edgarblythe wrote:It lies in how you want to interpret all the laws of Texas regarding the killings. The grand jury did not see it as cut and dried, else they would not have required two whole weeks to examine the case. My reading of all the information led me to conclude it was legally murder.
I wouldn't call it at all cut and dried either, Edgar. There is little doubt that Joe's actions were pre-meditated murder in most jurisdictions... but not
clear in Texas. Joe sited the applicable law, and believed his actions to be within the legal guidelines... so it follows that a prosecutor would probably find it impossible to meet the burden of proof for premeditated murder. It doesn't much matter that people will read the law somewhat differently; the question is: Was Joe's interpretation of the Law
reasonable. Could a reasonable person have interpreted the Law as Joe did? Yep. It doesn't matter if his actions were reasonable or just or necessary. Joe didn't
knowingly commit murder, so Joe couldn't have committed a pre-meditated murder.
I think the issue here is whether stolen property is worth killing over. Texas says it is. Joe knew that, and agreed. Joe is entitled to every benefit of the doubt... on anything that isn't abundantly clear. Take away the Law quoted on the previous page; Joe is guilty as hell... but we don't (can't) know that Joe would have done what he did without it. I tend to doubt it since his every other action was pretty much by the book.
