In Texas, A Woman’s Life is Worth $150

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About HeatherN

Heather N. is a Californian living in the United Kingdom. In order to survive, she has developed a keen appreciation for the color grey, rain, and sausage rolls. She spends far too much time reading, writing, blogging, and gaming. You can also find her saying witty things on Twitter.

Comments

  1. Many laws in USA and elsewhere are good for nothing – outdated – offering legal loopholes which are serving the criminal more than protecting the victim.

    To be honest, this guy is a case for a mental hospital and this law has to be changed.
    I have to admit he had an excellent defense council doing a great job and this is his right to make use out of such strange laws to escape jail.

    I see no reason however why prostitution should be illegal, and about USD 150,- for a woman’s life, I know cases where the life of a man taken by a woman was counted as zero. Totally zero.

    • “I see no reason however why prostitution should be illegal, and about USD 150,- for a woman’s life, I know cases where the life of a man taken by a woman was counted as zero. Totally zero.”
      Murderers kill for all sorts of reasons, men, women, children get killed for zero. The title wasn’t meant to try say women got it worse or anything though.

  2. I think gender also comes into play when considering the attention this case got. If a male crack dealer was shot in the process of robbing his customer, how much sympathy would he get? I’m guessing very few would care. I would wager that many people would even be celebrating his death for being a parasite. I don’t see many celebrating her death so there’s that. One problem here is he admitted to soliciting for sex which I would think would make him liable to some degree because he was engaging in illegal activity. Another issue is it’s hard to know what the timeline of events was. I could see a case for theft or a case for fraud depending on what was said, when it was said and when the money exchanged hands. That escorts aren’t prostitutes *wink* and only offer “time” or “companionship” makes for quite a bit of gray area and possibility for miscommunication. It’s possible she robbed him, defrauded him or even technically fulfilled her obligation by being there for 20 minutes. Unfortunately, she can’t give her side. But even if she planned to rob him, he should’ve just chalked it up to the game. At the risk of being labeled a victim blamer, I’m also going to say this should be a warning to everyone involved in this type of stuff. If you provide “companionship” to strangers, or if you receive it from strangers, you never know who you’re going to meet. You might meet a perfectly nice person. You might meet someone who will rob you. You might meet someone who will shoot you for robbing them. You never know because they’re strangers. It’s a dangerous biz. Protect yourself (that goes for everyone).

    • Yup. You are victim blaming and that is unacceptable.

      • That was a well-reasoned response. :-) Just to be clear, which victim am I blaming?

      • “Yup. You are victim blaming and that is unacceptable.”

        Actually he’s warning people engaged in such activities to not rob someone as they may be carrying a weapon. That’s common sense, don’t rob people or you may end up shot. That applies to EVERYONE. It’s his fault for pulling the trigger but if it’s true she stole the cash then she has provoked a reaction from him. If she didn’t want to do the job then refund the money would be the honorable thing, but as she is dead her side may never be told. I would tell every person alive to not steal money but at least in legal professions you can goto the police or courts to get money back, in an illegal situation like this the only way to retrieve the funds is to take matters into your own hands. It’s not justified!

        Telling people to protect themselves is not victim-blaming and it’s absolutely ridiculous if someone thinks it is. Saying she deserved to die because she robbed him WOULD be victim blaming, saying she shouldn’t have been in a bad situation and saying it’s her fault is victim blaming, but saying she’s taking risks and to protect herself isn’t. I drive a car, there is a risk of death, I am warned to buckle up. I walk at night on streets, I’ve been told to be careful and stay in well lit areas around lots of people. I’ve been warned to be very very careful near the creek-side because crocodiles ambush attack from the creek-side and the creeks n rivers here are full of them. And I will tell everyone, Don’t rob people because 1, it’s fucking wrong, 2, it pisses people off and your likelihood of receiving violence elevates dramatically ESPECIALLY in occupations which are not legal in that area and thus the victim cannot get the police to retrieve the funds.

