Man confesses to killing escort found not guilty

[Nordling]

"And honestly, can you really blame someone for not knowing exactly how a bullet is going to fragment and where all that shrapnel will go?"

Yeah, I can. That's really the whole point. When you shoot a gun, at a vehicle that contains soft-fleshed mammals you are in effect saying that you don't care if the bullet careens off and kills someone. Was he ignorant of this? Maybe if he's mentally handicapped. It could just as easily missed the car and arced down the street, entered a window and killed someone totally uninvolved.

We can blame the prosecution for not charging him properly in the first place, but he's still a killer, and justice was not done.

 

[Red7227]

As far as giving thieves the right to steal whatever "inanimate" object they want without fear of being shot is going way too far. Thugs and thievery would be rampant and with prisons being abundantly overcrowded as it is, they would have little to no reason not to risk being caught. Law abiding citizens should have the right to protect their lives and property using any reasonable means necessary, including lethal force.

:twocents-02cents:

Your prisons are full of US citizens who have no option because of your fucked legal system and government. Tough luck if you jump into someones backyard to get a frisbee and the owner shoots you because he thought you were going to steal something

How is our legal system fucked? That's a pretty broad statement without backing it up. It may not be perfect, but none are, and bad laws can be changed. Our prisons are full of criminals btw, and too many of them aren't US citizens. As far as government goes, they're all pretty much fucked up everywhere.

You have the largest prison population in the world and the highest per capita prison population in the world, which is 5 times that of civilised countries and twice that of places like Russian and China. Something is clearly different about the way your legal system works, and its clearly not a good difference.

 

[Red7227]

And no, the defense isn't "I didn't know it could kill her." The defense is "I shot at the tire, not at her." The bit that killed her was a fragment that was the size of a fingernail. It's not a case of the bullet ricocheting in a weird way, it was a small fragment that hit her. And honestly, can you really blame someone for not knowing exactly how a bullet is going to fragment and where all that shrapnel will go?

Which is a good reason not to fire a gun at her. The only way he was going to get his money back is by threatening violence "give me back my money or I will shoot you" Its called armed robbery for a reason and has significant penalties. He didn't get charged with that because he accidentally killed the woman he was trying to rob before he got the chance.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

You have the largest prison population in the world and the highest per capita prison population in the world, which is 5 times that of civilised countries and twice that of places like Russian and China. Something is clearly different about the way your legal system works, and its clearly not a good difference.

We also had falling crime rates for the last 20-30 years and most crimes have fallen between 30-50%. This is no small part because we have sent career criminal to prison for long periods of time. This has led to a dramatic turn around in the safety of many American cities. For instance, although the murder rate is higher in New York city than in London. You are 3 times more likely to be mugged in London than NYC and twice as likely to be robbed, and overall crime rights are higher in England than US. A far cry from the 1980s and 1990s were Europeans were understandable concerned about visiting NYC.

 

[camstory]

If it was clear that the bullet first struck the tire, (prolly the wheel if it fragmented), then the prosecutor was an idiot to charge Murder. Murder1 is premeditated, but it does not have to be very premeditated. A man who kills his lover in a rage during a domestic quarrel after it has taken him minute and a half to batter his way through the bedroom door, can probably be convicted of murder 1 because he had time to think about what he was doing while beating the door open. On the other hand if he picks up the knife in rage and immediately kills her, murder2 is probably the best conviction you can hope for. But both murder charges require the prosecution to prove intent, (or malice aforethought), or if not intent, that the defendant knew his actions were likely to result in someone being killed. If the bullet first struck the tire/wheel, I think it would be very hard to get a murder conviction.

Something still seems very wrong about this. (besides the obvious) In cases such as this the prosecutor will always make the jury aware that that if they do not see fit to convict on the murder charge, that they need to consider the lesser included charge of manslaughter. If not before the DA would include that in the closing statement. Even if you think you have a conviction, you can't ever be sure, and a manslaughter conviction is better than none, so you make the jury aware of it.

If the written instructions from the judge did not allow for a consideration of manslaughter, and the murder charge that was filed was one in which it was a lesser included, then the judge was incompetent in his/her duty. I don't think you can appeal because you did not get the conviction you wanted, but if man, was a charge the jury was to consider but could not because the judge screwed up, it seems like that would be grounds to petition for a mistrial. Though a ruling of a mistrials are notoriously hard to get.

