did you read ('Castle Doctrine' deadly force bill) [Archive]

piratebg

03-28-2007, 11:31 AM

Texas signs new self-defense by gun law By Ed Stoddard
Tue Mar 27, 3:42 PM ET

DALLAS (Reuters) - Criminals in Texas beware: if you threaten someone in their car or office, the citizens of this state where guns are ubiquitous have the right to shoot you dead.

Governor Rick Perry's office said on Tuesday that he had signed a new law that expands Texans' existing right to use deadly force to defend themselves "without retreat" in their homes, cars and workplaces.

"The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature," Perry said on his Web site.

The new law, which takes affect on September 1, extends an exception to a statute that required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception was in the case of an intruder unlawfully entering a person's home.

The law extends a person's right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force, the governor's office said.

The reasonable use of lethal force will be allowed if an intruder is:

- Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes

- Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place

- Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.

The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully slays an intruder or attacker in such situations.

Texas joins several other states including Florida that have or are considering similar laws.

Sympathy for violent offenders and criminals in general runs low in Texas, underscored by its busy death row. The state leads the United States in executions with 388 since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A conservative political outlook and widespread fondness for hunting also means Texans are a well-armed people capable of defending themselves with deadly force.

It is easy to acquire guns over the counter in Texas and lawful to carry a concealed handgun with a permit.

Adidas410s

03-28-2007, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
One of the few worthwhile things Perry has done in office.
I disagree. While the intent of the bill is good, the language and scope of the bill is VERY broad and overreaching and can be interpreted as extending your domain to your car, the business that you own, etc. Essentially, if somebody feels that they are being threatened by the driving of another individual, then they have the right to defend themselves as opposed to trying to avoid that person and their vehicle. Unfortunately...the language of the bill and it's constitutionality will not be tested until some deadly occurences take place! :(

Gobbla2001

03-28-2007, 11:34 AM

the only, ONLY thing I do not like about this law is that I could get invited over, and someone could say I tried to break in after I'm laying there dead...

but at the same time, I'd rather defend the innocent as much as possible in this won... guns a blazin', boys and girls...

Blastoderm55

03-28-2007, 11:36 AM

You beat me to it AD. Who's to estimate what a threat is? This whole bill is very subjective and I can't think of much good coming from it.

Gobbla2001

03-28-2007, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Adidas410s
I disagree. While the intent of the bill is good, the language and scope of the bill is VERY broad and overreaching and can be interpreted as extending your domain to your car, the business that you own, etc. Essentially, if somebody feels that they are being threatened by the driving of another individual, then they have the right to defend themselves as opposed to trying to avoid that person and their vehicle. Unfortunately...the language of the bill and it's constitutionality will not be tested until some deadly occurences take place! :(

from what I've gathered, if you shot someone who was in the act of driving another car that would not be under this bill...

Gobbla2001

03-28-2007, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
You beat me to it AD. Who's to estimate what a threat is? This whole bill is very subjective and I can't think of much good coming from it.

can't think of much good coming from it?

now that's a pretty shallow thought... dig deeper, looks past what you do not like about this bill and you'll see that it's a lot easier for an innocent person do defend himself up-front then to worry about getting shot in the back...

Adidas410s

03-28-2007, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
You beat me to it AD. Who's to estimate what a threat is? This whole bill is very subjective and I can't think of much good coming from it.

Maybe I should've shot the guy this morning that yanked his car across two lanes at the last second once he realized he had missed his exit and literally put his car between myself and the car in front of me when there was no room to fit his car. It forced me to slam on my brakes...almost get rear-ended (thankfully the guy behind me was just speeding up as we had been at a standstill)...and had a full gallon of water go all over my car. If only I had known this was signed into law yesterday...man that guy would've been road kill! Honestly judge...I felt that my well-being was threatened by his driving. :mad:

Gobbla2001

03-28-2007, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
then to worry about getting shot in the back...

while fleeing (left that out)...

and from the article, "Right to stand their ground"...

that's what this is all about...

Adidas410s

03-28-2007, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
from what I've gathered, if you shot someone who was in the act of driving another car that would not be under this bill...

