Aqcuittal for shooting Escort. Services not rendered.

[natasteewsym]

Its a damn shame this poor man had to go through the legal system to be exonerated. I really hope that disgusting parasite Miss Frago spent the last few months of her worthless life in profound agony. Laws like these are meant to discourage theft.

To those who feel sorry for filthy leech Frago, I hope all your future encounters are with similar pieces of shit. If more men had balls like Mr. Gilbert, there would be no need for an "alerts" section.

Oh yeah.... I would be willing to bet that the media has left out quite a bit of pertinent information here. Kinda like they did with the George Zimmerman shooting. The media may be able to distort and shroud the truth from the general public, but jury gets to see the unfiltered truth, and justice prevailed here.

[dreamvacationdates]

It's terrible that a person had to die becuase of this, but she contributed to what happen to her, she could of gave the money back, she could of not taken possession in the first place, he could of just let her leave with the money.
The problem is, people that do bad acts are depending upon you not doing anything to stop them, and since in many states this transaction would be deemed illegal, not many people are willing to report to the police if something goes down, that's why a cash and dash works, they know most guys would rather just lose the money and walk away. hobbyist are very easy marks.
I think this will have a chilling effect on anyone thinking about such actions like this in texas during the night.

[littlejohnny]

this is a fucked up all the way around,sorry for everyone involved

[Alina Lili]

I've read many articles on the internet about this. One point I do want to make is this. When someone begins in the industry, some start with answering a simple ad. They then meet the person and this person tells them how they conduct business. The girl, being new may think it's common or knows it's not right but due to lack of information and fear of answering ads that may be LE, she settles for awhile with what she has. This girl had a child as well, I'm sure motivation came from that. I and well everyone does not like to be ripped off. It's not right but nor is a bullet to the neck either. What I'm trying to illustrate is this, starting out everyone has their own experience. For me, it was answering ads, knowing nothing or no one, being interviewed and going with someone who I trust. My first work looking back was for an agency and they were awful but I did not know any better until I met a girl and she introduced me to someone and so on.

I'm just trying to give others a different outlook.

This does not mean I endorse it, it simply means that when starting out, some fall into a world unknown and have little exposure to alternatives.

[bobo444]

I find interesting that some person here equate the value of the life of a prostitute with 150$.

So next time I don't get the exact change at burger king, it is ok to shoot everybody, burn the place, and send bomb to the headquarter.

Thanks for letting me know.

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by bobo444

I find interesting that some person here equate the value of the life of a prostitute with 150$.

So next time I don't get the exact change at burger king, it is ok to shoot everybody, burn the place, and send bomb to the headquarter.

Thanks for letting me know.

Only if it's at night.

[Gotyour6]

Dont cash and dash- dont get shot.

[JohnnyCap]

Originally Posted by dreamvacationdates

they know most guys would rather just lose the money and walk away

That's how most of the bankers, stock brokers and insurance companies make their money, why isn't anyone shooting them?

[Gotyour6]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

That's how most of the bankers, stock brokers and insurance companies make their money, why isn't anyone shooting them?

When you invest there is a risk maybe?

When someone walks out of your house with money and renders nothing it is a different story.

Lets bring banking in with someone walking out with 150 bucks from your house.

They had someone that was creeping in a house, didn't take anything (Yet) Guy blows a hole in him you could walk thru.

Hooker walks in a house, says where is the donation, grabs it and starts heading out. Guess what, she is robbing you. Worth her life, you ask her about that. She did it, not him. She played the game, he won. Case closed.

I don't get why you people are all hell bent on him defending his shit.

If it isn't worth your life then don't do it.

[rew1256]

I have no dawg in this fight, but... Would it be different if the amount were larger? I mean honestly how can you equate a life to say $1500 or 1.5 mil. It is tragic that the woman died. And yes, this guy is very fortunate that he not only had a good attorney, but a very receptive jury. Should he have had the gun? Should she have been a thief? Think about this, the next time you have money in your hand. If someone walked up and snatched it away, what would be your first instinct?
I do not condone the action of either side, but I can see both sides.

[ck1942]

Just remember, each incident is judged and juried separately. And the obvious variation on a theme might occur:

with a gent who deposits his gift upon the lady's dresser/bathroom vanity, then does the deed, and then grabs HER cash and runs...

