Appropriate use of deadly force Texas style

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nor is there any point to speculating about why he wasn't charged with soliciting; apparently he wasn't, and that's all we know.
Click to expand...
Absolutely right. All we know is that a woman is dead over $150 and that statute was twisted enough to let her killer walk free.

A couple more incidents like this, and we may very well see calls to change Texas law.
 
Not so. His testimony that he thought he was paying for sex was necessary to prove that a theft had taken place: he paid for a service that wasn't provided. Had he testified that he was paying for a legal service (the escort's time), that would have weakened his case: she did spend some time with him, and that would allowed the prosecution to question how much was "enough."

Also, under current law, deadly force may be used to recover property only if there is no other recourse. Admitting that he was committing an illegal act (solicitation) would have strengthened that part of his defense: he could hardly have gone to the police. (Thanks to JohnKSa, who pointed this out.)
Click to expand...

And that is also just so much speculation. But I'll stop if you will. ;)
 
Just speculating here, but isn't it quite possible he made a statement to the police which was entered into evidence by the prosecution?
 
csmsss said:
Just speculating here, but isn't it quite possible he made a statement to the police which was entered into evidence by the prosecution?
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that he let slip to the police that he paid this woman for sex. He probably left it at, "she was stealing $150 from me." But heck, there's some more speculation.
 
My assumption is that if he had been, it would have been reported by the media, but I haven't been able to find any mention of such a thing... and I've done some looking.
 
I have looked as well and can find no report or record of a charge of prostitution or solicitation of prostitution filed against Gilbert.

There is only several reports that he testified that he paid for time and expected sex.

§ 43.02. PROSTITUTION. (a) A person commits an offense
if he knowingly:
(1) offers to engage, agrees to engage, or engages in
sexual conduct for a fee; or
(2) solicits another in a public place to engage with
him in sexual conduct for hire.
(b) An offense is established under Subsection (a)(1)
whether the actor is to receive or pay a fee. An offense is
established under Subsection (a)(2) whether the actor solicits a
person to hire him or offers to hire the person solicited.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor,
unless the actor has previously been convicted one or two times of
an offense under this section, in which event it is a Class A
misdemeanor. If the actor has previously been convicted three or
more times of an offense under this section, the offense is a state
jail felony.​

I don't think an expectation that existed in his mind can be construed to be an offer or agreement or engagement in sexual conduct for hire. And for solicitation to be charged, it would have to happen in a public place, not in his home.
 
OK, we're off the reservation here. Prostitution and solicitation aren't issues for this forum, and warnings have been given. This one's run its course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top