Evidently one hooker is worth $150 in Texas.

[Svartalf]

Indeed it does, I'm sure there are people here who will understand it too.

[orpheus]

I wondered, recently, if the US could possibly get any shittier.

Yes it can, and it did.

Why don't they all shoot people who don't fulfill a deal? Things didn't go better, when I bought a can of coca cola? Bam bam !!

Texas is a lunatic shithouse. It's now official.

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.

Ok, "consequences for criminality." You do realize that in our modern system we have this great feature where different crimes cam carry different punishments? Given that, you approve of this law? You don't see death as a wee bit excessive for petty theft?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ok, "consequences for criminality." You do realize that in our modern system we have this great feature where different crimes cam carry different punishments? Given that, you approve of this law? You don't see death as a wee bit excessive for petty theft?

Good luck getting an honest answer.

[Warren Dew]

Despite the sensationalistic reporting, it's much more likely that the jury acquitted because they didn't find the intent to kill necessary for premeditated murder - especially since the proximate cause of death was not the bullet, but rather her brother deciding to take her off the life support machines six months later when her breathing tube got dislodged.

In my opinion, the prosecutor should have stuck with the original assault charges that were lodged before the woman was taken off life support, or at least charged them as well.

I can't believe double jeopardy would prevent the prosecution from appealing this travesty... the man, the jury, and the (presumed elected and incompetent/populist) judge, who obviously did not properly instruct the jury, need be fed to the crocs.

As noted, the jury may have been quite justified in acquitting the man for premeditated murder, based on the actual facts. Double jeopardy does prevent a retrial on assault charges, but such a retrial would not be necessary had the prosecutor been competent.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No FACT!

[Seth]

I wondered, recently, if the US could possibly get any shittier.

Yes it can, and it did.

Why don't they all shoot people who don't fulfill a deal? Things didn't go better, when I bought a can of coca cola? Bam bam !!

Texas is a lunatic shithouse. It's now official.

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.

Ok, "consequences for criminality." You do realize that in our modern system we have this great feature where different crimes cam carry different punishments? Given that, you approve of this law? You don't see death as a wee bit excessive for petty theft?

No theft is petty, particularly in Texas. And this wasn't a punishment, it was a lawful act of self-defense as authorized under Texas law.

Just like the Castle Doctrine laws it's not about what is stolen or how much it costs, it's about the danger and invasion of the individual's right to safety and property, particularly in his own home. Texas happens to be more interested in protecting the rights of the victim than in the dangers to the criminal, which is just how it should be.

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispo

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes 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.

The law is very detailed in it's authorization to use deadly force to prevent "theft during the nighttime" or to prevent escape.

And it's not at all unreasonable to assume that a hooker might be carrying a knife or gun and that trying to physically restrain her (lesser force) would be dangerous.

It appears all the elements of the law were met in this case.

[SteveB]

That's the last straw, Texas! I'm packing up and leaving tomorrow!

[SteveB]

I'm burning that hat too.

[Jason]

Yeah!

In B.C. we feed murdered hookers to the pigs! (Surrey)

[orpheus]

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.

Ok, "consequences for criminality." You do realize that in our modern system we have this great feature where different crimes cam carry different punishments? Given that, you approve of this law? You don't see death as a wee bit excessive for petty theft?

No theft is petty,

particularly in Texas.

Ahem:

Classification and Penalties for Theft in Texas

Like the majority of states, Texas classifies its theft offenses according to the value of the stolen property or services -- and in some instances, by the type of property that is taken. Let’s start by taking a closer look at each level of theft offense under Texas law, starting with Class C misdemeanor theft (or petty theft) which is the lowest level of theft in Texas.
Class C Misdemeanor Theft

Theft is a class C misdemeanor in Texas if the value of the property or services stolen is less than $50. (Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(1)(A).) The punishment for a class C misdemeanor in Texas is a fine of no more than $500, and does not involve any jail time. (§ 12.23.)
Class B Misdemeanor Theft

Theft is a class B misdemeanor in Texas if the value of the property or services stolen is $50 or more but less than $500, or if the property stolen is a driver's license or other identification card. (§ 31.03(e)(2).) The punishment for a class B misdemeanor in Texas is a sentence of confinement in jail for a term of not more than 180 days a fine of not more than $2,000, or both. (§ 12.22.)
Class A Misdemeanor Theft [...]

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/re ... es-defense

And this wasn't a punishment, it was a lawful act of self-defense as authorized under Texas law.

Pretty weak dodge, Seth. I never mentioned "punishment" or "self-defense". I addressed your statement which was quite specific. You said: "I value consequences for criminality." And I asked, if "you approve of this law? You don't see death as a wee bit excessive for petty theft?" (You can substitute "Class B misdemeanor theft" for "petty theft" if it makes you feel better".) I'm asking your opinion. I'm asking, to use your word, if you think death is an appropriate consequence for the theft of $150. How about giving a direct answer to a direct question?

[SteveB]

Yeah!

In B.C. we feed murdered hookers to the pigs! (Surrey)

I remember something like that happening in Penticton too. Pig-feeding, that is. Hookers, maybe.

[Jason]

Yep, it was Penticton. A guy at the track (Fraser Downs) had pigs and was from Penticton.

[laklak]

You gotta pull the teeth out for the sake of the piggie's digestion.

[mistermack]

What amazes me is that Texas not only passes moronic laws, but doesn't even get them right in court.

Fraud is not theft. Presumably the guy let her into his house. No law was broken there. He handed over his money willingly. No force was employed.
That money was from that point HER property, not his.

She then (according to him) tried to leave without giving him sex. IF she had agreed, and IF that's what happened, then she's failed to honour a deal.
That's not theft, that's fraud at the most.

The money belonged to her. It wasn't his, once he willingly gave it to her. So she couldn't be stealing her own property.

I think what happened here is that the prosecution ran a deliberately weak case, to get the guy off the hook, beyond the law.
It happens all the time in these cases. They do it all the time in cases where the police kill someone.
I think this guy has a friend in the prosecutors office.

[Seth]

No theft is petty,

Well, from the legal point of view theft may be classed as a petty OFFENSE, that doesn't mean that it's petty to the person who's been dispossessed of their property.

And this wasn't a punishment, it was a lawful act of self-defense as authorized under Texas law.

Pretty weak dodge, Seth. I never mentioned "punishment" or "self-defense". I addressed your statement which was quite specific. You said: "I value consequences for criminality." And I asked, if "you approve of this law? You don't see death as a wee bit excessive for petty theft?" (You can substitute "Class B misdemeanor theft" for "petty theft" if it makes you feel better".) I'm asking your opinion. I'm asking, to use your word, if you think death is an appropriate consequence for the theft of $150. How about giving a direct answer to a direct question?

As I said, the consequence she faced for engaging in a nighttime theft was the potential use of lethal force by the victim. It's not the value of the property that triggers the authority, it's the societal value of nighttime safety to the people of Texas. All theft has negative personal, social and emotional consequences to the victim which may far exceed the loss of the object stolen, such as the destruction of the sense of personal safety in one's home that everyone is entitled to. Ask anybody who's been burglarized how they feel afterwards. It's a traumatic event, particularly at night.

So, the people of Texas, through their elected representatives decided that the safety and comfort of the law-abiding citizens is far more important than the safety or life of a thief. And I applaud them for that decision.

It's really simple: If you don't want to get shot stealing stuff at night, don't steal stuff at night in Texas. If you do, and you get shot dead, you're just suffering the appropriate consequences for your scofflawry.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for the hooker. She got what she had coming.