Oh, and yes it was extremely reckless to fire a weapon with people down range, and the bullet could have hit the ground and killed someone in a home on the other side of the street. In which case the charge of voluntary manslaughter would make sense I think. It would not be charged as a murder. If you think about it that way, and you consider the escort as you do the person in the home on the other side of the street, than murder should not have been charged. (I suspect that the information that manslaughter was a lesser included may not be right.)

 

[IsabellaSnow]

For instance, although the murder rate is higher in New York city than in London. You are 3 times more likely to be mugged in London than NYC and twice as likely to be robbed, and overall crime rights are higher in England than US. A far cry from the 1980s and 1990s were Europeans were understandable concerned about visiting NYC.

Would definitely much rather be mugged or robbed than murdered. In fact doesn't even compare, being mugged seems pretty fun compared to being murdered.

I'm amazed this went through, because yes, although you can say "$150 for half an hour with no sex? Come on...." I will imagine sex was never once mentioned in this agreement beforehand. It would have been his assumption. So essentially yes, he assumed he'd get sex, she as the escort never once said he would. I don't know if she just sat there chatting, or gave him a strip show or something else similar. Maybe she did some other sexual act for him that wasn't sex, maybe not. I will imagine she didn't just sit there chatting the whole time as this dude seems pretty impatient.

It really isn't that different to guys who get delusional about camming. Who feel if they tip loads it'll give them a real life relationship with the girl, or will get them sex. $150 is only a little bit more than a half hour true private, which involves no sex or touching whatsoever. It sounds ridiculous to think that a guy would genuinely think this stuff, but unfortunately I've seen it.
The amounts of guys who receive a service on mfc or tip something and don't receive what they tipped for and start demanding refunds etc. Sometimes they're in the right, often they're in the wrong. Should every guy who feels they've been ripped off by someone be able to shoot at/kill them? If I go and see a film and it wasn't what I was expecting, should I be allowed to shoot the theatre owner if they don't give me a refund?

 

[Mirra]

If I go and see a film and it wasn't what I was expecting, should I be allowed to shoot the theatre owner if they don't give me a refund?

Well that won't solve anything! You need to shoot the director and producers. Gosh!

It sounds to me like the judge messed up based on everything. I cannot see a jury knowing they can instead find him guilty of manslaughter and choosing not to in this case. It's the most likely scenario in my opinion.

 

[Brad]

(DISCLAIMER:this case really pisses me off. I like everyone here so in this instance while I may not agree with you, it is not personal at all. But I may rant as this really pisses me off. Loss of life here)

The dude shot more then once at a car with people in it. As a result one of the people died. The defendant does not get to say "well I was aiming at the tires" and suddenly it isn't murder 2. IF he had shot and the bullet had killed someone in a different car or standing near by, THEN it would be manslaughter. Not in this case and if this was legit then anyone who ever takes a shot at someone would just say they meant to shoot at the ground so no murder charge. Sorry, it doesn't pass the sniff test at all! And most bullets are fragments and the size of my fingernail is pretty damn big. All that talk is just BS from a defense standpoint to try and make you focus on something other then the facts. He shot at a car on purpose and one of the occupants died. HELLO!!!!!!!!!


Second Degree Murder
intentional killing; by extremely reckless conduct, intent to cause serious bodily harm, Deadly weapon doctrine

The jury blew it but they may have just been a bunch of idiots. The judge should be removed since he has the power to pretty much do whatever he wants. He can set aside a verdict and render one of his own. The law gets complicated but in the end the judge has most of the power. All the rest of the crap is mainly tools used to try and persuade the judge to rule in ones favor.

As I said I spent 6 moths on a grand jury. We do not do any prelims in our county so every felony has to be heard and approved by the grand jury. It is mostly just rubber stamping paperwork. There are 2 groups of 16 and we met every other Wednesday. I even had to hear a police shooting case and they kept us there for 14 hours. It was not a good shooting IMO, they lied and changed testimony, and by asking the questions I was entitled to ask I smoked our DA and one of his top assistants. I will guarantee they still hate me to this day. I was appalled and ashamed. What I saw changed me for the worse and removed any bit of optimism I had for our justice system. The guy that was killed was a criminal so it was all OK. (no it wasn't, I am being a smart ass).

