It was a property crime
A Texas jury finds a man not guilty of murder for shooting a woman who refused to have sex with him.
A Texas jury has just acquitted a 30-year-old man who shot and killed a woman he met on Craigslist after she refused to have sex with him.
The man in question, Ezekiel Gilbert, has been cleared of murder after the Texas court determined that his actions were “justified after he shot an escort when she took his money but refused to have sex with him,” according to the Daily Mail.
Lenora Frago was shot in the neck by Gilbert on Christmas Eve 2009. As a result, the 23-year-old was paralyzed and died several months later.
The acquittal came from a Bexar County Texas court which determined that Mr Gilbert, who was facing a life sentence, should not be convicted of murder “because he was trying to retrieve stolen property.”
The defense argued that “the shooting was not intended to kill Miss Frago and his actions were justified because he believed sex was included as part of the fee.”
Apparently in Texas you’re allowed to kill people if you believe they stole something from you, including access to their own body.
Christopher Perkins, the young woman’s manager, explained to the court that while Frago was an escort, the $150 fee in no way guaranteed sex.
He explained that “Lenora normally would do lap dances and hanging out. That was her thing. Her regular customers were all quiet, reserved guys and she would hang out.”
…
Gilbert hugged his defense attorneys and thanked God, his lawyers, and the jury for being able to “see what wasn’t the truth,” as he claimed he was “just trying to retrieve” his stolen property… Frago’s body.
Yeah good old god. God always protects the johns.
What? Am I reading that right? An actual court of law ruled that it’s OK to shoot someone to retrieve property?
Fuck me.
” ……….. ”
Wow, my brain went kind of blank when read that. I’m not sure it’s working even now. Not murder, but a property crime. Doesn’t make sense. OK, lets see it from the sex work is just work angle. Is it now OK to shoot the guy who walks off with your pen? What about the plumber that bills you for 5 hours but you’re pretty sure only actually did 4. What about the mechanic who billed you for a new part for your car, but didn’t hand over the failed part?
Bloody hell. I think I might literally be in shock.
“He believed”
So now contracts aren’t actually based on specified services, but unspoken assumptions about what’s “really” being offered? Can I start suing businesses for excluding things I think ought to be included?
Oh, no. It’s just *women* one can assume these things on. Corporations are people and can set limits on what they offer.
:spit::
God always protects the johns, particularly if they’re rich and an escort is by definition low class and expendable. I wonder what the jury’s decision would have been if Frago had been the daughter of a local plutocrat who refused to return an expensive engagement ring. There’s probably more involved here than the state’s demented gun laws, and misogyny, it’s caste.
Apparently the reporting on this has been really bad. I’m told we should read this:
https://rewire.news/article/2013/06/08/no-texas-law-does-not-say-you-can-shoot-an-escort-who-refuses-to-have-sex/
Astoundingly, it seems so: Texas penal code §9.42 permits the use of deadly force to protect or recover property if the person “reasonably believes” it’s the only way to do so, or other means of doing so put the person at risk. What’s particularly gobsmacking about this is that it sets no limitation on the value of the property, so in principle this could be over a stolen gumdrop.
The writeup says the defense claimed he didn’t intend to kill her, which makes me think the defense was claiming he wasn’t using deadly force; that lightens the burden of proving it was the only (or only safe) way. What’s gobsmacking about this is that in most jurisdictions I know anything about, use of a gun is automatically deadly force–there’s no such thing as warning shots, or non-deadly shooting.
This law specifically covers theft by “force, threat, or fraud.” Clearly in this case fraud was alleged, rather than force or threat. What’s gobsmacking about this is that “fraud” is normally subject to the clean-hands doctrine: in this case meaning you can’t pay someone to break the law, and if you pay them and they don’t break the law, you can’t accuse them of fraud.
So precisely as you said, the verdict presupposes that it’s OK to pay for sex in the first place, and therefore that taking money and then not having sex is fraud, and therefore that keeping the money is theft, and therefore (by Texas law) that it’s OK to use all necessary force to recover the money. Disgusting.
But see the article I linked @ 5 – which says there’s no evidence that was the jury’s reason for acquittal, and it seems more likely (though Dunlap doesn’t say why it seems more likely) they acquitted on the grounds that he intended to hit the tire (and did hit it but a fragment hit Frago) and manslaughter wasn’t offered.
‘Really bad reporting’, definitely.
I have a hard time believing that if you shoot at someone with a fucking gun you are not responsible for their death, regardless of whether they are hit by the bullets you fired. Manslaughter my arse: guns are deadly weapons, that’s why they exist. I don’t care whether he intended to kill her or not, that isn’t anything approaching the point. Pretending not to know what would happen when firing a gun at another person really shouldn’t be any kind of defence.
I understand the point that it probably doesn’t fit the definition of murder and that the case (and its reporting) were handled badly. I understand why the jury might have felt that they had to acquit. But holy cocksucking christ this man shot at someone because he decided he was entitled to have sex with her. What was he going to do if his supposed plan had succeeded and the car stopped? Presumably he was going to either rape her or steal back ‘his’ money or both.
I suppose my point is that our definition of “murder” really needs some work.
@latsot #9
“Murder” implies intent and a degree of premeditation – though I agree completely that if you shoot a goddamned gun in someone’s direction you are, without doubt, fully responsible for any injury done. That’s why the crime of “manslaughter” exists to cover the terminally stupid, the undisciplined, the subjects of a “disturbed mind” , the grossly negligent and the wildly reckless.
Having read the report Ophelia linked to it sounds like this should fall under the terminally stupid/wildly reckless/grossly negligent categories of manslaughter. It sounds like the trial was a mishandled at several different levels – and that is something that in my (not so humble) opinion should be carefully scrutinised.
@Steamshovelmama:
I understand the definition of murder, I just think it might not be a very good definition.
I’m told that the law on manslaughter differs between the UK and the US.
Possibly. As far as I know they have broadly similar meanings, though. Unfortunately my personal lawyer is in bed, I’ll ask her when she gets up.
he could have tried the small claims court
@Ophelia # 12
I believe it does though I don’t know the details – but as far as I understand it (and IANAL) intent and premeditation are still the key differences.
@ latsot #11
I think it’s a good idea to separate out the intentional killer from the stupid/etc/etc. The key would be to still be able to impose a serious sentence on the stupid/etc/etc.