Posted by JustinJ: As i recall the police stated he would not be charged.
That does
not establish legal precedent that would affect any other cases.
And he can still be charged, until and unless he is tried and acquitted, pardoned, or dead, or until the statute of limitations runs out.
This layman does not equate being compensated for to recovered.
The question is, what is the underlying legal principle?
...i think the burden of proof is the one who made the statement
And his or her deciding to not provide same will not change the law.
Now, if there is an extant legal principle equating "protected or recovered" with financial restitution, and even if no one has tested the black law in Texas in that context, someone will someday become the first test case. Those things sometimes take decades--even longer than the prison sentence of he or she who is convicted, and can even damage the balance sheets of major corporations.
And then there is the civil side, with its much lower threshold for proof....
The real point here, one more time, is that
no one should
ever base his conclusions regarding the law on his or her reading of a single statute taken in isolation, without a good understanding ot the rest of the code, established legal principles, and pertinent appellate rulngs.
