After meeting you and taking your money. But only if it's dark. You're not allowed to shoot people during the day if they steal from you. We may be Texans but we're not barbarians.
But as any escort will tell you, you're not paying for sex. You're paying for her time, and she may or may not CHOOSE to have sex with you, of her own free will, unrelated to the money changing hands. And killing her is Right Out.
They think they are discouraging prostitution. They are actually opening the door for shooting any woman that comes into your house and you can just say the same thing.
The redneck DJs on the radio were actually aghast at this. I'm excepting backlash.
That doesn't actually address the issues, though, which are: 1) He offered her money, for her time. 2) She took his money, for her time. 3) She refused to sleep with him and tried to leave, with *her* money. Which he'd paid her. For 30 minutes of her time. 4) He shot and killed her 5) A jury has determined that he is not guilty of any crimes for this.
Whether the jury believed, AS THE DEFENSE ASSERTED, that this was recovery of "stolen" money because she hadn't slept with him and thus that justifies killing her, or whether they believed that this was "only manslaughter because he didn't mean for the person he shot in the neck to die"[1] is irrelevant:
What matters is that they decided that nothing he did as he shot and killed a woman for refusing to sleep with him was illegal.
[1]: And then declined to convict despite accepting that it was manslaughter because as he fired wildly at a person in a car driving away from him, he didn't MEAN to hit anything. Because nobody ever MEANS to kill someone while shooting at them as they try to get away from you, no.
He shot a woman for refusing to sleep with him. He admits he shot her, and admits that he shot her for leaving without sleeping with him.
He was acquitted.
The jury concluded that there was no crime, in shooting a woman for refusing to sleep with him.
The defense offered two arguments: One, that this was a justified killing, and thus the jury should acquit. The other, that this was an accidental shooting-in-the-neck-while-driving-away and thus the jury should convict for manslaughter.
The jury acquitted.
They didn't conclude it was an accident. If they'd concluded it was an accident, they'd have convicted for accidental (but reckless) killing when the dude shot a woman for refusing to sleep with him. Instead, they concluded that shooting a woman for refusing to sleep with this dude was *not a criminal act*.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-07 04:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-07 11:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-07 01:22 pm (UTC)AND inside the house
Date: 2013-06-07 02:01 pm (UTC)What sucks is I know what's really going on here
Date: 2013-06-07 02:05 pm (UTC)The redneck DJs on the radio were actually aghast at this. I'm excepting backlash.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-07 02:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-08 09:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-10 05:17 pm (UTC)1) He offered her money, for her time.
2) She took his money, for her time.
3) She refused to sleep with him and tried to leave, with *her* money. Which he'd paid her. For 30 minutes of her time.
4) He shot and killed her
5) A jury has determined that he is not guilty of any crimes for this.
Whether the jury believed, AS THE DEFENSE ASSERTED, that this was recovery of "stolen" money because she hadn't slept with him and thus that justifies killing her, or whether they believed that this was "only manslaughter because he didn't mean for the person he shot in the neck to die"[1] is irrelevant:
What matters is that they decided that nothing he did as he shot and killed a woman for refusing to sleep with him was illegal.
[1]: And then declined to convict despite accepting that it was manslaughter because as he fired wildly at a person in a car driving away from him, he didn't MEAN to hit anything. Because nobody ever MEANS to kill someone while shooting at them as they try to get away from you, no.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-10 05:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-06-10 05:35 pm (UTC)He was acquitted.
The jury concluded that there was no crime, in shooting a woman for refusing to sleep with him.
The defense offered two arguments: One, that this was a justified killing, and thus the jury should acquit. The other, that this was an accidental shooting-in-the-neck-while-driving-away and thus the jury should convict for manslaughter.
The jury acquitted.
They didn't conclude it was an accident. If they'd concluded it was an accident, they'd have convicted for accidental (but reckless) killing when the dude shot a woman for refusing to sleep with him. Instead, they concluded that shooting a woman for refusing to sleep with this dude was *not a criminal act*.