# Countries where murder is not a crime? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 1, 2003, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countries-where-murder-is-not-a-crime/152002 "2003-02-01T00:36:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2003, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countries-where-murder-is-not-a-crime/152002/21 "2003-02-01T19:10:37Z")
Honour killings are NOT legal. The issue with them is that they are not often not prosecuted properly or strictly for cultural reasons. This does NOT mean it is not a crime, and that the government approves of them. Many places where they occur are effectively tribal areas outside goverment control (eg tribal northern Pakistan). However if you run a search you will see the continued measures that countries where they occur (such as Jordan) are making to deal with offenders more strictly. ---
**Author:** ![raygirvan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ac91a4/32.png) [@raygirvan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raygirvan)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2003, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countries-where-murder-is-not-a-crime/152002/22 "2003-02-01T19:32:19Z")
_Honour killings are NOT legal_ I didn’t mean to imply that they were. The discussion had drifted to the related issue of regions where (for whatever reason) killing someone in some circumstances tends to attract lighter penalties or even acquittal. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2003, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countries-where-murder-is-not-a-crime/152002/23 "2003-02-01T20:07:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tmwster \* > **When I took the concealed carry class, I was told that it is legal to use deadly force to protect your moveable property _at night_, to protect your own person if you fear your life is endangered, and to protect yourself and your home if an intruder forces entry. But not legal to protect a third party who is in danger from an assailant. In other words, it’s okay to use deadly force if someone is stealing your car at night, but not okay to use deadly force to protect someone else who is being beaten to death.** You should ask for a refund from your concealed carry class. From the [Texas Penal Code](http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe0000900.html#pe011.9.33): > [@](#): > > § 9.33. Defense of Third Person > > A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if: > > (1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and > > (2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person. (Emphasis added) ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2003, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countries-where-murder-is-not-a-crime/152002/24 "2003-02-01T20:50:22Z")
The case I mentioned was pretty well talked about. I don’t remember if it went to trial or not, but the guy was never convicted of anything. I realize that the car wasn’t legally his property if it was being reposessed. That was part of why everyone was so outraged. But but either the prosecutor wimped out (if the case never went to trial) or the jury was sympathetic to him (if it did) and decided that the repo man’s life wasn’t worth anything. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2003, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countries-where-murder-is-not-a-crime/152002/25 "2003-02-01T20:52:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by friedo \* > **That doesn’t make much sense. If a person was reposessing his car, it was assuredly _not_ his property. Do you have a cite for this case?** While a car is not divisible, the property rights in it can be. When a dealer sells a car to the purchaser on a combination of cash and loan, the dealer normally keeps a security interest in the car. Both the purchaser and the vendor then have property rights in the same piece of property, until either the purchaser pays off the loan, gaining full title, or defaults on it and full ownership reverts back to the vendor. So on the example given, the shooter could be said to be defending his property right. And in any event, if the shooter didn’t know that the guy was a repo man, and thought the repo man was just your ordinary car thief, the shooter might have argued that he thought he was defending his property. Of course, it would all turn on the facts of the particular case, and how the jury reacted to them. Just my speculations from the information previously given in this thread, as I know dick about Texas law. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2003, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countries-where-murder-is-not-a-crime/152002/26 "2003-02-01T21:16:52Z")
**Northern Piper:** You make a good point. I don’t know if the shooter knew that the guy was a repo man. OTOH, he certainly must have known that he behind on his car payments, and that reposession was a possibility. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2003, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countries-where-murder-is-not-a-crime/152002/27 "2003-02-01T21:48:04Z")
If you look at the language in my post above, their is no specification that the defender has to OWN the property. Elsewhere in the cite page is the phrase, “…in legal posession of…”, and I think that’s what applies. ---
**Author:** ![tmwster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/57b2e6/32.png) [@tmwster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tmwster)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countries-where-murder-is-not-a-crime/152002/28 "2003-02-02T03:29:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\*You should ask for a refund from your concealed carry class. \*\* Aha. That never did make any sense to me. Maybe I should get that refund. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/countries-where-murder-is-not-a-crime/152002.md?page=1)