The language that was in the bill that was sent to Perry's desk last week didn't give any specifics regarding this such instance. I haven't seen anything stating that he sent the bill back for revision. :(

Gobbla2001

03-28-2007, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Adidas410s
Maybe I should've shot the guy this morning that yanked his car across two lanes at the last second once he realized he had missed his exit and literally put his car between myself and the car in front of me when there was no room to fit his car. It forced me to slam on my brakes...almost get rear-ended (thankfully the guy behind me was just speeding up as we had been at a standstill)...and had a full gallon of water go all over my car. If only I had known this was signed into law yesterday...man that guy would've been road kill! Honestly judge...I felt that my well-being was threatened by his driving. :mad:

that's not in the law... the driver had no criminal intent towords you...

Txbroadcaster

03-28-2007, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Adidas410s
Maybe I should've shot the guy this morning that yanked his car across two lanes at the last second once he realized he had missed his exit and literally put his car between myself and the car in front of me when there was no room to fit his car. It forced me to slam on my brakes...almost get rear-ended (thankfully the guy behind me was just speeding up as we had been at a standstill)...and had a full gallon of water go all over my car. If only I had known this was signed into law yesterday...man that guy would've been road kill! Honestly judge...I felt that my well-being was threatened by his driving. :mad:

IMO that is over analyzing the law. It is pretty clear that IMO the law is meant for protecting people who are encountering a break in at their house or buisness.

Blastoderm55

03-28-2007, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
can't think of much good coming from it?

now that's a pretty shallow thought... dig deeper, looks past what you do not like about this bill and you'll see that it's a lot easier for an innocent person do defend himself up-front then to worry about getting shot in the back...

What exactly are people doing in their lives that warrants them being fearful of being shot in the back? Perhaps I'm just naive in not thinking that my life is in eminent danger from any malicious human being. Its my opinion that I'm more in danger from trigger-happy folks who carry guns in their car and those who try to reach for them while driving 80 on a freeway.

Blastoderm55

03-28-2007, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
that's not in the law... the driver had no criminal intent towords you...

But that's all relative. Who is to say there was no intent aside from the person in "danger"?

Adidas410s

03-28-2007, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
that's not in the law... the driver had no criminal intent towords you...

you do not know this for certain...he could have felt that I was invading his space in the lane and intended to clear me out of it in any way necessary...

Gobbla2001

03-28-2007, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Adidas410s
The language that was in the bill that was sent to Perry's desk last week didn't give any specifics regarding this such instance. I haven't seen anything stating that he sent the bill back for revision. :(

I understand your concerns, I mean it does involve legal killings, but this isn't california yet, you're not gunna get off for shooting someone driving another car that you had no connections with etc...(esspecially with all of the cameras and people these days)...

and if someone's gunna do it, chances are it's not because they know this law is in effect...

Adidas410s

03-28-2007, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
IMO that is over analyzing the law. It is pretty clear that IMO the law is meant for protecting people who are encountering a break in at their house or buisness.

It's not over analyzing...it's pointing out a loophole in the language of the bill that will cause future problems.

I agree that it is clear what the bill is MEANT to do. It's to protect people in their homes and in business from intruders. However, the language is so broad and overreaching that it can be used in many other instances such as road rage and even employee/employer disputes that escalate in the work place. It's a good law...the language just needed to be cleaned up to provide more specifics and exclusion clauses.

Gobbla2001

03-28-2007, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Adidas410s
you do not know this...he could have felt that I was invading his space in the lane and intended to clear me out of it in any way necessary...

in your lane? it has to be inside of your car...

Bullaholic

03-28-2007, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Adidas410s
you do not know this...he could have felt that I was invading his space in the lane and intended to clear me out of it in any way necessary...

Look at this way, Adidas. There may be leeway for some unfortunate "grayline" incidents, but I bet we end up with a lot more considerate drivers and fewer violent crime incidents such as home invasions.

Blastoderm55

03-28-2007, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Gobbla2001

and if someone's gunna do it, chances are it's not because they know this law is in effect...