This case scares me the same way as I see way too much discussion over the other person in the car being a pimp. WHO FUCKING CARES if he's a pimp? Means nothing to this case. And she could be a full blown hooker who took the guys cash, laughed in his face, and walked away and he STILL would not have the right to shoot and kill her. Why are we blaming the victim here? Or at least it seems like it. The argument should be the charges brought against him and the decision of the court.

Thanks for letting me rant.

 

[Bocefish]

I'm amazed this went through, because yes, although you can say "$150 for half an hour with no sex? Come on...." I will imagine sex was never once mentioned in this agreement beforehand.

That's one of the problems with imagining... it has nothing to do with the facts of the case.

The largest fuck up in this case, aside from the idiot that shot at a moving vehicle over $150 which resulted in a woman's death, is the overzealous prosecutor who went for murder1 instead of murder2 or manslaughter. That meant the prosecution had to prove intent which they could NOT do and basically left the jury's hands tied.

 

[camstory]

(DISCLAIMER:this case really pisses me off. I like everyone here so in this instance while I may not agree with you, it is not personal at all. But I may rant as this really pisses me off. Loss of life here)

The dude shot more then once at a car with people in it. As a result one of the people died. The defendant does not get to say "well I was aiming at the tires" and suddenly it isn't murder 2. IF he had shot and the bullet had killed someone in a different car or standing near by, THEN it would be manslaughter. Not in this case and if this was legit then anyone who ever takes a shot at someone would just say they meant to shoot at the ground so no murder charge. Sorry, it doesn't pass the sniff test at all! And most bullets are fragments and the size of my fingernail is pretty damn big. All that talk is just BS from a defense standpoint to try and make you focus on something other then the facts. He shot at a car on purpose and one of the occupants died. HELLO!!!!!!!!!


Second Degree Murder
intentional killing; by extremely reckless conduct, intent to cause serious bodily harm, Deadly weapon doctrine

The jury blew it but they may have just been a bunch of idiots. The judge should be removed since he has the power to pretty much do whatever he wants. He can set aside a verdict and render one of his own. The law gets complicated but in the end the judge has most of the power. All the rest of the crap is mainly tools used to try and persuade the judge to rule in ones favor.

As I said I spent 6 moths on a grand jury. We do not do any prelims in our county so every felony has to be heard and approved by the grand jury. It is mostly just rubber stamping paperwork. There are 2 groups of 16 and we met every other Wednesday. I even had to hear a police shooting case and they kept us there for 14 hours. It was not a good shooting IMO, they lied and changed testimony, and by asking the questions I was entitled to ask I smoked our DA and one of his top assistants. I will guarantee they still hate me to this day. I was appalled and ashamed. What I saw changed me for the worse and removed any bit of optimism I had for our justice system. The guy that was killed was a criminal so it was all OK. (no it wasn't, I am being a smart ass).

This case scares me the same way as I see way too much discussion over the other person in the car being a pimp. WHO FUCKING CARES if he's a pimp? Means nothing to this case. And she could be a full blown hooker who took the guys cash, laughed in his face, and walked away and he STILL would not have the right to shoot and kill her. Why are we blaming the victim here? Or at least it seems like it. The argument should be the charges brought against him and the decision of the court.

Thanks for letting me rant.

I don't know why you would apologize for that post Brad, it seems pretty right on to me. I can't stress how much I agree with the idea that it is completely and entirely irrelevant who these ppl were. They were living ppl and now one is dead, - what ppl think of there lifestyle should have no barring at all.

 

[Brad]

I just don't want anyone to think I am singling them out. I can be an opinionated SOB so I just didn't want any of it to sound personal. I really do like and respect most everyone here.

 

[LadyLuna]

I just don't like that everybody is saying that he should have gotten murder for accidentally killing somebody.

Do I agree with what he did? No! Do I think what he did was stupid? Yes! But stupidity is not a reason to convict someone of murder. Take away his right to carry a firearm, I can agree with that, for reckless use of one. Put him in jail for awhile, yes. But don't say he's a murderer when he wasn't trying to kill her. It's like calling someone a liar for telling you something that they honestly believe is true, just because it turned out false.

