PDA

View Full Version : Can you believe this?? Texas says it's okay to shoot an escort...



buxxxom
06-06-2013, 08:10 PM
http://gawker.com/texas-says-its-ok-to-shoot-an-escort-if-she-wont-have-511636423

What the hell is wrong with people???

SarahTime
06-06-2013, 10:31 PM
Texas says it's okay "to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft". In this case, property = $150. It became theft when the escort refused to provide the services promised.

I'm surprised he was acquitted though.

Nikki_Fox
06-06-2013, 10:43 PM
disgusting

SarahTime
06-06-2013, 11:12 PM
The problem is that the law that states you can "use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft" is written very poorly and needs to be updated.

It's amazing he got off on this since he was engaging in an illegal activity to begin with.

cherryblossomsinspring
06-07-2013, 03:08 AM
Don't worry ladies. Someone will kill him soon. He shouldn't be so happy because there is a bullet with his name on it. Just keep your eyes out. You'll hear about it soon.

He wasn't concerned with his $150. He was more upset that she refused to sleep with him.

Also I find it odd that he goes free yet doesn't get caught on the charge of prostitution?

cherryblossomsinspring
06-07-2013, 03:42 AM
Also with letting this guy go free they've now opened up a can of worms.

So you're on a date and the guy buys dinner and felt "this should have included sex". You say goodnight he gets pushy and you say "no". Now you have to worry about someone blasting out half your skull across the sidewalk?

If I was in Texas and an escort I would campaign for a state wide raising of rates.


I hope the same is in the reverse. An escort can blast away anyone that isn't paying for her time which is the definition of an escort anyways.

33834

He's not getting laid for a long ass time.

BBBJBecky
06-07-2013, 03:48 AM
That just isn't right

Tsepmet1
06-07-2013, 12:42 PM
Any Texas escorts that would like to do an anonymous interview about this, please contact me.

Sophia_Starina
06-07-2013, 12:51 PM
Insanity. Pure insanity.

We've been seething in the Lounge: https://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?184770-Texas-jury-acquits-man-after-killing-a-craigslist-escort

Cheo_D
06-09-2013, 05:44 PM
The law essentially it makes it so that in Texas there are a lot of cases in which you can use deadly force to stop ANYONE (not just escorts) from getting away with your money or property even if they are not posing a direct threat to you. This goes beyond the usual standard that you must perceive there is a threat to your safety or that of those around you, and even beyond "standing your ground" since it extends to going after someone on the run.

The "nighttime" provision is a modifier often used in Penal Codes to automatically raise an offense in category if it's happening at night (just as some crimes are raised in category if they happen in an occupied home). Seems like the defense argued and the jury bought that this circumstance made the original alleged theft against which the gun wielder was supposed to be striking back rise to the category of worthy to use deadly force.

To their credit, in this case the DA's DID seek murder charges, surely thinking "Wait, THIS is not what this law was supposed to cover!". I do wonder however if the outcome had been different had they charged with negligent homicide/manslaughter, or if the victim had died on the spot rather than lingered on a while; the defense lawyer probably also sought to raise doubt among the jury as to intent and as to whether the death was directly the result of the injuries or an unexpected consequence of other problems while under care.

SarahTime
06-10-2013, 01:00 AM
The law essentially it makes it so that in Texas there are a lot of cases in which you can use deadly force to stop ANYONE (not just escorts) from getting away with your money or property even if they are not posing a direct threat to you. This goes beyond the usual standard that you must perceive there is a threat to your safety or that of those around you, and even beyond "standing your ground" since it extends to going after someone on the run.

The "nighttime" provision is a modifier often used in Penal Codes to automatically raise an offense in category if it's happening at night (just as some crimes are raised in category if they happen in an occupied home). Seems like the defense argued and the jury bought that this circumstance made the original alleged theft against which the gun wielder was supposed to be striking back rise to the category of worthy to use deadly force.

