TexasCHLforum.com

It's always worth the try to write the letter, there are those of us who peruse the "Letters to the Editor" section every day, things like that do not go unnoticed.

Being that it's an AP source, I wonder why I didn't see it in the DMN, of course maybe the letters already published (running about two to one in favor of the bill from what I hear) have covered the ground adequately. The papers do not have to publish AP feeds.

Jim, Exactly.

10 years ago, I was an anti-gunner. Someone's patience made me see the light. You never know when your actions or attitude will get someone else to see the light.

O6nop wrote:I'm new at this, and I am sometimes taken in by biased reports, maybe I'm just not angry enough, but didn't this guy give equal time to both sides?

"I believe Texans who are attacked in their homes, their businesses, their vehicles or anywhere else have a right to defend themselves from attack without fear of being prosecuted and face possible civil suits alleging wrongful injury or death," Wentworth said.

"It is fundamental that honest, law-abiding citizens know the law is on their side if ever they are faced with danger from criminal attack," said Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist in Washington, D.C.

I agree some of the wording is on the biased side, particularly the title, but these quotes are pro-gun, aren't they?

I agree that the anti quotes are biased, but is the reporting the worst you've ever seen?

There's a great deal more to telling the truth than just giving equal time. If you read the entire article and look at the context in which your quotes are placed, the article makes the quotes appear as if the facts they represent are invalid or out of the mainstream thinking on the subject.

For example, the first quote follows the claim that Texas' gun laws are among the most liberal in the nation, and then presents the claim that Wentworth makes in the quote as if to prove that Texas' gun laws do not need further liberalizing and tyhat Wentworth is out of touch with reality.

In fact, the bill makes some important adjustments to CIVIL law that will protect homeowners, business owners, etc. from lawsuits over the use of deadly force when it has been found to be an appropriate use of force criminally speaking. For example, in a "good" shoot, no criminal charges are filed, but under current law, a civil wrongful death suit can be filed. They won't necessarily win, but it will still cost you big bucks to defend yourself.

Also, if you look at the language used, not just at the "pure" meaning, but the implicit meaning of the words used, the entire article is loaded with words that are intended to give you the impression that the proposed law is unreasonable and unneccessary. The article comes out and says that, but the way the quotes are used furthers the authors opinion without using any actual facts to back it up.

In realityland, laws like this one have been used to good effect to protect people in several states from lawsuits and abuse of the court system. It isn't a "shoot first" bill. It codifies that you do not have a duty to retreat in the face of deadly force. The author claims that there have been no prosecutions for this, but actually there have been. In Michigan, a homeowner was prosecuted because they didn't flee in the face of a break-in as required by law, and his failure to abandon his home before using deadly force got him charged - this law would prevent that from happening here (and it could under current law). The fact that the charges were defeated has no bearing on the costs faced by the homeowner (IIRC, he was left essentially destitute).

I've read over the article several times and also the first time I read it I was expecting strong bias against guns, which I never saw. My overall feeling about this article is that it is about as un-biased as an article I've ever seen. Most of the posts in this thread seem to be taking a section out of the article and adding their own bias or blaming the author for what the anti's said. I'm sorry, I don't see it, but obviously, everyone else posting does, so I'll bow out for now and let y'all discuss it further. I'll just lurk

Once upon a time we lived in a lawless society. Good men (and women) had to know how to protect themselves.

Now we seem to live in a society so strapped by laws that good men (and women) have written to protect "the rights of all" that we are again having to learn to defend ourselves.

I am tired of others taking on the resposibility of thinking for me and telling me what is best. Especially since so many of these people do not seen to think at all and certainly are not reasonable.

I hate to think that "Texans never retreat" because never is unreasonable as well, but I will defend myself in my home, on my property or when my life or one of mine is threatened anywhere.

Off of soapbox.

nitrogen wrote:The reason I say we have to "keep it civil" is because each and every one of us are ambassadors. We all represent, like it or not, gun owners and enthusiests. We also represent a minority of people who are willing to take care of ourselves; self reliance is a shrinking.

Remember the part of your CHL class that talks about conflict resolution? This applies to everyday life, not just life and death conflicts. To me, it sounds like your letter was written in the parental ego state. We need to handle these conflicts in the "adult" ego state.

Changing the mind of someone will not happen if you enter the discussion in a confrontational manner, I don’t care how many facts you have on your side.

