come to texas, shoot an escort, get away scott free

[Hotwire]

Texas is also where a man, after witnessing a break in at his neighbor's house, called 911 and told the operator he was going to go shoot the burglars. He was told to stay in his house and that police were on the way. He still went outside, confronted the thieves, who were NOT on his property, an then shot one of them in the back as he fled, killing him.

Acquitted.

 

[The Question]

Yeah, Texas' whole thing about the death penalty being a deterrent for murder completely falls flat when you have juries that decide that it's less important when certain kinds of people die.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

You can't condemn an entire state based on the stupid decisions of a few morons in its justice system.

Those "morons" wouldn't get elevated to such high positions without popular support; either elected themselves or appointed by elected officials. Ergo those "morons in the justice system" are a reflection of the state that put them into power and more specifically the voters that make up that state. Sorry if that's a bitter pill to swallow.

Oh, so we're all "barbaric primitives" now?

Well, I wouldn't say "all"...

 

[zeroapoc]

Looking down our noses at others is fun.

Some of these comments are coming close to attacking the guy because of where he lives. I thought that was against forum rules.

 

[terry78]

The south and southwest is fair game on the internet, you know that.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

The last part was a joke and the first part was just kinda stating the obvious. And obviously the people in charge of a state are a reflection of that state's popular will. If that's bothersome, it's also a reality. He can argue about it here, but it won't change the fact that dumb officials make the laws in Texas because the majority of the citizens of that state have elected them to be representative.

 

[zeroapoc]

So when elected officials make dumb decisions on a national level do you hold yourself responsible?

 

[zeroapoc]

The south and southwest is fair game on the internet, you know that.

Oh ok. Didn't read that in the rules. It's a case by case basis.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

So when elected officials make dumb decisions on a national level do you hold yourself responsible?

I'm certainly embarrassed. When I travelled when Bush was in office I felt I had to apologize on behalf of my country. But that is a bit different, since that vote is based on an electoral college, not a popular vote and my state is the bluest of the blue.

 

[chaseter]

Texas is also where a man, after witnessing a break in at his neighbor's house, called 911 and told the operator he was going to go shoot the burglars. He was told to stay in his house and that police were on the way. He still went outside, confronted the thieves, who were NOT on his property, an then shot one of them in the back as he fled, killing him.

Acquitted.

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-co...james-bond-acquitted-california-models-murder

 

[zeroapoc]

Every state is within the 60/40 split either way except for Utah which is in the 70% red.

 

[zeroapoc]

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-co...james-bond-acquitted-california-models-murder

Shame on the citizens of California.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

It shouldn't be legal to shoot someone for stealing $150 dollars. It shouldn't be legal to shoot someone for stealing anything or to use threat of lethal force to make someone return stolen property to you. It should only be legal to shoot someone if that person poses an immediate physical threat to the life and safety of yourself or someone else. That's the only circumstance under which it should ever be acceptable to shoot someone, and even then there have to be very specific restrictions to prevent people from using the fact that someone shoved them to justify shooting that person in the face.

*cough*georgezimmerman*cough*

So let me get this straight - a man is justified in shooting a woman because she is guilty of theft because she didn't provide a service that is considered illegal???

****ing Texas.

 

[zeroapoc]

I remember reading something years ago about a guy calling the cops because his roommate stole his crack. No chance I'd be able to find it though.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Yep. If it was somewhere else these guys wouldn't hold the entire state responsible.

Well, when said state has a history of backwards ****ery...

This isn't exactly an isolated incident.

 

[BestGirl]

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-co...james-bond-acquitted-california-models-murder

The difference between this case and the shooting in Texas is that, in the first case, a jury simply determined that the defendant didn't commit the crime. In the Texas case, the jury determined that the defendant had killed the victim, but that was okay since she had stolen money from him. Surely you can see why the latter verdict would be troubling than the other.

 

[Hotwire]

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-co...james-bond-acquitted-california-models-murder

That one just makes me scratch my head.

