TexasCHLforum.com

Made the DMN again this morning, in reference to a cartoon published twice in the last week. The cartoon features a football referee in uniform with a name tag identifying him as "Texas Legislature" and showing "CASTLE LAW" on the instant replay monitor.

My comment said, in part:

"The cartoon in the Community Opinions section on Friday could not be further from the truth.

The law itself is not flawed, it is the understanding of it that is flawed. It is still illegal to shoot someone if they are not doing something that they could have been shot for before the law was passed. All the law did was remove an obligation to retreat that had been established by judicial fiat years before.

It is now legal to stand your ground on your own property and not have to run away from criminals bent on doing you and yours harm, and they can't sue you for granting them the ultimate benefits of their nefarious careers, that's all.

Jim Longley, Allen"

Of course they left off the introductory sentence about the legislature not even being in session yet, but that really wasn't the point either.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 5d49c.html

Interestingly enough this is the second letter from me in a week that they have published, the previous being about "castle law" also.

"Part of the reason for the legislation in the first place is the perception that many of our prosecutors have co-opted presumption for their own purposes, that the fact of arrest or indictment presumes guilt.

What ever happened to "presumed innocent until proven guilty"?

Sounds to me like the prosecutors are whining about having to do their jobs.

Jim Longley, Allen"

Which was engendered by a comment in an article that prosecutors are now having to contend with a presumption of innocence . . .

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... b4229.html

Keep it up, Jim. I'm actually glad to see a paper anywhere printing an editorial with a conservative view! It's tough to find these days. Keep spreading the good word!

I'm telling you Jim, they're going give you a job up there!!!

Tactical_Texan_CHL wrote:Keep it up, Jim. I'm actually glad to see a paper anywhere printing an editorial with a conservative view! It's tough to find these days. Keep spreading the good word!

So the liberal view is that we shouldn't be allowed to protect ourselves and that we should have to run away like a dog? I know what you were saying, it just angers me that people would argue against this law.

Penn wrote:

Tactical_Texan_CHL wrote:Keep it up, Jim. I'm actually glad to see a paper anywhere printing an editorial with a conservative view! It's tough to find these days. Keep spreading the good word!

So the liberal view is that we shouldn't be allowed to protect ourselves and that we should have to run away like a dog? I know what you were saying, it just angers me that people would argue against this law.

It has happened in several states, Texas among them. The one I am most familiar with was where a young mother retreated from one part of her house to another, finally being cornered in the basement, where she stabbed her attacker with a garden tool. He or his survivors sued, (I am a little shaky on the details, it was a long time ago) and she was held to be responsible because the judge said she still had an avenue of escape left, so she had no reason to use deadly force to defend herself.

I understood that it was somewhat similar in the TX case.

jimlongley wrote:It has happened in several states, Texas among them. The one I am most familiar with was where a young mother retreated from one part of her house to another, finally being cornered in the basement, where she stabbed her attacker with a garden tool. He or his survivors sued, (I am a little shaky on the details, it was a long time ago) and she was held to be responsible because the judge said she still had an avenue of escape left, so she had no reason to use deadly force to defend herself.

Avenue of escape? From the basement?!!? Preposterous. That judge should be [insert bad thing here].

Anyone have any details on the Texas case that's similar? Was it before the Castle law was passed by our rulers in Austin?

Great work Jim, keep it up! The SA paper has printed a couple of letters I've written since moving here, but they've ignored the last couple.

JT

thejtrain wrote:Avenue of escape? From the basement?!!? Preposterous. That judge should be [insert bad thing here].

Anyone have any details on the Texas case that's similar? Was it before the Castle law was passed by our rulers in Austin?

Great work Jim, keep it up! The SA paper has printed a couple of letters I've written since moving here, but they've ignored the last couple.

JT

The incident in TX was a long while back, and contributed to the reason for the law.

In the NY case, the basement had a Bilco door, outdoor entrance, which was bolted, but not locked, from the inside, and the judge stated that she could have exited through that door without further danger to herself.

I wish I had a better memory or reference for it, that one was also a long time ago.

The only reference I could find was Clayton Cramer's review of a more recent case: http://www.claytoncramer.com/DutyToRetreat.html