      • John Anderson says:

        @ HeatherN

        “Yup. You are victim blaming and that is unacceptable.”

        Even in cases of DV when women bring up the battered women defense or is it OK to victim blame in some cases?

        • Wait a sec, are you seriously comparing self-defence (which is what the “battered women defence” is) to killing someone for property? What the hell?

          • Seriously. And there you have it.

            • A man asking if it’s ever ok to victim blame is comparing now? There you have it, differences in logic.

            • To sort of reiterate what Joanna said…in the case of self defence, the person who was killed isn’t the victim.

            • I’m not sure he was trying to compare, but asking the separate question of is victim blaming ever ok.

          • Joanna Schroeder says:

            John, I think I get what you’re saying. That in the case of a person using self-defense, we actually DO blame the victim (ie the one who is killed in self-defense).

            But there’s a problem with that. When the person who was killed was done so to save another’s life, the one who is killed is NOT the victim. S/he is the perpetrator, who ended up dead.

            Maybe that makes it clearer.

            • John Anderson says:

              @ Joanna

              The battered women’s defense is not a self defense claim in the classic sense that in almost every instance the woman is not in immediate danger otherwise she just claims self defense.

            • It can be enough to just be in fear of your life I think for that defense. I would hope that light levels of physical abuse wouldn’t be able to trigger it, eg. slapping, otherwise I could have shot my ex and claimed battered partner eh?. The person shot is still a victim of one crime, but their death is justified by saving another. Problem is this gets tricky when shelters, etc exist and the shooting was done in a non-imminent danger sense, where they feared that one day, not that exact time they would be killed.

          • John Anderson says:

            @ HeatherN

            “Wait a sec, are you seriously comparing self-defence (which is what the “battered women defence” is) to killing someone for property? What the hell?”

            Np, I’m just pointing out that there are some instances where society (whether right or wrong) has decided that it is OK to blame the victim. In most battered women’s defenses, the woman is not in immediate danger and is responding to an attack (when the claim is legitimate, but sometimes is used to try to escape a murder charge) that had stopped for some time in the past. They would otherwise simply claim self defense.

    • Haruhana says:

      “If a male crack dealer was shot in the process of robbing his customer, how much sympathy would he get?” – Dude, a crack dealer is not a prostitute. Someone who sells drugs do it while knowing that he may be ruining lives. A prostitute? Offers some fun for your money. Didn’t you pay attention to the article? She didn’t get any sympathy.

      • I’m using her example. Did you pay attention to the article above? A prostitute offers fun for money…until one or both get robbed or catch a sti or get arrested. But again, I’m using her example.

        • Joanna Schroeder says:

          Yeah, I mean, what sympathy do you think she got? He wasn’t convicted, despite admitting he killed her.

      • How about a weed dealer? Or someone selling bootleg music?

        The sex worker didn’t deliver on the goods, it’s theft if she didn’t return the cash but not worthy of shooting. If he had a gun, why not just say gimme back the cash whilst holding it? Why go as far to murder?

      • Random_Stranger says:

        “Someone who sells drugs do it while knowing that he may be ruining lives. A prostitute? Offers some fun for your money. ‘

        …well we’re entering into some shades of moral equivalency here with just a twinge of racism…I could argue that the drug dealer offers just a bit more fun for your money…I could also argue that the prostitute destroys just a tad more lives…It seems untenable to hold the dealer in contempt while judging the prostitute harmless. Are they not both dealing in vice?

    • Random_Stranger says:

      ” If you provide “companionship” to strangers, or if you receive it from strangers, you never know who you’re going to meet”

      ….yes, I totally agree! Also, never provide a stranger lunch or dentistry….or do their taxes, especially their taxes. You’re totally asking for it if you’re in the business of sitting down with total strangers and filing their 1040s.

