It's OK to murder hookers in Texas

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Texas Says It's OK to Shoot an Escort If She Won't Have Sex With You

Quote :

A jury in Bexar County, Texas just acquitted Ezekiel Gilbert of charges that he murdered a 23-year-old Craigslist escort—agreeing that because he was attempting to retrieve the $150 he'd paid to Lenora Ivie Frago, who wouldn't have sex with him, his actions were justified.

First off, is $150 worth killing someone over? Its not like she broke into his house and was making off with his TV.

And second, $150 is pretty cheap for a hooker.

..... not that I'd know, anyway...

Quote :

Gilbert's defense argued that the shooting wasn't meant to kill,

I can't believe that there are people in this day and age who honestly believe that being shot anywhere isn't potentially lethal. Then again, this is the south we're talking about.

Quote :

and that Gilbert's actions were justified, because he believed that sex was included as part of the fee.

MRA's on steroids

Quote :

He thanked God, his lawyers, and the jury for being able to "see what wasn't the truth."

Go fuck yourself, buddy

I love the dearth of information we're presented with in the gawker article. It's totally possible she was just out to grab the money and run (not that that justifies killing her) but I can't help feeling like we're missing a chunk of the story, where Shooty McFuckface maybe said or did something that made his victim maybe rethink this whole sex business and just want to GTFO as fast as possible. And since the only witness is conveniently dead, we'll never know.

Someone's under the Grand Theft Auto delusion that if you kill a hooker, you make back the money you wasted regaining health with them.

It's harmless and makes sense in a game, but fuck all if you translate it to real life.

Seriously, Texas, are you trying to out-crazy Florida? You'll never do it.

Cyberwulf wrote:

I love the dearth of information we're presented with in the gawker article. It's totally possible she was just out to grab the money and run (not that that justifies killing her) but I can't help feeling like we're missing a chunk of the story, where Shooty McFuckface maybe said or did something that made his victim maybe rethink this whole sex business and just want to GTFO as fast as possible. And since the only witness is conveniently dead, we'll never know.

Even if he did that, she would be obligated to give back the money if indeed she was given it under the agreement of having sex with him. What I feel is more likely is that she never thought she was being paid for sex, while he was under that impression all along. This could have been solved by getting it in writing, or at least email form, beforehand to avoid any confusion or shenanigans.

Of course, this wouldn't prevent him from shooting her anyway and then destroying all evidence of a contract. This is why hookers should have guns. Especially in Texas, hookers should have guns. Shit, they give them out on the street corner.

But yes, as usual, there's a lack of information in the media's brief summary of the case, which renders armchair lawyering only so effective.

Unbelievable.

Quote :

This is why hookers should have guns.

If this girl had owned a gun, do you really think the outcome would have been any better? First, he would probably have shot her anyway because once he grabbed his one and aimed, it was too late for her even if she had one somewhere. Second, you can't do much with a gun except kill. As much as I loathe this guy, I would rather see him trialed and jailed for life than be shot in self defense.

If he would not have owned a gun, the girl would still have lived.

Hell, why am I even arguing. Let's hand out automatic rifles and grenade launchers to everyone including little kids to protect themselves. It's bound to make the world a much safer place.

This is why hookers should have gun legs...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

A jury in Bexar County, Texas just acquitted Ezekiel Gilbert of charges that he murdered a 23-year-old Craigslist escort—agreeing that because he was attempting to retrieve the $150 he'd paid to Lenora Ivie Frago, who wouldn't have sex with him, his actions were justified.

OK, even by Texas standards this sounds insane.

Actually, I take that back...it's beyond insane and verging on psychotic.

Chris91 wrote:

Quote :

A jury in Bexar County, Texas just acquitted Ezekiel Gilbert of charges that he murdered a 23-year-old Craigslist escort—agreeing that because he was attempting to retrieve the $150 he'd paid to Lenora Ivie Frago, who wouldn't have sex with him, his actions were justified.

OK, even by Texas standards this sounds insane.

Actually, I take that back...it's beyond insane and verging on psychotic.

Your hyperbole needs work at the best of times, but now you've simply gotten redundant.

spork wrote:

Unbelievable.

Quote :

This is why hookers should have guns.

If this girl had owned a gun, do you really think the outcome would have been any better? First, he would probably have shot her anyway because once he grabbed his one and aimed, it was too late for her even if she had one somewhere. Second, you can't do much with a gun except kill. As much as I loathe this guy, I would rather see him trialed and jailed for life than be shot in self defense.

If he would not have owned a gun, the girl would still have lived.

Hell, why am I even arguing. Let's hand out automatic rifles and grenade launchers to everyone including little kids to protect themselves. It's bound to make the world a much safer place.

How the fuck could it have been worse if she had a gun? Your own worst case scenario is "well, it didn't help and she died anyway."

