If only the escort had been armed, too


You have to read this to believe it. Because, if I just told you, I’m not sure I’d be believed. Either that or I’m just old and well into the ‘whole world’s gone crazy’ stage of life:

Gawker — A jury in Bexar County, Texas just acquitted Ezekiel Gilbert of charges that he murdered a 23-year-old Craigslist escort—agreeing that because he was attempting to retrieve the $150 he’d paid to Lenora Ivie Frago, who wouldn’t have sex with him, his actions were justified.

Gilbert had admitted to shooting Frago in the neck on Christmas Eve 2009, when she accepted $150 from Gilbert and left his home without having sex with him. Frago, who was paralyzed by the shooting, died several months later.

If only she’d been armed, eh? Then we coulda had a good old-fashioned Texas shootout! I don’t know the details in this case, maybe she pocketed the money, laughed at him, and bragged he’d just been scammed as she walked out. But that wouldn’t exactly justify shooting someone, it would be a rather inexpensive lesson in that free market magic we always hear so much about — buyer beware! Particularly when responding to online ads in the sex section of Craigslist for what could be accurately described as a shadowy, quasi-legal service at best! Besides, there’s no info that anything like that happened. I’d guess what actually happened is more like the lady was an escort and not a sex worker, and that pissed the horny guy off. FWIW the escort testified — before dying from the paralyzing neck wound — that she had to pay a waiting cab driver a good chunk of the money.

This is a case where shooting back might have justified imo, not just morally but legally under the arbitrary gun nut laws we have in the US in general and in the Lone Star State specifically; wouldn’t the right to self-protection apply universally once a gun came out regardless of who introduced it or why? And since gun violence solves everything, according to some, I’d like to see how the strapped and pack’n crowd feel about it solving this stand-off in a quite different way. If she squeezed off a lethal round after being mortally wounded, or even after being grazed or just threatened, would that be legal, too? That’s one of the big, big problems with this shoot first bullshit, somehow both sides are behaving completely within the law even as they escalate matters to a needless, pointless live firefight.

On this case, before some troll goes into ‘the thieving hooker deserved it’ mode, think about the precedent this might create. Prostitution is illegal in Texas. Now, thanks to this outcome and assuming it doesn’t get overturned, if any maniac feels they’ve been shortchanged on an illegal, or presumably legal transaction, and the service provider won’t hand over the money pronto, whether the product in question is crack cocaine or pizza delivery or just getting a place sprayed for bugs, forget about small claims court, the maniac can start firing away with impunity AKA ‘in self defense’ to ‘retrieve stolen property’.

It seems to me like a good field test for a purported theft worthy of gun play is would the police actively pursue or aggressively investigate a reported theft after the fact? Considering the john here could give them the lady’s contact info, the cab driver could have told them where he dropped her off, and she probably has an ad up all the time, it seems reasonable that if the police considered it a legit, credible report they could intervene as surely as if a car thief had an online ad up after making off with an SUV. In this case I’d bet that test would fail, that the police would have politely told the “victim” that they don’t enforce petty theft laws when it’s an illegal activity and the man should have used better judgement, that bad judgement like this can get you hurt or killed, followed by the obligatory litany of people getting ripped off or killed online and/or by anonymous hookers/pimps which should be well-known to anyone over age 15 or who’s seen more than five episodes of COPS.

Comments

  1. unbound says

    No words for this one. I assume the defense did a heck of job picking out the jury (biggest idiots available) and the prosecutor was asleep at the wheel.

    From reading deeper, it sounds like the primary argument of the defendant was “I didn’t mean to kill her”. Apparently, aiming for the head/neck region of your target is just meant to wound or something. The idiot jury obviously couldn’t figure that out either.

    So the next time McDonalds screws up your order in the drive thru, just pull out a gun, shoot the employee and say “I didn’t mean to kill him” and “I was just trying to get what I ordered and paid for”.

  2. Holms says

    Reclaiming his money through legal proceedings? Nope, an illegal transaction is unenforceable.
    Shooting her in the back? No problem!

    P.S.
    While there was a time where I contemplated a visit to America, all such thoughts have been scoured away by shit like this.

    P.P.S.
    Fuck you, Texas.

  3. says

    I am dying for someone to poll the jury, because dollars to donuts at least some of the jurors voted to acquit based on “…and the wages of sin are death.” I’m sure they truly believed the Whore of Babylon deserved to die and this dumbass was doing God’s work.

    And by the way, how long was she with him before it dawned on him he wasn’t getting laid? Did he, oh I don’t know, ask the damn question?

  4. Randomfactor says

    Hadn’t looked too closely at this one for fear of further depressing myself.

    It took her nine months to die, paralyzed by the initial attack.

  5. Randomfactor says

    I wonder if the difference in skin tone between shooter and victim had anything to do with the verdict.

  6. James Guillory says

    I live in Texas and totally understand how this could happen. Texas has a law than you can defend your home and the property in it with any force you think is necessary. If she took the money from him in his home, and he shot her while she was still in his home, then it was completely legal. She didn’t have to have a weapon, she didn’t have to threaten him, he didn’t have to feel in danger of personal harm. If it was in his home, he could use any force he wanted to protect or retrieve his property.

    If they had been outside his home, say on a street corner, then he might have been found guilty of a crime. But then again, with the new ‘stand your ground’ laws being passed by Republicans, the shooting might have still been considered legal.

    Now if he had been using a cell phone in a school zone while shooting her, THAT would be illegal in Texas.

  7. wholething says

    As I understand it, the law let him off because the so-called crime happened at night. This is apparently based on biblical principle:

    Exodus 22:2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.

    Religion poisons everything.

Leave a Reply