Evidently one hooker is worth $150 in Texas.

[mistermack]

Assuming that the money became her property, once he willingly handed it over, that means that HE was robbing HER.

He shot her, with the intention of forcibly taking her property. She died of her wound.
Ignorance is no excuse.

Sounds like he should be getting a visit to the electric chair, not walking free.

Only in Texas eh?


I would bet a lot of money, that the prosecution was carried out deliberately badly, with the intention of losing the case and clearing him. If only there was a way of proving it.

[Seth]

Assuming that the money became her property, once he willingly handed it over, that means that HE was robbing HER.

He shot her, with the intention of forcibly taking her property. She died of her wound.
Ignorance is no excuse.

Sounds like he should be getting a visit to the electric chair, not walking free.

Only in Texas eh?


I would bet a lot of money, that the prosecution was carried out deliberately badly, with the intention of losing the case and clearing him. If only there was a way of proving it.

As I said, this is a very interesting interpretation of the law which has a good deal of merit.

However, the jury didn't see it this way, for whatever reason, so he's not guilty.

[pErvinalia]

Hyperbolic nonsense. The law is designed to deter nighttime muggings and robbery, and I'm all for it. If you don't want to get shot, don't rob people. Really simple, that.

So you value objects over human lives. Because that's essentially what this law is saying.

No, I value consequences for criminality. It is the dead hooker who chose her fate. She could have just given the guy a blow job...or given him his money back. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Why couldn't she face the courts like other "criminals"? Why did she deserve to be shot for this?

She "deserved" to be shot because she broke the law under circumstances that authorized the use of deadly force by the victim. She should have known better. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

As I said in the bit you ignored:

"Don't answer. I don't feel like a dose of brain bleach tonight."

[Seth]

As I said in the bit you ignored:

"Don't answer. I don't feel like a dose of brain bleach tonight."

Of course I ignored you. In fact it was your post that caused me to respond. Your attempt to have the last word didn't, and won't work. You post here, you get responded to, like it or not. You're not in charge of anything other than your index finger...you ARE in charge of your index finger, right?

Or has somebody strapped you to a chair and put ocular specula to hold your eyes open so you're forced to look at my posts a la "A Clockwork Orange?"

If so, I'm sorry to hear that but...well...fuck off.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Murder or not, I suspect it'll be a while before he gets laid again.

[Seth]

Murder or not, I suspect it'll be a while before he gets laid again.

Well, if you have to hire a hooker in the first place you're not exactly God's gift to women.

Frankly, wanking is much more satisfactory, much safer, and much, much cheaper.

I've never seen a hooker that I'd touch with YOUR dick...

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Tell me about it.

[pErvinalia]

As I said in the bit you ignored:

"Don't answer. I don't feel like a dose of brain bleach tonight."

Of course I ignored you. In fact it was your post that caused me to respond. Your attempt to have the last word didn't, and won't work. You post here, you get responded to, like it or not. You're not in charge of anything other than your index finger...you ARE in charge of your index finger, right?

Or has somebody strapped you to a chair and put ocular specula to hold your eyes open so you're forced to look at my posts a la "A Clockwork Orange?"

If so, I'm sorry to hear that but...well...fuck off.

If the law authorised me to shoot you for being a twat on the internet, does that mean you "deserved it"?

[Seth]

As I said in the bit you ignored:

"Don't answer. I don't feel like a dose of brain bleach tonight."

Of course I ignored you. In fact it was your post that caused me to respond. Your attempt to have the last word didn't, and won't work. You post here, you get responded to, like it or not. You're not in charge of anything other than your index finger...you ARE in charge of your index finger, right?

Or has somebody strapped you to a chair and put ocular specula to hold your eyes open so you're forced to look at my posts a la "A Clockwork Orange?"

If so, I'm sorry to hear that but...well...fuck off.

If the law authorised me to shoot you for being a twat on the internet, does that mean you "deserved it"?

Depends on the definition of "twat" and whether you're a better, faster shot than I am...which I seriously doubt.

[pErvinalia]

This is why I don't want to debate with you. I knew for a fact that you were going to bleat on about whether I could shoot you before you could shoot me. That's got NOTHING to do with the question. The question is "would you DESERVE to die" just because the law says it is ok?

[Seth]

This is why I don't want to debate with you. I knew for a fact that you were going to bleat on about whether I could shoot you before you could shoot me. That's got NOTHING to do with the question. The question is "would you DESERVE to die" just because the law says it is ok?

Of course not. But then again it's not "the law" that made the determination of life or death in this situation, it's the hooker. She chose to engage in illegal conduct that authorized the victim to use deadly force against her. She is the responsible party here and what she "deserved" was entirely dependent on HER conduct.

What the VICTIM deserved was not to be robbed at night, a right which he defended lawfully.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Proportional response, it's a good idea.

[orpheus]

This is why I don't want to debate with you. I knew for a fact that you were going to bleat on about whether I could shoot you before you could shoot me. That's got NOTHING to do with the question. The question is "would you DESERVE to die" just because the law says it is ok?

Of course not. But then again it's not "the law" that made the determination of life or death in this situation, it's the hooker. She chose to engage in illegal conduct that authorized the victim to use deadly force against her. She is the responsible party here and what she "deserved" was entirely dependent on HER conduct.

What the VICTIM deserved was not to be robbed at night, a right which he defended lawfully.

(bold mine)

By the way, you continue to use the term "hooker" and "pimp" (I think, although I can't be arsed to check back through the posts for the latter). It has not been established that she was a prostitute, nor that her friend driving the car was a pimp.

For someone who is such a stickler for the law, that's curiously inconsistent of you.

[Seth]

Proportional response, it's a good idea.

Evidently Texas feels that using deadly force against a nighttime thief is proportional to the risk to society posed by night thieves. That's the right of Texans to decide. Therefore, if you don't want to get shot, don't steal stuff at night. Simple.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Proportional response, it's a good idea.

Evidently Texas feels that using deadly force against a nighttime thief is proportional to the risk to society posed by night thieves. That's the right of Texans to decide. Therefore, if you don't want to get shot, don't steal stuff at night. Simple.

Really? You think Texans have a good grip on reality? Do you shoot your dog when it pees on the floor?