TexasCHLforum.com

Spotted this in our local (liberal) newspaper today.

Check out the front page heading, (the print for the heading was only slightly smaller than the newspaper's name across the top).

My letter to the editor is at the end of this post. Arrrgggghhh!!!!!


Bills filed to shoot first, retreat later in self-defense
By JIM VERTUNO
Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN — Castle Doctrine sounds like a medieval warning to invaders: Cross this moat and suffer the consequences.
A pair of Republican state lawmakers now want to use it to revise Texas' modern-day self-defense laws.
Sen. Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio and Rep. Joe Driver of Garland have sponsored bills to have Texas join more than a dozen states with the so-called "Castle Doctrine," a sort of shoot-first, retreat-later approach to defending hearth, home, truck and business.
Essentially, the Castle Doctrine is born out of the common-law theory that a man's home is his castle and he has a right to defend it.
And although Texas already has some of the broadest self-defense laws in the country, Wentworth says his bill would expand the legal rights of crime victims to protect themselves, their relatives and their property from intruders in their home, occupied vehicles or business.
It would create a legal presumption that an intruder is there to cause death or great bodily harm and that victims have the right to use deadly force. He says current law in some instances imposes a duty to retreat before using potentially deadly force on an intruder.
"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.
More than a dozen other states have written the Castle Doctrine into law and the National Rifle Association is among those pushing for Texas to join them.
"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.
But critics deride it as a "shoot-to-kill" bill that allows for more violence and removes a tool from prosecutors.
"It's not Castle Doctrine. That's in the home and you have a right to defend the home," said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "This is the Kingdom Doctrine and you can kill someone anywhere in public. That's a far cry from the home."
Legal experts wonder if they change is really needed.
Jerry Dowling, a criminal justice professor at Sam Houston State University, said state law already protects self-defense of life and property, particularly in one's home, or castle.
"I've lived in Texas 30-plus years and I would be astounded to hear of a Texas jury that convicted someone who blasted a guy who was in his house," Dowling said. "It would just be anathema to the culture down here."
Prosecutors have had mixed reactions to the bill, said Shannon Edmonds, spokesman for the Texas District and County Attorneys Association.
District Attorneys are waiting for proponents of the change to produce an example of someone wrongfully convicted and imprisoned in Texas for an act of self-defense.
"Is this a solution in search of a problem?" Edmonds said.
Hamm said the courts are quite capable of deciding what is justifiable force.
"The police, prosecutors and juries decide whether you acted in legitimate self-defense," Hamm said. "That system works."
But the bills already have broad support. Wentworth's office said nearly all of the 31 state senators have signed onto his bill and more than 100 house members have signed Driver's bill in that chamber.
According to a 2006 report by the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence, Texas law was based on the castle doctrine until 1973, when it was changed to make use of force justifiable only if a reasonable person would not have retreated.
Dowling, the professor, said it's reasonable in Texas to expect the use of deadly force in a home invasion.
"That's what I tell my students," Dowling said. "By God, the reasonable Texan never retreats."
___




Letter to Editor:

I happened to notice todays paper lying on a table at work. I was reminded once again why I do not subscribe.

I can not remember when I have seen a more irresponsible/misleading heading on a front page: "Shoot first bill has broad support".

In no way does the Castle Doctrine propose "shooting first", but I suppose small things (like the truth) don't really matter. After all, this can always be retracted next week on page 16 B.

A shameful display of this paper's left wing bias. But typical of what I've come to expect. What has happened to intellectual honesty at the Sentinel?

JMM

Good job. alas, truth is seldom printed.

My, they're really pulling out all the stops and making sure no lie goes untold in their effort to defeat this bill. It's amazing to me that they feel so threatened by it.

I suppose it all comes down to a choice of whether you feel that there is indeed such a thing a justifiable use of deadly force in defense of self/family/personal property or not. Obviously the author of the editorial has neither done his homework nor put much critical thought into what he would do if someone assaulted him & his family in a public place. It's also obvious that he hasn't bothered to read the actual bill so that he can understand the language in it that protects people who have legitimately used deadly force from the civil effects such actions can have.

We have previously had people prosecuted for shooting knife wielding attackers, with the latest being an attempt in California prompted by an editorial that asks the question "Why did the police officer shoot an attacker who was armed only with a screwdriver?" The fact is that the attacker "only" had a screwdriver that he was trying to thrust into the officer's chest, and the officer was saved only because the first attack was stopped by his body armor and he was able to bring his firearm to bear to defend himself.

