Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://jezebel.com/how-an-insane-texas-law-made-it-legal-for-a-man-to-kill-511717880

Killing a person to retrieve $150 (that you paid them for services rendered) is perfectly legal, because property is the only right that matters.

Seems legit. What's the problem?

Isn't that one of the credos of reactionary libertarianism/objectivism? Everything should be legal as long as a financial transaction is involved?

Libertarians support the woman being able to enter a legal contract such that there would never have been any "assumptions" about sexual services and would have given her legal recourse should the john have not paid.

It seems like the real issue is the court's definition of "theft" rather than property rights, and a Libertarian wouldn't define it that way, as the woman upheld her end of the contract.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Isn't that one of the credos of reactionary libertarianism/objectivism? Everything should be legal as long as a financial transaction is involved?

no

not when talking about this specific case, and not when talking about theory or philosophy in general. Libertarians/Objectivists do not support assault, even for money.

Shut up, Inimalist.

Can't you just point and laugh at Texas like the rest of us? Jesus.

Haha, Texas. It's just like GTA.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://jezebel.com/how-an-insane-texas-law-made-it-legal-for-a-man-to-kill-511717880

Killing a person to retrieve $150 (that you paid them for services rendered) is perfectly legal, because property is the only right that matters.

Jezebel is one of the most anti-male sites you'll ever run across on the internet. Definitely not something you'd want to every quote or cite in a serious discussion.

There are obvious details missing from that "journalist's" telling of the story.

Finding a more professional source, Gilbert is hardly this cold, murderous, sexist bastard that Jezebel painted him:

"I've been in a mental prison the past four years of my life. I have nightmares. If I see guns on TV where people are getting killed, I change the channel."

"Gilbert testified earlier Tuesday that he had found Frago's escort ad on Craigslist and believed sex was included in her $150 fee. But instead, Frago walked around his apartment and after about 20 minutes left, saying she had to give the money to her driver, he said .

That driver, the defense contended, was Frago's pimp and her partner in the theft scheme."

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php

Seems like there was enough evidence that they were running a theft scheme on fat saps wanting sex, through Craig's list that the jury bought it and he was acquitted.


HOWEVER, he's still a sexist bastard, in my opinion. When she tried to flee with his money, he could have easily aimed for her legs without a moment's hesitation. He clearly was enraged and thought little of her life if he aimed for her head. That's some cold, murdering, intent, right there. I mean, damn!

I could be wrong and he just really really sucked at aiming and his shot was near her head by pure chance....but unlikely.


Originally posted by Oliver North
Libertarians support the woman being able to enter a legal contract such that there would never have been any "assumptions" about sexual services and would have given her legal recourse should the john have not paid.

It seems like the real issue is the court's definition of "theft" rather than property rights, and a Libertarian wouldn't define it that way, as the woman upheld her end of the contract.



no

not when talking about this specific case, and not when talking about theory or philosophy in general. Libertarians/Objectivists do not support assault, even for money.

How dare you be objective about libertarian political philosophy.

grand theft auto is the official game of libertarian paradise.

So from what I'm getting this "escort" was not an escort at all, but a thief posing as one? Of course, shooting somebody in the back of the head for 150$ is unreasonable, but neither is protecting your property.

Shooting someone to protect your property, especially if its 150$, should be illegal, and someone doing it should face consequences.

That's just my libertarian opinion though, I guess.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Shooting someone to protect your property, especially if its 150$, should be illegal, and someone doing it should face consequences.

That's just my libertarian opinion though, I guess.

I guess we disagree, then. I think using force to protect your property should not be illegal. Now if it's lethal force we're talking about... that's, admittedly, far trickier.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Shooting someone to protect your property, especially if its 150$, should be illegal, and someone doing it should face consequences.

That's just my libertarian opinion though, I guess.

I agree. Free anal should have been the consequence for her thievery rather than "free bullets to you neck."

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. Free anal should have been the consequence for her thievery rather than "free bullets to you neck."
So, no using guns to recover property, but rape is a just form of retribution...

...I know what you meant to say, just pointing out why choosing your words carefully is important.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So, no using guns to recover property, but rape is a just form of retribution...

"rape is just free sex! WEEE!"

That is not quite right, now is it? That's the difference between complimentary mints and just stealing the mints.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
...I know what you meant to say, just pointing out why choosing your words carefully is important.

I agree: you should have realized "free" implies a gratis offer from the "seller" rather than stealing the services known as "anal rape."

Sounds like Gilbert didn't even get accused of soliciting prostitution using "it was a scam". only in Texas... huh..

Read it here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/ezekiel-gilbert-acquitted-murder-prostitute_n_3398225.html

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.

