TX - Lenora Frago, 23, fatally shot, San Antonio, 24 Dec 2009

wfgodot

Former Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2009
Messages
30,166
Reaction score
719
Texas Says It's OK to Shoot an Escort If She Won't Have Sex With You (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 Frago, who wouldn't have sex with him, his actions were justified.

Gilbert had admitted to shooting Lenora Ivie 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.
---
more at the links
---
Gilbert testified earlier Tuesday that he had found Frago's escort ad on Craigslist and believed sex was included in her $150 fee. But instead, Frago walked around his apartment and after about 20 minutes left, saying she had to give the money to her driver, he said.

That driver, the defense contended, was Frago's pimp and her partner in the theft scheme.

The Texas law that allows people to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft was put in place for “law-abiding” citizens, prosecutors Matt Lovell and Jessica Schulze countered. It's not intended for someone trying to force another person into an illegal act such as prostitution, they argued.
Jury acquits escort shooter (San Antonio Express-News)
 
I'm ashamed & furious that this happened in my state
 
What can I say? The mind boggles.
 
How much would he have to pay for a dinner before that defense kicks in? :facepalm:
 
Well they just opened season on prostitutes down there didn't they? Now every man who kills a prostitute will be claiming that he was just trying to recover his money.

What happens when this guy kills another prostitute trying to "recover his money?" Call him a serial killer or say he was justified?
 
This is a blatant miscarriage of justice.

In the US prostitution is illegal, but escorting is not. An escort sells her time only, sex is not included, which makes her activities legal. To get around the law prostitutes will advertise services as escorts, and then perform sex as a consenting adult for no charge. They are not actually paid for the sex, and in that way they skirt the law.

In other words this woman was doing nothing wrong and did nothing wrong. Basically this guy assumed she was going to have sex with him, when in fact he was only buying her company for a period. Then, when she would not have sex with him, he attempted to recover the fee at gun point and shot her when she fled. So he was the one attempting theft, not her.

This incident was simple murder. It should have been an open and shut case.
 
This is what you end up with when you legalise deadly force over property. Deadly force should only be legal in defense of someone's life, not in defense of $150.
 
We’re getting to the point in this state where maiming or killing anyone can be justified as legal so long as a gun is involved. Under this unbelievably expansive statute, someone can use deadly force “to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.” Read those words carefully. Under Texas law, if I see some kid getting ready to spray-paint his name on an underpass after dark, I can kill him. Criminal mischief at night can be a Class C misdemeanor involving less than $50 in damages, but in Texas, it effectively carries the death penalty. (Unless—and I can say this for damn sure—the youngster is a wealthy white boy. Then the murder charges will come raining down.) The enraged shooter can also kill anyone fleeing with a piece of property that isn’t his.
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/ei...quittal-proves-the-lunacy-of-texas-s-gun-laws
 
I didn't know about this and sure won't be going around any homes at night. What about the daytime? I really do not like living here and would love to move far far away. This is the first time ever hearing of this type murder.
 
I find this so outrageous. What about a man buying a woman present, expecting sex, not getting it and killing this woman in retaliation? Would tx juries consider that kind of murder justified too?
 
I dug around various escort sites to see how they phrase their services. Typically it reads something like this (No link, since that would likely offend some people):

Money exchanged is exclusively for time and companionship, anything else that may or may not happen is a matter of personal choice and personal preference between two or more consenting adults of legal age, and is not contracted for, nor is it requested to be contracted for, or compensated for in any manner whatsoever.

The reason for that wording is to make it clear that the fee is for the escorts time (legal), and not for prostitution (not legal). When these girls go to visit clients it is assumed it is for sex, but that is not what they are being paid for.

In other words this girl did NOT steal his money, and he had no right to demand it back.

I think either this was not properly explained to the jury, or they were simply prejudiced and followed emotion rather than the law.

Either way, justice was not done.
 
The reason for that wording is to make it clear that the fee is for the escorts time (legal), and not for prostitution (not legal). When these girls go to visit clients it is assumed it is for sex, but that is not what they are being paid for.

.

I beg to differ, that is exactly what they are being paid for, at least in the minds of most men and also that of many escorts.....What you are quoting is just legal justification to get around prostitution laws.


Regardless, those indulging in activities, street. CL, BP or YP, there are a lot of shady things, robbing tricks, drugs etc. So what if he didn't get his rocks off, he should be doing time, obviously intelligence is not a requirement to serve on a jury.
 
The point is, legally he had no right to shoot her, she was operating in accord with the law. There was no theft on her part. There was an attempted theft on his part (attempting to recover money for services rendered by force of arms).

So it should have been a guilty verdict for felony murder.
 
ITA. What the **** were these jurors thinking?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
113
Guests online
2,457
Total visitors
2,570

Forum statistics

Threads
590,015
Messages
17,929,018
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top