 

[Brad]

I just don't like that everybody is saying that he should have gotten murder for accidentally killing somebody.


Do I agree with what he did? No! Do I think what he did was stupid? Yes! But stupidity is not a reason to convict someone of murder. Take away his right to carry a firearm, I can agree with that, for reckless use of one. Put him in jail for awhile, yes. But don't say he's a murderer when he wasn't trying to kill her. It's like calling someone a liar for telling you something that they honestly believe is true, just because it turned out false.

Not to sound harsh but I don't understand why you think it was an accidental killing?
:dontknow:

You are taking the defendant's word as truth. He shot at a car more then once with people in that car. Someone in that car died. So he lies about aiming for the tire to get out of a murder charge. The guy may actually be telling the truth but I am far more skeptical about that. And at what point is it a legitimate defense to say you were not aiming to kill? Again, it isn't murder only IF someone NOT in that car was killed (a true accidental stray bullet) OR he acted in some sort of self defense. Maybe not murder 1 but I still see murder 2 for sure. This was no accidental shooting death in my mind.

If this is OK then it is OK for anyone to fire at people in a car and if someone dies well then oops, it wasn't murder. I know this sounds harsh but it is how I see it. The defendant can not prove that he didn't intend to kill someone. Where the bullets landed isn't really proof and especially if you look at pictures of the car.

 

[IsabellaSnow]

Accidentally killing someone would be driving and having a crash. It'd be feeding someone food they're allergic too or food that's gone bad without realising. It'd be hunting in the woods and not realising someone was standing close to where you're shooting. It could be knocking someone over and them hitting their head.

It is not shooting a gun at someone. You can not shoot a gun at someone and "accidentally" kill them. Shooting a gun at someone/towards someone means you accept they may die. Just like you can't deliberately knife someone and claim it was an accident, or deliberately run someone over and claim you didn't realise they might die.
You could be using a knife and slip and kill someone, that'd be an accident, just like you could be holding a gun and it could go off, accidentally. But pulling the trigger deliberately means it's deliberate. In that moment of rage when he decided to grab the gun, go outside, and then start shooting at this car, do you really think he was thinking "hey, I'll shoot at the tires just to scare them!"? Maybe... but this dude was angry, he knew he wasn't getting his money back, he wanted to hurt them.
He also grabbed a gun rather than a bat or another object similar, which would have been much better for damaging a car. Sure you can't shoot a bat, but when he got the gun out the car hadn't moved. Why get a gun out if all you intend on doing is messing up someones car? .... or maybe I'm just giving this dude too much credit.

That's one of the problems with imagining... it has nothing to do with the facts of the case.

Seeing as it hasn't been mentioned that her advertisement even truly did offer sex, it was just his expectation, really it was him imagining sex would be involved... I don't get how you defended him on expecting sex from an ad that didn't mention sex because of the nature of the ad, yet you criticise me using the expression "I imagine" on something that is most probably true, seeing as very few escorts would ever mention sex on an online advert seeing as it's illegal. Prostitution isn't even illegal in the Uk but because advertising is even none of the websites here mention it. In fact, they are very clear that they are not advertising sex, and that "if" sex happens, it's nothing to do with them. Sorry Boce but you can't agree with a point, and then disagree with another point, which is the same point just from a different opinion. It's major double standards.

 

[Sevrin]

Second Degree Murder
intentional killing; by extremely reckless conduct, intent to cause serious bodily harm, Deadly weapon doctrine

The jury blew it but they may have just been a bunch of idiots. The judge should be removed since he has the power to pretty much do whatever he wants. He can set aside a verdict and render one of his own. The law gets complicated but in the end the judge has most of the power. All the rest of the crap is mainly tools used to try and persuade the judge to rule in ones favor.

The jury did not have the choice of convicting on a lesser included charge. This is all on the judge, and it wasn't a "he".

 

[Bocefish]

Accidentally killing someone would be driving and having a crash. It'd be feeding someone food they're allergic too or food that's gone bad without realising. It'd be hunting in the woods and not realising someone was standing close to where you're shooting. It could be knocking someone over and them hitting their head.

