Castle doctrine

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buckster

New member
Rick Perry signed the Castle Doctrine today. You don't have to back up before you use deadly force now. It takes the liability out of defending yourself. Go ahead, make my day. With all the people coming into our state from the south, it helps you sleep better at night.
 
....because all those damn border-hoppers from the south are out to steal your T.V. and eat your children, right?

Those crazy, crazy F.O.B's.

You're just looking for an excuse, aren't you?
 
That is why they are coming here.
Click to expand...

Man you guys are rough.
In many respects the unregulated immigration flow is killing society as we have know it in some areas of this nation..

I know, I know, the country was built by immigrants etc etc but this unregulated situation needs some control.

Out of control leads to Cayuse (sp) never a good thing
 
People are going to immigrate to this country. You can't stop it. So long as they have a reason to come, and no reason to leave, it's going to happen one way or another. The best solution is to find a better, (or enforceable) way of regulating and documenting the process so that most will choose legal avenues instead of illegal ones.

It's like doing your taxes. Sort of. The simpler and fairer the process, the less likely you'll be cheating on them. It worked in the 80's with Reagan - the tax code got simplified, and somehow, magically, tax revenue went up.

But we're getting off topic. The real topic is, what excuse do you have to shoot Mexicans?

it helps you sleep better at night.
Click to expand...

Motion to close this thread. But not until I get in a few more cheap shots.
 
Man you guys are rough.
In many respects the unregulated immigration flow is killing society as we have know it in some areas of this nation..

I know, I know, the country was built by immigrants etc etc but this unregulated situation needs some control.
Click to expand...
There is a HUGE difference between thinking illegal imigration needs to be come down hard upon and implying that you will probably need to shoot one of the immigrants.
 
Back on topic

Ya, it gives a little more peace of mind, knowing you don't have to prove you were correct in using deadly force both "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond reasonable suspicion."
 
Oh BTW

I still think "backing up" if at all possible is still the best coarse of action before using deadly force. I don't think anyone really wants to kill someone.
 
Well, not so sound like I'm encouraging the patterns developing here.... BUT, I tend to think the castle doctrine is pretty important.

So far in the last year I've had my truck broken into twice. OK--it happens. Don't like it, but it happens. Caught a couple individuals eyeing my bike under the carport not too long ago. I like to think they were just admiring, but the character and nervousness seemed to say they wanted to admire it at another location. Last week when I was home for the afternoon someone rattled the door upstairs and then mine. So someone is becoming more bold as time goes by. With an 11 year-old still at home, it's enough to make me a little 'nervous' about the patterns developing. So if someone decides to get bold enough to come through the door, I'm not going to be hesitating and backing into a far corner--you can be damn sure the castle doctrine is going to be pretty important. The line has to be drawn somewhere--and for me it's at their first step over the threshold.
 
Oh yes in the home is another story. On the street, RUN! Rangefinder do you live in Texas? Remember:
§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nope---Utah, and Montana before that. It's been a while since I've read through all the twisting details of the local laws here on the matter, but I wouldn't mind borrowing a few of yours just for added satisfaction. Luckily, the respectible gun-owner population keeps enough weight in the system to keep the nonsense laws I've seen elsewhere from allowing the not-so-respectable individuals to walk into our houses with more offense than we're allowed defense---legally as well as physically...for now.
 
It's not the castle doctrine that I'm bashing here. The burden of proof shouldn't be on me, if I shoot an unlawful intruder. That's not the issue.

The problem is the wording of the first post. Sounds like someone is feeling trigger happy.
 
Amen, brother. Muslim bashing threads, and now this one? Exactly how large is the fringe group on the TFL forum?
Click to expand...

Large, but not a majority. Just vocal and all too often tolerated and/or accepted.


As for the actual castle doctrine, I'm a fan.
 
I agree with Apple, I am not bashing the castle Doctrine. I have never liked the idea that I am required to flee my own home if someone breaks in to my house.

I just did not like the added impication that mexicans might need shooting.
 
the added impication that mexicans might need shooting.
Click to expand...

Well, if they need some on-the-job motivation....

The lawn's not gonna mow itself, now is it?

But seriously, I stand my ground if i can, when I'm on my own freaking property. But my first reaction won't be to shoot first. The thought if killing another human being still petrifies me. I've never really been in a situation where I might have had to use deadly force to protect myself. Wouldn't know how exactly I'd react. It's not like I can get some hands-on experience on the matter. Hopefully lots of training just makes the whole matter some muscle-memory ordeal, or else I'd do too much hesitating.

(if the implication wasn't clear, I was being sarcastic with the lawn-mowing joke)
 
+1 to PP and Apple. Mexican immigrants are the last thing you should worry about when it comes to home invasion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top