Texas has a law that allows a home one to protect themselves and their property. This has long been a target for the left. See Below.
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.”
Actual Bill Texas HB-196
87R1395 JCG-D By: MezaH.B. No. 196 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the use of deadly force in defense of a person or property. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. Sections 9.32(a) and (c), Penal Code, are amended to read as follows: (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another if the actor: (1) is [if the actor would be] justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; [and] (2) is unable to safely retreat; and (3) [when and to the degree the actor] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, or aggravated sexual assault[, robbery, or aggravated robbery]. (c) Notwithstanding Subsection (a)(2), a [A] person who is in the person’s own habitation [has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used], who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section. SECTION 2. Section 9.41, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land, including a habitation on the land, or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land, including a habitation on the land, or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor. SECTION 3. Section 9.42, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows: Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land, including a habitation on the land, or tangible, movable property if the actor: (1) is [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. SECTION 4. Sections 9.32(b) and (d), Penal Code, are repealed. SECTION 5. The change in law made by this Act applies only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of this section, an offense was committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurred before that date. SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2021.
This post was created with our nice and easy submission form. Create your post!