      • When the purpose is to engage in “intimate acts” that may or may not be legal, then yes you do need to take special precautions. And many involved in this field do that by screening/reading reviews. If you read several reviews about a tax preparer engaging in fraud, would you take your taxes there? How about a dentist who has had several complaints made against him or her? Would you choose to live in a place after finding out that there is rampant crime, poor schools, etc.? No, you do your homework. Well, most of us would do our homework. Not you though. You just walk in blind and hope for the best in every decision. No time to look both ways before crossing the street, huh? :-) Escorts are in the business of dealing with human emotions (which can be volatile) and should take special precautions. It is a relatively dangerous biz. But maybe you have stories of dentists being shot at/assaulted specifically for not pulling out the right teeth or doing a cleaning when the client assumed a cleaning was part of the procedure. If so, please share.

  3. This link has further information on the why of the jury’s verdict – of this tragic case.

    http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/06/08/no-texas-law-does-not-say-you-can-shoot-an-escort-who-refuses-to-have-sex/

    • Read ellissa’s link.
      And remember this isn’t journalism here..,
      Hysteria over this is akin to the Kaitlyn Hunt story.

    • “The much more plausible reason for the verdict is that the jury believed the defendant’s claim that he didn’t intend to shoot the victim. Per Texas’ homicide statute, the prosecution needed to prove that Gilbert “intentionally or knowingly” killed Frago or intended to cause her “serious bodily injury.” The defense argued that Gilbert lacked the requisite intent for murder because when he shot at the car as Frago and the owner of the escort service drove away, he was aiming for the tire. The bullet hit the tire and a fragment, “literally the size of your fingernail,” according to Defense Attorney Bobby Barrera, hit Frago. Barrera does not believe the jury acquitted because of the defense of property law. He believes they acquitted because they believed Gilbert didn’t mean to shoot her.”

      Well there you go. It would be manslaughter? Homicide requires the guilty mind aspect and intent to kill or cause harm? That’s far from what people have been saying of the case.

      Someone mentioned it was escort services and that they can refuse to have sex so it wouldn’t make it theft too.

    • Random_Stranger says:

      Wow….that’s shed’s some light on this case. It turns what was a purely hyperbolic headline into an irresponsible one.

      Think HeatherN or the GMP, should correct this.

      • The correction will probably have to wait for the fact check on the Kaitlin Hunt/ xoJane piece…
        Hence my earlier comment “this isn’t journalism, it’s opinion or blogism or apocryphal storyism…

  4. More accurately — In Texas a whore’s life is worth $ 150– I’m not saying that’s appropriate,,,
    I’m sure that most Texans would put a higher value on the head of a librarian or Hooter’s waitress…
    (In the rest of the world a whore’s life is worth closer to 50 cents.)
    So I wonder what other civil actions one can settle with a gun in TX…

    • Joanna Schroeder says:

      That’s true, Drew.

      An escort’s life is worth $150. But the escort is a woman. So THIS woman’s life was worth $150. But you’re certainly right about it being about class.

    • @Drew,

      This has jack shit to do with gender or class. This has to do with perhaps an overzealous “right” to defend and retrieve property (personal and real).

      Yes, it is awful a human being lost their life over $150. But, the issue is much bigger than the $150.

      • I didn’t say it has anything to do with gender or class…
        And @Jules I think the phrase here is Jack Squat, someone doesn’t know Jack Shit on a subject and a guy who claims to be an expert and knows jack shit is a Jack Leg…

  5. This whole victim blaming is just a load of crack. It’s like saying that someone who smokes cigarettes “deserves” to die slowly of lung cancer.

    It’s a cold hearted, dis-compassionate, cold, and cruel way of thinking.

    What’s the difference between a prostitute and a gal that leads a guy on that he’ll get laid of he takes her out to dinner? I knew a douche who once asked for his date to pay for half her meal, because she didn’t want to “just” blow him. Would Gilbert have committed murder in that case, and would he legally have gotten away with it?

    The judge is as evil as the murderer, because he let that man off by interpreting the law in a way that gave 150 dollars more value than a human life. I hope that someone calls for his termination, and I hope that he is haunted for the rest of *his* life for valuing someone else’s money over a human life.

