TexasCHLforum.com

ShepherdTX wrote: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?

Someone committing a crime other than minor traffic violation loses the 9.32(b) automatic presumption his actions are reasonable under certain circumstances, i.e. they lose the Castle Doctrine defense. However, they're not barred from asserting other affirmative defenses or justifications for their actions.

For example, a 19 year old girl who is illegally drinking a beer loses the Castle Doctrine protection but could still claim self defense if she uses force or deadly force to stop someone from raping her.

I don't understand how there could have been a valid "contract for services" that was violated. At least civilly (maybe legally too?) a contract of any kind for something that is on its face illegal (prostitution) is invalid. I mean, its been a few years since I took business law but I do remember that part pretty clearly. You can't draft up a valid, binding, contract for something that is illegal (contract for murder, contract for drugs, contract for sex).

I would like to have seen the original Craig's List ad. My wife spends a lot of time perusing CL for a variety of bargains, and once in a while she comes across some really creative solicitations, which she tells me about so I can get a laugh. About all I shop for online is harmonicas and CL doesn't have many of them, but if you make the connection between that and a search she did that brought her a listing labeled "Harmonica Monica" you will understand the laugh we got from it. Most recently my wife bought a parrotlet which she had to drive, according to her, halfway across Texas to get (actually only Arlington, but still a long drive) and then a cage for said bird, both off CL.

From seeing a couple of those ads, I have no doubt in my mind that the shooter might well have expected more than what he got, they don't seem to include disclaimers as to what you can expect and such, and most that I have seen promise quite a lot. I don't see that he was soliciting, he was responding to an ad, which to me is not soliciting, but the courts may have a different interpretation of that, and since the transaction was pretty much (unsatisfactorily for him) concluded at that point, I wonder what other statute he might have been violating, I can't find one about "participating in prostitution."

knotquiteawake wrote:I don't understand how there could have been a valid "contract for services" that was violated. At least civilly (maybe legally too?) a contract of any kind for something that is on its face illegal (prostitution) is invalid. I mean, its been a few years since I took business law but I do remember that part pretty clearly. You can't draft up a valid, binding, contract for something that is illegal (contract for murder, contract for drugs, contract for sex).

In that case, it sounds like she stole his money and wouldn't return it, so maybe that explains the jury verdict.

I would have convicted him based on that he thought he was involved in solicitation, an illegal act here in Texas.

Without being on the jury, I don't think I could make a call on this.

The news stories make it sound bad, but ->

It could easily have been a matter of someone putting up 'escort' ads on craigslist and then rolling people on the basis of 'well, they're not going to call the cops because they were looking for a prostitute ...'

My overall thought is, don't go trying to buy shady stuff on CL in the first place.

This seems to be the kind of case that ends up creating political pressure to change a law. That would be too bad as I think there is good reason for a law like this to be in place.

I found a link with a video where the defense attorney comments on the defense strategy. There is also comment in the piece on it not being theft because of it being an illegal activity. We don't hear or see anything about how this was thought of by the jury.

http://www.ksat.com/news/defense-team-e ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

anomie wrote:It could easily have been a matter of someone putting up 'escort' ads on craigslist and then rolling people on the basis of 'well, they're not going to call the cops because they were looking for a prostitute ...'

That sounds like the reverse of Philip Markoff allegedly setting up dates with escorts and robbing the women.

hillfighter wrote:That sounds like the reverse of Philip Markoff allegedly setting up dates with escorts and robbing the women.

Yeah, it does kind of sound like that.

I read an article somewhere a couple years back about there being something like $2 million worth of reported theft in a year, where the victim was the client of a prostitute perpetrator. (In Las Vegas, I think)

I don't know how much I'd trust the $2 million figure, but I figure it probably happens often enough (there's probably conflicting incentives there, easy score vs. not wanting a bad rep w/ clients. Of course, now I'm talking about it as though I actually know anything ...)