JR-57
Loc: South Carolina
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 their home.
See what she has to say...
"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 l**t and get away. When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be k**led."
Meza was quick to reassure that her bill would not totally prevent homeowners from defending themselves.
Under her 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 reimburses his losses. On balance, the t***sfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this t***sfer a peaceful one so much the better."
JR-57 wrote:
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 their home.
See what she has to say...
"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 l**t and get away. When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be k**led."
Meza was quick to reassure that her bill would not totally prevent homeowners from defending themselves.
Under her 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 reimburses his losses. On balance, the t***sfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this t***sfer a peaceful one so much the better."
In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irvin... (
show quote)
Yes it DOES warrant a death penalty. If someone breaks into my home, someone's gonna end up 'dead'.
No one wants a home invasion, but I do not think someone who shoots and k**ls an invader should get off scot free.
JR-57 wrote:
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 their home.
See what she has to say...
"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 l**t and get away. When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be k**led."
Meza was quick to reassure that her bill would not totally prevent homeowners from defending themselves.
Under her 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 reimburses his losses. On balance, the t***sfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this t***sfer a peaceful one so much the better."
In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irvin... (
show quote)
Thankfully in Texas this will never see the light of day.
Maybe she's got relatives that are home invaders.
Peaver Bogart wrote:
Yes it DOES warrant a death penalty. If someone breaks into my home, someone's gonna end up 'dead'.
Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
pegw wrote:
No one wants a home invasion, but I do not think someone who shoots and k**ls an invader should get off scot free.
Not only he/she should get off Scot free, but this person should be hailed as a hero!!
JR-57 wrote:
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 their home.
See what she has to say...
"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 l**t and get away. When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be k**led."
Meza was quick to reassure that her bill would not totally prevent homeowners from defending themselves.
Under her 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 reimburses his losses. On balance, the t***sfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this t***sfer a peaceful one so much the better."
In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irvin... (
show quote)
"They just want to get l**t"....
Well maybe - maybe not. They might want your daughter...or your wife....or you.
Should one ask just to be sure?
<sarcasm intended>
proud republican wrote:
Not only he/she should get off Scot free, but this person should be hailed as a hero!!
I agree and in fact if the invader is k**led it saves the community a ton of money! Mike
pegw wrote:
No one wants a home invasion, but I do not think someone who shoots and k**ls an invader should get off scot free.
You are 2 short of a six pack???!!!
pegw wrote:
No one wants a home invasion, but I do not think someone who shoots and k**ls an invader should get off scot free.
Really? Then why don’t you post your address so all of the low life thieving i***ts know where to go?
pegw wrote:
No one wants a home invasion, but I do not think someone who shoots and k**ls an invader should get off scot free.
I do!
Where do you live?
We’ll send the thieves to you!
Loser!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.