Not guilty by reason if insanity
A jury in Bexar County, Texas just acquitted Ezekiel Gilbert of charges that he murdered a 23-year-old Craigslist escort—agreeing that because he was attempting to retrieve the $150 he’d paid to Lenora Ivie Frago, who wouldn’t have sex with him, his actions were justified.
Well, sort of. Texas has some odd gun and self defense laws. It’s OK in Texas to shoot to defend property, provided it’s a night or some such. And, so, this man was stopping theft. That it was done as a result of the illegal act of hiring a hooker didn’t seem to matter.
Regardless, that’s one retarded jury.
June 6th, 2013 at 7:51 pm
Well, it was illegal for him to hire a hooker.
But it was illegal for the hooker to be selling her services.
In addition, she took his money without providing the service she promised.
And you believe it’s the jury who was retarded?
June 6th, 2013 at 8:01 pm
Yeah, i think the story has more than one.
June 6th, 2013 at 8:16 pm
Its not idiotic at all. In texas its legal to kill someone in order to retrieve your stolden property. She stole his property, so he was legally within his rights to kill her.
June 6th, 2013 at 8:30 pm
So, if you’re stealing my meth, I can kill you? Awesome!!
June 6th, 2013 at 9:55 pm
In Texas, if someone is stealing your property, you have the right to use lethal force to prevent them from doing so, especially at night. Hell, in texas, as I understand the law, you can use lethal force for -trespassing- at night. So yes, you could shoot Ray-Ray and Ice-dog for trying to steal your meth, at night, in texas.
The whole thing is stupid, front to back.
Everyone involved is a damned fool.
“Play stupid games, win stupid prizes”
June 6th, 2013 at 9:59 pm
If meth head 1(MH1) shoots meth head 2(MH2) for stealing his meth, and MH2 shoots and fatally wounds MH1 before expiring from his wounds, then we get two dead meth heads. Win-win.
June 6th, 2013 at 9:59 pm
So, the jury is retarded for follow the law?
June 6th, 2013 at 10:39 pm
“So, if you’re stealing my meth, I can kill you”
Yes. Here are the details.
“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.”
June 6th, 2013 at 10:40 pm
9.41 is
“Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.”
June 6th, 2013 at 10:42 pm
As a libertarian, it shouldn’t matter to you if the property was a pile of cocain, or a television. Its still your property, and you are due due process if someone wants to remove it without your permission.
June 6th, 2013 at 10:55 pm
At least they tried him.
June 6th, 2013 at 11:45 pm
The jury was selected. They did not write a letter to the judge volunteering. The law as written was followed.
You may not like the law, but that does not make the jury’s decision less rational.
A read more about this in another article. If you believe the defense, she had a pimp and was giving him the money when she was shot after the defendant asked for his money back. There is no Texas Whore Shooting law. The jury was asked if a person in Texas has the right to use deadly force at night to protect his property during a robbery. The jury was not asked if a person can shoot an escort if she won’t have sex.
June 7th, 2013 at 12:21 am
Who kills a woman for a $150.00?
June 7th, 2013 at 2:32 am
@nk:
I think you mean “Who kills a woman OVER $150?”
I know several who would kill their own mother, and yours also, FOR $150.
June 7th, 2013 at 7:06 am
The law is sometimes an ass, but it’s always the law. And, jury nullification is a wonderful thing.
June 7th, 2013 at 9:58 am
Under TX law it was a good shoot. If she didn’t want to abide by the contract, she should have returned the money.
June 7th, 2013 at 10:04 am
NAME REDACTED, the law in question only permits lethal force in response to theft where “the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud”, TPC 9.41. While this is probably far broader a definition than it should be, even the aspect of “fraud” requires nine specific elements in the United States, and two of those elements are the right to rely on a statement — which doesn’t exist here — and the misrepresentation of a material fact — which certainly wasn’t the case.
June 7th, 2013 at 10:47 am
Texas law needs some work.
Apparently, If I have a dispute with a restauranteur over goods received, if it is after dark in Texas,I can shoot him.
Perhaps a less retarded jury would have held that the hooker was not a burglar or prowler, and that the proper venue for restitution might have been in civil court?
June 7th, 2013 at 2:28 pm
I have always viewed Texas as having some of the most progressive (my term – my perspective) gun laws in the country.
I would rather have a few results like this instead of having many victims prosecuted (and possibly imprisoned) for following the natural inclination to protect their property.
When someone who is looking for trouble finds it, I am seldom sympathetic.
I don’t know whether the jury did the right thing in this case.
But the fact that the shooter was a whore-monger doesn’t change the obligation of the jury to apply the law to the facts.
Juries are required to apply the laws to the facts and not arrive at ad hoc justice.
June 7th, 2013 at 2:35 pm
This law goes back to the day when Texas laws were able to be written after the Civil War. It also banned the carrying of handguns until 1995. Texas has the strongest laws on protection of property. People have shot graffti taggers at night and have been found not guilty. Also this guy had the highest caliber lawyer in San Antonio.
June 7th, 2013 at 3:23 pm
This was less a case of Texas’ Castle Doctrine law and more a case of great lawyer, lousy victim.
June 7th, 2013 at 3:59 pm
Hey, he had a jury of his peers.
June 8th, 2013 at 2:56 am
In haiku form
He wanted to get fucked and got paid
she wanted to get paid and not get fucked
She got fucked but he never paid
June 8th, 2013 at 10:02 am
Aw geez, the law may or may not be horked, but at least get Haiku right. 5,7,5, dude. 🙂
June 8th, 2013 at 2:51 pm
I’m pretty thin on finding a legal defect here, but I’m a 6th generation Texan. One acclimates to Texas, or it drives you away or kills you. After Reconstruction Texas tightened things up so much regarding law that it generally requires a constitutional amendment to change things. It’s that way for a reason because carpetbaggers suck.
June 9th, 2013 at 5:01 am
You aren’t White-Knighting here, are you, Uncle? If a woman cheats you, I believe she should suffer whatever penalty a man would have to suffer for the same offense.
June 9th, 2013 at 8:57 am
It’s been pointed out that animals will kill a woman over $150.00 or for $150.00 dollars or for no reason at all. A rational society exercises animal control.