I guess Texas is still the wild west......WOW!!!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LIVEFRMNYC, Jun 7, 2013.

  1. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #1
    This is unbelievable.

    http://gawker.com/texas-says-its-ok-to-shoot-an-escort-if-she-wont-have-511636423

    http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php
     
  2. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #2
    Texas has a few cases like this. The Joe Horn case may just as bad. He wasn't even indicted. He killed 2 men who burglarized his neighbors home - He left his home to confront the suspects who were outside and apparently shot them in the back. The stand your ground laws in Texas and how they are applied are extremely suspect.

     
  3. robanga macrumors 68000

    robanga

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Location:
    Oregon
    #3
    Wow what a crazy interpretation of the law. Amazing.
     
  4. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #4
    Which is why in my book, Texas is a "fly-over" state.
     
  5. Hugh macrumors 6502a

    Hugh

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2003
    Location:
    Erie, PA
    #5
    Wow, I am so glad that when I went to Texas that I was just visiting. How ever I was with my gay friend that lives there, this is before the Supreme Court ruling.

    Scary!

    Hugh
     
  6. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #6
    Any of the resident firearm advocates on here would call that ridiculous, as they've stated in other threads not to aim at or shoot what you don't intend to kill.

    I really hope that is poorly paraphrased, as the level of ridiculousness there is astounding, especially when applied to paying for something that isn't legal in the first place.
     
  7. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #7
    It is ridiculous because the general rule for a clean civilian self defense shoot is a threat must have the means, intent and ability to do you bodily harm.

    If I were on the jury, and based upon what was printed, I don't think that above standard would apply in this case. He basically robbed a prostitute and shot her in the process.

    That's how I see it, based upon what was printed.
     
  8. vega07 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #8
    My goodness gracious. :eek:

    Lesson of the day: Don't shoplift in Bexar County, Texas. Or else you'll get shot in the back.

    I might lose some sleep over this.
     
  9. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #9
    That makes sense. I was mainly pointing out that several firearm owners on here have stated that a general rule is not to aim or shoot at someone you don't intend to kill. The article suggests it wasn't argued as self defense, rather reclaiming stolen property. He felt they had an implicit agreement that he had paid for sex, so the money was still his. At least that seems to be the crux of the argument. I have no way of knowing how this was presented to a jury or what evidence was admitted.
     
  10. pdjudd macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #10
    That's what I got - the shooting was an action that was part of a criminal activity. It doesn't matter if he was thinking he was going to get sex and was robbed, he was trying to break the law by soliciting a prostitute and was in no way in danger of his life. If you rob a bank and shoot an armed guard (not a cop) who pulled out his gun, you don't get to cite self defense either.

    I don't get a rip if you got robbed, he committed a crime and was ripped off by an accomplice. His expectations for sex was also unreasonable, he was committing a crime, and consent can change at any moment. The whole defense sounds silly.
     
  11. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #11
    This is indeed just an insane outcome.

    But, this is even more insane. I found out about this story on another forum, and a lot of people, I'd say a majority, were supporting the shooter.

    After a few rounds back and forth, I posted this:

    Every person who responded chose A or alluded to A.

    I'm having to tell myself that these aren't real people, just an entire board of trolls. There can't actually be an entire subset of people who believe this, can there?
     
  12. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #12
    The intent should not be to shoot to kill.

    The intent should be shoot to stop the threat, and death is incidental.

    That's typically how a civilian should view the act of self defense when using a firearm.

    I know a few CCW instructors and "shoot to kill" never comes out their mouth.
     
  13. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #13
    This is as ridiculous as saying you incidentally made an omelette. Gun apologism appears to have hit critical nonsense.
     
  14. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #14
    The problem is that "threat" as a term seems to be a little too loosely defined in Texas.

    "Sure enough, officer. That pizza delivery boy was one squirrely looking mother******. Pierced nose. Janky car. Kinda Mexican looking. You can't trust people like that. Hell, son. When he reached his hand in his pocket, I didn't know if he was going for his change or his gun, and I wasn't about to take no chances! No sir"!
     
  15. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #15
    Stop with the buffoonery.

    ----------

    Sounds like a Darwin award with a future of prison anal rape.
     
  16. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #16
    For some gun apologists the agenda is simply to defend guns irrespective of how vile the incident.

    And a rape joke. You really are all class.
     
  17. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #17
    Going from the examples above, I'd say a future acquittal.

    See, I agree with using a gun as a means of defense to a point. If someone's breaking into my house at 3AM, it's nice knowing I have one in case I need it. The problem I have are all these people who use a gun as an easy fix for any and all problems personal or sociable. Wife cheating on you with your best friend? "Well hell. I thought he was raping her". Get into a bad argument with your neighbors? "Well hell. I felt threatened after their violent response to me walking into their yard brandishing my gun". If you define what is or isn't a threat too loosely, you're going to have plenty of people walking around shooting first and thinking of incredibly lame excuses later.

    ...and getting away with it. Like that situation with the call girl and the 150 bucks? There might not be enough to charge him with murder one, but how could it NOT be considered anything but manslaughter? He sure as hell wasn't not guilty, that's for sure.
     
  18. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #18
    OJ got off. Stuff happens.
     
  19. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #19
    Having been to Texas many times, I can say as long as you stay in major cities your fine.

    Otherwise? These people still think its 1877z
     
  20. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #20
    The key difference is that OJ denied that he had anything to do with the crime.

    The jury in this cases isn't deciding whether he killed her, but why he killed her.
     
  21. MrWillie, Jun 8, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2013

    MrWillie macrumors 65816

    MrWillie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Location:
    Starlite Starbrite Trailer Court
    #21
    My take is that she was going to take the money to the driver (pimp), then she would have come back inside and fulfilled her end of the contract. If the guy in the car was her pimp, he was the real criminal (up until the time the girl got shot). Evidently he shot the wrong person, lucky for him that I wasn't on the jury.


    Why is it scary ? Are you a criminal ? (Note I don't agree with the shooting, unless he would have shot the aledged pimp. )

    Texas allows you to shoot to recover property. I don't think that was the jest of the law, but that's the way it's being interpreted. So basically we make a wager on a football / baseball game, you lose, and you don't pay me by Tuesday... What if someone is late with the rent ? "Hi, I am from MrWillie's Friendly Collection Agency, you're two days late paying your light bill. Say hello to my little friend..." So, where does it stop.

    You watch too much TV. It's rotting your brain. You do understand that when you pulled up into most towns that you checked your weapons at the Sheriff's Office, right ? Like most things on TV, the ”Wild West" is hyped up for viewer enjoyment.
     
  22. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    You advocate shooting a man just sitting and waiting in his car?

    Scary!
     
  23. LIVEFRMNYC thread starter macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #23

    I would advocate shooting a pimp sitting in his car. This girl was only in her early 20's and she died doing something she most likely didn't want to do, but was forced by her pimp to do.
     
  24. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #24
    :eek:

    I give up.

    Officially.

    Take me now Jesus.

    Take me now.
     
  25. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    How do you know?
     

Share This Page