A stupid law and an especially sick application of it.
This article sounds like bad legal reporting to me.
Claiming that the jury acquitted him “saying his actions were justified because he was simply trying to retrieve stolen property” is likely incorrect. Unless Texas does something I’m not aware of, juries don’t announce their reasoning.
Because this sounded fishy, I went looking around and found an article that digs further and presents a more compelling likelihood: while the defendant’s attorney raised the defense of property law argument, the jury likely decided this way because they felt he was not trying to hurt her, but rather shoot out the car’s tires. Intent is required for murder and manslaughter was not brought as a charge.
I don’t know what the law regarding murder is in Texas, but usually only first-degree murder requires a specific intent to kill. But, you may be right that a lack of intent to harm was the likely basis for the verdict, although it is impossible to know for sure. So I’ll just stick to the first part of my comment, this is an idiotic law.
Quoth Mr. Bumble: “If the Law says that, then the Law is a *** - a Idiot.”
(ETA: Horrors! The filter strikes me for the first time! My Dickens quote has been assassinated! Please don’t make me wash my mouth out with soap! :p)
Has a drug dealer, or user, ever been acquitted after killing someone when he got ripped off?
…whether or not he intended to kill her, can we all agree that taking out an assault rifle and shooting her out the tires for $150 is, to put it as politely and compassionately as I can think to say it, “excessive”?
Stupid law. He killed a person over $150 and got away with it. Even if he only meant to shoot out the tires, he still killed a person over $150. His mom must be very proud.
At least we now we know what a man who couldn’t get sex from a prostitute looks like.
One more situation where everyone loses. So sad.
It is not a stupid law, but a misinterpretation of it. It was meant for home robberies, when it’s not possible to tell if the assailant is armed or not. Then, a law abiding home owner is free to exercise his natural right of self defense, even lethal defense, making it unimputable to assume, in the cover of the night, that the criminal is armed.
Lethal force is only moral when you believe your life or someone else’s life is in danger. That was already legal. This law allows you to shoot someone over a TV or car. Human life is worth much more than any amount of money. I stand by my original assessment.
If what you thought was a weapon in the cover of night turned out to be nothing more than a crowbar, though you believed that your life or someone else’s was in lethal danger, you would be prosecuted for murder. This rightfully law removes this possibility. This was the intent of the law, which I cannot fathom how it applies in this case.
They are hard to purchase legitimately, but on the streets, they are as easy as buying anything else (especially in TX).
Plus a semi auto can be converted to full auto.
This news story is three years old, but I see a number of bloggers have picked it up again. Why is that? I didn’t see any new information being presented.
I didn’t notice that. I remember when it first happened and I figured it finally made it’s way to trial.
That’s a good question. What type of bloggers are picking it up? (i.e. anti gun, liberal, etc.).
I didn’t notice it was three years old when I posted it, so that’s my bad. I still think it’s egregious enough to take notice of now.
Nothing good ever happens after midnight out on the streets.
I can’t fault you on this one. I just did some googling and this 3-year-old story appeared on lots of news aggregation sites this week. I have no idea why. But you understandably thought it was current
I couldn’t find any newer updated information re the story.
And it’s a felony. A pistol can be converted to full auto too, making it a machine pistol. And it’s a felony too.
Regardless of the weapon used, it was a crime and crafty lawyers misused a law meant to protect those defending their lives and property from prosecution.