I’ve scanned the thread and cannot find a valid explanation for the ‘night-time’ loophole, at least applicable to this case. Victim is more at risk at night-time? No, the alleged thief was fleeing. Victim must shoot thief since he can’t identify her face? No, he’d just spent 20 minutes chatting with her indoors. With the same facts, but in daylight, would the jury have convicted?
And is this why Texas escorts charge higher rates for night-time services?
Gee, Bricker, I wonder why the DAs even bothered to bring the man to trial, given how clear things are.
Two reasons spring to mind, one optimistic one pessimistic.
Optimistic - they believed the jury would agree the money was exchanged as payment for services(20 minutes of hanging out in his apartment doing something other than sex) and therefore the money wasn’t his and the defense of protecting his property wasn’t applicable. If this finding of fact is reversed then the verdict almost certainly is as well. Then he’s committing assault with a deadly weapon out of revenge for feeling ripped off, which is not a valid defense against the charge.
Pessimistic - it was a high profile case and they were thinking in terms of re-election because in Texas most District Attorneys, including Bexar county(the one in question), are elected. If they don’t at least TRY to put their own version of the Craigslist Prostitute Killer on trial then they have given ammo to their opponent in the next election.
The reality was probably some of both. Maybe even some other stuff that I didn’t think of. I wasn’t there and I’m not privy to the mental processes of the people who made the decision to charge the defendant.
Enjoy,
Steven
As you quoted earlier, the defense of property following a theft in the nighttime is provided as a “justification.” That means it’s a question for the jury to decide. So if the DA’s office believed that the facts were as they’ve been described here, it would be appropriate to charge and let the jury decide whether those facts amounted to a defense under the law, I guess.
And what a terrible law it is. It’s harsher than fucking Exodus, for crying out loud; even God said it’s gotta be a burglary before you can shoot to kill. It is interesting that this particular day/night distinction, as far as I can tell, only exists in those two contexts - modern day Texas and the Old Testament.
So it’s o.k. to shoot a prostitute who hasn’t given you what you think you are due, and apparently it’s o.k. to shoot someone you think is a prostitute for the same reason. What if you think that the nude dancer you just gave 20 bucks to owes you something for it-I mean, we all know what they really are, don’t we?
Not true. It would be a failed attempt at creating a contract, but certainly not a gift. The man would simply have no remedy at law or equity to recover his money because of his own illegal conduct, but that doesn’t mean that the money was a gift.
As I posted above, a gift requires two things: 1) an intent to give the gift, and 2) completed delivery of the gift. He intended to give the money, but not as a gift, so it isn’t a gift.
You seem to be hung up on the fact that it was an illegal transaction and therefore not theft. If I break into your house with the intent and for the express purpose of stealing a kilo of cocaine sitting on your coffee table, I do so, and am later charged with burglary, I can’t argue that I didn’t really steal your property because it was illegal and therefore not your property.
And the original owner would get charged, too-which doesn’t seem to be the case with our john.
He was charged with homicide. You mean he wasn’t charged with soliciting prostitution? Well, he certainly could have been, but prosecutors generally don’t throw the book at someone, but only charge them with the most serious offense. Life in prison PLUS a $100 fine seems like overkill.
Prosecutors don’t load up on the charges in attempt to remove any chance of the jury sympathizing with the defendant? Since when?
I should have said that they don’t usually include minor misdemeanors in a serious felony prosecution. When has an armed robber, for example, been charged with speeding away from the scene?
All the damn time-that’s how you negotiate.
I’m not hung up on the illegality as much as I see it as a factor which fundamentally changes the situation.
The man was justified to use force to recover the money only if he had a legitimate claim to the money at the time he used the force. If the man legally owned the money and used force to take it back from the woman, then he was defending himself from a robbery. If the woman legally owned the money and the man used force to take it back from her, then he was committing a robbery.
There’s an important difference between this scenario and the cocaine burglary you described. Owning cocaine and burglary are both illegal acts. So you can’t legally own the cocaine and you can’t legally steal the cocaine. But giving money to somebody is not an illegal act. So the woman did not do anything inherently illegal just by receiving the money. The man would have to show that she had acquired the money from him illegally and he would not be able to do so.
At that: if this happens after dark in Texas, can he legally kill you if you take back the fifty?
And what about that pretty woman who goes on a date with you to an expensive restaurant. She orders the lobster, but no sex that night. Not even a kiss. Theft by fraud … to YOUR understanding. So you can shoot her. It’s all so simple in Texas!
Or we could see the silver lining as one less Texan. Maybe they’ll all just shoot each other.
No. This is answered by jtgain, but I’d add that I’m not as sanguine as he that there’s no way to recover the money in a civil suit. Civil law is not my specialty, so I welcome correction on this, but I cannot see why he couldn’t recover in contract with a claim of unjust enrichment.
Not really, Czarcasm, no. In a serious felony prosecution, less serious felonies may certainly be charged as part of the negotiation process. But jtgain’s literal example is correct: armed robbers are virtually never charged with speeding away from the scene. Infractions and money-only misdemeanors are simply not the same kind of bargaining chips.
if it helps you, imagine the uselessness of a poker game in which someone has opened with $75,000 and the next guy tries to raise fifty cents. It doesn’t happen.
You’ve seen more than I have when it comes to this, so I think I’ll take your word for it.
Now, beyond the OP-from what you have learned from this thread, the links provided, and any other source, what is your opinion on what happened here?
That’ll work.
You apparently missed this:
Are there any others groups you don’t value to the point of considering them to be full-fledged human beings?