The Amorality of Texas: The Ezekiel Gilbert Case

On Christmas Eve 2009, a Bexar County, Texas resident was bored.  Ezekiel Gilbert, to assuage his boredom, decided to peruse the classified adult ads on Craigslist and hire himself an escort.  The escort, 23-year-old Lenora Ivie Frago, met Gilbert, who paid her $150 for one half hour of her time.  Apparently, Gilbert believed that "time" meant "sexual intercourse."  Frago, on the other hand, thought "time" meant "time."

At the end of the half hour, Frago got up to leave.  Gilbert informed her driver that he wanted his money back because Frago had not had sex with him as expected.  The driver informed Gilbert that sex was not included in the price and began to drive away.  Gilbert got pissed.  He shot four rounds at the vehicle, striking Frago in the back of the neck and paralyzing her.  After seven long, agonizing months, Frago succumbed to her injuries and died.  Gilbert was charged with murder.

This week, Gilbert was ACQUITTED.  That's right - the jury sent him home.  Texas has an incredibly broad statute allowing the use of deadly force.  The statute allows deadly force to prevent such acts as "the imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime."  Holy &*%^.

Gilbert's attorney argued that Frago, by taking the money and not providing sex, committed both  "theft during the nighttime" and "criminal mischief during the nighttime."  Clearly the first problem in this case is the broadness of the statute.  Most states do not allow deadly force for the defense of property.  Texas and Florida are two notable exceptions.  But read literally, this statute would allow, not only the present situation, but shootings in situations involving shoplifting, minor vandalism, throwing rocks at cars, etc.  It is difficult to imagine how we got to this place. In the historic sense of the law, deadly force is only justifiable in response to actual imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.  Here, it has been extended to transgressions which could, in the everyday sense, be considered childish.  Additionally, as the prosecution argued, it defies the spirit of the law to include criminal activity under the protection of the statute.  Gilbert essentially killed Frago for not engaging in illegal activity with him. 

Most commentators on the ridiculousness of this case have focused on the illegality of the activity which Gilbert proposed Frago owed him.  But I don't blame the law alone.  Certainly, if the law were different, the outcome may have been different.  But the jury is to blame for buying into an argument that was sexist at its core.  Jurors are told to follow the law, but they are also told to bring their common sense into the jury room with them.  Apparently, this jury's common sense included enough prejudice toward women that they believed the argument that not providing illegal sex was, in fact, "theft" or "criminal mischief."  Unbelievable but true.  Would the case have had the same outcome if Gilbert had been a woman and had shot a male escort whom she "believed" was obligated to have sex with him?  Likely not.  Would the case have had the same result if the theft had been five dollars taken off the dresser of a neighbor?  Maybe.  The point is:  this case illustrates two amoral viewpoints apparently held by at least some Texans today.  First, that it is okay to take a life for the sake of property and second, that women who don't have sex under contract are "thieves."

According to Noel Brinkerhoff of AllGov.com, Ezekiel Gilbert had a press conference after his acquittal.  He stated "I sincerely regret the loss of the life of Ms. Frago.  I've been in a mental prison the past four years of my life."  Well, Mr. Gilbert, that is what you should feel after you murder someone in cold blood.  And your mental prison should have turned into a physical one.  Thank your lucky stars you live in Texas.

Just Keepin it Real
HKB