Texas governor stirs controversy

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by Neo

If there is a stranger in my house that definitely constitues immenent danger, and I will be looking for a centermass shot as opposed to a weapon or a cop (that may be there in 45 minutes if I'm lucky).

You're choice, but I'm telling you the law doesn't automatically provide you with a free ride.

Just like hunting, you don't shoot at moving bushes, or shadows in your home. You must identify your target first. Failure to do so constitutes negligence on your part. Once you see the person, and they are unarmed and making no aggressive action towards them, then you cannot legally shoot them.

I think the disagreement here is I'm telling you what's right and wrong and you are telling me what you could get away with in court

[joepole]

>You're choice, but I'm telling you the law doesn't automatically provide you with a free ride.

Yes, it does. A person legally inside a dwelling has a presumption holding a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary if confronted by a person who is not lawfully inside a dwelling (or car or place of business).

>I'm telling you what's right and wrong and you are telling me what you could get away with in court

I'm telling you what the law explicitly states. You're making incorrect statements about a topic of which you obviously have little knowledge. Google is a terrible legal research tool.

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by joepole

>You're choice, but I'm telling you the law doesn't automatically provide you with a free ride.

Yes, it does. A person legally inside a dwelling has a presumption holding a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary if confronted by a person who is not lawfully inside a dwelling (or car or place of business).

>I'm telling you what's right and wrong and you are telling me what you could get away with in court

I'm telling you what the law explicitly states. You're making incorrect statements about a topic of which you obviously have little knowledge. Google is a terrible legal research tool.

No I quoted the law, you have done no such thing.

[Neo]

As for negligence, that was the criminal breaking into my house.

As for the court, history has shown if you have the money, a great lawyer, and a judge that plays golf with your lawyer,,, you pretty much have it made.


Screw the criminals, when he entered my has illegally, he gave up all his rights. Let the ACLU get raped, pillaged, and murdered... not me!

[LateNight]

I tried it once, I'll try it again..

HB 1097 is the companion bill to HB 89 (also by Representative LaFleur), the NRA-supported “Castle Doctrine” bill which created presumptions in law for the use of force against intruders in your home, car or place of business and explicitly states in law that you have no “duty to retreat” from criminal attack if you are in a place where you have a legal right to be.


Castle Doctrine refers to a legal concept derived from English Common Law as it is presently applied in sections of the United States of America. It designates one's home (or any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protections from both prying and violent attack. In the United States, laws informally referred to as 'castle laws' can sometimes impose an obligation to retreat before using force to defend oneself. The Castle Doctrine provides for an exception to this duty. Provided one is attacked in their own home, vehicle, or place of business, in jurisdictions where 'castle laws' are in force, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of prosecution.


The opposite of a "castle" principle is the "Duty to Retreat", which is the case in most U.S. Northeastern states, such as Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts[1] (where Castle Doctrine takes effect only within the confines of the 'dwelling'). Castle Doctrine laws in the U.S. are sometimes referred to as the "use of deadly force" [2] or "no retreat" laws, and originate in the home, but are sometimes (depending on the state) extended to the automobile or the business or any place where one has a legal right to be (a campground or park, for example).

[Isaac-Saxxon]

FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE:

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

3. Colt: The original point and click interface.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control

5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords, bombs, rockets, and grenades?

6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.

8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.

11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you NOT understand?

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.

14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.

15 Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their job safer.

20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

23. Enforce the "gun CRIME control laws" we ALREADY have, don't make more.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

26. "A government of the people, by the people, for the people..." TOTAL BULL ****!!

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by LateNight

I tried it once, I'll try it again..

HB 1097 is the companion bill to HB 89 (also by Representative LaFleur), the NRA-supported “Castle Doctrine” bill which created presumptions in law for the use of force against intruders in your home, car or place of business and explicitly states in law that you have no “duty to retreat” from criminal attack if you are in a place where you have a legal right to be.


Castle Doctrine refers to a legal concept derived from English Common Law as it is presently applied in sections of the United States of America. It designates one's home (or any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protections from both prying and violent attack. In the United States, laws informally referred to as 'castle laws' can sometimes impose an obligation to retreat before using force to defend oneself. The Castle Doctrine provides for an exception to this duty. Provided one is attacked in their own home, vehicle, or place of business, in jurisdictions where 'castle laws' are in force, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of prosecution.


The opposite of a "castle" principle is the "Duty to Retreat", which is the case in most U.S. Northeastern states, such as Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts[1] (where Castle Doctrine takes effect only within the confines of the 'dwelling'). Castle Doctrine laws in the U.S. are sometimes referred to as the "use of deadly force" [2] or "no retreat" laws, and originate in the home, but are sometimes (depending on the state) extended to the automobile or the business or any place where one has a legal right to be (a campground or park, for example).

You are absolutely correct, except a breaking and entering doesn't constitute an attack. Nice of you to highlight where you went wrong in order to save me the trouble.

[LateNight]

Originally Posted by BrainSmashR

You are absolutely correct, except a breaking and entering doesn't constitute an attack. Nice of you to highlight where you went wrong in order to save me the trouble.

A big part of the Castle Doctrine and this bill is that it prevents potential victims of having to SECOND guess whether or not an intruder has a gun or a knife.

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by LateNight

A big part of the Castle Doctrine and this bill is that it prevents potential victims of having to SECOND guess whether or not an intruder has a gun or a knife.

Provided one is attacked in their own home, vehicle, or place of business, in jurisdictions where 'castle laws' are in force, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of prosecution.

Yes, you have every right to defend yourself, but the presence of another person in your home DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY constitute a threat of physical harm against you or your family.

[joepole]

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

[BrainSmashR]

Now I'm not suggesting you risk your life second guessing by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just saying you aren't automatically given a free ride just because the shooting victim was in your home.

[BrainSmashR]

Originally Posted by Neo

As for negligence, that was the criminal breaking into my house.

As for the court, history has shown if you have the money, a great lawyer, and a judge that plays golf with your lawyer,,, you pretty much have it made.


Screw the criminals, when he entered my has illegally, he gave up all his rights. Let the ACLU get raped, pillaged, and murdered... not me!

The ACLU won't be going to the slammer (you know why the call the slammer) if you kill an unarmed man.