To their credit, in this case the DA's DID seek murder charges, surely thinking "Wait, THIS is not what this law was supposed to cover!". I do wonder however if the outcome had been different had they charged with negligent homicide/manslaughter, or if the victim had died on the spot rather than lingered on a while; the defense lawyer probably also sought to raise doubt among the jury as to intent and as to whether the death was directly the result of the injuries or an unexpected consequence of other problems while under care.

What he said.

Are you perhaps an attorney, because that was really well put!

knightwish
06-10-2013, 07:01 AM
This is a fascinating case. Thank you for finding it! In reading the Texas papers online there are a lot of complex legal issues. (BTW IANAL)

As already commented above. The women wasn't really as escort she was a con artist with multiple victims pretending to be an escort as part of her scam. The defense was able to prove that she arrived with the intent to commit fraud. That was a big hole in the DA's case. The DA tried to close this hole by arguing that prostitution was illegal thus there was no contract thus there was no con. But the problem is DAs Lovell and Schulze needed more than just lack of enforcement, to argue Ms. Frago (the victim) wasn't stealing. This case hinges on whether she was stealing or not. Strange as it may be. In Texas if she was stealing the shooting becomes much much harder to prosecute. States like Texas, Alaska and Georgia that have these deadly force to protect property laws are going to have to decide if they really want petty criminals like Ms. Frago being killed.

The DAs needed to argue that the transaction of the money had already happened completely or that the ownership of the money was nebulous. In the prosecution's theory of the case when a john gives money to a prostitute he is not entitled to either the sex or the money, it is no longer his money but he hasn't bought a service. The DA is arguing that a prostitution contract is similar to say a purse snatching team that stole $500 with an agreement they would split the money 50/50. Neither person is entitled to their $250 and they can't be seen to be stealing from each other if they don't split the proceeds. At least some of the jurors evidently disagreed and believed that prostitution is at least a semi-enforceable contract. Ms. Frago could return the money or provide the sex, if she did neither she was stealing. That can be looked at as a very good thing for sex workers. It means that at least one Texas juriy believed that prostitution contracts should be enforceable contracts which is at least a small step towards decriminalization / legalization.

The second problem is whether there was a murder or just a battery. I couldn't get the details but it appears the defense did argue there were medical complications over a prolonged period of time which made the murder hard to prosecute. It appears some of the jurors agreed Mr. Gilbert shot Ms. Frago they just didn't agree that her death 7 months later was directly a result of the shooting. I can't get any details beyond that, but this isn't an uncommon defense in manslaughter trials (i.e. drunk driving for example).

I can't find a really good article on this case. If someone knows of a good link 'd love to read it.

Honey Ryder
06-10-2013, 10:30 AM
So someone deserves to lose their life over 150 dollars...smh. Some laws seriously need to be revised.

knightwish
06-11-2013, 04:54 AM
So someone deserves to lose their life over 150 dollars...smh. Some laws seriously need to be revised.

The National District Attorneys Association agrees with you. They think these kinds of laws could very easily lead to explosions of violence. It isn't hard for people to construct situations in which case homicide becomes legal under these scenarios. 1974 Texas made is legal to use deadly force to protect property Ling to Texas statue Penal 9.42 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.42).

Anyway, these laws are being revised in most states but in the other direction. The general direction of law in the United States is towards a massive expansion of "self defense" laws since 1985. It started with removing the duty of the home owner to retreat (the castle doctrine) in his home if possible before using deadly force. Then it moved to "stand your ground" where the castle doctrine got applied to any place a person was legally entitled to be.

So for example Texas:
1995 Caste Doctrine
2007 Stand your ground

States like my state (New Jersey) have done the opposite and clarified that retreat if possible is mandatory for self-defense to try and counter this but the trend over most of the country is towards expanding the right to shoot.

The way I read this is again and again the voters of Texas have said yes she does deserve to love her life over $150. America is becoming much less tolerant of crime in many many ways.