    • Random_Stranger says:

      totally need to read the link Elissa provided above….the settlement had nothing to do with property rights and everything to do with a prosecution unable to prove intent to kill in a murder case.

      ….also, its kinda douchey to expect someone to pay for your meal -so maybe they were perfect for each other.

  6. Joshua Bennett says:

    Jadehawk points out that escort services are legal in Texas: you can sell your companionship, just not sex. If you decide on your own initiative to have sex after the night of companionship… well, that’s perfectly legal. So unless her ad specifically offered sex, she was not actually guilty of theft.

    Of course, that has no relevance to whether she should have been shot. It’s just icing on the injustice cake.

    • Joanna Schroeder says:

      On top of that, she did show up. She just wouldn’t have sex with him. And THAT is why she got shot. And the sex would have made it illegal.

      • John Anderson says:

        Do we know that she didn’t agree to have sex and then change her mind? There was a case in Illinois of a woman agreeing to have sex with a boy for money. She goes to his house sprays him with mace and steals his money and Ipad. She never had any intention of having sex with him, but led him to believe that she was a prostitute.

        From what I understand the agreement was that she would spend 30 minutes with him as an escort. Do we know that she fulfilled her bargain? I suspect that she went there. He gave her the money. He requested or demanded sex. She said no. He asked for his money back. She said no and left. I highly doubt that she stayed the 30 minutes and should have refunded his money. If she breached the contract then it was still his money, which activates the law. He shot at the tire, which seems to be within his rights and a bullet ricocheted and hit her.

        $150 wasn’t worth it for either party to do what they did. Sometimes people just need to learn to let things go.

        • There’s this saying that you really shouldn’t ever pull a gun unless you’re willing to kill someone. He didn’t mean to kill her, I get that…but he was willing to shoot at her. He was willing to cause her car to crash, which would have injured her or potentially killed her even if the bullet hadn’t ricocheted. It should not be legal to shoot at someone, or at someone’s car, just because they stole from you. It is still suggesting that property is worth more than life.

          And it actually doesn’t matter whether she agreed to have sex for money or not. If he had reported her for fraud, or something, then it’d matter. But that’s not what happened…she was shot and killed. Her motivations for being there are immaterial.

          • John Anderson says:

            “If he had reported her for fraud, or something, then it’d matter.”

            I agree with you. These are the cases where I have issue with the battered women’s defense. The cases where they have done nothing prior to killing their significant other. No reports to the police. No restraining orders. No contacting shelters or victims services. I have loads of sympathy for people who try to do things the right way and the law doesn’t help them.

            “Her motivations for being there are immaterial.”

            There is a saying. If you play with fire you’re going to get burned. I think some people are afraid to call the police because they might be charged with solicitation or their wives or girlfriends might find out. I think she was counting on this. Who knows how many guys she robbed before she came across someone she shouldn’t have defrauded. I think everyone has the right to protect their property. There are cases where someone is killed with one punch. I used to hit like a jack hammer. As a former kick boxer in theory every fight I got into I could have killed someone. Does that mean I shouldn’t defend my property at all?

            I don’t agree with what he did. She didn’t deserve to die for stealing $150, which I believe happened because who hires an escort for 30 minutes? Where would you take her? It would take longer than 30 minutes to get there in all likelihood. People aren’t looking at this as a tragedy of two people making wrong decisions. They’re looking at it as he’s totally guilty and she’s totally innocent. We had a comment here where someone tries to point out that what she did was legal and suggests that makes his reaction and the juries verdict even more unjust.

            I’m suggesting that there are nuances to the story that haven’t been explored.

            • People aren’t looking at this as a tragedy of two people making wrong decisions. They’re looking at it as he’s totally guilty and she’s totally innocent. We had a comment here where someone tries to point out that what she did was legal and suggests that makes his reaction and the juries verdict even more unjust.
              Agreed.

              This story is on a quick course to becoming another piece of fodder for the “battle of the sex”.

              Don’t bother looking at the entire situation and consider the contexts and implications. Just pick a side and defend it to the last breath.

