- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Meanwhile in Texas
Posted on 1/8/21 at 4:35 pm to Areddishfish
Posted on 1/8/21 at 4:35 pm to Areddishfish
quote:
This whole thing was from a satirical website.
Not true.
Per the actual quote referenced to set the record straight in the politifact article SloFloPro posted:
quote:
Her tweet said the bill "does not repeal the Castle Doctrine, and it does not restrict homeowners from using firearms in self-defense as applicable to current Texas stand your ground laws." She said the legislation is intended to require a homeowner to exhaust the potential of safely retreating into their habitation before using deadly force in defense of themselves or their property, and that she believes the current law "emboldens people to people to take justice into their own hands."
Which is really not much different from the satirical quote given. It would still inflict complicated rules to terrible heat of the moment situations.
Do you want more marches in the streets? Cause this is how you get more marches in the streets.
Posted on 1/8/21 at 4:39 pm to Ridgewalker
quote:
"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."
WHAT IN THE frick IS THIS IDIOCY?!?!
Posted on 1/8/21 at 5:00 pm to Ridgewalker
It amazes me people this stupid get elected
Posted on 1/8/21 at 5:26 pm to Huck Finn
Yeah typical politifact. Focus only the part that’s false and ignore the true aspects.
Popular
Back to top

1





