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

**Idaho** · 06-08-2013, 00:27

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

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.

**The Stranger** · 06-08-2013, 00:33

Conjecture, I object your Honor.

Overruled.

**Rhyfelwyr** · 06-08-2013, 00:47

Sounds like a pretty standard case of exploiting a loophole.

**a completely inoffensive name** · 06-08-2013, 01:25

You just don't understand Freedom™.

**Papewaio** · 06-08-2013, 06:31

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?

**Greyblades** · 06-08-2013, 07:21

Have I mentioned that america scares me?

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 06-08-2013, 14:57

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.