Texas Politician's rational for bill to eliminate "Stand Your Ground" law.

TomD

TomD

e publius unum
State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irving)

"I'm not saying that stealing is okay," Meza explained. "All I'm saying is that it doesn't warrant a death penalty. Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate. They just want to get their loot and get away. When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be killed."

She doesn't mention that the "fewer people killed" will be exclusively innocent people.
 
If my money isn't worth my dying for then shouldn't the same logic apply to the thief that my money isn't worth the chance of his/her dying for it?

Furthermore it's equally safe to assume that if a thief has a gun that they intend to use it if necessary.
 
TomD said:
State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irving)

"I'm not saying that stealing is okay," Meza explained. "All I'm saying is that it doesn't warrant a death penalty. Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate. They just want to get their loot and get away. When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be killed."

She doesn't mention that the "fewer people killed" will be exclusively innocent people.
Click to expand...


Meza is, indeed, brain dead, but she didn't actually say that. It's from a satirical piece about her idiotic legislation.

GsT
 
GeneT said:
Meza is, indeed, brain dead, but she didn't actually say that. It's from a satirical piece about her idiotic legislation.

GsT
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up but the truth seems to lie in the middle.

Her bill would do a couple of things including requiring the duty to retreat: "Susan T. Philips, Executive Professor at Texas A&M University School of Law (here), told Reuters that “Under Meza's amendment, before using deadly force as a defense to protect a person, a person must retreat if she can safely do so." This it itself a negation of the castle doctrine since, at a prosecutor's whim, it can be ruled that the homeowner didn't try hard enough to get away.

In addition: "remove “robbery” and “aggravated robbery” from a list of crimes that allow deadly force outside of a person’s home and changes certain language, such as adding “habitation on land” when referring to using deadly force to protect property." "Habitation on land" latter would restrict castle doctrine to the defender's actual house, not place of business, not property he owns, not rental property, not his car, not his RV

Her bill would also delete the clause "has a right to be present at the location" from the places where the castle doctrine would be applicable, limiting the application to only the victims home and, even then, after the victim has tried to flee. This would eliminate the right of armed protection in cases of car jacking and street robberies.

In reality, Mesa's bill would gut the Texas castle doctrine to only within the walls to the victims principle residence and only after the victim had attempted every avenue of escape in the interpretation of a potentially hostile prosecutor.
 
TomD said:
.............. a person must retreat if she can safely do so....................
Click to expand...

herein lies the REAL problem and until we recognize cancellation culture for the infantile mess it is, we'll continue to lose ground to the children currently making policy.

we will smarten up or

we will lose.

Currently,

we are losing

we-have-met-the-enemy1.gif
 
All I have to say about this nonsensical bit of legislation is: I`m 76 years old. The threat of life in prison isn't that much of a deterrent anymore. So, before you break into my house, take a moment to get right with God and tell him you will be along shortly.
 
TomD said:
Thanks for the heads up but the truth seems to lie in the middle.

Her bill would do a couple of things including requiring the duty to retreat: "Susan T. Philips, Executive Professor at Texas A&M University School of Law (here), told Reuters that “Under Meza's amendment, before using deadly force as a defense to protect a person, a person must retreat if she can safely do so." This it itself a negation of the castle doctrine since, at a prosecutor's whim, it can be ruled that the homeowner didn't try hard enough to get away.

In addition: "remove “robbery” and “aggravated robbery” from a list of crimes that allow deadly force outside of a person’s home and changes certain language, such as adding “habitation on land” when referring to using deadly force to protect property." "Habitation on land" latter would restrict castle doctrine to the defender's actual house, not place of business, not property he owns, not rental property, not his car, not his RV

Her bill would also delete the clause "has a right to be present at the location" from the places where the castle doctrine would be applicable, limiting the application to only the victims home and, even then, after the victim has tried to flee. This would eliminate the right of armed protection in cases of car jacking and street robberies.

In reality, Mesa's bill would gut the Texas castle doctrine to only within the walls to the victims principle residence and only after the victim had attempted every avenue of escape in the interpretation of a potentially hostile prosecutor.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all defending her, or her bill (with which I vehemently disagree) - just clearing the air. I'm a firm believer in self defense, castle doctrine, and the ability to defend what is yours.

GsT
 
GeneT said:
I'm not at all defending her, or her bill (with which I vehemently disagree) - just clearing the air. I'm a firm believer in self defense, castle doctrine, and the ability to defend what is yours.

GsT
Click to expand...

I know, that was obvious. So I dug a little deeper and found that, though the quotes weren't accurate in detail, the effects of her bill would be to gut the castle doctrine.
 
It's interesting

how "property" has become not important to many people, including cops. Often one hears of police departments that aren't at all concerned about burglaries or even armed robberies. It's as if personal property and ones livelihood doesn't matter to them. One can see that sentiment in that bill. So, it's ok to rob people, just don't harm them physically and it's OK for robbers and thieves to take from others??? How did we get to this place in America?

Pete
 
I too am up there in age and if its my life or theirs they would automatically loose their own. Hell here in Ca. they are actually turning allot loose who have actually done allot worst!
 
Had a friend who was a Sheriff in South Carolina and you could shoot a thief if he or she was stealing a battery out of your Tractor on your own property. Not to many batteries were being stolen or anything else as far as that goes.
 
"It's from a satirical piece about her idiotic legislation."
Even being satire, this shows how they think.

I wonder if they were put in that situation (life or death) if they would change their thinking?
 
So true and I personally believe every healthy student needs to spend two years in military service right after completion of high school with no exceptions. Our children are loosing respect for their country and the constitutional rights of others that shall not to be infringed. They should have to protect those rights for at least two years or possibly more even if it means having to face death the same as those who volunteer to do the same for themselves.
 
Louis.J said:
So true and I personally believe every healthy student needs to spend two years in military service right after completion of high school with no exceptions....They should have to protect those rights for at least two years or possibly more even if it means having to face death the same as those who volunteer to do the same for themselves.
Click to expand...


You're entitled to your personal belief; I trust that I'm entitled to disagree -- which I do. BTW, there are other ways to protect those rights.
 
In Virginia we have NO statute law about lethal force.
Nothing.
Not for anyone, including law enforcement.

It is ALL 'case' law.
Much of it from appeals to the State Supreme Court.
We did not have a "Court of Appeals" until the early 1870s.
Appeals went to a Supreme Court Justice, and then the Court
voted on the ruling.

We have two classes of self defense shootings.
"Excusable" and "Justifiable."

We all live under these.
The police have their own department regulations they must also follow.
But those are not laws that apply to non LEOs.
They do have case law that allows them more room than non-LEOs.

"Stand your ground" is deeply embedded in our case law.
You may meet lethal force with lethal force under a "reasonable man" standard.
If you reasonably believe you are being threatened with death or grave bodily
harm you may respond with lethal force from anywhere you are legally present.

Simple and well considered.
And with our hundreds of thousands of Concealed Handgun Permits there has
not been "blood in the streets" as many on the left predicted.
Shootings incident to drug sales remain a large portion.

And the shootings tend to be concentrated in areas of drug sales and prostitution.
And those are rarely middle class neighborhoods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top