Jump to content

How's this for Logic?

CardinalBacker

By CardinalBacker
in Political Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

CardinalBacker

CardinalBacker

Posted
Posted

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."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
baddog

baddog

Posted
Posted
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
baddog

baddog

Posted
Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CardinalBacker

CardinalBacker

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmashMouth

SmashMouth

Posted
Posted
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmashMouth

SmashMouth

Posted
Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
baddog

baddog

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hagar

Hagar

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    46,204
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    TJ_40
    Newest Member
    TJ_40
    Joined


  • Posts

    • LumRaiderFan
      Happy Thanksgiving To All!

      By LumRaiderFan · Posted

      Happy Thanksgiving 
    • baddog
      Newsom Proof

      By baddog · Posted

      What news station do you watch?…..never mind.    What age are the children you take care of. Refugees from where? Are they in a hospital? Now children compared to criminals…..geeeez. The mayor of Denver and a few governors, including Newsom, have said they will not turn over incarcerated criminals to ICE. This is a felony. They are harboring criminals and fugitives. Gee, I’m so glad you want criminals protected. Anyone who crossed illegally into our country is a criminal. Happy Holidays to you and yours.
    • Tiger33
      2024 WOS Mustangs

      By Tiger33 · Posted

      Sorry sir on my miss count. I was in hurry
    • Big girl
      Newsom Proof

      By Big girl · Posted

      Are they offering refuge to criminals? Or is it a Trump talking point? Refugees are people who leave their country due to unwarranted prosecution. I actually take care of 2 refugee kids who have complex medical needs   No, refugees are not criminals, and the assumption that they are more likely to be criminals than the general population is incorrect:                                                                                          Research shows immigrants commit crimes at lower rates Immigrants in the United States commit crimes at lower rates than the U.S.-born population, including unauthorized immigrants. This is true across immigrant groups.                  Immigration doesn't raise crime rates Immigrants don't raise crime rates in the communities where they settle. In fact, some studies suggest that immigration can lower crime rates, especially violent crime.                  Anti-immigration politicians have spread a myth Anti-immigration politicians have repeatedly tried to link immigrants to crime, but research shows this is a myth.                  Refugees don't cause crime in Turkey A study found that refugees don't have a causal effect on crime rates in Turkey. In fact, the study found that refugees may have a negative effect on crime rates per capita. 
    • Setx fan
      Can I get some respect now!!!. Woodville goes to state!!

      By Setx fan · Posted

      I think it's actually the first time ever to get past the second round. Some older folks might try to tell you about Scott High but I wasn't here when that school was around 😆

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...