17

Show comments

7 comments

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!

TX is one of the minority of states that allows deadly force to protect property. I haven't looked at all the state self defense laws, but I am willing to bet that ones that do allow deadly force to protect property are also the ones banning abortion with no exceptions. A woman's body can't be protected with "deadly force", but a man's cash and car can.