Oh I'm sure that the NRA will see to it that all its Texas members know of the law. Feel free to aim for the head, folks. Forget that the noise was just a cat and realize that you just blasted a hole in your kid's melon. The last thing I want if I'm afraid is a gun. There's no do-overs with 'em. :(

Blastoderm55

03-28-2007, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
in your lane? it has to be inside of your car...

But the irrational person thought the other driver was attempting to force his way in.

Txbroadcaster

03-28-2007, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Oh I'm sure that the NRA will see to it that all its Texas members know of the law. Feel free to aim for the head, folks. Forget that the noise was just a cat and realize that you just blasted a hole in your kid's melon. The last thing I want if I'm afraid is a gun. There's no do-overs with 'em. :(

The last thing I want is someone breaking into my house and the have the means to hurt me, but I dont have the law backing me if I defend myself

Adidas410s

03-28-2007, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
in your lane? it has to be inside of your car...
the wording in the bill says "the presumption of entry." I read that as meaning, "if I believe that person is about to invade my home, car, business, etc...then I have the right to defend myself NOW!"

Gobbla2001

03-28-2007, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
What exactly are people doing in their lives that warrants them being fearful of being shot in the back? Perhaps I'm just naive in not thinking that my life is in eminent danger from any malicious human being. Its my opinion that I'm more in danger from trigger-happy folks who carry guns in their car and those who try to reach for them while driving 80 on a freeway.

to be honest, we just recently helped a woman who was going through some things in her life (drugs etc...), come to find out, she delt... she told her suppliers she was through with it and they have threatened her life... someone actually went up to her work the other day and tried to stab her (she wears a dogtag syle neckless and it hit that)... say they know she's been to our house before? knows we've helped her out and are encouraging her to leave that life behind, what if they want us out of the picture (they tried to kill her last week just because she doesn't want to sell anymore)???

Them coming for whatever reason to kill me (these aren't the brightest people in the world and they're crazy) is enough reason for this bill to be good...

Blastoderm55

03-28-2007, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Adidas410s
even employee/employer disputes that escalate in the work place.

And that's where it gets really ugly.

"Gnar!! You failed to meet sales goals and now are a threat to the well-being of my company and thanks to Gov. Perry I have the right to subdue your threat with lethal force and blugeon your blunt skull with this red Swingline stapler!!! Gnar!!!"

Maroon87

03-28-2007, 11:54 AM

I'm all for it. If you don't like it, don't shoot anybody. And don't break in to anyone's house, car, or workplace or you might get shot. Sounds pretty simple to me.:thinking:

Adidas410s

03-28-2007, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Look at this way, Adidas. There may be leeway for some unfortunate "grayline" incidents, but I bet we end up with a lot more considerate drivers and fewer violent crime incidents such as home invasions.

Hopefully so. However...why can't legislatures write the bill correctly THE FIRST TIME so we don't have to face the possibility of such incidents? :(

Maroon87

03-28-2007, 11:55 AM

Blastoderm55

03-28-2007, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
to be honest, we just recently helped a woman who was going through some things in her life (drugs etc...), come to find out, she delt... she told her suppliers she was through with it and they have threatened her life... someone actually went up to her work the other day and tried to stab her (she wears a dogtag syle neckless and it hit that)... say they know she's been to our house before? knows we've helped her out and are encouraging her to leave that life behind, what if they want us out of the picture (they tried to kill her last week just because she doesn't want to sell anymore)???

Them coming for whatever reason to kill me (these aren't the brightest people in the world and they're crazy) is enough reason for this bill to be good...

That's a good example. I think protective custody or relocating would serve her well also, but that is a great example.

Bullaholic

03-28-2007, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
to be honest, we just recently helped a woman who was going through some things in her life (drugs etc...), come to find out, she delt... she told her suppliers she was through with it and they have threatened her life... someone actually went up to her work the other day and tried to stab her (she wears a dogtag syle neckless and it hit that)... say they know she's been to our house before? knows we've helped her out and are encouraging her to leave that life behind, what if they want us out of the picture (they tried to kill her last week just because she doesn't want to sell anymore)???