It is not shooting a gun at someone. You can not shoot a gun at someone and "accidentally" kill them. Shooting a gun at someone/towards someone means you accept they may die. Just like you can't deliberately knife someone and claim it was an accident, or deliberately run someone over and claim you didn't realise they might die.
You could be using a knife and slip and kill someone, that'd be an accident, just like you could be holding a gun and it could go off, accidentally. But pulling the trigger deliberately means it's deliberate. In that moment of rage when he decided to grab the gun, go outside, and then start shooting at this car, do you really think he was thinking "hey, I'll shoot at the tires just to scare them!"? Maybe... but this dude was angry, he knew he wasn't getting his money back, he wanted to hurt them.
He also grabbed a gun rather than a bat or another object similar, which would have been much better for damaging a car. Sure you can't shoot a bat, but when he got the gun out the car hadn't moved. Why get a gun out if all you intend on doing is messing up someones car? .... or maybe I'm just giving this dude too much credit.

That's one of the problems with imagining... it has nothing to do with the facts of the case.

Seeing as it hasn't been mentioned that her advertisement even truly did offer sex, it was just his expectation, really it was him imagining sex would be involved... I don't get how you defended him on expecting sex from an ad that didn't mention sex because of the nature of the ad, yet you criticise me using the expression "I imagine" on something that is most probably true, seeing as very few escorts would ever mention sex on an online advert seeing as it's illegal. Prostitution isn't even illegal in the Uk but because advertising is even none of the websites here mention it. In fact, they are very clear that they are not advertising sex, and that "if" sex happens, it's nothing to do with them. Sorry Boce but you can't agree with a point, and then disagree with another point, which is the same point just from a different opinion. It's major double standards.

What double standards are you talking about?

Perhaps you missed my earlier posts, one with the link to his video testimony where he specifically testifies:

He testified that he called the escort service and asked Frago explicit questions prior to agreeing to pay her $150 for a visit to his apartment.

“'Are we going to be intimate?'” he said he asked. “'Are we going to have sex?' She said, ‘Yes, I’ll handle that.'”

But Gilbert testified that she left his apartment following a 20-minute visit without having sex with him.

http://www.ksat.com/news/accused-call-g ... index.html

or this post

He fired 2 rounds at the pimp's car tire, according to him, and the evidence shows that being a reasonable likelyhood.

He testified that as she left with her pimp, he confronted the couple.

“I said, 'I’d like my money back or we can call the police,'” Gilbert said. “He said, ‘If you want your money back, come and take it from me.’'

Gilbert said that as he turned to get his cell phone from his car to call police, the couple began to drive off. He said he fired two shots at their car from an assault rifle.

“I was trying to shoot the rear tires out on the vehicle so that I could stop them and call police and get everything squared away," he testified.

Frago was struck in the neck by a bullet fragment and was left paralyzed from the neck down. She died the following July from complications from her injuries.

I believe he should have been charged with manslaughter instead, but he certainly isn't the first person to get off on a technicality and surely won't be the last, unfortunately. The legal system once again failed and that law definitely needs to be re-written.

 

[Bocefish]

Second Degree Murder
intentional killing; by extremely reckless conduct, intent to cause serious bodily harm, Deadly weapon doctrine

The jury blew it but they may have just been a bunch of idiots. The judge should be removed since he has the power to pretty much do whatever he wants. He can set aside a verdict and render one of his own. The law gets complicated but in the end the judge has most of the power. All the rest of the crap is mainly tools used to try and persuade the judge to rule in ones favor.

The jury did not have the choice of convicting on a lesser included charge. This is all on the judge, and it wasn't a "he".

It was the prosecutor's fault IMO for going after a charge they couldn't prove. Maybe they were trying to scare him into a plea deal that backfired, who knows.

Can a judge overturn the decision of a jury?

Answer:

Yes, in a civil trial or in overturning a finding of guilty in a criminal case. A judge cannot overrule a jury's finding that the defendant is not guilty.


"Judgment notwithstanding the verdict" (JNOV) is used when no reasonable jury presented with the evidence at bar could come up with the verdict it came up with.

Of course, the party that "won" the decision of the jury may appeal the JNOV.


Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 states

(a) Before Submission to the Jury. After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.

(b) Reserving Decision. The court may reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.

(c) After Jury Verdict or Discharge.

(1) Time for a Motion. A defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal, or renew such a motion, within 14 days after a guilty verdict or after the court discharges the jury, whichever is later.

