What evidence do you have to indicate that he was crazed? A woman just robbed him, and presumably being aware of Texas law he legally shot her. That's an emotionally charged situation, yes, but "crazed"?
That would only work for me if he then turned the gun on himself, thus ridding the world of a thief and a crazed gunman in the same incident.
What evidence do you have to indicate that he was crazed? A woman just robbed him, and presumably being aware of Texas law he legally shot her. That's an emotionally charged situation, yes, but "crazed"?
What evidence do you have to indicate that he was crazed? A woman just robbed him, and presumably being aware of Texas law he legally shot her. That's an emotionally charged situation, yes, but "crazed"?
I'm sorry, but someone stealing $150 from you is a life lesson, not an opportunity to satisfy bloodlust. Compassion and forgiveness are better virtues to be in favor of than cold-blooded murder because someone made you look like an idiot.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...r-murder-of-escort-who-refused-sex/?mobile=nc
A Texas jury acquitted a man for the murder of a woman he hired as an escort, after his lawyers claimed he was authorized to use deadly force because she refused sex.
Under Texas law, an individual is authorized to use deadly force to retrieve stolen property at night, and Gilberts lawyers cited that provision as justification for Gilberts action, reasoning that Frago had stolen $150 from him by taking his money without delivering sex.
What evidence do you have to indicate that he was crazed? A woman just robbed him, and presumably being aware of Texas law he legally shot her. That's an emotionally charged situation, yes, but "crazed"?
According to the article the jury would have had no choice but to acquit since his actions were actually justified under Texas law.
Can't believe I'm sticking up for anything Texas does, but the bitch should of just given his $150 back.
Can't believe I'm sticking up for anything Texas does, but the bitch should of just given his $150 back.
It's not hypocrisy, it's two wrongs not making a right. Stealing $150 is wrong. Killing an unarmed person is wrong. What she did doesn't justify his reaction. Both parties were in the wrong, but killing someone is a bit worse than stealing $150.
It's not hypocrisy, it's two wrongs not making a right. Stealing $150 is wrong. Killing an unarmed person is wrong. What she did doesn't justify his reaction. Both parties were in the wrong, but killing someone is a bit worse than stealing $150.
The point is that he WASN'T in the wrong, per existing Texas law. If you feel the law is wrong and you live in Texas, work to change the law.
Or fucked him, so that he would have gotten the service he paid for.
Since when does the phrase "in the wrong" apply only to legality? Do I really need to put the phrase "in my opinion" before stating that I think killing an unarmed person is wrong? That's a moral judgment, not a legal one. Morally, killing an unarmed person who is fleeing from you solely because they stole a small amount of money from you is wrong in my opinion. Does that clear things up?
As far as I am concerned, every thief should be shot in the neck.
many of you are caught up on the $150 part.
What if for some reason you keep all your money in cash instead of a bank. Lets say you had $50,000 stashed away and someone came and stole it and was running away. You couldn't catch them, but you did have a gun and could shoot. Is that justified?
If not, you are saying you basically shouldn't be able to stop robbers of your property, because unless you shoot, you have to be bigger or faster and risk your life to do it(or trust that the police will find it, which never happens).
Maybe it shouldn't be this way, but either you can shoot to protect your property or not.
Well, that's your opinion and it's your morals. They aren't anyone else's. No two people have exactly the same morals...
Since when does the phrase "in the wrong" apply only to legality? Do I really need to put the phrase "in my opinion" before stating that I think killing an unarmed person is wrong? That's a moral judgment, not a legal one. Morally, killing an unarmed person who is fleeing from you solely because they stole a small amount of money from you is wrong in my opinion. Does that clear things up?
I'm caught up on the money because it's such a trifling amount. If $150 is your life savings, you better hope they throw your ass in jail just so you know your room and board is covered. $150 is less than a couple days' pay for the majority of the country. Someone takes away 2 days of your work, you take away their life? That's hardly a fair trade.
This was a learning experience for him; don't order a hooker from Craigslist. He paid $150 to learn a lesson that most people could figure out on their own. He shouldn't resort to killing someone because he's the moron who thought that a Craigslist hooker was going to be a stand-up gal. I mean, for fuck's sake, you're ordering an illegal service on a site that has to include dozens of warnings about scammers... what did you think was going to happen?