Man acquitted of murdering escort

[locke_n_load]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... x-him.html

Thoughts on the ruling of using deadly force to recover stolen property at nighttime?

[baldeagle]

My comment? He followed the law, so he was acquitted. End of story.

[SQLGeek]

I'm no legal scholar but it seems he disagreed with the level of...services being supplied for his money. That sounds more like a civil issue to me than outright theft. I wasn't in the jury box but I have a nagging feeling they got this one wrong.

[baldeagle]

I'm not legal scholar either, but I can read - http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.31.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas Penal Code 31.01
Definition of deception:

(E) promising performance that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction and that the actor does not intend to perform or knows will not be performed, except that failure to perform the promise in issue without other evidence of intent or knowledge is not sufficient proof that the actor did not intend to perform or knew the promise would not be performed.

(7) "Steal" means to acquire property or service by theft.

Sec. 31.04. THEFT OF SERVICE. (a) A person commits theft of service if, with intent to avoid payment for service that the actor knows is provided only for compensation:

(1) the actor intentionally or knowingly secures performance of the service by deception, threat, or false token;

The reverse is also theft. Promise of service paid for but not delivered.

[RX8er]

sarcasm/ Wait, he should have been found guilty because his property was recoverable or by insurance. /end Sorry, I am thinking about another thread.

I will agree that it cost more in professional fees the second time around than the first.

[MadMonkey]

Wow... I'm not quite sure how I feel about this

[bizarrenormality]

"Christopher Perkins, who described himself as the young woman's manager"

Manager. Right.

[rp_photo]

Although it may have been legal, I don't think most of us would not consider this a "good shoot" unless the victim's life was in danger.

I also have an issue with the whole "night time" thing. IMHO, a consistent 24/7 law would be better.

However, I do like the "headroom" that this case provides, i.e. the assurance that shooting in situations where it would be more warranted would be deemed OK.

[bdickens]

So, if my crack dealer rips me off I am justified in shooting him?

[ShepherdTX]

When I first read this article I was thinking to myself, "Wait a minute, something doesn't seem right... if he's in the middle of soliciting prostitution (a class B misdemeanor) , doesn't that remove any justification under the law for shooting someone?" But when I looked again I could only find it under defense of person, not defense of property. Does that mean somene can use deadly force to protect their property even if they're in the middle of committing a crime?

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

[Wes]

I was curious about hat as well. Maybe because he didn't receive sexual services and the lady never intended on giving said services then it wasn't actual criminal activity? If the law just applies to defending ones self and not property then that would seem like quite the hole in the law. I don't know, wild story to say the least. I am curious to hear what others feel.

[CainA]

I think it's against the law to solicit regardless of whether the services are performed or not. Think about when the cops setup stings, the services surely aren't performed before the 'john' is arrested.

[Wes]

Agreed, maybe that only applies in those situations because the cops witnessed the solicitation? I know many crimes have to actually be witnessed by a Leo to matter, not sure if this would be one or if him saying he was doing it is enough to matter.

[CainA]

I have no idea either.

[JALLEN]

If anything, this illustrates the uncertainties of trying to judge court cases on the basis of news accounts.

Nobody who didn't sit through the trial knows what evidence was actually heard by the jury, or can evaluate it, free of conjecture and surmise.

Remember the case of Ramos and Compean, those two border patrol officers tried for shooting the illegal in the butt a few years ago? That caused such a controversy, and I wanted to try to figure out what the actual reality was. I read the entire court trial transcript, online, without having access to the exhibits, but using Google Earth to try to understand the movements, locations, etc. It took longer than the trial did! Even so, unless you are in court, to observe the demeanor of witnesses, hear the tone of voice, etc, it is very very difficult to assess credibility, truthfulness, capacity to observe and relate, etc.

News accounts are hopelessly unreliable. If they were always accurate, it would be one thing, but alas, that is seldom true, and they can never be complete.