(2) Ruling on the Motion. If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal. If the jury has failed to return a verdict, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal.



The reason the FRCP do not permit a court to set aside a jury verdict of acquittal and enter a jugment of guilty is to preserve the Sixth Amendment guarantee that all criminal defendants shall enjoy the right to a trial by jury as well as to preserve the Fifth Amendment prohibition against double jeopardy.

The reason the FRCP permit a trial court to set aside a jury verdict of guilty and enter one of not guilty, is to preserve the defendant's right not to be convicted of a crime except on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. In the interests of justice, no trial court should let stand a verdict of guilty where the evidence does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

These rights apply to state courts as well as to Federal courts because they have been incorporated into the 14th Amendment because they are a fundamental part of our jurisprudence.

Note that these are the Federal court rules; however most state court rules are modeled after the Federal Rules and all will have some variation of the authority to set aside a guilty verdict.

 

[Brad]

And I also found this in regards to the upcoming George Zimmerman case so I would honestly have to research the Texas law to make any more accurate statements at this point but the jury and the judge (bad move on my part figuring it was a he. I ASSumed) still totally blew this and I still can't believe it was murder 1 only or nothing else.


To support the charge of 2nd Degree Murder the prosecution also must prove that Zimmerman acted with a “depraved mind” when he shot Martin. If the prosecution fails to prove that, the jury can consider a lesser charge of manslaughter.

So I still maintain that justice was not done here, the dude shot at a car and killed someone in it so murder and not accidental death, and what the victim did or didn't do for a living has no bearing on any of it. The dude that pulled the trigger is free to do it again and the dead woman gets no justice. It doesn't make me feel any less pissed off knowing it was either the jury's or the judge's or the prosecution's mistakes that set the dude free. They all can suck my balls on this one!
:evil:

 

[LadyLuna]

Not to sound harsh but I don't understand why you think it was an accidental killing?
:dontknow:

You are taking the defendant's word as truth.

Yes, I do generally assume someone is telling the truth unless there's a compelling reason to believe otherwise. A picture of the car was posted somewhere above. The car's windows were not shot at. The car's tires were. That seems to point to him telling the truth. He fired multiple times because he missed the tire, both bullet holes were not in tire itself, but in the body of the car right by the tire. He shot at the tire, missed, shot at the tire again, missed again.

If someone shoots at the ground by a person's feet, gun clearly aimed down, nowhere close to anything vital, do you assume that they were trying to kill that person?

If the defendent had been aiming at a window, then teh bullet holes would've been in the vicinity of a window, and then there would be reason to suspect that he might've been aiming to kill.

"I was trying to hit his shoulder!" - not a valid defense.
"I was aiming at his feet!" - valid defense, if where the bullets initially landed support that claim.

 

[Nordling]

Not to sound harsh but I don't understand why you think it was an accidental killing?
:dontknow:

You are taking the defendant's word as truth.

Yes, I do generally assume someone is telling the truth unless there's a compelling reason to believe otherwise. A picture of the car was posted somewhere above. The car's windows were not shot at. The car's tires were. That seems to point to him telling the truth. He fired multiple times because he missed the tire, both bullet holes were not in tire itself, but in the body of the car right by the tire. He shot at the tire, missed, shot at the tire again, missed again.

If someone shoots at the ground by a person's feet, gun clearly aimed down, nowhere close to anything vital, do you assume that they were trying to kill that person?

If the defendent had been aiming at a window, then teh bullet holes would've been in the vicinity of a window, and then there would be reason to suspect that he might've been aiming to kill.

"I was trying to hit his shoulder!" - not a valid defense.
"I was aiming at his feet!" - valid defense, if where the bullets initially landed support that claim.

Except bullets don't just land where they hit, especially lower caliber bullets. They careen, and if a gun owner is ignorant of this, he needs to be put somewhere where he can hurt people no more.

 

[Bocefish]

Nobody is denying there was a grave injustice done. The guy admitted to being responsible and owned up to shooting at the tire which ultimately led to the woman's death. The prosecution F'ed up and went for a charge they couldn't prove. There are several degrees to a homocide for a reason.

