Legal to murder a prostitute for non-compliance in the US?

Stories like this totally baffle us on this side of the Atlantic:

Man Acquitted for murdering prostitute on the grounds that he wanted his money back

Quote:

---

A Texas jury acquitted a man of murder after he argued that he didn't intend to kill an escort whom he offered $150 for sex.

Ezekiel Gilbert, 30, faced life in prison after he shot Craigslist escort Lenora Ivie Frago, 23, in the neck on Christmas Eve 2009. She was paralyzed, and died seven months later from complications, according to the San Antonio Express-News.

A Bexar County jury on Wednesday acquitted him because of a Texas law that allows people to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft.

---

I can't see any way to reconcile this court's verdict and any notion of justice I have.

I bet a re-run of the simulation with a black murderer would have a dramatically different decision too.

Conjecture, I object your Honor.

:inquisitive: Overruled.

:smash:

Sounds like a pretty standard case of exploiting a loophole.

You just don't understand Freedom™.

Reading the tiny amount if information it sounds like there was no sex. She just took the money and ran off with it to a waiting car. So it sounds like a swindle resulting in theft.

However the disproportionate response in killing someone over $150 is way out of line.

Also unless prostitution is legal paying for sex is a crime, and I thought any deaths resulting from the planning, preparing, acting or covering up a crime was a felony murder?

Have I mentioned that america scares me?

A very clever lawyer probably. Right and justice aren't always the same thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Have I mentioned that america scares me?

---

Spend a week living with me, I doubt you will be scared once.

I might actually be going to America next month for work for the first time. I'm scared of the potential gunishment I might attract for not saluting the flag.

Hands up who thinks the result would have been the same if the shooter was a darkie?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Quite right when it comes to our legal system. What very likely happened was that some kind of evidence was considered inadmissable.

Consider: She was dead, so how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't a robbery? Our system errs on the side of caution, and a good defense lawyer can make a slam-dunk case into a wishy-washy fable given the right circumstances. Quite frankly I prefer it that way, as the overall effect is very good for civil liberties, despite the bad that slips through.

---

No different here, sometimes nobody understands a verdict, but the judge doesn't make the laws his hands are tied. Clever lawyers will use every exploit, and frankly that's what their job is, doing the best they can. Hope they go to a higher court so this scumbag just might still get what he deserves

Example that pissed of a lot of people, girl was violently raped by a gang, but she had voluntary sex with the first guy, after that his buddies came in and they all had a go. Judge can't know when voluntary sex became rape so they all walked. It doesn't feel right at all but that's how it works

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Example that pissed of a lot of people, girl was violently raped by a gang, but she had voluntary sex with the first guy, after that his buddies came in and they all had a go. Judge can't know when voluntary sex became rape so they all walked. It doesn't feel right at all but that's how it works

---

Over here, it is when the girl or guy says "No". If it occurs after this, then it is rape. Even if he groped and fondled her a little pre-rape and she seemed to like it.

In Texas they really take the "customer is always right" thing to heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Sounds like a pretty standard case of exploiting a loophole.

---

Agreed!


I am a believer in property rights; I am a believer in using force to defend one's property; I am not at all sure that this is what applies here.

This was a service call, requested by the property holder, for which they claimed that they did not receive the agreed upon service. Not quite the same thing. He knowingly transferred the money in advance of receiving the stated service. Doesn't mean that the service provider was right to attempt to take the fee without providing the service, but doesn't leave it purely "his property to defend" in the same way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Over here, it is when the girl or guy says "No". If it occurs after this, then it is rape. Even if he groped and fondled her a little pre-rape and she seemed to like it.

---

But the judge can't know at which point she said no, so they all walk. There are so many bizar cases like this, another example, after a fatal hit and run from two robbers who were fleeing from the police both of the suspect claimed they weren't the one who was driving. Can't be proved who was driving so charges on hit and run were dropped despite both of them causing a lot of grieve

The strongest point of the American justice system is also its most flawed: Jury of your peers. All you need is a bunch of sympathetic idiots who have no understanding of or regard for the law. That is how O. J. Simpson got off and that is how this guy got off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

The strongest point of the American justice system is also its most flawed: Jury of your peers. All you need is a bunch of sympathetic idiots who have no understanding of or regard for the law. That is how O. J. Simpson got off and that is how this guy got off.

