TexasCHLforum.com

the night/day thing has always made me
other than the obviousness of the law, what is the difference?
Stealing is Stealing is Stealing is Stealing no matter what the clock says.

Renegade wrote:

rm9792 wrote:If a repo man is shot then prison time is due.

That is what the case hinged on. Did he know it was a repo man, or did he think it was a car thief?

I disagree, even though it is the DA's opinion as well as yours. The law says you can shoot a thief at night. It does not say you can shoot someone you think is a thief at night. I read that as you could shoot the suspected theif, but if you are wrong, you can go to jail (lesser charge than murder, maybe manslaughter).

DoubleJ wrote:the night/day thing has always made me
other than the obviousness of the law, what is the difference?
Stealing is Stealing is Stealing is Stealing no matter what the clock says

It was explained to me as the difference between being able to see the BG's weapons or not. During the day, you should be able to see if the BG is armed and going to attack you. At night, you cannot see what else he is carrying or doing, or if he has a backup, or anything like that.

I could be wrong, but it makes sense. Being a very Baptist influenced state, it could just as well be the Bible verse that was quoted.

My recollection of this case is that if I were on the GJ I would have voted a true bill on the shooter.

The guy hadn't made the payments on his truck in several months. He was what is commonly called, "a deadbeat". He knew darned well that the truck was liable to be repo'd. And I believe he shot the repo man as he was driving/towing the truck away (i.e. no threat).

I saw a TV story on this case where the DA (I think) in explaining the GJ vote of no true bill said something like, "The rationale for the law (mischief in the nighttime) is that the people of TX believe that if someone comes after your stuff tonight, he may well come after you tomorrow."

But as I said, in my view, any reaosnable person would have at least thought that his truck was being repo'd and not stolen. So there was no justification for that deadbeat to shoot the repo man.

I would have sent him to prison.

srothstein wrote:

Renegade wrote:

rm9792 wrote:If a repo man is shot then prison time is due.

That is what the case hinged on. Did he know it was a repo man, or did he think it was a car thief?

I disagree, even though it is the DA's opinion as well as yours. The law says you can shoot a thief at night. It does not say you can shoot someone you think is a thief at night. I read that as you could shoot the suspected theif, but if you are wrong, you can go to jail (lesser charge than murder, maybe manslaughter).

I wasn't really offering an opinion, just trying to explain how the DA decided NOT to pursue an indictment.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:My recollection of this case is that if I were on the GJ I would have voted a true bill on the shooter.

The guy hadn't made the payments on his truck in several months..

He was 3 days late on his payment (read the link). You must be thinking of a different case.

Renegade wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:My recollection of this case is that if I were on the GJ I would have voted a true bill on the shooter.

The guy hadn't made the payments on his truck in several months..

He was 3 days late on his payment (read the link). You must be thinking of a different case.

Boy, it sure reads like the same story. Especially the part referring to the scoped rifle. But the TV version (one of the news magazine shows like "60 Minutes" or "20/20") said the guy was several months behind in his payments.

If it is the same incident, it's obvious that either one of the reports is wrong or my recollection is wrong.

If the guy was really only 3 days behind then I would say he probably had the legal right to soot the repo man, though there is no way I would shoot in a situation like that (someone towing my car away) myself. To me, it would be a no brainer to call the cops in a case like that, and maybe to try to follow the guy to see where he is going with the car (or not).

It shouldn't be too hard for the cops to locate a car that is in the process of being towed.

Repo men are legalized thieves

They pretty much are paid to "steal" back the item the person hasn't paid for

How hard would it be for said repo man to get a LEO to walk up with him..knock on the guys door, and say "sir..I have an order here that you are defunct on your payments..that gentlemen there is going to take said article back...have a nice day," instead of sneaking around in the dead of night on someones property trying to steal back an item that hasn't been paid for?

Firefighters, Officers and the military put their lives on the line for others...repo men put their lives on the line for themselves and for a few bucks in their pockets, they have a risky job, you don't see parades for convenience store clerks that are shot?

Just my $0.02

frankie_the_yankee wrote: If it is the same incident, it's obvious that either one of the reports is wrong or my recollection is wrong.

If the guy was really only 3 days behind then I would say he probably had the legal right to soot the repo man, though there is no way I would shoot in a situation like that (someone towing my car away) myself. To me, it would be a no brainer to call the cops in a case like that, and maybe to try to follow the guy to see where he is going with the car (or not).

It shouldn't be too hard for the cops to locate a car that is in the process of being towed.

Forming an opinion on what you are told be Dan Rather's 60 Minutes is a bit silly. I also recall that it was 3 days and that they were just hooking up. The company had a reputation for selling the same cars several times. Things changed after the repo guy got killed, Companys started sending notifications of late payments, and they started using constables and police when they needed to repo a car. For the most part there wasn't a lot of sympathy for the repo man and the company at the time. Those shady practices aren't as common anymore as resuly of that justified shooting.