Quote:
Originally Posted by Fancyinheels
Does this mean if a mechanic rips me off by claiming he did imaginary repairs and "replaced" a perfectly good onboard computer and won't give the old one back, I can shoot him? (Is it retroactive?)
That's about how much sense this makes.
|
First off, this is a bad decision.
Second, he got off based on the "theft during the nighttime" clause.
"(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...E/htm/PE.9.htm
With the mechanic, you have the chance of recovering your money by other means, i.e. a lawsuit.
He got away on the theory that she was stealing his money, not because she refused to provide the services agreed upon. (Like I said, stupid jury.)
Before anyone else gets a similar idea:
1) It sounds like it was a close call on the jury. It took them 11 hours of deliberation. You can't count on getting another insane jury. It is disturbing that eventually, 12 jurors agreed on "not guilty." I'm guessing that a few psycho jurors browbeat the others into voting "not guilty" to get out of the courtroom instead of doing the right thing and refusing to agree to the wrong verdict. If so, they should have stuck to their beliefs and ended up with a hung jury. Then the prosecutor could have tried the case again.
2) You have to meet a number of conditions before you can use the "theft" defense, including nighttime, fleeing, and unlikely to recover.
3) It's going to be a whole lot more expensive to push the issue this way.
4) Your odds of getting a jury to acquit are going to be real low.
5) A jury verdict is not a legal precedent. A judge didn't rule that you can shoot an escort who doesn't put out. A jury decided there wasn't guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in one particular case. This verdict isn't going to carry any particular weight in a similar case. A jury verdict doesn't set a precedent for future cases. Only judge's rulings on specific issues do that. (I'm sure the technical legal theory is more complicated than that, but I think the idea is correct.)
6) It bears repeating: There was no decision that it's OK to shoot an escort who won't deliver.
This was ONE jury deciding the case wasn't sufficiently strong in ONE particular incident in one particular set of circumstances.
7) Also, "Texas" didn't decide it's OK to shoot an escort who didn't put out. 12 people off the street decided not to convict one particular guy. Just because a jury decides not to convict one guy who does something doesn't mean the next guy who does the same thing will escape conviction.
To stretch the analogy further, if you decide to shoot a dishonest mechanic, and the jury decides to ignore the law and acquit because "he needed killin," that doesn't mean the next guy who shoots a mechanic will escape prosecution and conviction.
My Bio Page - Texas - Austin
OMFG TEXAS guy kills escort and aquitted
My Bio Page - Texas - Austin