BANHammerGoddess
06-11-2013, 05:17 AM
I might have tried to argue it that the contract was for companionship. Did she have ads up explicitly stating what would be done for $150?
Because if she was there for half an hour...that sounds pretty comparable to what we, as dancers, charge for a half hour of hour time whether we're dancing or not.

also, I think that's the Castle doctrine (actually one thing I love about TX when I'm there because the car is an extension of my "castle.")

knightwish
06-11-2013, 06:29 AM
I might have tried to argue it that the contract was for companionship. Did she have ads up explicitly stating what would be done for $150?

Companionship makes it worse for the DA not better. Since if it was just a companionship contract (i.e. legal) then it was definitely an enforceable contract, then she was definitely stealing... The DA had to argue the $150 was for sex to make it not theft. As far as I can tell even the DA was of the opinion that if she had say taken $!50 to fix is stereo, refused to fix it and refused to give back the money the shooting would be legal. His argument was that a prostitution contract was nothing like a stereo repair contract and at least some jurors disagreed

BANHammerGoddess
06-11-2013, 06:32 AM
how was she stealing if she fulfilled the contract of time spent?
If she was there for a half-hour (wasn't that posted above?) then the man benefited from her companionship. Unless she tried to cut and run after the first three minutes.

Honey Ryder
06-11-2013, 10:49 AM
The National District Attorneys Association agrees with you. They think these kinds of laws could very easily lead to explosions of violence. It isn't hard for people to construct situations in which case homicide becomes legal under these scenarios. 1974 Texas made is legal to use deadly force to protect property Ling to Texas statue Penal 9.42 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.42).

Anyway, these laws are being revised in most states but in the other direction. The general direction of law in the United States is towards a massive expansion of "self defense" laws since 1985. It started with removing the duty of the home owner to retreat (the castle doctrine) in his home if possible before using deadly force. Then it moved to "stand your ground" where the castle doctrine got applied to any place a person was legally entitled to be.

So for example Texas:
1995 Caste Doctrine
2007 Stand your ground

States like my state (New Jersey) have done the opposite and clarified that retreat if possible is mandatory for self-defense to try and counter this but the trend over most of the country is towards expanding the right to shoot.

The way I read this is again and again the voters of Texas have said yes she does deserve to love her life over $150. America is becoming much less tolerant of crime in many many ways.Well in these situations it's kinda hard because one party is not around to tell their side of the story.

A man could lure a prostitute in, give her money, and then kill her just because he wants to and say she refused sex. Scary

knightwish
06-11-2013, 11:11 AM
how was she stealing if she fulfilled the contract of time spent?
If she was there for a half-hour (wasn't that posted above?) then the man benefited from her companionship. Unless she tried to cut and run after the first three minutes.

OK so I started looking at the articles. This is another very grey area though it didn't come up much in the trial because the DAs case was that sex had been implied and that was an illegal contract. It does seem it was ambiguous what she was promising. Christopher “Topher” Perkins, who posted ads for Frago argued she didn't guarantee sex (though it was implied). She did with some clients do lap dances and hand out. Other clients she ripped off. The defense argued she took the $150 and just immediately left. It doesn't seem like that was contested by her driver. So she never stayed the 1/2 hour.

It is very grey about leaving the premises with money someone gave you for service X when you argue they were only entitled to service Y. Had she been clearly off the premises with the money its different than her leaving with the money. Given her history I don't think the prosecution could prove that Ms. Frago wasn't trying to cheat Mr. Gilbert.


Well in these situations it's kinda hard because one party is not around to tell their side of the story.
A man could lure a prostitute in, give her money, and then kill her just because he wants to and say she refused sex. Scary

Self defense is an affirmative defense. He has to prove that she did all that. In this Texas case it wasn't a disputed fact that Ms. Frago was a con artist. She had pulled this con numerous times. Everyone agreed she was there to screw him over to some extent, the DA was just trying to argue that it wasn't theft.