Protecting your property in TX

Hello Butch.:)I make no attempts at adding credibility to my statements here, or the thread in which I defined "SEPERATIST", "SUPREMACIST", or "RACIST".
They stand alone as fact.
It became necessary for me to point out the fact of my race because in post #68 of this thread Trip20 called me Hitler.
In post #71 459 stated I came across as an apologist for the white supremacy movement.:confused:
And in post #73 459 stated that based on what I had written, I could easily be mistaken for one.
I challenge anyone to read my remarks in the gun control poll and make the connection between them and my being an "APOLOGIST" or"SUPREMACIST" for whites. My definitions were just that, definitions. Nowhere did I ascribe a particular race. I AM HISPANIC.
459's statement that, "based on what I had written, I could easily be mistaken for one", exactly proves my point in my definition of racist, as does your statement, and I QUOTE:THE WHITE/MALE ASSUMPTIONS, PROBABLY FLOW FROM THE COMMENTS THEMSELVES, THEY ARE NOT COMMENTS TYPICALLY HEARD FROM ANY OTHER RACE OR GENDER.END QUOTE.
Racist is to often used as a negative term. What people actually mean is bigot. Which by definition means someone who is fanatically intolerant of anyone whose race, creed, religon, beliefs etc. are unlike their own.
Race can be the entire human race, or, for matters of identification specific ethnic groups,i.e. Indian, Asian, Caucasian, HISPANIC, Middle Eastern etc.
The "PREJUDICIAL BIGOTS" among us chose to assume I was white, which I again state proves my definition of "RACIST", which we all are.
Anyone who does not recognize that there are fundamental differences among the many peoples who inhabit our planet must, (if I may use a signature of a member of this site), WILDALASKA, be, "in my own little world".
THANKS BRAVO25.
 
Racist and bigot are pretty much interchangeable terms in every day idiom. Trying to separate them from each other as terms, as you are doing, can be confusing. In this thread, your comments would not lend me to think of you as any particular race/gender - the quote that was brought in from another thread did though.

Note that I have not attempted to characterize you, or your opinions, but have only attempted to explain how one might be led to the false assumption that the comments themselves come from a particular race/gender.

My own humble theory is that racism/bigotry is hardwired into us as an instinctive matter. Back in our hunter gatherer days, an interloper found in our hunting gathering grounds was a very basic threat to survival, a stranger stealing from our necessary survival resources; something that would cause an instinctive hatred and desire to kill.

My theory is that as we were tribal and family groups that depended upon each other for survival, and upon a territory to hunt and gather from; we recognized that anyone outside our tribal family group was a stranger and a survival threat ~ and that was true for a stranger of the same race. Imagine then the instinctive dislike for a stranger of a different race?

One small piece of evidence for this is that in many of the American Indian tribes (and other primitive tribes around the world) the translation of their tribal name was "the human beings" or similar terms. Implying that members of other tribes, although racially the same, were not humans but animals.

This racial antipathy was of some survival use orignally but now is not. We now struggle with a hardwired instinct that no longer serves a purpose. Some are better at fighting that instinct than others.
 
I haven't been here for quite a while, so this thread drew me because of it's length.
Just a few comments.
1: Yes, in Texas you can use deadly force to protect your property, especially at night.
2: EVERY shooting instance of this type IS a SD shooting 'de jure' in Texas. The state accepts that you cannot determine to a certainty that the thief is unarmed in the dark and you and the police both are to assume that he IS armed and respond apropriately. That is the basis for the "you can basically shoot at night for anything, even vandalism" law.
3: There may be one or two jurisdictions where you might be arrested afterwards, but they ain't in East Texas, including the increasingly liberal city of Houston, or West Texas. Maybe in the Dallas area or around Austin(tacious). It just isn't going to happen, regardless of the fears of the lawsuit-scared on here. DA's LIKE to get re-elected and arresting honest citizens will get them voted out FAST in most of Texas. It doesn't take much controversy in the paper to scare an elected lawyer.
4: The legislature has stopped stupid lawsuits by families (or surviving thieves) when someone is shot during the commission of a crime.
5: There IS NO DECISION to make about whether your property is worth a life or not. That decision has ALREADY been made by the idiot who is betting his life against your property. He decided that your stuff was worth MORE than his life or he would not be doing it. If he values your stuff more than his life, how much value do you think he places on YOURS? How hard is that to understand.
6: As for calling the police, when I left Houston 9 years ago, the average response time was over 10 minutes and climbing monthly. Out here in the Piney Woods, it is 25-40 minutes. Count on them if you want too, but they will not be responsible for anything that happens before (and usually after, if TSHTF) they get there.
 
Last edited:
I have argued this topic ( and the eventual downhill slide into racial prejudice) for nearly a week now and although I consider myself fairly articulate, you, Texasvet, in one fell swoop of the pen,
have said what I wish I had in the beginning. So well put there can be no arguement.
I commend you on your writing and your views.
Humbly, B.
 
5: There IS NO DECISION to make about whether your property is worth a life or not. That decision has ALREADY been made by the idiot who is betting his life against your property. He decided that your stuff was worth MORE than his life or he would not be doing it. If he values your stuff more than his life, how much value do you think he places on YOURS? How hard is that to understand.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that where it is legal to use deadly force under the law, you are willing and planning on using it in every situation?
 
Well, there's a lawyer's question! "Answer yes or no!".*
But "Yes, always" would be a criminally (literally) stupid answer and "No, never" would be just flat Yankee Democrat liberal type stupid. The only answer that makes sense to me is to realize that deadly force MAY BE NECCESSARY in these situations and to be prepared to use it if neccessary and be eternally glad when you DON'T have to.
And yes, I've been there, and really am glad I did not have to use the gun I had. An unusually smart thief, didn't do anything stupid or try to run. Just sat down and waited for the cops.

*Well, if you're not a lawyer, I apologize for the insult. If you are, I don't!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top