the word is typically given its ordinary, dictionary meaning. ---
**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, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/95 "2013-06-07T21:03:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > When a statute contains a word that it does not define, the word is typically given its ordinary, dictionary meaning. The would be “the period between sunset and sunrise.” ---
**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, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/96 "2013-06-07T21:19:28Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > Not too long after that a guy in the D/FW area was shot and killed while repossessing a car that was sitting on private property. I don’t think the shooter was charged with murder in that case either. > > I suspect Texas has this provision in their deadly force laws because they feel people should be able to defend their property. But if it’s a REPO man, then it’s not \*your \*property you’re defending… ---
**Author:** ![Samantha\_Leigh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Samantha\_Leigh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Samantha_Leigh)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/97 "2013-06-07T21:22:08Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I think there are a couple points here which need to come out. > > First, the Defendant’s position was apparently that he was shooting at the tires of the car to try to stop it from getting away. > > Second, the jury was apparently not given an option of manslaughter – it was either murder or acquittal. > > I got these facts from the video at one of the links upthread. > > If you shoot at an occupied vehicle with the intent to stop the vehicle, can that supply the necessary intent for a murder conviction? Probably, but under these circumstances I think most people would agree that the defendant should have been charged with and convicted of something like negligent homicide or manslaughter but not murder. This is similar to what I read about the case. The prosecution failed to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt and if that is required for a murder conviction, the jury felt there was no other option but to acquit. It seems like the DA overreached to me. If I were the woman’s family, I would rather they go for manslaughter and feel more sure about a conviction than go for murder and increase the likelihood of an acquittal. Is it possible that even if the defense hadn’t justified the shooting using that particular law, the jury would have still acquitted him. ---
**Author:** ![Skypist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skypist/32/169_2.png) [@Skypist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skypist)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/98 "2013-06-07T21:37:14Z")
I live in Texas. I’d heard of part of that law because of this case: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe\_Horn\_shooting\_controversy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy). I didn’t, however, realize what all it included or the part about “nighttime.” I also didn’t realize that Joe Horn had been acquitted. For some reason, I thought the law was meant to protect people who shot someone who was invading their home. If someone breaks into my home, I’m not a mind-reader and can’t know if they’re there to cause me bodily harm or if they just wanted to take the TV and didn’t think anyone was home. I thought it was meant to protect you from prosecution if you shoot someone who breaks into your home and they try to claim (if any of them are still alive) that they were just there to steal and not to hurt anyone. Apparently I should have paid more attention to what is really in those laws. I suspect a lot of Texans don’t realize that these laws can be used to allow a shooter to use deadly force when definitely not in physical danger (i.e., burglar/fraudster has already taken the property and is actually leaving), but I could be wrong. What was the legal reasoning for the prosecutor not to include a lesser charge like manslaughter or negligent homicide (whatever would apply, as obviously IANAL)? ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/99 "2013-06-07T21:50:15Z")
Update - the prostitute got away. The Texan’s rod was shooting blanks. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2013, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365/100 "2013-06-07T22:00:28Z")
> [@bup](#): > > But if it’s a REPO man, then it’s not \*your \*property you’re defending… I do not possess an understanding of the civil laws in regards to ownership and defaulting on loans or what that means to the criminal laws regarding the use of deadly force. I can’t imagine you’re the first person to make that argument though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-texas-you-can-shoot-a-prostitute-for-150/660365.md?page=6)