Whether we like it or not, concealed carry license holders represent a small minority of Texans. We need converts, and fortunately the vast majority of folks are not predisposed to join the “anti� movement. We can win them over with measured, polite responses that show them we can be trusted with carrying weapons.

Should it be that way? Should we need anyone’s “approval� to carry our weapons? Of course not, that’s just not right…But since when is “right� all that’s required to get a law passed?

Ill just say this:

Having lived in this fair city for nearly 25 years, I am more than just "a little" acquainted with the tactics and "leanings" of this paper, they do not respond to niceties, they do react to frank talk.

I certainly do not disagree with everything contained within the body of the editorial, it is the heading that I object to. It was calculated (By the AP) to have a certain meaning, and then happily passed on by our local (news?) paper.

As predicted, my response did not see the light of day in the "Letters to the editor". The editor (much to my surprise) did e-mail me with the following, and my reply may be found just below.



Karla DeLuca <kdeluca@coxnews.com> wrote:

According to what I read in the article, the headline is accurate. The Associated Press story does say that it is commonly referred to as the "shoot first bill," and that it has broad support. The story also says that district attorneys, who are legal experts, do question the necessity of the bill, as our laws already protect those who defend themselves against intruders.

In any case, a headline only alerts readers to the subject of the story, it can't explain the nuances of proposed legislation in 12 words, and short words at that.

As for having a "left-wing bias," I don't believe in having a bias. Common sense tells me that a bird with only one wing can't fly, whether it's the left or the right. If I've got a bias for anything, I'd say it would be a bias towards common sense, fairness and good manners. I'm sure that's a result of my East Texas upbringing.

I can assure you that intellectual honesty is alive and well at the Sentinel. You don't indicate how long it's been since you've subscribed, but I'd like to invite you to pick one up and read beyond the headlines. Certainly, you aren't compelled to read, or agree, with everything in it.

Sincerely,
Karla DeLuca
Editor & Publisher
The Daily Sentinel



Karla,

Thank you for your reply.

Let me say.. simply "parroting" what was written by the AP and then claiming it to be accurate is the type of intellectual dishonesty I spoke of. You seek to prove your point by asking me to compare certain parts of the editorial with the headline, in a sort of (see there, its says so right here) kind of way.

Now, we both know why newspapers print "sensationalized" headings, and I certainly have no objection to an "editorial" that presents a different point of view. However, a tiny bit of research would have revealed that only Gun Control Advocates and their like.. apply the term "Shoot First Bill" to describe the Castle Doctrine.

If indeed, you have no bias...then print a follow up story (front page with large heading), something along these lines:

Texas Legislature to consider “Castle Doctrine� Self-Defense Bill for the upcoming Session

(This was followed with a short cut & paste article by the NRA/ILA).

Karla, I recognize your time is limited, but there is a wealth of information out there concerning this bill. Surely, you could have picked something more balanced.

If I can serve in any way.. to point you to current Texas Law, Penal Codes, Proposed Bills, etc...concerning Concealed Carry or the right to self defense by law abiding citizens of this state, please let me know. I will be happy to "do the work" for you.

Thank You for your time.

JMM

Great response flint.

longtooth wrote:Good job. alas, truth is seldom printed.

+1 from Dean LT...he nailed it; so true!

Exactly.

The brady campaign and their horrible ilk get their message heard in the media because:

1) they play on emotions, not facts
2) they play on prejudices



Most of our responses are of the style, "The facts say this, even though Brady says THAT. See how that's wrong?"

That type of response is only partially effective.

When I respond to these, I use the same techniques that brady uses.
"Your daughter is at the grocery store. She's putting her groceries away in the trunk when a rapist comes out of nowhere, grabs her, and throws her to the ground. She picks up a rock and bashes the would-be attacker in the head, stopping him.

She's no-billed by the grand jury, meaning no criminal charges will be filed.

The rapist ends up severely brain damaged from her defense.
The rapist's family sues her in civil court for loss of wages, and for the care he'll need for the rest of his life. She loses, and must pay two million dollars to the family. THAT's what the castle doctrine bill is about.
Legitimizing self defense, anywhere you can legally be. Also, protecting people who obviously defend themselves from the cost of friviolous lawsuits. Even if your daughter was sued and won, she'd have thousands of dollars of legal bills. IS that right? Brady thinks it is, and I don't."

Good job nitrogen. Go Castle Doctrine.

nitrogen wrote:Exactly.

The brady campaign and their horrible ilk get their message heard in the media because:

1) they play on emotions, not facts
2) they play on prejudices



Most of our responses are of the style, "The facts say this, even though Brady says THAT. See how that's wrong?"