You would rather see him "trialed and jailed" over a dead hooker than have the hooker kill him in self defense? Keep in mind, the hooker lives in my scenario. AND if you're right and she would have been killed either way, you still get your way.

This is just theoretical logic and doesn't begin to touch on statistics that say a woman who uses a gun to defend herself from an attacker on average comes out much better (often less dead and/or raped) than the unarmed woman who defends herself from an attacker. Basically, if you deny woman the right to carry a gun, you hate woman because you don't want them to have ANY power to defend themselves from another malicious force.

But you're too busy fantasizing about everyone holding hands and singing Kumbaya while frantically masturbating to join the rest of us in Reality.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

But you're too busy fantasizing about everyone holding hands and singing Kumbaya while frantically masturbating to join the rest of us in Reality.

This, is a pretty accurate description of spork.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

How the fuck could it have been worse if she had a gun?

Well if you make sure that every hooker carries a gun, there are bound to be more shootings. There are less lethal alternatives for self-defense. You seem to be thinking that guns are the only possible way to defend yourself? Pepperspray is quite effective for situations like this.

People get drunk and angry at each other every day. Make sure that everyone carries guns all the time, preferably with very relaxed laws about where and when you may carry them, and you have a recipe for disaster. Which is happening in the US as we speak, so there is the statistics you asked for.

Quote :

But you're too busy fantasizing about everyone holding hands and singing Kumbaya while frantically masturbating to join the rest of us in Reality.

No, I am living in the real world, in a real country where there are 5 times less murders than in yours. Because no one has guns. And completely failing to understand how you can possibly be so naive to think guns make you safe - you are the one living in a fantasy. The Hollywood fantasy where the world is divided in good guys and bad guys and the good guys are the one that win and survive a gunfight.

spork wrote:

People get drunk and angry at each other every day. Make sure that everyone carries guns all the time, preferably with very relaxed laws about where and when you may carry them, and you have a recipe for disaster. Which is happening in the US as we speak, so there is the statistics you asked for.

You cited zero statistics in this paragraph, you fucking moron. I'd complain about no sources, but there aren't any statistics to cite in the first place.

PROTIP: Statistics normally take the form of numbers, not flailing accusations.

Quote :

No, I am living in the real world, in a real country where there are 5 times less murders than in yours.

And more than three times the violent crime in general. Clearly, a lack of guns doesn't make you any safer.

This isn't considering the fact that BOTH countries have more murder and violent crime in their metropolitan areas than the national average, and the US has 6 times more metropolitan areas than England and Wales (I'm assuming that's where you're from, Ireland and Scotland both have slightly higher rates of crime than England and Wales, so if you're from there, it also counts), one can believe this skews the data.

Furthermore, such large metropolitan areas, like Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, and Los Angeles are more likely to have more restrictive gun laws. If one only considers the areas of the countries with less retarded gun laws, we see all forms of violent crime drop. Now, maybe you children are too irresponsible to be allowed to own a gun, in which case Mommy Government is right to keep them from you. But clearly Americans are better off with guns.

Quote :

The Hollywood fantasy where the world is divided in good guys and bad guys and the good guys are the one that win and survive a gunfight.

They certainly aren't going to survive a gunfight if they bring fucking pepper spray to one.

PS: The crime data for the US comes from the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, the English data comes from a Home Office Statistical Bulletin. Both sets are for 2011.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

You cited zero statistics in this paragraph, you fucking moron. I'd complain about no sources, but there aren't any statistics to cite in the first place.

Sure, I can give you numbers. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

This isn't considering the fact that BOTH countries have more murder and violent crime in their metropolitan areas than the national average, and the US has 6 times more metropolitan areas than England and Wales (I'm assuming that's where you're from, Ireland and Scotland both have slightly higher rates of crime than England and Wales, so if you're from there, it also counts), one can believe this skews the data.

I'm not from the UK but for the sake of argument let's say I was. The only reason the US has fewer "violent crimes" is because they define it much more narrow. article

And no, of course pepperspray doesn't stop a bullet. Nothing will. That's why you should not allow guns, or at least restrict them.

No.

Spork wrote:

And no, of course pepperspray doesn't stop a bullet. Nothing will. That's why you should not allow guns, or at least restrict them.

Because that has worked SO WELL for Detroit and Chicago. These areas have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. In spite of this, they still have insanely high rates of gun crime, other violent crime, crime in general, and, worst of all, White Sox fans. Similar things could be said about Baltimore, Washington DC, New York City (to a lesser extent), and Los Angeles. Except instead of White Sox fans, you have Raven fans, Capitol fans, >Jest fans, and Kings/Dodgers fans

While in Bumblefuck KY, it's trivial to get a gun, and violent crime rates are very low in comparison to the aforementioned cities.