Based on this precedent, this section of the Texas Penal code means:
Not getting what you feel is the good or service you paid for at what is legally defined as a "nighttime robbery". Nighttime permits you to commit homicide without consequence. Good to keep in mind if you don't feel like paying your employees working the night shift or if the pizza you ordered at 6:00 pm doesn't arrive until 7:45.
Since this also doesn't take into account the legality of the transaction, this also means that if you're a dealer, you HAVE to sell drugs when the sun sets.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Based on this precedent, this section of the Texas Penal code means:
Not getting what you feel is the good or service you paid for at what is legally defined as a "nighttime robbery". Nighttime permits you to commit homicide without consequence.

I'd word that differently to avoid being wrong. It permits you to commit homicide without criminal repercussions (meaning, you won't be convicted as long as it can be proven it was a nighttime robbery on your property).

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Good to keep in mind if you don't feel like paying your employees working the night shift or if the pizza you ordered at 6:00 pm doesn't arrive until 7:45.

You know both of these examples fail, right? It would be if you ordered and paid for the pizzas and the delivery man came to your house with the pizzas - and the agreement from the order clearly indicated that those pizzas would be yours - walked around your house for 20 minutes with your pizzas, and walked away with them in hand.


Originally posted by Darth Jello
Since this also doesn't take into account the legality of the transaction, this also means that if you're a dealer, you HAVE to sell drugs when the sun sets.

lol!

Originally posted by dadudemon
"rape is just free sex! WEEE!"

That is not quite right, now is it? That's the difference between complimentary mints and just stealing the mints.



I agree: you should have realized "free" implies a gratis offer from the "seller" rather than stealing the services known as "anal rape."
Mints that you steal are free mints, you fool.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Mints that you steal are free mints, you fool.

That's not free, that's specifically stealing. Just because you stole something does not mean that something was free, you criminal.

It, by definition, cannot be free because stealing is governed by law and stealing has limitations specifically because the "seller" did not say or advertise it was free. You are limited in other ways, as well, because you cannot just openly steal something in front of customers, in front of cameras, in front of security, place it in your pocket without paying first, and so forth. So how is stealing mints "free" again?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not free, that's specifically stealing. Just because you stole something does not mean that something was free, you criminal.

It, by definition, cannot be free because stealing is governed by law and stealing has limitations specifically because the "seller" did not say or advertise it was free. You are limited in other ways, as well, because you cannot just openly steal something in front of customers, in front of cameras, in front of security, place it in your pocket without paying first, and so forth. So how is stealing mints "free" again?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/free
Don't you push the freedictionary on me. It's Wiktionary all the way, you .

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd word that differently to avoid being wrong. It permits you to commit homicide without criminal repercussions (meaning, you won't be convicted as long as it can be proven it was a nighttime robbery on your property).



You know both of these examples fail, right? It would be if you ordered and paid for the pizzas and the delivery man came to your house with the pizzas - and the agreement from the order clearly indicated that those pizzas would be yours - walked around your house for 20 minutes with your pizzas, and walked away with them in hand.




lol!

And yet the point remains. Ladies, when a man gives you money or some sort of implied payment expecting to get somewhere with you, your body is considered "land or tangible, movable property".

In other words, unwanted groping is now "inspecting merchandise or prospecting on land" and sex is "staking your claim". Maybe if you're ever arrested for forced sodomy you can have semen and lubrication thrown out as evidence in court because you were just using "fracking fluids" on your land.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Don't you push the freedictionary on me. It's Wiktionary all the way, you .

Damn...I've been pwn3d! I'll be signing out now to liberally apply Preparation H to the affected areas. pained

Originally posted by Darth Jello
And yet the point remains. Ladies, when a man gives you money or some sort of implied payment expecting to get somewhere with you, your body is considered "land or tangible, movable property".

That's still not right. If you put up an ad, online or otherwise, offering prostitutional services, then rob the person of that money (without doing anything but walk around the person's dwelling), you can be shot and killed at night time if you live in Texas.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
In other words, unwanted groping is now "inspecting merchandise or prospecting on land" and sex is "staking your claim". Maybe if you're ever arrested for forced sodomy you can have semen and lubrication thrown out as evidence in court because you were just using "fracking fluids" on your land.

Well...if you put up a sex ad and then deny a person that paid you for said sex...yeah, you can get shot if it is night time in Texas.


Notice in both the paragraphs you typed out, your arguments amounted to improper representation of the other side?

Hmmm.

dadudemon, could you explain to me why this is bad?

Originally posted by NemeBro
Hmmm.

dadudemon, could you explain to me why this is bad?

Why what is bad? Your erection after reading the thread?

I have no erection, and I probably phrased that question wrong.

Symmetric Chaos seems to have had some form of emotional reaction to this, and his mind related it to his own political beliefs.

Now, I can look at what happened, and point out some things Gilbert did wrong: Shooting to kill right away was the less intelligent option, restraining her and reclaiming the money he paid her, rather than just killing her. From what I gather, this woman and her pimp were doing a Craig's list con, deceiving men into paying a "prostitute" for sex, but rather than do so, she leaves with the lie that she needs to pay her driver, and just books it out of there. Is that not bad? While I can understand the need to punish Gilbert for rash, brutal action, I'm not sure I understand the emotional outrage.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I have no erection, and I probably phrased that question wrong.

Symmetric Chaos seems to have had some form of emotional reaction to this, and his mind related it to his own political beliefs.

Now, I can look at what happened, and point out some things Gilbert did wrong: Shooting to kill right away was the less intelligent option, restraining her and reclaiming the money he paid her, rather than just killing her. From what I gather, this woman and her pimp were doing a Craig's list con, deceiving men into paying a "prostitute" for sex, but rather than do so, she leaves with the lie that she needs to pay her driver, and just books it out of there. Is that not bad? While I can understand the need to punish Gilbert for rash, brutal action, I'm not sure I understand the emotional outrage.

I think he's more enraged over the idea that you can kill someone for stealing $150 from you. He places greater value on a human life than $150. Maybe that's not even it. He could better explain his position than I could.

I personally do not think you should be able to kill someone for basically tricking you and robbing you...unless they did so with violence (even a shove). As I pointed out, I think the dude is sexist and a scumbag. Looking at him, it is no wonder he has to pay for sex.

Has he said anything sexist?

Originally posted by NemeBro
Has he said anything sexist?

Oh man, here's a much better article on the case:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-john-acquitted-texas-prostitute-death-article-1.1365975

He was "spraying" the 'get away' vehicle with his AK-47. Apparently, he was trying to shoot out the tires.


His name is Ezekiel (most likely meaning his parents are very religious), he is a gun enthusiast, he pays for sex, he thought shooting up a car was a good idea, and he thought he was entitled to sex after being rejected in an scam.

Yeah, he's sexist to any reasonable person. There is a 0.01% chance he is not sexist, however.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's still not right. If you put up an ad, online or otherwise, offering prostitutional services, then rob the person of that money (without doing anything but walk around the person's dwelling), you can be shot and killed at night time if you live in Texas.



Well...if you put up a sex ad and then deny a person that paid you for said sex...yeah, you can get shot if it is night time in Texas.


Notice in both the paragraphs you typed out, your arguments amounted to improper representation of the other side?

I'm comparing the text of law to the interpretation of it in the ruling. The law doesn't extend to services, hence why it says tangible, movable product. This guy couldn't purchase sex from the woman, put it in his pocket, take it home, and then have the sex with the abstract concept of sex. Therefore, the ruling could only mean that the woman, or at least any part of her body that could conceivably fit or stimulate a wiener is a product or object once the sun goes down and a supposedly implied transaction takes place. "Merchandise" if I may get all Godwin for a moment

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I'm comparing the text of law to the interpretation of it in the ruling. The law doesn't extend to services, hence why it says tangible, movable product. This guy couldn't purchase sex from the woman, put it in his pocket, take it home, and then have the sex with the abstract concept of sex. Therefore, the ruling could only mean that the woman, or at least any part of her body that could conceivably fit or stimulate a wiener is a product or object once the sun goes down and a supposedly implied transaction takes place. "Merchandise" if I may get all Godwin for a moment

No, I don't think so (the interpretation of the law you are using).

(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.

Your own quote. (B) seems quite applicable. Nothing in there about "tangible, movable product". It says "property". His money is his property and it was taken from him. He was robbed.

My bad, I meant property-

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:

Originally posted by NemeBro
I have no erection, and I probably phrased that question wrong.

Symmetric Chaos seems to have had some form of emotional reaction to this, and his mind related it to his own political beliefs.

Now, I can look at what happened, and point out some things Gilbert did wrong: Shooting to kill right away was the less intelligent option, restraining her and reclaiming the money he paid her, rather than just killing her. From what I gather, this woman and her pimp were doing a Craig's list con, deceiving men into paying a "prostitute" for sex, but rather than do so, she leaves with the lie that she needs to pay her driver, and just books it out of there. Is that not bad? While I can understand the need to punish Gilbert for rash, brutal action, I'm not sure I understand the emotional outrage.

You'll almost always get an emotional outrage to stuff like this, especially with wankholes like Jezebel trying to prop it up as hard as possible.

Techno-progressive, resource based economy, people.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
My bad, I meant property-

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:

And his money was movable property.

Like I said, "His money is his property and it was taken from him. He was robbed."

The "property" in question is his 150 dollars, not the woman. Seems simple enough to understand.