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

    45,932
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    TRUTHTELLER409
    Newest Member
    TRUTHTELLER409
    Joined


  • Posts

    • tvc184
      It’s kinda weird…

      By tvc184 · Posted

      Yeah, I got that but talk about a stretch. It should seem obvious that Trump’s prosecution is purely political. If someone is going to do a whataboutism, at least make it similar.  This is so ludicrous that it’s like comparing a ham sandwich to a wallet.   
    • Englebert
      It’s kinda weird…

      By Englebert · Posted

      You consistently try to say Trump ran our debt up and that the stock market and job market cratered during his administration (along with other MSNBC talking points). That is a flat out LIE, and you know it. Not only are you telling a mistruth, you knowingly are telling a mistruth...which is a blatant LIE...which makes you a "(I don't remember what word you used to describe Trump, something like a purse for dirt)" does it not? You know for a fact that the economy, stock market, and job market was thriving under Trump. You know that the Democrats controlled the house, and proposed a budget that would hurt the economy, in which he shut down the government. Even after this fiasco brought on by Democrats, our economy flourished under his administration. Then Covid19 hit, and the blue states shut down the country. YOU KNOW THIS, but continue to blame Trump. You lie...blatantly. Again, what do we call these people that partake in disseminating misleading information. You coined it...that purse thing. Does the shoe fit? I bet it does. It is amazing that you try to put "MAGA people" into this little box for the soul purpose of allowing all negative attributes of anyone that will vote for Trump instead of Biden to be attributed. That is a sickening modus operandi of stupid people. It is hard for me to believe that you would adopt that childish stereotyping. But since you are willing, I'm willing to push back. I'm a Trump supporter. I will gladly vote for him over Biden. So get busy putting me in your silly little box of stereotypes so I can embarrass you some more. You've been shot down by practically everyone on this board when you say stuff like Trump is their Messiah, or that supporters overlook his flaws. Everyone on this board has stated that they don't agree with Trump on much of his behavior, but you ignore these statements and continue with your lies. Oh yeah, since I'm a Trump supporter, those comments were also directed directly at me. So let's go. Prove I'm a simpleton that will ignore all of Trump's flaws and vow to disown the bad ol' orangeman. Let's continue that diatribe you peddle. I now am interested in responding. I also have boxes I can place people in. Whose box is accurate? Better yet, whose box is more embarrassing? I'm fairly certain your box is more entertaining for the board to make fun of. TDS should be included in the DSM-6, or revise the DSM-5 to include it since this phenomenon is so pervasive now. You are a walking, talking picture of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Do you like that box? Can you refute the rationale for placing you in that box. Everyone can refute your rationale for placing them into your irrational box, while you languish in your TDS box.
    • UT alum
      It’s kinda weird…

      By UT alum · Posted

      Clinton got impeached because of it. David Pecker said it was true about Stormy today. Under oath.
    • UT alum
      It’s kinda weird…

      By UT alum · Posted

      Election interference. Cheating.
    • UT alum
      It’s kinda weird…

      By UT alum · Posted

      It’s not about worrying about Trump’s morality. It’s about him being held to a totally hypocritical standard that is applied to anybody else that’s not him. Double it if it happens to be a Democrat. What he did to Ted Cruz in 2016, for example. Accused him of extramarital affairs. Really? And the gang cheered the Master on. Sick is what it is.

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...