California didn't arrive at their culture overnight, and it seems to me that we should strive to both protect our culture and to ensure that such silliness is not propogated in Texas. The so-called "Castle Doctrine" law would help ensure both of these ends and also ensure that someone cleared of criminal wrongdoing in such a case is not subjected to civil suits by surviving criminals and/or their families.

Mithras61 wrote: California didn't arrive at their culture overnight, and it seems to me that we should strive to both protect our culture and to ensure that such silliness is not propogated in Texas.

I d0on't have the fogiest idiea how we can keep them Kalifornians out. Heck, we can't even keep the illegal Mexicans out!

flintknapper wrote: Jerry Dowling, a criminal justice professor at Sam Houston State University, said state law already protects self-defense of life and property, particularly in one's home, or castle.
"I've lived in Texas 30-plus years and I would be astounded to hear of a Texas jury that convicted someone who blasted a guy who was in his house," Dowling said. "It would just be anathema to the culture down here."

JMM

Someone really didn't do their homework, this guy is referencing the criminal court. What about civil court? Isn't that one of the main items in the bill, being protected from lawsuits brought on by the criminals family?

I don't subscribe the the paper, but have one more reason not to. Thanks for posting.

We need to keep it civil in the newspapers. We need to talk to them like you talk to a child who makes a mistake, because, in reality that's what they are.

"Dear sir,

I read your recent story entitled, 'Bills filed to shoot first, retreat later in self-defense' and I am curious. How many of the dozen or so other states have had problems with this law?
I'd also like to know why there's a problem with empowering citizens to defend their lives anywhere they have a legal right to be? That is what the bill's legislative intent is; and I see nothing wrong with that. I also see nothing else wrong with protecting someone who defends themselves legally from costly civil suits.
I ask Mr. VERTUNO a pointed question: If your daughter was about to be raped, would you want her to be able to defend herself? If she defended herself from her attackers, wouldn't you want to protect her from a frivioilous civil suit from her potential rapist's family?"

"I've lived in Texas 30-plus years and I would be astounded to hear of a Texas jury that convicted someone who blasted a guy who was in his house," Dowling said. "It would just be anathema to the culture down here."

This quote fails to recognize the "civil" suit that can be brought against a person who otherwise was considered justified. All that is needed to destroy ones life, is to sit before the "wrong" jury.

They really don't get it, do they?

These people get it in their head and never try to cure their ignorance.

Its such a shame.

They had the same article in the Abilene paper this morning which I read on line for free. I was unable to finish reading the article because I find such stupidity disgusting. I would be tempted to cancel my subscription to the paper over this but I already canceled when I discovered their 30.06 sign. The media has done as much as liberal politicians to hurt our rights to responsible gun ownership.

Jimmy is your typical "AP Bombthrower", who mantra is "Never let the Truth stand in the way of a 14-point headline!"

The funniest thing, is that those staunch supporters of the Sensational like the Dallas Morning Landfill can't for the life of themselves understand why their readership is going the same direction as their integrity; down the toilet.

Bad for my company, as advertising in the paper has been our sole source of getting our product out there for the last 50 years...... but we are now searching for alternatives.

Pretty soon, they will have the same weight as the doorhangers on my porch....

~Bill

nitrogen wrote:We need to keep it civil in the newspapers. We need to talk to them like you talk to a child who makes a mistake, because, in reality that's what they are.
"Dear sir,

I read your recent story entitled, 'Bills filed to shoot first, retreat later in self-defense' and I am curious. How many of the dozen or so other states have had problems with this law?
I'd also like to know why there's a problem with empowering citizens to defend their lives anywhere they have a legal right to be? That is what the bill's legislative intent is; and I see nothing wrong with that. I also see nothing else wrong with protecting someone who defends themselves legally from costly civil suits.
I ask Mr. VERTUNO a pointed question: If your daughter was about to be raped, would you want her to be able to defend herself? If she defended herself from her attackers, wouldn't you want to protect her from a frivolous civil suit from her potential rapist's family?"

NOPE!

My response to this ridiculous headline will be relegated (if printed at all) to a very small section of the paper called "Letters to the Editor". If they want to afford me an opportunity to re-butt the story...THEN I will exercise all the restraint I am capable of.

The entire purpose of my letter to them (limited to 300 words or less...per their requirements), was to let them know how irresponsible I think they are, and that circulation of their paper is suffering because of it. But, not to worry, they will NEVER print what I wrote.

I make no apologies.


Flint.

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

again
Man, we think alike.

what ever happened to unbiased reporting?

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.

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?