      • How do you know she ever intended to have sex with him? Sounds like he was set up to be robbed. I don’t know. Now it’s a gender and class issue. BS!

        Just because the act is illegal means zippy. It’s called committing a crime.

        No one really knows what REALLY happened except for him and the deceased. All else is pure speculation.

        I would have been equally aggressive in getting my $$$$ back, but not to an extent of killing someone or putting myself at risk. People to have a universal right to self defense AND the defense of property.

      • @Joanna…

        “And the sex would have made it illegal.”

        And. Your point is?

    • That, right there, is the problem with making prostitution illegal. Or, well, it’s A problem with it. Perfectly legal escort services are set up, and it’s all “understood” and assumed that they’re actually prostitution services. Explicit consent and negotiation is so important for sex, especially between strangers, and we have a system set up which makes that impossible.

      • Joanna Schroeder says:

        Illegal prostitution is one of the worst things to happen to women and children in our country. If we could have prostitution that is regulated and carefully watched, the sex trafficking within US borders could be greatly reduced, as well as sex slavery. It’s devastating, the way it is.

        • I didn’t say it has anything to do with gender or class…
          And @Jules I think the phrase here is Jack Squat, someone doesn’t know Jack Shit on a subject and a guy who claims to be an expert and knows jack shit is a Jack Leg…

        • Random_Stranger says:

          ” women and children” ughhh…hate that phase, and I think feminists would hate it to.

          Its specifically designed to single out men as agents of evil or sacrifice or whatever dirty work needs to be done, or is being done. And reduces women to feeble, harmless objects of affection and innocence incapable of exercising individual responsibility…..or well, children.

          • “” women and children” ughhh…hate that phase, and I think feminists would hate it to.

            Its specifically designed to single out men as agents of evil or sacrifice or whatever dirty work needs to be done, or is being done. And reduces women to feeble, harmless objects of affection and innocence incapable of exercising individual responsibility…..or well, children.”

            YES YES YES. It’s also a ploy for sympathy n caring over women n children vs men. Violence against women n children! 200 people died including 20 women and children, etc. It’s especially offensive when there are male sex workers because in 3 words she has just othered them, or at worse dismissed their issues as if women’s n childrens issues are far more deserving.

        • “Illegal prostitution is one of the worst things to happen to women and children in our country.”
          And men, there are male sex workers though society does like to ignore this lil fact.

          “If we could have prostitution that is regulated and carefully watched, the sex trafficking within US borders could be greatly reduced, as well as sex slavery. It’s devastating, the way it is.”
          Amen to that.

          In Australia we’re doing it and I hope it is helping, though there is the issue of the visa where sex workers cannot get a visa to work here and have to go through lesslegallessmoral means of entering the country and probably face more threat of abuse for that. Legal sex work however should have regulations and checks to ensure there is no slavery, that the sex workers are free to earn the money how they see fit, that they can’t get kicked out of hotels, etc, that their safety is important.

      • Random_Stranger says:

        @HeatherN, Jhoanna,

        While we’re on the topic of the merits of legalizing prostitution -why do you think prostitution continues to be in the main, an act of men buying and women providing?

        Do you suppose such a gendered market is equitable and should be accepted? If so, how would you square acceptance of gendered divisions in this market with an insistence on gender liberation in other markets? As feminists, do you think male buyers/female sellers are an inevitable and irreducable quality of biology or purely a cultural artifact?

        Perhaps your next “ask the feminist” topic?

  7. I am a gun lover. I am a political conservative. I am an NRA Member. I am a staunch advocate of respect for property rights (personal and real).

    However, deadly force should ONLY be used when your life is threatened. You should not be able to use deadly force to prevent someone from taking your property or retrieving your property.

    Obviously such laws exist in Texas. But that is Texas, a state that was settled largely by outlaws, misfits, and criminals. Based on the currents laws in Texas, the man was “justified” in using deadly force to get his $150 back.

