Last updated on January 1st, 2021 at 04:52 pm
I guess this isn’t too far outside my stated reason for having this site. To encourage spiritual and physical health in others. I can see how both of these issues can impact your physical well-being. One other note, I know the image is not flattering, it may even be harsh, but given that Miriam-Webster defines dunce as someone who is slow at learning, I stand by it.
So when I first heard about Representative Thresa Meza‘s HB 196 regarding changes to defenses against the use of deadly force, I was miffed. Please! Do not let this happen to my beloved Texas. The bill isn’t as bad as I’ve seen it presented but it needs to be opposed nonetheless. While it doesn’t impose a strict duty to retreat on you in your home, it changes it to require it to be your own habitation. Current law would allow an adult child visiting their parents home to defend that home with the same protections under the law. This bill would remove that. I suppose you would lose the protection for defending your small business location as well. Interestingly, it also amends the crimes this applies to when it says a person is justified in using deadly force against another…
to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault,or aggravated sexual assault [,robbery,or aggravated robbery].
Just to be clear, it appears that you would not be justified in using deadly force, even in your own habitation, to protect yourself from robbery, or aggravated robbery. In case you wonder what aggravated robbery is, and therefore what this bill would remove your protections from defending yourself against; here’s the definition of Aggravated Robbery from the Texas Penal Code:
(a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(c) In this section, “disabled person” means an individual with a mental, physical, or developmental disability who is substantially unable to protect himself from harm.
I do not think this bill will see the light of day. I do think an even more nonsensical piece of municipal legislation, thankfully out of Seattle, may have a chance of becoming law. If I was a Seattle resident, I would sell everything and take my family elsewhere before the end of the year. This is asking for trouble and given the way it is being handled behind closed doors and outside of the normal process, I figure the City Council there knows it.
Basically, addiction, mental health issues, and poverty would be a defense to prosecution for virtually every misdemeanor you can commit is your intent was to meet and immediate and basic need. According to this MSN.com story, “For example, if a defendant argued they stole merchandise to sell for cash in order to purchase food, clothes or was trying to scrape together enough money for rent. The accused could not be convicted.”
God, please help this country.