---

It's pretty frontierish. Jury's should get a say in what punishment someone ought be be getting as a mere recommendation at most imho, certainly not if someone is guilty or not, just to feel the temperature of the water. Much to be done there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

It's pretty frontierish. Jury's should get a say in what punishment someone ought be be getting as a mere recommendation at most imho, certainly not if someone is guilty or not, just to feel the temperature of the water. Much to be done there

---

Nah, they shouldn't decide the punishment. They would either be too vindictive or let him off scott-free most times I'd think. Not to mention they would never agree with so many variables. Look at the hard time they have with a simple Guilty/Not Guilty.

As many problems as it creates, having the right to trial by jury is an essential safeguard against tyrrany and does much more good than harm.

the old joke was you couldnt get a verdict from a Clare jury

supposedly they ruled "Not guilty if he gives back the horse"

judges says you cannot do that

"Ok then guilty and he can keep the horse"






suposedly there was a case of a publican charged with having people in his pub after closing time.

publican admitted to his offence an said he was guilty so far so open and shut yea.

nah the jury commented that the publican was known as a notorious liar and so they disregared his statements and rulled innocent.

lets just say the drink were free that evening

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

As many problems as it creates, having the right to trial by jury is an essential safeguard against tyrrany and does much more good than harm.

---

But, it also leaves the door open for another kind of tyranny - tyranny of the majority. If the majority have a very low opinion of you, like in this case a prostitute, you may find that you're not equal before the law...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

But, it also leaves the door open for another kind of tyranny - tyranny of the majority. If the majority have a very low opinion of you, like in this case a prostitute, you may find that you're not equal before the law...

---

Indeed.

I trust the judgement of the trained professional over the village idiot any day of the week.

As for "defense against tyranny": if the judges are corrupted we're so far into fascism we're screwed anyway. So that's a moot point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

But, it also leaves the door open for another kind of tyranny - tyranny of the majority. If the majority have a very low opinion of you, like in this case a prostitute, you may find that you're not equal before the law...

---

It has its problems, true, but it is essential in a free society. The problems that the system of trial by jury bring do not outway the threat of government tyranny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Indeed.

I trust the judgement of the trained professional over the village idiot any day of the week.

As for "defense against tyranny": if the judges are corrupted we're so far into fascism we're screwed anyway. So that's a moot point.

---

Those lawyers, judges, and trained professionals are usually more corrupt and dishonest than the average person. There has always been problems in this country with corrupt judges, and is a far greater problem then what we have with juries. All a dictator or a group of people have to do to make the court a weapon is bribe or threaten a relatively small amount of people if judges determined people's innocence. That is not possible with juries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Those lawyers, judges, and trained professionals are usually more corrupt and dishonest than the average person. There has always been problems in this country with corrupt judges, and is a far greater problem then what we have with juries. All a dictator or a group of people have to do to make the court a weapon is bribe or threaten a relatively small amount of people if judges determined people's innocence. That is not possible with juries.

---

....And my argument is that if ever arrive at that stage, we're already doomed and thus the juries won't save us.

If Germany had the US' jury system in 1932, it would have made as much difference as holding up a napkin to stop a bullet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....And my argument is that if ever arrive at that stage, we're already doomed and thus the juries won't save us.

If Germany had the US' jury system in 1932, it would have made as much difference as holding up a napkin to stop a bullet.

---

It is one of the reasons we are not in the situation Germany was in 1932.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

It is one of the reasons we are not in the situation Germany was in 1932.

---

I don't see how that statement is anything other than wishful thinking based on nothing.

Are you suggesting that german judges helped Hitler's rise to power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I don't see how that statement is anything other than wishful thinking based on nothing.

Are you suggesting that german judges helped Hitler's rise to power?

---

No, but I am suggesting that control of the judicial system could very easily help a dictator rise to such power here in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

No, but I am suggesting that control of the judicial system could very easily help a dictator rise to such power here in the US.

---

....And my argument is that if we've progressed so far that a would-be tyrant is able to control the judges, we're screwed anyway. If he's able to do that, he's able to do a whole number of other nasty things we won't be able stop.