That type of response is only partially effective.

When I respond to these, I use the same techniques that brady uses.
"Your daughter is at the grocery store. She's putting her groceries away in the trunk when a rapist comes out of nowhere, grabs her, and throws her to the ground. She picks up a rock and bashes the would-be attacker in the head, stopping him.

She's no-billed by the grand jury, meaning no criminal charges will be filed.

The rapist ends up severely brain damaged from her defense.
The rapist's family sues her in civil court for loss of wages, and for the care he'll need for the rest of his life. She loses, and must pay two million dollars to the family. THAT's what the castle doctrine bill is about.
Legitimizing self defense, anywhere you can legally be. Also, protecting people who obviously defend themselves from the cost of friviolous lawsuits. Even if your daughter was sued and won, she'd have thousands of dollars of legal bills. IS that right? Brady thinks it is, and I don't."

Please feel free to submit the above to the Daily Sentinel. Let us know how it goes.

Karla DeLuca <kdeluca@coxnews.com

Well, I agree with 06nop, I too do not see the bias that the majority of you see against guns in this article.

I understand why some feel we need protection against civil action. However, do any of you know of a civil case filed in Texas as a result of the justified use of deadly force? I don't. So, if none have been filed, then why? I believe the answer is found in accounting for the expense involved in bring such an action.

Some are quick to point out the high cost of defending a civil action. I agree, it could be very costly. However, it is equally as expensive to file such an action, to maintain the suit once filed (discovery is very expensive), and to execute any judgment granted. The potiential plaintiff will discover this while shopping lawyers.

The potiential plaintiiff who does not have the necessary funds (or one that does not want to spend his own money) may try to find an attorney to take the case on a contingency. Good luck. Lawyers are not quick to commit their money, time and office resources in filing and maintaining such an action UNLESS the potiential defendant has mega bucks. In short, getting a judgment and then spending even more money to execute it is not profitable if your defendant is the average "John/Jane Doe."

Again, I am not saying it would not be desirable to have protection. Sure it would. But, it seems to me the concern for such civil action might be exagerated.

Kyle,

Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean that there haven't been, or will be, many cases filed.

Lots of trials simply go un-noticed. For instance: You probably never heard about the trial in which a SantaFe freight train struck a man in North Fort Worth, yet American Airlines was found responsible, have you? Well I was on that jury, and it never even made a headline.

The reason that we don't hear of these cases is: They're not newsworthy to the press and if they are printed it's on page Z99 or something like that... on the page you would always use to line the bird cage with.

Also, another reason that you haven't heard so much of a CHL holder being sued is that we, as a whole, haven't had that many times in which our weapons have been discharged, unlike those of non-CHL'ers.

Now we hear of the rich-and-famous shootings, and we hear of their trials and tribulations, but we just don't hear about the mundane, everyday trials that happen.

Russ

Kyle Brown wrote:Well, I agree with 06nop, I too do not see the bias that the majority of you see against guns in this article.

I understand why some feel we need protection against civil action. However, do any of you know of a civil case filed in Texas as a result of the justified use of deadly force? I don't. So, if none have been filed, then why? I believe the answer is found in accounting for the expense involved in bring such an action.

Some are quick to point out the high cost of defending a civil action. I agree, it could be very costly. However, it is equally as expensive to file such an action, to maintain the suit once filed (discovery is very expensive), and to execute any judgment granted. The potiential plaintiff will discover this while shopping lawyers.

The potiential plaintiiff who does not have the necessary funds (or one that does not want to spend his own money) may try to find an attorney to take the case on a contingency. Good luck. Lawyers are not quick to commit their money, time and office resources in filing and maintaining such an action UNLESS the potiential defendant has mega bucks. In short, getting a judgment and then spending even more money to execute it is not profitable if your defendant is the average "John/Jane Doe."

Again, I am not saying it would not be desirable to have protection. Sure it would. But, it seems to me the concern for such civil action might be exagerated.

I did not restrict myself to Texas when conducting a search, as CHL holders here have reciprocity in many other states. But, if you like...I can do it that way as well.

The March issue of Combat Handguns has an article written by Massad Ayoob that recounts (11) cases of wrongful prosecutions/lawsuits. You can buy it at stores now, or possibly find the article online.

That alone should be plenty.

Also,

I didn't spend any time at all finding these:

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200402 ... -2302r.htm

http://convictedwrongfully.com/ (read the detailed account).