How's this for Logic?

[CardinalBacker]

Rep Terry Meza (D, Irving) filed HB196 that would criminalize a person's use of a firearm to protect themselves or their property.  If the victim had an opportunity to flee (even from their own home) and did not, then they would be charged for injuring a would-be robber or assailant.  That's not in dispute.  I'm not sure if the "she said" portion is legit and I've been unable to verify it.  Has anybody else seen this?

 

In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irving) has introduced HB196. Her bill would repeal the state's "castle doctrine." This doctrine allows a homeowner to use deadly force against an armed intruder who breaks into his home.

SHE SAID:

"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."

Under the new law the homeowner's obligation is to flee the home at the first sign of intrusion. If fleeing is not possible he must cooperate with the intruder. But if violence breaks out it is the homeowner's responsibility to make sure no one gets hurt. The best way to achieve this is to use the minimum non-lethal force possible because intruders will be able to sue for any injuries they receive at the hands of the homeowner."

"In most instances the thief needs the money more than the homeowner does," Meza reasoned. "The homeowner's insurance we reimburse his losses. On balance, the transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this transfer a peaceful one so much the better."

[baddog]

She needs to be taken out and shot in the head. 

[baddog]

7 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Rep Terry Meza (D, Irving) filed HB196 that would criminalize a person's use of a firearm to protect themselves or their property.  If the victim had an opportunity to flee (even from their own home) and did not, then they would be charged for injuring a would-be robber or assailant.  That's not in dispute.  I'm not sure if the "she said" portion is legit and I've been unable to verify it.  Has anybody else seen this?

 

In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irving) has introduced HB196. Her bill would repeal the state's "castle doctrine." This doctrine allows a homeowner to use deadly force against an armed intruder who breaks into his home.

SHE SAID:

"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."

Under the new law the homeowner's obligation is to flee the home at the first sign of intrusion. If fleeing is not possible he must cooperate with the intruder. But if violence breaks out it is the homeowner's responsibility to make sure no one gets hurt. The best way to achieve this is to use the minimum non-lethal force possible because intruders will be able to sue for any injuries they receive at the hands of the homeowner."

"In most instances the thief needs the money more than the homeowner does," Meza reasoned. "The homeowner's insurance we reimburse his losses. On balance, the transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this transfer a peaceful one so much the better."

If I ever feel the need to commit armed burglary, I know whose house I’m hitting. Where is the deterrent?

[CardinalBacker]

8 minutes ago, baddog said:

She needs to be taken out and shot in the head. 

The writeup sounds so unbelievable that I really think it's probably just somebody's interpretation of the thought process behind her bill... I'd like verification before I jump too high, lol.  

[Ty Cobb]

This is the most asinine thing that I've ever heard.  How does someone so ignorant become a State Representative, especially in the state of TEXAS?

[baddog]

58 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

The writeup sounds so unbelievable that I really think it's probably just somebody's interpretation of the thought process behind her bill... I'd like verification before I jump too high, lol.  

It’s a win-win situation for the burglar. If he points a gun at me, I’m supposed to throw a pillow at him? Nope, he’s dead and they can figure it all out later.  Dead people can’t talk. 

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

It’s a win-win situation for the burglar. If he points a gun at me, I’m supposed to throw a pillow at him? Nope, he’s dead and they can figure it all out later.  Dead people can’t talk. 

No, you're obligated to flee.... if you can't flee, then you need to comply.... and if the robber gets hurt, you're in trouble.  

[SmashMouth]

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Rep Terry Meza (D, Irving) filed HB196 that would criminalize a person's use of a firearm to protect themselves or their property.  If the victim had an opportunity to flee (even from their own home) and did not, then they would be charged for injuring a would-be robber or assailant.  That's not in dispute.  I'm not sure if the "she said" portion is legit and I've been unable to verify it.  Has anybody else seen this?

 

In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irving) has introduced HB196. Her bill would repeal the state's "castle doctrine." This doctrine allows a homeowner to use deadly force against an armed intruder who breaks into his home.

SHE SAID:

"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."

Under the new law the homeowner's obligation is to flee the home at the first sign of intrusion. If fleeing is not possible he must cooperate with the intruder. But if violence breaks out it is the homeowner's responsibility to make sure no one gets hurt. The best way to achieve this is to use the minimum non-lethal force possible because intruders will be able to sue for any injuries they receive at the hands of the homeowner."

"In most instances the thief needs the money more than the homeowner does," Meza reasoned. "The homeowner's insurance we reimburse his losses. On balance, the transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this transfer a peaceful one so much the better."

Wait...What? Surely this is a frikkin joke, right?

[5GallonBucket]

1 hour ago, Ty Cobb said:

This is the most asinine thing that I've ever heard.  How does someone so ignorant become a State Representative, especially in the state of TEXAS?

To many like minded moving into this state.  Dallas is very liberal. Probably right behind austin

[5GallonBucket]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

It’s a win-win situation for the burglar. If he points a gun at me, I’m supposed to throw a pillow at him? Nope, he’s dead and they can figure it all out later.  Dead people can’t talk. 

But they can vote😂

[5GallonBucket]

7 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Wait...What? Surely this is a frikkin joke, right?

Yes the Democratic Party is a joke

[baddog]

What if he’s there to rape my wife or molest my kids? Do I say,” Could I interest you in a big screen TV?”

 HE’S DEAD!!!! End of story. 

[Ty Cobb]

How does a person become a State Representative?  I know very little about politics but I promise I would be better than this idiot at the job.

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

What if he’s there to rape my wife or molest my kids? Do I say,” Could I interest you in a big screen TV?”

 HE’S DEAD!!!! End of story. 

It wouldn’t be rape. They would have to offer themselves to him/her to avoid physical harm and allow for redistribution of personal goods and services. 

[baddog]

19 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

It wouldn’t be rape. They would have to offer themselves to him/her to avoid physical harm and allow for redistribution of personal goods and services. 

I can transfer some lead from my .357 magnum to his chest. Lead has to be worth something. Then I can say,”Sue me now punk”. Hopefully he has life insurance so his family will be covered. That should become law just in case people don’t feel generous with their goods.

[Hagar]

I tell you how bad this is, it may me think of a movie, one I didn’t like, but the title, It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, came to mind.  Scientists need to quit worrying about alleged global warming, and find out why people have no common sense.  Not just this crazy “female dog”, but all the people who voted on her.

[BS Wildcats]

7 hours ago, Ty Cobb said:

This is the most asinine thing that I've ever heard.  How does someone so ignorant become a State Representative, especially in the state of TEXAS?

Look at what they elected for POTUS.  Dems are a brilliant voting bunch!!!