17

Show comments

7 comments

This is what happens in states where people think they should be able to use a gun with no consequences. The idea that deadly force is excusable to protect property is obscene. If he had shot the guy when he had a gun pointed at him, a claim of self-defense makes sense. But shooting at someone running away from you can't be justified.

Men offering impunity to men for things they can imagine doing themselves.

The vast majority of states don't allow deadly force to be used to protect property.

[–] Apricot_Ibex 0 points Edited

There was a Texas case involving a scrote who was acquitted of shooting and killing an escort because she didn’t have sex with him after taking his money and he was “protecting his property.”

Never mind that he was participating in and paying for an IlLEGAL act— apparently his money was more important than her life. He had answered a Craigslist ad that said he would be paying for “her time,” which of course is a common phrasing in places where prostitution is illegal, but the ad never even PROMISED him sex, so even by their sick twisted definition of “protecting property” it was nonsense.

Ezekiel Gilbert (the murderer) then moved to Vegas and was arrested AGAIN, for forcing a woman to prostitute herself. Shocker.

But if they can acquit a man of recklessly shooting a CHILD, then they can do anything. How very “pro-life” of TX!