    My neighbor, from New York State, and I had a failure to communicate on two occasions. He hired landscape companies to do landscaping. The company was encroaching on my property. I politely told the landscaper such. He decided to cop an attitude with me. So we went back and forth trading insults.

    My neighbor came over to chastise me. I told him no one is free to encroach on my property, be it 2 feet or 2 inches. He thought it was a Southern thing and essentially called me ignorant…Whatever. Bottom line, if you allow people to take your property, they will try to take other things. You have to send a clear and unmistakable message.

    in my view, this has nothing to do with class or gender. What if the escort was a transsexual? I believe the outcome would have been the same.

  8. John Schtoll says:

    It is amazing how many people are actually ignoring the facts of this case to make some ‘bones’.

    he was acquitted because of mens rea, he did not have the intent (guilty mind), this had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact she was a prostitute , a woman or anthing else and that is why he was acquitted.

    For GODS SAKE people, at least do some reading.

    • But that wouldn’t fit the narrative. There is OUTRAGE to be had here. rabble rabble rabble

      • That’s what I’m sensing here.

        Yes this is horrible event and I’ll be the first to say that he must be held responsible for his actions because regardless of why he shot at her he did kill her. However what’s bugging me is that this case is being forced into the narrative of “Here’s a case of a man thinking women owes him sex and if they don’t get it they are free to do whatever they want to get what they want.”

        • It’s a case of a man thinking that a prostitute, who is a woman and who is in a profession which is very closely associated with women, owed him sex and thus he could do whatever he wanted. You asked below whether he shot at her because he thought she owed him sex or money…”which is it,” you asked. The answer is both.

          The series of events are as follows: he thought he paid her for sex, she didn’t have sex with him, he wanted his money back, he shot at her. Explicitly, directly…it’s probably he shot at her to get his money back. I mean, without knowing a damn thing about him, let’s just presume he wasn’t planning on shooting the car and then raping her in front of her pimp.

          But when you look at this is a bit more closely, you realise that he thought he deserved his money back because even though the whole transaction never explicitly stated she’d have sex with him, he ASSUMED she would…because escort is assumed to mean prostitute…because prostitution is illegal. And he thought that by paying her, she owed him sex. There is an element of entitlement on his part, to do with Fargo’s body what he would, because he paid her money.

          • And she didn’t see that assumption coming considering that he hired her for 30 min and of the 20 they did spend together they stayed in his place the entire time?

            And he thought that by paying her, she owed him sex.
            Yes the payment points to him thinking she owed him sex but not the violence that took place afterwards. And it was sex, not “do with her body what he would”.

            Again let me say that I’m not trying to say that he shouldn’t be held responsiblef for his action but these sensational titles (such as the “Texas Law Says It’s Okay To Shoot An Escort If She Refuses Sex With You” that ran at Gawker) are giving a slanted view of the events.

          • “But when you look at this is a bit more closely, you realise that he thought he deserved his money back because even though the whole transaction never explicitly stated she’d have sex with him, he ASSUMED she would…because escort is assumed to mean prostitute…because prostitution is illegal. ”

            Did you read or hear their conversations or something because I see no proof of this, only people guessing.

            • John Anderson says:

              “Did you read or hear their conversations or something because I see no proof of this, only people guessing.”

              Yeah, my thought too. I think it’s just as likely if not more that they agreed to have sex prior to her going there, but her intention was to take his money counting on him not telling the police because prostitution is illegal. I wonder how many guys she scammed. That doesn’t mean she deserved death.

            • Could be, but hey we can’t question the victims motives because that’s bad!
              I don’t think anyone will find out except the guy himself and any accomplices to the scam if it exists.

              Is it common for escorts to never have sex, just hangout? Or is it over 90% of the time a loophole method around the prostitution legality issue? If it’s extremely common to have sex then it sounds like a scam. If no sex is going to happen, why wouldn’t the escort discuss this first? Obviously there will be people who think they’re gonna get laid and get pissed, if you’re selling your services in such an ambiguous occupation then you really should clarify to your clients what your services are.

