Texas governor stirs controversy

[joepole]

>I'm just saying you aren't automatically given a free ride just because the shooting victim was in your home.

It's evident that you're saying that, but it's also evident that you're wrong.

[LateNight]

A texas senator speaks of supporting the "Castle Doctrine" bill,
Jeff Wentworth

Texans who are attacked in their homes, their businesses, their vehicles or anywhere else they have a right to be should have the right to defend themselves without fear of criminal prosecution or civil litigation.
To make that right a reality, I intend to file a bill in the Texas Senate that would give potential victims of crime broader power to protect themselves, their relatives and their property.

Since I announced my intention to file a bill that would turn the concept of a “man’s home is his castle that he has a right to defend” into state law, Senators Robert Deuell, Chris Harris, Kyle Janek, Jane Nelson and Tommy Williams have joined me as co-authors. Other senators, including Senators Robert Duncan and Judith Zaffirini, have expressed interest in the bill, which would do away with Texas’ “duty to retreat.”

Current Texas law effectively imposes a duty to attempt to retreat before using force against an intruder. Texans who do not attempt to escape before using force to protect their homes, their businesses or their vehicles may be criminally prosecuted and face possible civil suits alleging wrongful injury or death.

Under my bill, if enacted into law, a person would be presumed to be acting reasonably in using force, including deadly force, against an attacker or intruder who unlawfully enters into that person’s home, occupied vehicle or place of business or employment.

The bill would make it clear that citizens are not obligated to retreat if they are attacked in places where they have a right to be and are not the initial aggressors or engaged in criminal activities. Aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery and aggravated robbery would all be considered justification for deadly force.

Finally, the bill would protect people using justified force from lawsuits filed by injured criminal attackers and their families.

Fourteen states, including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Michigan, have passed “Castle Doctrine” laws, and other states are considering them. The “Castle Doctrine” was the law in Texas prior to 1974. At that time, the law was changed, making the use of deadly force justifiable only if a reasonable person would not have retreated.

I do not believe that the law should require me to wait and decide if someone who is breaking into my home or office or attempting to hijack my car intends to harm me or a member of my family. The law should allow me to use immediate force to protect myself, my family and my property without fear of being charged with a crime or being sued.

Although the courts have traditionally upheld the spirit of the “Castle Doctrine” when men and women who were being attacked have responded with force, I want the spirit of the law to become the letter of the law in Texas.

it would seem to me the heart of this whole discussion, is what is at the heart of the whole Castle Doctrine type bills.

Somebody breaks into my home. I don't have to guess or wonder if he has a knife or a gun, or whatever.

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by joepole

Yes, it does. Please cite one case where it did not.

Well I hate that you actually requesting that I look that crap up, but here goes.

I didn't find an actual "case" to support my stance, but I also couldn't find one to support yours. I every single case I found where charges were dropped or never filed were when the perp in fact had a weapon or had attacked someone.

However, I DID find some interesting information on the "shoot first" bill which is what you are REALLY referring to (don't worry, I didn't know it either). The "right" to shoot someone in your home regardless of the perceived intention of the intruder.

http://www.licensetomurder.com/main.php

This website, last updated 4/30/07 shows that many states, including Louisiana and Texas, in fact DO NOT have shoot first laws. I'm sure if you're really interested, they'll have the specific data you are looking for.

Somebody breaks into my home. I don't have to guess or wonder if he has a knife or a gun, or whatever.

In Louisiana, yes you do.

[BrainSmashR]

License to Murder Killer Ruled Guilty by Jury, Law Still on the Books

[joepole]

>In Louisiana, yes you do.

No, you don't.

[joepole]

>I also couldn't find one to support yours.

Other than the one I posted, you mean?

[LateNight]

Originally Posted by BrainSmashR

http://www.licensetomurder.com/main.php

This website, last updated 4/30/07 shows that many states, including Louisiana and Texas, in fact DO NOT have shoot first laws. I'm sure if you're really interested, they'll have the specific data you are looking for.

In Louisiana, yes you do.

well, I get a feeling that website just isn't up to date as far as louisiana is concerned.

Here is the URL to the act, SIGNED by the Governor
HB89 - 2006 Regular Session (Act 141)

attached is a PDF of that document.

This is the bill that the "Anti-gun" folks are calling "Shoot first"

and my take on the bill, is if someone breaks into my house... I'm not gonna wait to SEE if they have a gun or knife or whatever.

[Texasbelle]

Originally Posted by LateNight

This is the bill that the "Anti-gun" folks are calling "Shoot first"

and my take on the bill, is if someone breaks into my house... I'm not gonna wait to SEE if they have a gun or knife or whatever.

I agree with you Latenight. You break into my house uninvited then you better be prepared to take the consequences.

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by joepole

>I also couldn't find one to support yours.

Other than the one I posted, you mean?

You mean the one where the drunk kid continued advancing on the man after being ordered to freeze at gunpoint?

If you point a gun at someone, tell them to freeze and they continue advancing towards you, then you have reason to fear for your safety.

[Isaac-Saxxon]

Originally Posted by Texasbelle

I agree with you Latenight. You break into my house uninvited then you better be prepared to take the consequences.

It will not be a gun to fear but that wolfhound that will eat your ass

[Texasbelle]

Originally Posted by Isaac-Saxxon

It will not be a gun to fear but that wolfhound that will eat your ass

Yes of course Rosie would be the first thing you must try and get past but should they succeed then of course we'll introduce them to our two friends, Smith and Wesson!

P.S. The little ankle biters, especially the female, don't like strangers in the house either. She can be quite vicious when approached!!!!!!!!!!

[Isaac-Saxxon]

Originally Posted by Texasbelle

Yes of course Rosie would be the first thing you must try and get past but should they succeed then of course we'll introduce them to our two friends, Smith and Wesson!

P.S. The little ankle biters, especially the female, don't like strangers in the house either. She can be quite vicious when approached!!!!!!!!!!

Little one barks and warns the big one which will do the rest.........

[Texasbelle]

You're catching on...it's a carefully planned alarm system with a carefully planned enemy attack plan.

[Isabella]

My dogs would lick them to death.

[Pocahontas]

I've got 2 that would lick them and 2 that would bark then tuck their tails and run and hide! Guess I need to look into getting a kuvasz!!