well I can't see the exact case, and details, and would not have th e time anyway, but these laws are
for when you are defending your home, and family, and a robber poses a threat, but you can't shoot
sixty yards to the robber's back as he about crosses your property line away, can you?
here's a thing on like stuff,
' Yes. Texas's self-defense law is pretty broad, and you have the right to defend yourself, your family and your property. The caveat is that you have to reasonably believe that the force you use is necessary to prevent the robbery (or harm to yourself or others).
and here with the cop it's because of the assault threat on the clerk,
and here it's two armed robbers in his home,
so in these cases it's the violence, the threat, the arms, and defending home turf,
so with a call escort, was she armed? was she invading his home without permission? was she threatening
his wife or daughter? have a fam member by the throat? was she shot in the back?
But what is this case Really?
' It is not in dispute that the defendant, Ezekiel Gilbert, paid the victim, Lenora Frago, $150 for 30 minutes of escort services advertised on Craigslist. After Frago refused to have sex with him, the defendant shot her. Frago was paralyzed and the defendant was charged with aggravated assault. When she died seven months later Gilbert was indicted for murder instead.
At trial, defense attorneys made the shocking argument
that Gilbert was justified in shooting Frago because she had stolen from him and Texas law permits the use of deadly force to defend one’s property at night. That a defense was raised in this case based on Texas’ awful defense of property law is certainly newsworthy and even more reason to reform that law. But there is no evidence that the jury acquitted based on the defense of property law in the first place.
The much more plausible reason for the verdict is that the jury believed the defendant’s claim that he didn’t intend to shoot the victim. Per Texas’ homicide statute
, the prosecution needed to prove that Gilbert “intentionally or knowingly” killed Frago or intended to cause her “serious bodily injury.” The defense argued that Gilbert lacked the requisite intent for murder because when he shot at the car as Frago and the owner of the escort service drove away
, he was aiming for the tire. ..