I remember reading about that - didn’t realise it was the same law that let him off the hook.
That’s the part I can’t quite get my head around - that it puts property ahead of human life - it’s okay to kill somebody if they have something of yours. Unless I’m not understanding it properly and there’s a veiled referenced to feeling threatened or worried for life and limb.
According to you, if something is not 100% factual, you must preface it in some way or another. You just got through blasting Czarcasm for not saying that something was merely his opinion based on what he knew. Even though it was obvious to everyone with even the slightest knowledge of the English language.
Obey the golden rule and do to others what you would have them do to you.
A more in-depth article, from the San Antonio Express-News. It appears there was an altercation with her “manager” and the article includes testimony from this individual as to the events. I haven’t been able to find the craigslist ad. However, 2009 was the heyday of the “adult services” section on craigslist, so it’s entirely possible the ad did give the impression of sex for sale.
I may be done with my research on this topic. The more I dig into it the more depressing it gets.
This was on Christmas Eve of 2009 and that the young lady had a young child.
The shooting was committed with an “assault rifle” which, according to the defense attorney, if the defendant was trying to kill instead of simply disable the vehicle “could have riddled the car with holes.”
The defendant was originally charged with assault with a deadly weapon and released on 20k bond. Once free he moved to Las Vegas and apparently started seeing a married woman. Once the hospitalized woman back in Texas died the charge was upgraded to murder and the bond went to 250k. The bondsman sent bounty hunters out to retrieve the defendant because he was worried the defendant might be a flight risk. It seems the husband of the woman he was getting involved with was calling the bondsman and giving bad reports of his behavior in Vegas.
The woman was apparently part of a group of women who all worked under this “manager” in a company called “E-Street Girls”(now defunct). The “manager” would post the ads on craigslist and drive the girls to the appointments, and handle the money. He rejects the label “pimp” in his courtroom testimony however.
Sometimes I wish dolphins would develop opposeable thumbs because I really wonder about humanity and I think the planet deserves a chance at something better.
Enjoy,
Steven
No, it isn’t. The only way possible to withhold judgment is if you don’t bother trying to understand what you are reading. Because, in the process of understanding, you will form an opinion of what you think happened. To pretend like you didn’t is to hide your bias and prevent arguments to be made against your position.
The way the human brain works is that we believe what we hear and then consider if our belief needs to be changed. It’s been proven in studies. Pretending like we are unbiased is just us lying to ourselves.
Withholding judgment is just not possible for the human brain.
It is, however, entirely possible for the human mouth.
Enjoy,
Steven
That’s one way to look at it. You could also look at it as putting the life of the property owner ahead of the life of the thief. The law allows the owner to take reasonable steps to prevent the theft of their property without putting their lives at undue risk.
Just for fun I asked my iPhone “Find prostitute” in Little Rock and it directed me to an escort service in Hot Springs, Arkansas. I’m not really sure why it picked an escort service that’s more than forty miles away when we have our own local services here in town though. Anyway, do you honestly think this woman wasn’t a prostitute? That the man in the car with her wasn’t a pimp?
And just to clarify I don’t wish to imply that being a prostitute meant that she deserved to get shot.
Off-topic, but dolphins can be vicious little bastards too.
Well, then that’s a dumb way of looking at it, considering you could use that excuse to get away with anything.
“I didn’t like the way he was looking at me, but I didn’t want to put my life at risk … so I shot him.”
Are you saying that any illegal taking of money or other valuables qualifies as theft under the terms of this law?
All on top of which, dolphins have indeed evolved opposable thumbs ! :eek:
His life was never at risk.
No. I was saying that the set of facts laid out by the OP constitutes theft.
You’re completely confused.
My blasting Czarcasm had nothing to do with any failure on his part to label a particular set of facts as hypothetical. It was his erroneous but confident conclusion that a given set of facts produced a particular result of law.
Perhaps the problem is the equivocation involved in the word “factual,” which can mean either “accurate and correct” or “a set of agreed-upon events.”
Or perhaps the problem is deeper. I have no idea.
But I know that you’re completely wrong.
I’m very confident that I gave that statement to ten people, a majority would answer “Fact,” if asked if the author was stating an opinion as opposed to a fact. It’s a straightforward set of declarations, with no softening words or hints of uncertainty. If you truly believe that anyone with knowledge of the English language would see this merely as an opinion, I think you’ve adequately demonstrated your own analytical limits.
The relevant statutes covering deadly force in Texas do not include a “he was lookin’ at me funny” clause. At least none that I’m aware of.
Who the fuck pays a girl before the deed? If he’s paid her then she’s free to go surely? Isn’t that the way it works?
But Texas has theft of services laws. Do you think their “stand your ground” law includes that type of theft? How about embezzlement or receiving stolen property or paying for something with a bad check or theft of trade secrets or stealing cable (all of which are defined as theft in Texas)? Heck, the Texas Penal Code defines it as theft if you sell somebody a car without disclosing a lien. Are you saying somebody could shoot somebody that was committing one of these crimes?
Isn’t it more likely that when the Texas “stand your ground” law listed theft as one of the justifications for using deadly force, it understood theft to mean common theft and not all of the other more exotic forms of theft?
Read your cite again. You must REASONABLY believe that deadly force is necessary to PREVENT such criminal mischief. It says nothing about the perps getting away.
If you can yell at the kids to stop screwing with the trees, and they will run, then you have prevented criminal mischief or theft without deadly force.
As far as the facts in the OP, there aren’t much. It could certainly be said that the hooker tried to flee and complete her theft. Deadly force may have been justified in stopping it.
Criminal mischief occurs at the scene. Theft is continuing as the hooker carries the money away.
This explains the incredibly high murder rate at Mighty Fine Burgers in Austin.
“I don’t think this burger was mighty fine at all. Give me my money back.” crazy glare
“Sir…” backs away from the crazy
BLAM