Texas governor stirs controversy

joepole · 05-04-2007, 05:19 PM

I have to ask again, have you ever actually read the law you are pretending to know about? it doesn't seem like it.

If so, how do you ever interpret:

"...there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred."

...to mean anything remotely like what you're saying it does?

05-04-2007, 05:19 PM	#11
joepole SBLive! Veteran Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,606 Rep Power: 281	I have to ask again, have you ever actually read the law you are pretending to know about? it doesn't seem like it. If so, how do you ever interpret: "...there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur: (1) The person against whom deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle. (2) The person who used deadly force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred." ...to mean anything remotely like what you're saying it does?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)