Posted on 06/07/2013 7:20:20 AM PDT by the scotsman
'A TEXAS court has freed a man who murdered a prostitute, saying the shooting was JUSTIFIED because she took his money but refused to have sex with him.
The jury accepted accused Ezekiel Gilbert’s claim that he was only trying to retrieve his own property when he blasted escort Lenora Ivie Frago in the neck on Christmas Eve 2009.
The call girl — who Gilbert met on website Craigslist — was paralysed from the gunshot wound and died seven months later.
Gilbert, 30, said he had never intended to kill the 23-year-old and was merely trying to stop her from taking his money.
He testified that she had spent 20 minutes in his home before leaving with the money, saying she had to pay her driver.
Gilbert's lawyers argued her actions became theft when she refused to have sex with him or give the money back, as he had believed sex was included in the £150 fee.
They claimed that under Texas law Gilbert was entitled to use his firearm.
The law states that people are allowed to use deadly force to retrieve stolen property at night, as long as they reasonably believe they have no other way of doing so.
But prosecutors argued this law didn’t apply to Gilbert as it is intended for law-abiding citizens, which he couldn’t be as he had solicited a prostitute.'
(Excerpt) Read more at thesun.co.uk ...
Guy this dumb will do something even dumber, sooner rather than later.
What a country.
A ‘working’ girl that should have worried at home and not on the streets.. oh wait, she did. Social networking at its finest.
RIP
Not a good day for Texas, this turd should have been flushed.
Unbelievable and absolutely insane...
“she refused to have sex with him or give the money back, as he had believed sex was included in the £150 fee”
Should have checked to see if she was licensed and bonded....(S)
She was stealing from him. Obviously thought she could get away with it under the circumstances.
He admited commiting one crime. As a John he had commited that crime of procurement.
So it’s like a drug deal gone sour. Drug dealer takes money for drugs. Does not supply said dope and begins to walk with the money. Now there is a crime of theft goin on and the guy shoots the thief to prevent his money from being stolen.
I think there is a crime commited by the John but am not sure if murder is that crime.
He would have been much better off letting her have the money and learning a lesson. Legal fees, aggravation and murder are not a heck of a lot more than $300.
He invited this woman into his home to collaborate in a crime with him. She did not trespass, break or enter.
He handed her his cash, she did not force him.
Nothing indicates that he was in any physical danger whatever. He was armed and she was unarmed.
He claims that she was absconding with money, but I've seen zero proof of that.
He apparently shot this unarmed woman in the back as she was leaving.
He murdered an unarmed woman in cold blood because he thought she may have been scamming him. And it was a particularly painful, lingering death.
This guy should have gotten life. Instead he got the Casey Anthony jury, apparently.
Hmmm.....
20 minutes in his house, no sex but, solicited for.
I don’t see how he “gets off”.
I agree you should be able to retrieve your property by force but, he was in the commission of a crime.
Oh well. Took his best shot and got away with it.
Nope. he was accused of murder.
Any money and aggravation to be free from any further charges is worth every penny, plus interest.
Instead of doing the time for at least manslaughter he is free to live his life and pursue his dreams free of any further attachments for this crime.
Didn’t take the totality of your premise into account.
I agree. Shoulduh let her go and he wouldn’t be infamous nor always have an attachment of various attachments about his character.
And on Christmas Eve, no less. Pathetic and sad.
There are two common deceptions in the prostitution business - one is the “bait and switch” where the client agrees to meet and pay the prostitute based on the highly attractive photos displayed in the ad but when the prostitute shows up, she’s ugly as a mule. The ruse is to so embarrass the client that he agrees to the sex anyway rather than raise a commotion.
The second deception is the “cash and dash”. All prostitutes insist on cash up front and some will then pretend to have an excuse to leave the room to “pay the cabbie” or “pay the (agency) driver” or some other excuse and then simply not return. Some of the clever ones will ask for the man to undress before leaving. In some cases, the agency driver is a large brute who will make sure the prostitute is not manhandled into staying. Either way, the client is out of his money and gets no satisfaction.
In all these cases, the assumption is that the man won’t go running off to the police when he is conned because, after all, he is part of a criminal activity.
So, in this case, you have two people who conspired to break the law and then one of them reneged on their part of the arrangement and violence ensued.
To take the sex angle of it, imagine a drug dealer who takes the cash for a deal but them does not deliver the drugs. In anger, the buyer shoots the drug dealer as he is trying to leave with the money. Once you look at it that way, the fellow seems a bit more justified in his behavior.
Personally, this all seems like Texas justice. I wouldn’t condone murder but I would condone shooting at a thief trying to make off with a person’s stolen property. If that shooting happens to lead to death, so be it.
As a citizen of Texas, I’m fine with this ruling even though I regret the circumstances and the outcome. My belief is that once you engage in lawbreaking, you abandon any right to be protected by law. If that leads to you getting shot, that’s just a consequence of your own lawlessness.
I realize the potheads have a major problem with this logic but it is how I see it.
Who was the prosecutor here? Heads should roll.
From a legal standpoint this is interesting.
Illegal contracts are unenforceable by the courts, so a question becomes, “Had he hired her through a legal escort service?” If he had, the contract to provide escort was legal, but his assumption of prostitution was not.
The next question is “What are the terms of service of the escort service?” (assuming it is legal.) If they included a statement that “payment is non-refundable”, she was *not* stealing, by refusing an illegal act and leaving, so in effect, when he shot her, *he* was stealing *her* money and murdering her.
That is, if you offer a legal service for which you have been paid, and a customer asks you to perform an illegal act, you can definitely leave, because otherwise, by not reporting the request, you may be considered a criminal accessory, or at least, there is a contractual dispute that could result in a lawsuit must be settled.
However, in the case in question, we have to assume that this escort service is not on the surface legal, so the contract was illegal, and her taking the money was seen by the court as stealing. And because of a fluke in Texas law (which seems to have Biblical origins), if you shoot a thief at night, it is not homicide.
That she was a guest changes things considerably. There’s a reasonable expectation on the part of the host to provide for the safety of his guest.
Inviting someone to your home, shooting them and killing them, would usually be first degree murder.
I’m confused. He said he spent four years in a mental institution but don’t know more about it. Any background? I did read the source article.
Yeah, there'a always a part that doesn't fit. What were they doing for 20 minutes? I say the guy had ED and the girl was out of patience. Or the guy was disease-ridden and stinky and the girl was thoroughly repulsed. In either case, she couldn't leave without her "trip fee", and she had to pay her "driver".
And, by the way, isn't the "driver" supposed to be the bodyguard?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.