  9. The author is pushing the dangerous and inaccurate narrative that this was found to be a “justified” killing. Read this anaylsis: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/06/08/no-texas-law-does-not-say-you-can-shoot-an-escort-who-refuses-to-have-sex/

  10. Consider the following:

    What if she was a high-class Ivy League educated escort and was paid $25,000? Does that mean a woman’s life is now worth $25,000?

    It has zippy to do with gender and/or class. Nada!

    • Melenas says:

      Exactly. This is about theft and whether or not someone has the right to use deadly force to retrieve stolen property. “A woman’s life is worth $150″ is pure sensationalism.

      • I’ll agree there is more to it than theft of services or retrieving stolen property but I agree that the “A woman’s life is worth $150″ is very sensational and is being used to make more of this story than it is.

        From what people have been posting on facebook, twitter, and all across the net this story has been made out to be a man that actively intented to kill her when it looks like that was not the case. Yes he should still be held responsible for her death. But I don’t think was a case of “he killed her because he thought he was owed sex”.

        • He shot at her because he thought he was owed sex. He was willing to crash her car because he thought he was owed sex. He didn’t mean to kill her, yeah…but he did mean to harm her; he did mean to use force to get what he thought he was owed, which was either sex or his money back.

          • John Anderson says:

            He thought he was owed sex because he thought that’s what he paid for, which makes complete sense to me, since I can’t see anyone hiring an escort for 30 minutes and I can’t see a legitimate escort not refunding the money if she decided that she didn’t want to spend the 30 minutes with a client (not having sex).

          • He shot at her because he thought he was owed sex.

            or

            but he did mean to harm her; he did mean to use force to get what he thought he was owed, which was either sex or his money back.

            Which is it?

            Did he shoot at her because he thought he was owed sex or did he shoot at her because he wanted his money back knowing there would be no sex?

  11. there was another person, a man, in that car as well. The shooter was risking two equal lives – and this being the good men project, maybe we should be concentrating on how his life was at risk.

  12. So it’s been brought to my attention that Gilbert didn’t shoot Frago directly. He shot at her moving car and a fragment of a bullet which had ricochetted hit her. This is what eventually killed her. The thing is, this fact doesn’t really improve the narrative. Gilbert was willing to draw a gun and fire at a moving car in order to get his money back. He didn’t intent to kill Frago, but he was certainly willing to harm Frago in order to retrieve his money. He was trying to crash a car, for goodness sake. Actually, all this fact does is add onto the narrative the issue of the U.S.’s firearms problem. If he honestly thought it was a good idea to draw a gun and fire at a car’s tires, he’d seen one to many action movies.

    The other bit of information to come out has been about the fact that it’s possible he was acquitted because the prosecution couldn’t prove he intended to kill Frago. The thing is, though, that the jury doesn’t expand on why they acquitted Gilbert. However, since they did acquit him, we can assume they agreed with the defence’s arguments, and one of the defence’s arguments was to invoke the Texas law which allows the use of deadly force to retrieve property.

    Finally, with regards to whether Gilbert could be convicted if he hadn’t planned on killing Frago, we’re all forgetting the crime of manslaughter. Manslaughter is a “lesser included offence,” of murder, meaning if the judge instructs the jury that there is evidence that supports that charge, the jury could convict Gilbert of that offence. Apparently, in this case, the judge did not instruct the jury that Gilbert could be convicted of manslaughter. Their only option was murder or nothing. But that simply begs the question of why the judge wouldn’t put manslaughter on the table for this case. Manslaughter is a charge used against people who have killed another person in accidents all the time. Why was this any different?

    And with that, we’re back to the conclusion I first came to in this piece. The judge had been sold the same bill of goods that Gilbert was sold. A prostitute’s body isn’t her own. $150 is worth shooting at someone over. Owning property protects you from the law and creates legal loopholes so your actions don’t have legal consequences.