Conclusion: the jury system isn't a safeguard against tyranny, and should thus be judged solely on its ability to serve justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....And my argument is that if we've progressed so far that a would-be tyrant is able to control the judges, we're screwed anyway. If he's able to do that, he's able to do a whole number of other nasty things we won't be able stop.

Conclusion: the jury system isn't a safeguard against tyranny, and should thus be judged solely on its ability to serve justice.

---

We are at that stage and have been for decades. Free countries are always teetering on the edge, above an abyss of tyranny. As long as enough people realize that and are willing to do something about it, we will not fall.

The X is silent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

We are at that stage and have been for decades. Free countries are always teetering on the edge, above an abyss of tyranny. As long as enough people realize that and are willing to do something about it, we will not fall.

---

The US President is able to control US judges?

What planet do you live on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The US President appoints federal judges. Tons of them, not just the Supreme Court. While I think it is unfair to say that the President controls judges, it is well-known that some judges are cronies. Some are thought to be cronies, and then backfire on the president. It is a life-time appointment, and the only check and/or balance is the confirmation by congress, which is usually not a problem but sometimes can be.

---

Judges are mostly appointed by the cabinet/president in most countries, and they are almost always unfireable(a higher court can usually remove you for committing crimes or gross negligence though).

But to suggest that they are therefore controlled by the US president, suggests that vuk lives on Pluto.


I'd also add that their job security is a wonderful tool to stop any political interference dead in its tracks.

I never said that and I don't know where you got the idea I meant that.

That sounds good.

So since judges are meant to be cronies according to the wise founding fathers, the people get the power to declare criminals innocent in advance in case they think the judge may actually sentence them to a year or two more than they deserve.
Checks and balances - check!

Related enough for posting it here, 6 months of community-service??

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...act-prostitute

It doesn't get any lower than this unless you flip over the Mount-Everest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Our federal court system has little to do with the founding fathers. It was one of the first interpretive problems.

---

I see, it still seems to be lacking though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

You really ought to study our system more. Crony judges are a part of our system, and it goes all the way back to the actual court rulings that allowed the executive branch to appoint federal judges in the first place. It is not a crazy thing to suggest at all, because there are lots of judges who are cronies of one administration or another.

---

....And these judges will rule in favour of Obama's(or Bush or whatever) wishes after a simple telephone call? No?

That's what a real crony was, that's how things worked in soviet Russia(and still does today, to some extent). Call me when you get there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I never said that and I don't know where you got the idea I meant that.

---

I said that my argument was "when we get to the stage where the would-be tyrant is able to control the judges".

You replied that "we're already there and has been for some decades".

Yeah, I have no clue where I got that idea from.... If your point was something different, please elaborate.

Actually, we have had a bit of a problem with judicial vacancies.

There are 18 out and out vacancies (deceased, retired, new position, or elevated) and 63 further slots held by "senior" judges who are past retirement age and often do not handle a full caseload; the oldest of these senior judges is 93). Currently, there are only 27 nominations pending (only 9 of which are for the out and out vacancies, including one that has been sans nominee for 41 months since that judge was elevated).

4 of these vacancies became vacant during the Bush43 administration...one of them in 12/2004.

What can an evil overlord do when there is a lack of lackeys?

You'd think they could call on a friend, but they are afraid their call records would be impeached.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Indeed, the democrats constantly cried foul when Bush tried to appoint anybody. I'm no expert, but I don't think any of them have proven to be lackeys--Roberts has even proven that he has quite a spine. Regardless, the Republicans have taken that concept and run with it as part of their general policy of obstructionism. In truth, the kind of 'lackey' that a judge tends to be has more to do with ideology and the long game than any kind of actual corruption. For corruption, look at Congressmen and lobbyists.

---

If a judge is politically appointed, being a lackey is part of the job description.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If a judge is politically appointed, being a lackey is part of the job description.

---

Because like all employees we do exactly what our boss wants and never devise any ways to make their lives miserable.

Now imagine being an employee tenured for life. How much havoc would you wreck?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If a judge is politically appointed, being a lackey is part of the job description.

---

Earl Warren. I know, you have to look him up. That's ok. I will wait for your apology.