If the headlines read "Prosecution Fails to Convince Jury of Murder One charges" instead of "Confessed Escort Killer Found not Guilty" there wouldn't be so much fallout and drama. However, headline writers need to sell papers and get as many people possible to read their story so they blow it up as best they can.

:twocents-02cents:

 

[emptiedglass]

What you think you're aiming at, and what you actually hit, aren't always the same thing.
Was this guy used to handling guns, or was it his first time actually pulling the trigger? Possession =/= proficiency.
We can only go by what his stated intentions were. And, honestly, if you were that bad a shot, claiming that your shots were (mostly) spot-on would be an easy out. "No, Your Honour, I was actually aiming for her head" might have led to a completely different verdict.

 

[Brad]

Perkins said that as he and Frago drove away, he heard Frago say, “'He’s got a gun – go, go!'”

The bullets hit in front of a rear tire on a moving car. Not aiming at the tire aiming at the door and didn't lead enough. This is why I don't believe him.
:twocents-02cents:

I did just a bit more reading and from what I can tell most of our discussion doesn't matter or apply anyway. From what I can tell he was acquitted because the justice system let him use penal code section 9.42, DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY, as was mentioned and linked in this thread. Of course that has to first meet the criteria of penal code section 9.41, PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY, which covers tangible property not paper money but whatever. Other then a real far stretch of some code I just do not see a not guilty verdict here at all. Sadly I see a justice system that failed someone possibly because of what they did for a living. And OMG I sure hope that's not the case but that is where most of my outrage comes from. Same shit I saw in the grand jury on a bad guy killed by a cop.
:evil:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.42

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.41

http://www.ktbs.com/story/22518480/texa ... cort-death

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/0 ... 98225.html

So there was no "I aimed at the tires" defense nor did it matter if it was murder 1, 2, man 1, 2, or anything else. They just flat out found him not guilty and said that it was OK for him to use deadly force to get the money back he payed a girl for escort service because he thought he got ripped off because he EXPECTED sex. Yeah, no reaching on that one.

 

[camstory]

Yes I am quoting myself. I often wonder why some of my post don't get more attention than they do. (not thanks necessarily, replies good or bad, also) I always contribute it to the fact that, I like prolly most of us, think my post are better than they in fact are. Some times though, my ego searches for other reasons, and usually finds them, but I still know that it is prolly just not all that good a post, and I never quote myself to say, "hey, fucking look at this again!" Well, I guess that is no longer a true statement. The original post was pretty long, and it was not exactly about the OP, though not completely out of context, but gawd dammit, I was not able to pacify myself on this one. Good points, well made, such important issues maybe a new thread makes sense, coming soon. Never mind, carry on.

That is danger #1: We all understand that with the internet wide open, where anyone who has access to consuming it, also can contribute to it, that there is a lot of bullshit and that some of that BS can be presented in such a way that it gets passed along as credible info. (Or as here, that there were no lies, but rather omissions of relevant facts, and facts interject that may not be relevant at all, in what seems to be an effort to lead.) We all also know that because almost every fact of any current event there is, has been added, or will be added to the internet, we know the truth is out there. The danger is, that because we know the info, the truthful info, the whole story, all the fact, are out there, and because it is a pain in the ass to search for stuff (partly because there is so much BS to search through), and we take for granted someone like Jerry will find the real story if need be, - That we stop looking for the truth ourselves.

The second concern I have that this thread has provided an example or two of, and is something that has been happening long before electronic media, but I fear is getting more pervasive : Is this tendency to want to entertain ourselves, and when the facts turn out to be less entertaining than the other we ignore the facts and continue to behave as if the more entertaining BS is what's Real.

Before we had the internet there were lots of fictional stories that contained lots of facts and omissions of facts, to lend the appearance of real shit, but they were separate and had stages like the Star, National Enquirer, Globe, and other such tabloid news, and trash media. People could read them for entertainment, and some no doubt think they are news that no one else will print, because of area 51, or something, but those stories were not mixed in with all the other stuff. Now a lot of the time the first credible, or what appears to be credible thing we read, is not factual, or incomplete, and I think looking at the real facts that are not so exciting after we have invested our emotions into something else, can be a real let down. IDK just makes sense to me.