    • Why isn’t a prostitute the owner of his/her body? While I might be disappointed if my daughter opted to be a sex worker– right minded people should respect anyone who chooses to express themselves as sex workers, hell there have been various contributors here at GMP who are sex workers and seem to be happy hookers. It wasn’t long ago that, some, feminist thinkers were lauding sex workers as self empowered…..

      • I assume you’re referring to this bit: “And with that, we’re back to the conclusion I first came to in this piece. The judge had been sold the same bill of goods that Gilbert was sold. A prostitute’s body isn’t her own. $150 is worth shooting at someone over.”

        That’s not MY opinion…that’s part of the “bill of goods” I’m referencing. That’s part of what the mainstream says…$150 isn’t ACTUALLY worth shooting anyone over. A prostitute’s body IS her own…but that’s now what our mainstream discourse says.

    • John Anderson says:

      @ HeatherN

      “A prostitute’s body isn’t her own.”

      Yes it is. She wasn’t shot for not having sex with him. She was shot at for not returning the $150.

    • I dont think the judge is the person who decides what lesser included offenses should be considered. Isnt that the job of the prosecutor?

  13. John Anderson says:

    There is one more thing I’d like to point out about victim blaming when it comes to the battered women’s defense and it is that not all women who use that defense are battered women. Some are murderers looking for an excuse to get out of prison. Regardless of credibility or feasibility, I’ve never seen an instance where the defense was criticized as victim blaming. It has always been treated as a legitimate defense. Most recently the Jodi Arias trial comes to mind. 99% of the commentators I’ve read believe she’s lying partly because she’s changed her story three times, yet I’ve seen no instance of her being called out for victim blaming even when criticizing the claims.

    • Yes, by all means let’s talk again about how rarely someone uses the “battered woman defence” though they aren’t battered. That has absolutely NO bearing on this article at all.

      • John Anderson says:

        You brought up the issue of victim blaming and suggested that it was never OK. I’m simply pointing out that in many even liberal / feminist / progressive circles there are instances where victim blaming is seen as legitimate. Someone else pointed out that battered women’s defense was self defense. I’m simply pointing out that it’s not always the case, but that doesn’t seem to make the defense by victim blaming any less socially acceptable even in liberal / feminist / progressive circles. That means that victim blaming is acceptable (by most) in certain cases.

        Whether the actions of the person killed mitigate the culpability of the person killing is an issue in the case and so in the article. He claims he’s not guilty because she stole his money and he was trying to get it back.

  14. The man wasnt found guilty because what he did does not fit the criteria for the crime he was charged with according to a jury of his peers. The prosecutor screwed up and charged him incorrectly. They may as well have charged him with arson.

    Charge him with the appropriate crime and this jackass GOES TO JAIL where he should be. The emotive reasoning around here is incredibly disingenuous.

    • Right so, as I explained in another comment, manslaughter is something which is inclusive in a charge of murder. The judge, not the prosecution, should have recommended that the jury consider a charge of manslaughter on the table. So we’re left with the question of why the judge didn’t do this. Absent any other information, the best bet is that he believed that Gilberts’ actions were justified enough to warrant him getting off entirely.

      • If I understand the procedures correctly, in Texas the prosecutor is the one who requests lesser included offenses. The prosecutor “went for broke” on a murder charge in this case.

        Source: http://www.tdcaa.com/node/5746

      • John Anderson says:

        “the best bet is that he believed that Gilberts’ actions were justified enough to warrant him getting off entirely”

        I don’t know. People make mistakes. Most people are lucky enough that their mistakes don’t kill someone or let a killer go. For you to believe that, you would need to believe that the judge knew the prosecutor over charged the defendant and that he couldn’t convict on murder. Does that mean that the prosecutor values a woman’s life more than a man’s since he’s willing to put a guy away for more years than he deserves?

      • The silly thing is if you fall asleep at the wheel and kill a pedestrian/whatever you may face an involuntary manslaughter charge…

  15. Barbara says:

    They robbed him. She was killed. If you decide to rob someone you risk being shot. End of story. Everything else is BS..

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This article was also published at The Good Men Project. [...]

Speak Your Mind