Public intoxication rates and meth labs are at an all time high. But violent crime is MUCH lower than the areas with strict gun regulation.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

But clearly Americans are better off with guns.

What about that guy who shot his girlfriend in an argument over zombies?

Or, if that example isn't to your liking, how about the fact that gun control helps reduce suicide rates? It's amazing how a small inconvenience such as not having a gun and bullets, or not having a handy source of deadly gas or a high fence on a bridge can change someone's mind about ending it all. Don't tell me Americans are immune to this, because while they may be better able to protect themselves, they're also more likely to turn those guns on themselves or their partner. Also, stopping violent crime isn't just about having weapons to fend off criminals with, you also need to tackle the socio-economic causes of crime (eg. poverty, discrimination, drugs) in order to make it less necessary to defend yourself in the first place.

There's a big problem with theft and home invasions in my town right now. However, no-one is screaming for gun control to be lessened because while it might be viscerally satisfying to shoot some thieving punk in the balls, it's not going to solve anything. The biggest problem is the magistrates who are unbelievably soft on crime, letting youths out on bail even after their bail has been breached. If the courts came down harder on offenders, it would be a lot easier to keep crime down.

To return to the topic: I could point out how utterly wrong this is, but... it's the Southern USA. I don't think I really need to say any more about that.

xerrofoot wrote:

To return to the topic: I could point out how utterly wrong this is, but... it's the Southern USA. I don't think I really need to say any more about that.

Ok, lets hear it Xerro, I Want to hear more 'bout how you're gonna stereotype 'murricans in the south by calling em such and such.

So it turns out that Texas law doesn't say it's okay to shoot an escort if she won't have sex with you.

Quote :

At trial, defense attorneys made the shocking argument that Gilbert was justified in shooting Frago because she had stolen from him and Texas law permits the use of deadly force to defend one’s property at night. That a defense was raised in this case based on Texas’ awful defense of property law is certainly newsworthy and even more reason to reform that law. But there is no evidence that the jury acquitted based on the defense of property law in the first place.

The much more plausible reason for the verdict is that the jury believed the defendant’s claim that he didn’t intend to shoot the victim. Per Texas’ homicide statute, the prosecution needed to prove that Gilbert “intentionally or knowingly” killed Frago or intended to cause her “serious bodily injury.” The defense argued that Gilbert lacked the requisite intent for murder because when he shot at the car as Frago and the owner of the escort service drove away, he was aiming for the tire. The bullet hit the tire and a fragment, “literally the size of your fingernail,” according to Defense Attorney Bobby Barrera, hit Frago. Barrera does not believe the jury acquitted because of the defense of property law. He believes they acquitted because they believed Gilbert didn’t mean to shoot her.

It's still loathsome, but let's make sure we're calling it loathsome for the right reasons.

Quote :

Ok, lets hear it Xerro, I Want to hear more 'bout how you're gonna stereotype 'murricans in the south by calling em such and such.

Man you've been gettin' feisty lately.

Quote :

Because that has worked SO WELL for Detroit and Chicago.

Quote :

While in Bumblefuck KY

Because access to guns is clearly the only thing that affects crime rates.

Cyberwulf wrote:

So it turns out that Texas law doesn't say it's okay to shoot an escort if she won't have sex with you.

Quote :

At trial, defense attorneys made the shocking argument that Gilbert was justified in shooting Frago because she had stolen from him and Texas law permits the use of deadly force to defend one’s property at night. That a defense was raised in this case based on Texas’ awful defense of property law is certainly newsworthy and even more reason to reform that law. But there is no evidence that the jury acquitted based on the defense of property law in the first place.

The much more plausible reason for the verdict is that the jury believed the defendant’s claim that he didn’t intend to shoot the victim. Per Texas’ homicide statute, the prosecution needed to prove that Gilbert “intentionally or knowingly” killed Frago or intended to cause her “serious bodily injury.” The defense argued that Gilbert lacked the requisite intent for murder because when he shot at the car as Frago and the owner of the escort service drove away, he was aiming for the tire. The bullet hit the tire and a fragment, “literally the size of your fingernail,” according to Defense Attorney Bobby Barrera, hit Frago. Barrera does not believe the jury acquitted because of the defense of property law. He believes they acquitted because they believed Gilbert didn’t mean to shoot her.

It's still loathsome, but let's make sure we're calling it loathsome for the right reasons.

I was just coming in to post this: Guy's still a loathsome shit. But, IMHO, the local DA overplayed their hand and busted. Involuntary Manslaughter would've been a slam-dunk.

xerrofoot wrote:

Also, stopping violent crime isn't just about having weapons to fend off criminals with, you also need to tackle the socio-economic causes of crime (eg. poverty, discrimination, drugs) in order to make it less necessary to defend yourself in the first place.

