Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Texas law brings GTA to life

Texas law brings GTA to life
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2013, 03:19 PM
 
I'm exaggerating, as the events aren't clear, but the situation strikes me as absurd regardless.

Ezekiel Gilbert Trial: No, Texas, Shooting a Prostitute Who Won't Sleep With You is Not "Self Defense"
On Christmas Eve 2009, Ezekiel Gilbert, 30, shot Lenora Ivie Frago, 23, in the neck. She was paralyzed; seven months later, she died due to complications from that injury. On June 6, 2013, Gilbert was acquitted of that crime. He was acquitted because he claims she accepted $150 for escort services but did not have sex with him, which means that he was just defending his property.
Gilbert's acquittal did not reflect his innocence. In fact, he admitted to the murder. It rested on Texas Penal Code § 9.42: Texas Statutes - Section 9.42: Deadly Force to Protect Property. Under that law "A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property … (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime [and] he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

Gilbert claimed he believed that sex was included in the $150 fee he paid to Frago as an escort; thus, when Frago did not have sex with him, he considered her a thief. Gilbert was probably also concerned about his inability to recover the money, as it would have required admitting to attempting to solicit a prostitute. As such, his attorneys successfully argued, the Texas law permitted the murder.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2013, 04:14 PM
 
This was brought up in the other thread.

In an attempt to be linkbait (mission accomplished), 9 out of 10 tellings leave out one small detail.

She was killed by a bullet fragment perpendicular to the actual shot. He fired at the rear tire (from the side, not the back) and a piece took a 90° turn into the back seat.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2013, 04:30 PM
 
What's the argument? That he didn't mean to kill her? Isn't that the risk you take every time you fire a gun at someone?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2013, 04:42 PM
 
Without that law he likely would have been convicted of aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter. He got off on a technicality, obviously.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2013, 06:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
What's the argument? That he didn't mean to kill her? Isn't that the risk you take every time you fire a gun at someone?
IIRC, the problem is they tried to book him on murder, when what he did fell short of that.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2013, 07:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
IIRC, the problem is they tried to book him on murder, when what he did fell short of that.
That seems to be the failing of quite a few prosecutors of late.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
IIRC, the problem is they tried to book him on murder, when what he did fell short of that.
Would he have been convicted without the law?

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That seems to be the failing of quite a few prosecutors of late.
Or they trying to bully defendants into settlements with trumped up charges. Which would be even worse.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 03:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Would he have been convicted without the law?
For murder?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2013, 03:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Would he have been convicted without the law?
Very doubtful, Inv. MS at most. Though they could have gotten him for aggravated assault due to the driver, as well.

Or they trying to bully defendants into settlements with trumped up charges. Which would be even worse.
That's where having someone better than a PD helps tremendously.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 09:00 AM
 
First, they charged the guy incorrectly. By keeping the charge as "murder," they allowed the affirmative defense of "use of deadly force to stop theft after dark." Part of the Texas use of deadly force statute includes allowance to use force up to and including deadly force to prevent or stop a theft, or to prevent the escape of a thief "after dark." Why they wrote that statute that way 40 years ago I don't know, but here is the text of the applicable section.

Second, if the guy was justified in shooting at anyone or not, he was involved in the commission of a crime at the time: solicitation of prostitution. Now that's a misdemeanor, but it's still a crime, and since there was a pimp involved, and the shooter, the victim and the pimp all spoke about the situation ahead of time, that becomes conspiracy to commit prostitution (a felony even if the girl and the pimp never meant to follow through with it), so Gilbert should have also been charged with a different felony: felony murder under the "law of parties" principle. Conspirators and accomplices are all held legally responsible for a death that occurs due to their criminal actions.

I'd say that he didn't "get off on a technicality," but rather that he wasn't properly charged at all. He got off because the prosecutors didn't do their homework. That is, by the way, the local feeling here in San Antonio.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 12:29 PM
 
Why isn't f-ing manslaughter enough?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I'd say that he didn't "get off on a technicality," but rather that he wasn't properly charged at all. He got off because the prosecutors didn't do their homework. That is, by the way, the local feeling here in San Antonio.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why isn't f-ing manslaughter enough?
Thanks fellas.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 02:49 PM
 
Not sure if actual thanks.



Or sarcasm.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 03:01 PM
 
Actual. Don't lump me in with those other PL jerk wads.
Its ok, lump me in with those other PL jerkwads
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 09:12 PM
 
Well, if I had done something jerk waddy without realizing it, a jerk wad response from you wouldn't really be jerk waddy.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 09:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Gilbert should have also been charged with a different felony: felony murder under the "law of parties" principle. Conspirators and accomplices are all held legally responsible for a death that occurs due to their criminal actions.
If they tried him under the wrong charge, can't they try him again under a different one? Or is double jeopardy about the crime rather than the charge?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 09:33 PM
 
Crime.

Prosecutors are requested to get it right the first time.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2013, 09:37 PM
 
It's about the crime, though perhaps they could charge him for assault on the driver or some municipal ordinance.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:17 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2