 

[Baramos]

She didn't even steal the money. He hired her as an escort. You take your chances as to whether this actually means you get a hooker or an actual escort. The argument the defense has used is because she refused to then participate in illegal activity, he was within his rights to murder her.

Let's say I give you $150 with the expectation I would get crack cocaine and you renege, I can legally shoot you and get away scot free in a Texas court.

 

[KevanG]

I remember reading something years ago about a guy calling the cops because his roommate stole his crack. No chance I'd be able to find it though.

It's not the same thing but I did find this

Man calls 911 after being shortchanged in crack deal

http://www.live5news.com/story/14571627/police-911-crack-deal

 

[Teelie]

Texas also sticks you in jail for 50 years for stealing a $35 rack of ribs. That's some serious beef pork. Just think of the amount of money this is going to cost for incarceration. But he stole ribs! 50 years for a 43 year old man.

Technically he had a knife in his pocket or so he claimed, the story doesn't verify it was true. It was an inflated conviction though.

All Willie Smith Ward wanted was his baby-back ribs, but it cost him 50 years in prison.

His problems started when he tucked a large rack under his shirt and tried to leave the H-E-B store at 1102 Speight Ave. without paying in September 2011.

A jury in Waco’s 19th State District Court also didn’t like the 43-year-old Ward’s previous five felony and four misdemeanor convictions and recommended that Ward be sentenced to 50 years in prison as a habitual criminal.

Jurors took two minutes Wednesday to convict Ward on robbery charges and about an hour to decide his punishment.

Ward’s theft of the $35 rack of pork ribs turned into a robbery when he threatened a grocery store employee who saw the huge bulge under Ward’s shirt and tried to stop him in the parking lot.

“This verdict shows that the citizens of this county will not tolerate a continued disrespect and disregard for other people and their property,” said Assistant District Attorney J.R. Vicha, who prosecuted Ward with Chris Bullajian. “People who choose to do so will be dealt with seriously and appropriately.”

The employee testified that he asked Ward what was under the shirt and the slab of ribs fell to the ground. He asked Ward what else he was hiding and Ward said, “I got a knife.”

The employee told Ward, “Now you just turned a ticket into a 
serious crime.”

“If you don’t leave me alone, I’ll show you what I got,” Ward said, according to the employee’s testimony. Ward then ran off.

Ward has previous felony convictions for burglary, attempted robbery, aggravated assault, leaving the scene of an accident and possession of cocaine and four misdemeanor convictions, including two thefts.

He will have to serve at least a quarter of his sentence before he becomes 
eligible for parole.

A court official said Ward rejected a 20-year prison sentence in a plea offer from prosecutors 
before trial.

 

[chaseter]

The difference between this case and the shooting in Texas is that, in the first case, a jury simply determined that the defendant didn't commit the crime. In the Texas case, the jury determined that the defendant had killed the victim, but that was okay since she had stolen money from him. Surely you can see why the latter verdict would be troubling than the other.

I think you need to read harder.

Or here let me make it easy...overwhelming evidence yet the perpetrator walks away free with murder. How many times have you heard that?

 

[chaseter]

How about the driver in San Diego, CA that ran over a nanny (killing her) and critically injuring a toddler after she feel asleep and ran a stop sign? Her sentence...48 hours in jail. I think that was this week.

TX amirite?

 

[Warhammer]

Texas also sticks you in jail for 50 years for stealing a $35 rack of ribs. That's some serious beef pork. Just think of the amount of money this is going to cost for incarceration. But he stole ribs! 50 years for a 43 year old man.

Technically he had a knife in his pocket or so he claimed, the story doesn't verify it was true. It was an inflated conviction though.

That makes no damn sense.

 

[Schlosser85]

There's something seriously wrong when people get decades more in prison for stealing ribs than for rape or murder.

 

[terry78]

Well, how good were the ribs is the question.