MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Political/War Lounge (http://forums.macnn.com/political-war-lounge/)
-   -   Texas law brings GTA to life (http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/502293/texas-law-brings-gta-to-life/)

 
The Final Dakar Jul 16, 2013 04:19 PM
Texas law brings GTA to life
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"
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
 
subego Jul 16, 2013 05:14 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.
 
The Final Dakar Jul 16, 2013 05:30 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?
 
Shaddim Jul 16, 2013 05:42 PM
Without that law he likely would have been convicted of aggravated assault and involuntary manslaughter. He got off on a technicality, obviously.
 
subego Jul 16, 2013 07:50 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4238948)
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.
 
Shaddim Jul 16, 2013 08:24 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4238980)
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.
 
The Final Dakar Jul 18, 2013 04:20 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4238980)
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?

Quote, Originally Posted by Shaddim (Post 4238993)
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.
 
subego Jul 18, 2013 04:38 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4239250)
Would he have been convicted without the law?
For murder?
 
Shaddim Jul 18, 2013 04:57 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by The Final Dakar (Post 4239250)
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.

Quote
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.
 
ghporter Jul 19, 2013 10:00 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.
 
subego Jul 19, 2013 01:29 PM
Why isn't f-ing manslaughter enough?
 
The Final Dakar Jul 19, 2013 03:00 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ghporter (Post 4239382)
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.
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 4239403)
Why isn't f-ing manslaughter enough?
Thanks fellas.
 
subego Jul 19, 2013 03:49 PM
Not sure if actual thanks.

:err:

Or sarcasm.
 
The Final Dakar Jul 19, 2013 04:01 PM
Actual. Don't lump me in with those other PL jerk wads.
Its ok, lump me in with those other PL jerkwads
 
subego Jul 19, 2013 10:12 PM
Well, if I had done something jerk waddy without realizing it, a jerk wad response from you wouldn't really be jerk waddy.
 
Waragainstsleep Jul 19, 2013 10:29 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by ghporter (Post 4239382)
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?
 
subego Jul 19, 2013 10:33 PM
Crime.

Prosecutors are requested to get it right the first time.
 
Shaddim Jul 19, 2013 10:37 PM
It's about the crime, though perhaps they could charge him for assault on the driver or some municipal ordinance.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:52 PM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2