Friday, June 07, 2013
More on Ezekiel Gilbert And The Right To Use A Weapon To Retrieve Stolen Property in Texas
I wrote about this case yesterday. A man hires an escort, expecting sex (note that this expectation was not based on a written contract, say, given the illegality of the trade). The escort comes into his house, is given the money but the sex doesn't happen. She leaves, or at least goes out, and he shoots her, paralyzing and ultimately killing her. He is sued for the act but the jury acquitted him, based on a law which gives Texans the right to use a gun to retrieve stolen property "after nightfall."
It was the money ($150) that was viewed as stolen property by the jury, which interpreted the trade the way the accused did: He should have been given sex or his money back. Thus, the jury regarded an illegal trade (in Texas) as one that the john had the right to enforce.
But reverse this. Suppose an escort has sex with a client in Texas, and then the client refuses to pay. It's after nightfall, they are in the escort's house. Based on this acquittal, she has complete rights to kill her client dead, to retrieve her stolen property.
Based on this Vanity Fair article, my interpretation should work, because the law used in the case was all about the right to use guns. But I very much doubt that the jury would have acquitted an escort for the reverse crime.