In Texas you can shoot a prostitute for $150

A chain of events that he initiated, and that began with an attempt to commit a crime.

In most places in the US, any death that happens as a result of illegal activity (or an attempt to commit an illegality) is murder.

It doesn’t matter if 12 years go by between the crime and the death, if it can be directly attributed to the criminal event, it’s murder.

Again, killing is only allowed if it is “reasonable” to believe that the only way you can “prevent” the theft is by killing. So if a car dealer tells me that a car I just bought gets 50 mpg and it only gets 10, he has made a misrepresentation that may be construed as theft in Texas. But, even he told me that at night, I can’t drive back to the dealership and kill him. I have many other more reasonable alternatives to get my money back.

If a guy breaks into my car at night, and I can’t make out his features, I probably don’t have another reasonable alternative to stop him. I can’t take him to court because I can’t identify him.

This gnashing of teeth reminds me of the predictions when shall-issue CCW was passed: that blood would flow in the streets and people would fight duels over line jumping at the movies.

Having read some more about this case, I think you’re right. It seems to me that the impact of the defense-of-property law on this case is being overstated. If the jury believed the defendant were shooting to disable the vehicle, rather than to kill the occupants, that alone means he’s not guilty of murder, irrespective of any property-defense claims, as the Texas statute requires the intention to kill.

Manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide being charged would mean that in order to acquit, the jury would have to believe 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.

So, I agree that the charges were the issue, more so than the law.

Your use of “society” is vague.

As for the parents, that why I used the word “net”.

There was no criminal event.

Yes and no. What you’re probably referring to is the common law doctrine of “Felony Murder” which states “a person is guilty of murder if he kills another person during the commission or attempted commission of any felony.” Two issues with regard to applying that to this case. First, solicitation of a prostitute is not a felony in Texas, it’s a misdemeanor. The aggravated assault with a deadly weapon would have been a felony(which resulted in her death and did, in fact, upgrade the charge to murder), except the law provides a defense if you’re using the weapon to stop the theft of your property in the nighttime.

So the felony murder rule doesn’t apply because the first crime he committed(solicitation of a prostitute)(not going to say alleged here, because, well, all parties agree he was trying to buy sex) wasn’t a felony, and the second crime he was charged with he was later acquitted of because it’s not a crime to use deadly force to protect your property from theft in Texas.

Enjoy,
Steven

But I think specific cases like this are relevant in a general discussion about these laws. I’m sort of in agreement with the general idea of these laws. But the problem is that many of them are poorly written and can be twisted to allow shootings in circumstances where it’s unreasonable.

But this[sup]*[/sup] is common theft.

What are the elements of larceny at common law?

[ul]
[li]trespassory taking[/li][li]and carrying away[/li][li]of the personal property of another [/li][li]with the intent to permanently deprive the possessor of the property[/li][/ul]

And dispossesing by fraud is a trespassory taking.

So, yes – under these[sup]*[/sup] facts, this isn’t any kind of exotic theft. It’s theft.

[sup]*[/sup] By “This” and “these” I refer to the hypothetical set of facts adduced in the OP, in which the woman arrives, fraudulently indicates she intends to have sex for the money, takes the money, and leaves without having the sex or returning the money.

Agreed. And further, the “felony murder” doctrine is generally applicable only to an enumerated list of inherently dangerous felonies like rape, kidnapping, or armed robbery. If I am feloniously filling out a false income tax return at the kitchen table and my wife dies of a heart attack upon reading it, it’s not felony murder.

The death wasn’t directly attributed to the criminal event, the woman died because her family killed her. Her family killed her because her respirator suffered a mechanical failure months after the shooting (it became disconnected) and caused brain damage. She was on the respirator because of the shooting, yes, but I do not think that euthanasia or suicide following an assault is justification to find someone guilty of murder.

Does it matter that the initial agreement was for the performance of an illegal act? As such, there couldn’t be a legal contract made and therefore the man had no legal basis to expect anything in return when he gave the woman the money. He gave her money. She was not legally obligated to give him anything.

On a variation, suppose a panhandler is asking for money on the streets. I decide to give him a dollar. But after I hand him the bill, I see I accidentally gave him a fifty dollar bill. I ask for my money back and offer to give him the intended dollar instead. The panhandler refuses and says it’s his fifty now and he’s keeping it.

Legally, what’s the situation here? Is he stealing my money if he doesn’t give it back when I tell him I gave it to him by mistake?

Plenty of serial killers agree with you.

This is classic “kill the whores” barbarism, despite all the legalistic handwaving to make it look like something else.

I believe that you are conflating two different legal areas: contract law and criminal law. Yes, had this man sued the hooker in court for his money back under any theory, he would have been shut out. You cannot recover money for an illegal contract. It is void ab initio, or at the outset. Public policy says that we won’t even hear about contract disputes over drugs or prostitution.

However, the criminal law of theft or larceny by trick applies to anything, even illegal things because the party wanting to assert the illegality has committed an illegal act him/herself. Think about it. Could you escape criminal liability by pretending to sell drugs and taking the money and running?

Yes, he is. It is considered theft to not make a reasonable attempt to correct this sort of mistake. If he’d just found the $50 on the ground he doesn’t need to try to find the owner and verify they aren’t just a guy who wants fifty bucks, but merely holding something in your hands doesn’t make it yours.

It depends on the facts. Are you exiting a fancy restaurant wearing a tuxedo, carrying a cane, with a monopoly monocle over one eye? If so, it might very well be reasonable that the homeless man thought the $50 was a completed gift.

Even in a normal situation, perhaps he thought you were having a generous moment.

In any event, two elements are needed for a gift: 1) an intent to give the gift, and 2) delivery of the gift. You would have satisfied #2, but not #1. For the homeless man to be guilty of theft, you would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homeless guy didn’t believe that you meant to give him a $50.

That’s kind of my point. If the money was legally non-recoverable, then didn’t it legally belong to the woman? The man gave the woman money (with intent). She was not legally obligated to do anything in return because you can’t be legally obligated to perform an illegal act. So the money, from a legal point of view, was a gift.

Maybe. Any time you give a person money to pay them to commit a crime, you’re in a caveat emptor situation.

True story. When I was working in prison, there was a prisoner who wrote a letter of complaint to the warden. He said that another prisoner had promised to give him some pajamas in exchange for a blowjob. The guy performed the blowjob but the other guy reneged on the agreement and wouldn’t give him the pajamas. He wanted us to enforce the deal by making the guy give him the pajamas.

His request was denied.

Aaaahhh the old BJs for PJs scam. Get’s 'em every time.

This is why prisoners need firearms (but only if they only shoot if it’s too dark to see their targets face)

Under the circumstances, seeing his target’s face when he was shooting wasn’t really a possibility.

I was referencing the fact that the Texan law only applies when dark enough not to see the criminal’s face.