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.
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.
You should ask for a refund from your concealed carry class.
From the Texas Penal Code:
(Emphasis added)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Aha. That never did make any sense to me. Maybe I should get that refund.