H.B. 196. Well Now I know STUPID

[coker737]

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/HB00196I.HTM?fbclid=IwAR3y5ARekLykkAdbU2lgntTAIL0OgEsaK8fZNvdUmxvzGG4xHdYIBC1GDDI

When you vote in idiots, this is what you get. Trying to take away your rights if someone breaks into your house to rob you. Your just supposed to flee your house because you have insurance. Come on Irving get it together, don’t California our Texas.

[MadHatter]

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87...G4xHdYIBC1GDDI

When you vote in idiots, this is what you get. Trying to take away your rights if someone breaks into your house to rob you. Your just supposed to flee your house because you have insurance. Come on Irving get it together, don’t California our Texas.

The Crooked I.
Need to just nuke that sewage pond.

[MacDaddy67]

I really want to know what world these people live in.....

Stupid is an understatement

[AWnNETX]

Yep saw this yesterday. Was going to post it up today. Probably the most ridiculous mindset I’ve ever witnessed. Sad thing is, there are a lot more out there who would support this nonsense. Scary times.

[JayB]

Maybe I can't read it on my phone too well, but looks to me like they are just cleaning up the language to be sure use of deadly force gets holes removed so it is harder to prosecute.

The underlined is language added the marked through is language removed.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

[Hogmauler]

Hopefully what goes around comes around.

[Playa]

Maybe I can't read it on my phone too well, but looks to me like they are just cleaning up the language to be sure use of deadly force gets holes removed so it is harder to prosecute.

The underlined is language added the marked through is language removed.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

No. The provisions require a home owner to retreat to somewhere like a locked room or out of the house and only use violence in direct response to an act of violence, and even then the property owner is responsible for harm. It’s not showing up language, it’s making it so that criminals have more rights for forcible intrusion and burglary...

If the bill makes you angry, wait till you see her commentary...

[Playa]

https://mobile.twitter.com/terryfortexas/status/1329504824879173634?lang=en

Screen shots for those that don’t Twitter

[SabreKiller]

This has zero chance of going anywhere.

[Graysonhogs]

https://mobile.twitter.com/terryfort...173634?lang=en

Screen shots for those that don’t Twitter

[ATTACH]1031503[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]1031504[/ATTACH]

Still a dumbazz idea. "Exhaust all options". Yep, really gonna have time to go down a checklist... The criminal has the option not to break into my house. Don't start nuthin, won't be nuthin. Her "clarification" does nothing.

[coker737]

Maybe I can't read it on my phone too well, but looks to me like they are just cleaning up the language to be sure use of deadly force gets holes removed so it is harder to prosecute.

The underlined is language added the marked through is language removed.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Try 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.
Now listen to 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 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."
Meza was quick to reassure that her bill "would not totally prevent homeowners from defending themselves.
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."

[coker737]

https://mobile.twitter.com/terryfort...173634?lang=en

Screen shots for those that don’t Twitter

[ATTACH]1031503[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]1031504[/ATTACH]

My Glock will exhaust and neutralize the threat....Hello, Texas Law Shield.......

[SmTx]

It's not justice it's survival.

Makes sense a politician wants people to be able to steal without being killed. They steal from us every day.

[BiggieSmalls]

Try 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.
Now listen to 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 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."
Meza was quick to reassure that her bill "would not totally prevent homeowners from defending themselves.
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."

Come on, this all has to be a freaking joke. There is no way someone can seriously think any of that is right! Was she seriously quoted as saying all of this? She needs a serious talking to.....

[DFWPI]

She is just a plain ole dumb ***** democratic idiot.