...and then suffers the same fate as the provider in this instance. (Yes, I personally know several ladies whose "magnum" supply includes those of the .357 or alternate variations!)

I wonder whether the sentiments expressed in the posts above might/would be the same?

I suspect, however, that the SHE in such an instance would not find the judge or the jurors as sympathetic. Obviously in the instance of the original, the DA found it necessary to charge the shooter.

Just sayin'

[ShysterJon]

There are two points I want to make about this case.

The first is by far the more important: I think the jury's verdict was founded on bias based on the provider's profession. Plug in all kinds of different scenarios and the jury would probably have found the defendant guilty. For example, suppose you hired an accountant to do your tax return. You handed the CPA a check. The CPA told you that she wouldn’t do your return, and she and her husband mocked you for your gullibility and walked away. So you shot the CPA dead. Does anyone really think you'd be acquitted on a "defense of property" defense?

This board serves many good purposes, and an important one is that hobbyists and providers get to see each other as human beings, not just a source of money or pussy, respectively. But we must always bear in mind that many members of mainstream society find what we do repugnant. The way things work, women very often don't get a fair break. Unfortunately, many people think that a provider simply doesn't have the basic rights that other people have. That's sad, but true.

The other point I wanted to make is I can see making a viable "defense of property" defense under the facts of this case. I don’t have time to analyze the relevant statutes for you, but I’ll say they afford a person tremendous discretion to use deadly force to protect their property. That’s just the way we run in Texas. I’ll also say the defendant could not have had better local legal representation.

You may think my two points are contradictory, but they’re not, really. I think the jury viewed the evidence in a biased light and, aided by a skillful defense team, used the law to achieve the result they wanted.

[Cpalmson]

Maybe I missed it, but also a point the defense may have made was that the defendant didn't intend to kill the victim. The prosecution and even the judge may have lent a hand to the not guilty verdict. Did the prosecutors "over-reach" in the chargers they brought? Was it only one charge on the indictment? If the prosecutors wanted a conviction-- any conviction, why weren't there charges like unlawful discharge of a firearm or reckless endangerment? Also, what was the judge's instructions to the jury? What motions did the judge hear and grant based on the defense's motions? Sometimes the jury is left with a pile of crap. Maybe they decided a man didn't deserve to spend the rest of his life in prison for this. Maybe the wanted to punish him but were left with an all or nothing option.

[ShysterJon]

Originally Posted by Cpalmson

Maybe I missed it, but also a point the defense may have made was that the defendant didn't intend to kill the victim. The prosecution and even the judge may have lent a hand to the not guilty verdict. Did the prosecutors "over-reach" in the chargers they brought? Was it only one charge on the indictment? If the prosecutors wanted a conviction-- any conviction, why weren't there charges like unlawful discharge of a firearm or reckless endangerment? Also, what was the judge's instructions to the jury? What motions did the judge hear and grant based on the defense's motions? Sometimes the jury is left with a pile of crap. Maybe they decided a man didn't deserve to spend the rest of his life in prison for this. Maybe the wanted to punish him but were left with an all or nothing option.

Yes, the defense argued the defendant didn't intend to kill the provider. I haven't read anything to indicate that the state asked the judge to charge the jury on any offense other than murder. Manslaughter would have been the logical lesser-included offense. The two offenses you mention are not lesser-included offenses to murder. Unlike in other states, in Texas there's no "double-charging" where the state charges a defendant with two offenses over the same occurrence. For example, the state didn't charge the hobbyist with murder and unlawfully discharging a firearm.

[bobo444]

Gotyour, shysterjon, I am not to say that someone should not have a firearm, not defend itself or its property. But shooting in the back of someone is not something I regard highly.
You cannot shoot someone in the neck and claim "the defendant didn't intend to kill the provider". If you want to shoot to stop there are two legs, and eventually a butt. If you want to damage permanently, yet not kill, there is a beautiful spinal bone to break. If you want to kill it's the neck and above.
Note that in the leg, you might get the femoral out of chance too, and if someone is not there to do a compression point, then it's good bye too. You can try the lung area, while avoiding anything like heart, kidney, but depending the circumstances, it may prove difficult (running target in the night, unwilling to be shot).
but aiming at the neck ... --> "the defendant didn't intend to kill the provider", that does not add up.

MHO: the dude played wolfenstein castle or quake (shoot'em videogame from the 80, ain't getting younger) to much as a teen and was eager to try in real-life.