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.
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.
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?
Thank you. I did not know that fact. Ignorance fought.
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.
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.
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.
You didn’t learn much, then. I value life. I don’t value thieves.
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)?
This needs to be read in conjunction with 9.41
So what the defense sold, and the jury bought, was
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
We should just give Texas back to Mexico. They deserve each other.
Thieves are human beings. They have life. What is the price of their human life to you?
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.
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?
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.
(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).
You guys are stealing my time. If it was nightime in Texas I’d shoot you.
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:.
Because you didn’t teach much. There’s nothing in your post that shows you, or Texas, value life.