This is easily the smartest thing you've ever said on these forums. However, there's no reason we can't do that an still allow people to defend themselves from the criminals that ALREADY have guns, often guns that they're already illegally possessing anyway.

Now, Mikey has a Grand Plan to solve ALL THE PROBLEMS you just listed, but all you hippy halfwits probably wouldn't like it because it's grounded in sound economic theory that has been backed up by history.

Clopper wrote:

There's a big problem with theft and home invasions in my town right now. However, no-one is screaming for gun control to be lessened because while it might be viscerally satisfying to shoot some thieving punk in the balls, it's not going to solve anything

Of course not. That's why you aim for center mass. That way, the problem is solved quite permanently.

Also, from what I understand, "harsh" sentences doesn't solve the problem long term, because these goons get out and brag about how tough they are for going to prison and all that shit and they just end up doing the same shit again. Regardless of my speculation of the psychology of the offenders, I'm pretty sure there's a stat somewhere that says recidivism is high. I also understand that community service and similar punishments are more effective, especially for relatively minor property crimes and such and first offenses.

Of course, the root of the problem occurs long before that. What with a cycle of dependance, lack of education, irresponsibility, and criminal behavior that is highly correlated to out of wedlock births.

So you see? I have all of the answers to everything and all you idiots have to do to make the world a perfect place is listen to Mikey.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

This is easily the smartest thing you've ever said on these forums. However, there's no reason we can't do that an still allow people to defend themselves from the criminals that ALREADY have guns, often guns that they're already illegally possessing anyway.

Now, Mikey has a Grand Plan to solve ALL THE PROBLEMS you just listed, but all you hippy halfwits probably wouldn't like it because it's grounded in sound economic theory that has been backed up by history.

Sign this hippy half-wit up, I'll pass you a fat blunt and we'll be good.

The sentences aren't the problem. Youths who get busted properly and not just given a slap on the wrist do end up saddled with community service. The problem is getting the magistrate to not let them out on bail after they've already breached their bail conditions.

And yes, I did do a smart there. I usually save the smart stuff for serious debate, that's why.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

I'm pretty sure there's a stat somewhere that says recidivism is high. I also understand that community service and similar punishments are more effective, especially for relatively minor property crimes and such and first offenses.

Yes. Also, there have been many studies on just how juries work and it is fucking terrifying, meaning we are more likely to have someone idiot selling a dime bag to go to prison and be a drain on society for years than for them to get community service and actually do something worthwhile. There is a program at one of the local prisons to get non-violent offenders out of the prison cycle and get them an education that might help them overcome the black mark on their application. Currently, there are very, very few jobs available to those who have a conviction for anything. Food service is one of the few areas where regular work can be found, and guess what? You don't get paid enough to support yourself, much less a family.

What's your plan to get convicts a living, so the temptation is less?

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Of course, the root of the problem occurs long before that. What with a cycle of dependence, lack of education, irresponsibility, and criminal behavior that is highly correlated to out of wedlock births.

This makes it sound like unplanned pregnancy is the cause of the others. More like the lack of education leads to out of wedlock births. People whinge about the inner city, and ignore that many of the same problems apply to rural communities... and more of the people on welfare and popping out unplanned babies are guess where? Bumfuck, USA. Except we know there's not much actual bum-fucking or there would be fewer babies.

Anecdata to illustrate my point: I grew up in a town of 636 people. My graduation class was 42, including me. There would have been five more, but those girls dropped out to raise their babies. Two or three more were pregnant at the time of graduation. When I consider the classes just before and after mine, I'd say a good 20% of the students were parents before they were eighteen. Sex education? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLno. That was, "If you have sex you will go to hell and die." There was a grocery store where one could theoretically buy condoms. In reality, since it's such a small town, literally everyone would know you bought condoms within a day or two, and very few people knew how to actually use them. Yes, there are directions on the boxes, but 1] most condoms were stolen and thus did not have the directions and 2] a huge number of the people I went to school with were functionally illiterate. I learned by watching HBO's Dream On, and had to teach my friends using a stolen condom and a cucumber. A huge portion of the community was on welfare. There were very, very few jobs to be found. Our education was a fucking joke, so getting hired as anything other than a retail slave in a neighboring town (30-40 minutes away) was unlikely. I did not realize how shitty until I went to college and flunked out. I had to give myself an education; not including that first year, I had a 3.98, so apparently I did well enough at that. The school was basically a warehouse for teenagers and all of us knew that much. Very few people bothered to apply themselves because they could look to their parents and see their futures. These people had jobs. Many had 2+ jobs, and still could not make ends meet. I can only imagine what it is like there, now that gas prices are nearly $3 a gallon more.

tl;dr: our prison and education systems are fucked, so what's your plan, muppet boy? I'm not sure if I want to subscribe to yr newsletter, or not.