I looked it up. It applies when the underlying crime is a felony. § 7.02.
Apparently, Texas treats prostitution and solicitation of prostitution as misdemeanors. § 43.03.
I’m not sure if he was charged with it.
I first heard about this case from a facebook post in which addictinginfo.org was ratcheting the RO to pretty high levels. This leads me to wonder if the victim was established, during the course of the trial, to have actually been a prostitute. I have no idea how to go about finding the transcript of the trial; and even if I found it, how I would glean whether the prosecution stipulated that she had been one (a prostitute).
OR you could do a little research and see that she was an “escort”, which is legal in that jurisdiction. Whatever hints the ads may give, all she is legally obligated to do for her money is show up and talk with him. You can call the guy in the car she gives the money to a pimp, but his job seems to be bodyguard in case the client decides to get more than he legally contracted for. The money was legally hers, in my opinion, because she did exactly what she was contracted to do until the client reneged on the contract. The fact that the jury held the personal opinion that “escort” automatically meant “whore” is something that disturbs me.
Is there a robust version of the fact pattern as presented to a jury? Text of the original Craigslist ad? Where is the proof that conception was induced by deception?
During the Craigslist kerfuffle a while back one of the things brought up was how ads often worked to avoid blatant illegality–a flat fee for companionship with tipping as an acceptable practice; any physical activity that took place was coincidentally occurring between mutually consenting adults.
Assuming for a moment that Texas law allowed recovery for such cases, if his claim was based on the ad/conversation as entered into the record, would he likely recover? Is an ad saying “for great time, call xxx” sufficiently suggestive enough to imply sex such that deadly force is permissible? What kind of sex?
This is just one possibility, a straightforward deception may have taken place–do yo have access to better fact reporting to have drawn your conclusion?
Missed the edit window: I see that I’ve been ninja’d by DiosaBellissima on the point of drawing a distinction between an escort and a prostitute.
I would HOPE that the prosecution would have disputed the characterization, and that the judge’s instructions to the jury specifically included an admonishment that they would be determining whether that characterization was apt.
If that issue doesn’t appear within the trial record, I wouldn’t mind seeing her kid sue the pants off of Mr. Gilbert (cf Goldman v. Simpson [1996]). If Texas civil law permits such.
Does this verdict mean that if you go to one of those places that advertise “models” that will “try on clothes” for you(said advertisements for such places hinting that more than that could ensue), and you don’t get sex, you may shoot the place up to get your money back?
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).
You can slack jawedly ‘hur-hur-hur’ all you want about not valuing the life of taggers or that president who chopped down a cherry tree, but Texas law really is repugnant.
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.
Slight hijack, but I’m curious if any research has been done regarding states/countries where you can legally shoot someone dead for petty theft on your property, and how it affects crime.
Are places with these extreme castle laws “safer” in the sense that less theft happens? Honestly I think the idea of letting someone legally shot a theif in the back under these circumstances would just mean that the intruders who are willing to steal/tresspass are also willing to fight back (since they’ll know the owner can shoot them just for being there).
If that’s the rationale for this cockamamie law, then I have two words for the state of Texas. Fucking light bulbs.
If that common law is to be held to in this case then we are to assume the john couldn’t recognize the face that he was hoping to stick his cock into because it was too dark when she said, “I ain’t sucking shit.”
There are so many reasons to drag Texas into the 21st century (hell, advancing it to the 20th century would do it a lot of good), and you’re choosing lightbulbs?
I’m increasingly less in favor of modernization than containment. Build that giant border fence they’ve been clamoring for, but around the entire state. Give everyone a one-time chance to stay or go, and then lock the fucking gates.
Not even Snake Plissken would go into that madhouse.
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. Maybe we should petition for the creation of an All Things Texas board to be situated just above The Pit.