 

[Brad]

To be honest, the more I kept digging the more confused I got. I read what you wrote and I agreed with it. But this case is strangely odd. Most of the info I found was more like editorial conjecture. Very little on the legal facts of this case.
:dontknow:

And I still may have it wrong. But I did keep looking in part because of what you said. I may not be much but I do read your posts. I even understand most of them.

 

[camstory]

To be honest, the more I kept digging the more confused I got. I read what you wrote and I agreed with it. But this case is strangely odd. Most of the info I found was more like editorial conjecture. Very little on the legal facts of this case.
:dontknow:

And I still may have it wrong. But I did keep looking in part because of what you said. I may not be much but I do read your posts. I even understand most of them.

Well this is a very good example of part of what I feel. There is so much editorializing, it becomes increasingly hard to fish out/find the straight facts. I think it is a tough problem to work out too, b/c part of the reason there is so much pseudo-reporting is because there is so much consumption. And it is much less effort, than true journalistic reporting. More rewarding too, - do you know how unlikely it is that reporting, & writing a straight story is to get you 1000 follows, or your name on the viral hit list? Much less likely than the report in the OP.

And "I even understand most of them." is about how I would describe my understanding also. :lol:

 

[JerryBoBerry]

To be honest, the more I kept digging the more confused I got. I read what you wrote and I agreed with it. But this case is strangely odd. Most of the info I found was more like editorial conjecture. Very little on the legal facts of this case.
:dontknow:

And I still may have it wrong. But I did keep looking in part because of what you said. I may not be much but I do read your posts. I even understand most of them.

Well this is a very good example of part of what I feel. There is so much editorializing, it becomes increasingly hard to fish out/find the straight facts. I think it is a tough problem to work out too, b/c part of the reason there is so much pseudo-reporting is because there is so much consumption. And it is much less effort, than true journalistic reporting. More rewarding too, - do you know how unlikely it is that reporting, & writing a straight story is to get you 1000 follows, or your name on the viral hit list? Much less likely than the report in the OP.

And "I even understand most of them." is about how I would describe my understanding also. :lol:

Most of the times like this when there's just so much press and I really don't know for sure what happened I just take a step back from it. I tend to think of the same basic thing. This went to trial. Two lawyers battled it out, each doing their best to put their side forward. There was a judge overseeing it to make sure that battle was fair in the eyes of the law. And ultimately it was up to the twelve people on the jury, who ACTUALLY DID hear all of the case unlike all of these 'journalists,' and they decided there was not enough evidence to convict him.

Yes, it's easy to say the jury were all idiots when you look at a biased report trying to sell ads on a webpage. But think about the first 12 people you know in your life right now. Is every single one of them an idiot? It's unlikely you'd get an entire lineup of fools on a jury from a random selection process that is a jury pool. I have to give the benefit of the doubt to the people who were there and heard all the testimony, including the judges instructions on what they were supposed to decide on.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

Perhaps it was like 12 Angry Men- the dead escort version.

 

[Red7227]

Most of the times like this when there's just so much press and I really don't know for sure what happened I just take a step back from it. I tend to think of the same basic thing. This went to trial. Two lawyers battled it out, each doing their best to put their side forward. There was a judge overseeing it to make sure that battle was fair in the eyes of the law. And ultimately it was up to the twelve people on the jury, who ACTUALLY DID hear all of the case unlike all of these 'journalists,' and they decided there was not enough evidence to convict him.

Yes, it's easy to say the jury were all idiots when you look at a biased report trying to sell ads on a webpage. But think about the first 12 people you know in your life right now. Is every single one of them an idiot? It's unlikely you'd get an entire lineup of fools on a jury from a random selection process that is a jury pool. I have to give the benefit of the doubt to the people who were there and heard all the testimony, including the judges instructions on what they were supposed to decide on.

I would usually be the first person to say this, but the sheer idiocy of the whole thing got to me. Reading what the defendant it appears that he was remorseful, that he was an otherwise good man and that this affected him deeply. Its quite possible that this combined with the prosecution going for murder rather than more plausible charges got the judges back up so she didn't make suggestions to the jury and they acquitted because the charge did not match the crime.

This might be a case of justice working the way it is supposed to...

 

[Brad]

If the dead woman was a Girl Scout who had just ripped the guy off for $150 worth of cookies and everything else was the same do you think he would have still been found not guilty?




I think THAT is what I have an issue with the most.
:thumbleft: