Texas: Libertarian Utopia?

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 [censored].

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.