The Gun Blogs

Is my 'stuff' worth dying for?

Personally, I'd say 'No'. But that doesn't mean I won't shoot you if you try to take it.

You see, for you the value of my 'stuff' is low - just the few dollars you'll be able to pawn it for, or the cheap thrill you get from taking it.

But to me many of those items are precious beyond words, treasured mementos of people, places, and times. That cheap little thing you may take just to laugh at and destroy may be the one and only thing I have left from someone deeply beloved and long gone. That link is worth protecting.

And as to the rest of my 'stuff' you should keep in mind that those are pieces of my life that you're taking. I worked to get those things and no insurance company will ever be able to give me the portion of my life I expended to get something back.

All of that ignores the other, more practical reasons why you're risking your life stealing from me.

You see, I cannot know what your intentions are. You say (now) that you were only going to steal and would never hurt anyone. But you see the problem is that many other thieves are willing to harm my loved ones and I so I have to treat all thieves as dangerous.

Besides, no matter what you intend now, how can I be sure (sure enough to bet my life) that you won't change your mind when confronted?

All in all, the most reasonable thing for me when you try to rob me is to presume that if you're willing to steal you're willing to do additional harm as well and do what I can to protect myself and my loved ones.

Which means I will shoot you.

You don't want to get shot. I hear it's quite painful and, of course, there's a significant risk that you will die.

And I don't think anything I own is worth you risking your life to steal, so please don't put yourself in a position to be killed over something so trivial as my 'stuff'. Get a job and get your own.

Dallas Morning News:

State Rep. Joe Driver, R-Garland, wants people to have the same right to shoot intruders who invade their cars and businesses as they have to shoot people who break into their homes.

If House Bill 284 were to become law, a person would have the right to use deadly force and would no longer be required to retreat to avoid violence in a business, workplace or vehicle.

Actually, we already have legal precedent for lethal force in self defense while in a vehicle. Tomorrow when my blog comes back online and I can search it, I'll try to look up the reference and link it.

In short, the very first instance of lethal self defense by a Texas CHL holder was when he was attacked while sitting in his car in a traffic jam. The man who attacked him was punching him with his fists through the open window. The man being attacked shot and killed the one hitting him.

It was no-billed--the pre-trail hearing determined it was lawful self defense and that was that.

However, this bill also provides protection against civil suits. Pertinent part here:

Sec. 83.001. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using force or deadly force under Subchapter C, Chapter 9, Penal Code.

SECTION 5. Chapter 83, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended by adding Section 83.002 to read as follows:

Sec. 83.002. COURT COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND OTHER EXPENSES. A defendant who prevails in asserting the affirmative defense described by Section 83.001 may recover from the plaintiff all court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, earned income that was lost as a result of the suit, and other reasonable expenses.

Of course, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Lawful Self Defense doesn't like it, but they couldn't stop this movement in numerous other states, and I doubt they'll have much effect in Texas.

The full text of the new bill can be found at the Texas Legislature website as House Bill No. 284.

Crossposted from Blogonomicon (or it will be, when my blog comes back online tomorrow).

The Texas State Senate - Jeff Wentworth: SD 25 - News Release:

It is a long-held belief that a man's home is his castle.

The principle of the "Castle Doctrine" began in the 16th century with English common law which held that citizens had the right to protect themselves inside their homes.

When the 80th Legislature convenes in January, Texas legislators will have the opportunity to turn the concept of the "Castle Doctrine" into state law. I intend to file a bill which would ensure that Texans have the right to forcefully protect themselves and their families from criminals who invade their homes.

Under current Texas law, residents must first seek a means of escape before using force against an intruder. Homeowners who do not attempt to escape before using force may be criminally prosecuted for protecting themselves, their homes, and their families. And I believe that this is wrong.

I believe Texans should have the right to defend themselves and their families from criminals who break into their homes. My bill would not only protect victims of home invasions from criminal prosecution by the state, but also from possible civil litigation brought by criminals and/or their relatives.

Texans should not have to prove in court that their lives were directly threatened. The reasonable assumption that a home intruder naturally threatens the lives of a home's residents should become law.

Public opinion supports this legislation. A questionnaire in the newsletter I sent to voters of Senate District 25 in January asked if they supported the right of home residents to use deadly force against intruders, without first having to try to escape. Eighty-eight percent of the more than 16,000 respondents said they did.

My bill to ensure Texans' right to defend themselves in their own homes should make men and women feel safer in their own "castles."

Texas is already fairly friendly toward lethal force when used in one's own home. Still, some extra legal protection couldn't hurt. I would prefer something more along the lines of the "Stand Your Ground" type of law, but I suppose this is a start. I especially like the protection against civil lawsuits.

I should also mention that Texas has an odd "night-time" provision in the law. Although this press release is partly correct, the duty to retreat only applies during daylight. After dark, according to Texas law, you have no duty to retreat. Although I can't cite the case, there was an instance several years ago when a San Antonio area farmer used the night-time provision to legally protect himself when he used lethal force after dark against someone who was stealing his property but who had not entered his house (they were stealing farm equipment). I mentioned the "night-time" quirk before in this post.

Crossposted from Blogonomicon.

David Hardy notes a Castle Doctrine bill passed in Oklahoma. The governor is expected to sign it.