Them coming for whatever reason to kill me (these aren't the brightest people in the world and they're crazy) is enough reason for this bill to be good...

And you can hold the smoking gun and say---"Never touch another man's guitar".

(No humor intended towards your real-life threatening circumstances.)

Gobbla2001

03-28-2007, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Adidas410s
the wording in the bill says "the presumption of entry." I read that as meaning, "if I believe that person is about to invade my home, car, business, etc...then I have the right to defend myself NOW!"

there are gunna be loop holes, but for the innocent ones it's good...

very interesting though

Blastoderm55

03-28-2007, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Maroon87
Surely your being facetious.

A tad, but that's where the ambiguity of the bill shines. Very open to interpretation.

Adidas410s

03-28-2007, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
And that's where it gets really ugly.

"Gnar!! You failed to meet sales goals and now are a threat to the well-being of my company and thanks to Gov. Perry I have the right to subdue your threat with lethal force and blugeon your blunt skull with this red Swingline stapler!!! Gnar!!!"

The bill wouldn't allow that. The language also states that there is a "presumption of reasonableness" for the use of force. Thus...if a customer came into your store and took a swing at you because they were upset over something you had done, you wouldn't have the right to shoot them. They got that part correct in the bill.

Gobbla2001

03-28-2007, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
That's a good example. I think protective custody or relocating would serve her well also, but that is a great example.

and you, Mr. Repo man ha... you don't know how many times someone has driven by your store and said "I wish I could beat the chit out of that guy"... no tellin' whether they'd stop or not...

Ranger Mom

03-28-2007, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
And that's where it gets really ugly.

"Gnar!! You failed to meet sales goals and now are a threat to the well-being of my company and thanks to Gov. Perry I have the right to subdue your threat with lethal force and blugeon your blunt skull with this red Swingline stapler!!! Gnar!!!"

If your boss reacts like that....I don't think the passing of this bill would matter one iota....he is gonna freak out and harm you anyway!!

You have a dark side.....don't you!:confused: :eek: :devil:

Adidas410s

03-28-2007, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
there are gunna be loop holes, but for the innocent ones it's good...

very interesting though
That paper boy better not throw the paper threw too many windows!!!! :eek:

j/k :p

Gobbla2001

03-28-2007, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Adidas410s
That paper boy better not throw the paper threw too many windows!!!! :eek:

j/k :p

yah, they'd have to make a new "Paper Boy" game for gameboy or whatever... where the paperboy gets shot at...

or was that already in it (never played it really)

Blastoderm55

03-28-2007, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
and you, Mr. Repo man ha... you don't know how many times someone has driven by your store and said "I wish I could beat the chit out of that guy"... no tellin' whether they'd stop or not...

Hah, I meet them all face-to-face when I pick up my stuff unlike car repomen, so they have every opportunity to beat my butt in the comfort of their own home. So far, no whoopin's and no bricks through my door. :D Not to mention, wouldn't this bill give them the leeway to blast me? :confused: Good thing I'm getting out of the business. :p

Blastoderm55

03-28-2007, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
If your boss reacts like that....I don't think the passing of this bill would matter one iota....he is gonna freak out and harm you anyway!!

You have a dark side.....don't you!:confused: :eek: :devil:

I have a feeling my boss with Ashley would have acted in a similar fashion. Glad I turned down the job. :p

BILLYFRED0000

03-28-2007, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Adidas410s
I disagree. While the intent of the bill is good, the language and scope of the bill is VERY broad and overreaching and can be interpreted as extending your domain to your car, the business that you own, etc. Essentially, if somebody feels that they are being threatened by the driving of another individual, then they have the right to defend themselves as opposed to trying to avoid that person and their vehicle. Unfortunately...the language of the bill and it's constitutionality will not be tested until some deadly occurences take place! :(

Actually that is what they intended to do. Extend your right to protect yourself in any threatening situation where you have a right to be and are such as at work etc. Basically it legalizes what already is a natural right, the right to defend oneself in a life and death situation without fear of reprisal.