Paris Is Burning Over Climate Change Taxes -- Is America Next?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

12 hours ago, Illurion said:

I disagree.   They are totally unbalanced as far their reporting is concerned.

Isn't it strange that the MEDIA DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY FROM EVERYONE BUT THEMSELVES.

Yes, it is.

[AlexF + 12]

15 hours ago, Illurion said:

MEDIA DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY FROM EVERYONE BUT THEMSELVES.

Can I ask why you always use capital letters ? Is it a way to express your anger or is it just to make sure that we will be able to read your post ? Thanks

[Illurion + 894]

2 hours ago, AlexF said:

Can I ask why you always use capital letters ? Is it a way to express your anger or is it just to make sure that we will be able to read your post ? Thanks

(1)   I do not "ALWAYS" capitalize as you can see by what i write.

(2)   Neither of your REASONS for why i capitalize things are accurate.

I capitalize points that i wish to EMPHASIZE,  which is the historical use for capitalizing words within a sentence.    In addition,  i often capitalize "QUOTES" from other people.     It is the way i was raised.

Nowadays,  there are many on the Internet that choose to believe that capitalizing something is yelling.   A silly belief that fails to take into account many hundreds of years of normal written formatting.

I do not yell,  nor do i subscribe to their belief.

Nor do i use all of the abbreviations,  and hyphenations that are used on the Internet and texting via cell phone.

As far as i am concerned,  people who do that are just too lazy to write correctly.

 

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Illurion

[Otis11 + 551]

On 12/13/2018 at 7:22 AM, Jan van Eck said:

Readers note:  in Texas  (as in most States) the prosecution of a crime can pass via through two channels.  One, the police make an arrest, and the prosecutor's office decides whether or not to prosecute.  If the police have not made an arrest, but have only collected information and handed that to the prosecutor, then the prosecutor has to seek an Indictment from the Grand Jury, which is a special jury of empaneled citizens.  The idea behind the Grand Jury system is to act as a check on prosecutors abusing authority to start criminal proceedings based on "I don't like you, so I will do a criminal prosecution on whatever I can find, just to try to hurt you."  

In this Houston case, it is apparent that the homeowner had committed a crime, specifically manslaughter.  The Grand Jury however refused to start the judicial machinery by refusing to Indict the felony crime, thus preventing the prosecutor's office from launching the prosecution.  You may think of this as "Jury Nullification."  The Grand Jury does not issue reasons for its decisions, and its deliberations are in secret, so nobody can ever determine what the reasoning was.  But keep in mind the context:  Houston is a city totally awash in guns, murder is notorious, and there is a vast criminal component in Houston, acting as parasites on the citizens. Just about everybody in Houston has been robbed at gunpoint at one time or another.  

So the Grand Jury simply refuses the prosecutor's office's request for an indictment, so that the manslaughter charges can be prosecuted. What it comes back to is: too many crazies out there with too many guns.  You also see this phenomenon in South Africa, incidentally  (perhaps even worse). 

None of this changes that shooting someone dead through a locked door is a felony crime.  It is.  The door is your protection from whatever mayhem lies outside.  The homeowner had the option of sitting inside (with his gun, of course) and calling the police, and waiting it out.  He chose not to.  That decision would send him to jail for at least ten years in other jurisdictions.  In Texas, he was shielded by the Grand Jury (not the police nor the prosecutors, who treated it as a murder).  He was also not being shielded by the "castle doctrine," notwithstanding what other posters here might try to persuade you to believe; there is no "castle doctrine" applicability as the perpetrator, whatever his intentions, was outside a locked building.  Trust this explains. 

Jan, this is blatantly false.

The Law as written states you can, in Texas, shoot someone who is on your property. If they leave your property empty handed, you can not shoot them. However, if they have stolen something from your yard, you can chase them down the street and shoot them in the back to prevent them from absconding with your possessions. This does not have to do with Jury Nullification. The castle doctrine does apply if the perpetrator (the person you happen to be calling the victim - note, while the trespasser is shot, he is trespassing. Aka, not a victim) is on your property, or has your possessions. (Note the OR. Not AND. OR.)

I have lived in Houston for 21 years of my life and never felt unsafe due to a legal gun owner, nor known of someone who felt unsafe due to a legal gun owner... nor known anyone who was shot by a legal gun owner.

 

[Otis11 + 551]

On 12/13/2018 at 7:25 AM, Illurion said:

As usual,  you are wrong.

The "Stand Your Ground" law in the State of Florida states that the citizen "DOES NOT HAVE TO RETREAT",  and we "ARE ALLOWED TO KILL FOR OUR PROPERTY AS LONG AS WE FEEL OUR LIVES ARE IN DANGER."

In Texas, you do not even have to feel your life is in Danger - you simply have to state that you believe your actions prevented the perpetrator from damaging your property or absconding with your property.

 

If you're a law abiding citizen, this is nothing to worry about. Criminals, be warned.

[Otis11 + 551]

On 12/13/2018 at 7:29 AM, Jan van Eck said:

Your life is not even remotely in danger because you have the walls of your house between you and whoever that is outside.  

You, specifically, as a person who should never, ever be allowed to be anywhere near any gun nor any ammunition.  You are precisely the reason the gun-abolition lobby continues to have steam.  It is your irresponsible thinking that so contributes to gun deaths inside the USA. 

Jan, please do not resort to personal attacks as you do here. And please educate yourself on laws before making claims about them.

Like it or not, the law in Texas clearly states the homeowner was well within his rights. There is no crime here. He was banging on his back door after jumping a fence - clearly trespassing. In Texas, a homeowner does not have to fear for his life to use lethal force - only 1 of 3 conditions must be met:

1. Fear for life of himself/herself, his family, or a 3rd party

2. Believe there is risk of damage or theft of his/her property.

3. Stop someone who has already committed a crime against themselves from fleeing/absconding. 

I could make the argument that all 3 of these conditions have been met in this case - even though only 1 is required to 'justify' lethal force.

 

(Again - I am keeping my opinions out of this, just stating fact. If you don't like it - don't come to Texas.)

[Otis11 + 551]

On 12/13/2018 at 8:16 AM, jaycee said:

Did he enter the house or pose a threat? He stayed as he needed help as he was lost. Being drunk is not a crime. We could go on for ever but I know how Americans think on this, killing people is good justice, cowboy stuff fine that's your nation's culture but other far more violent cultures have worked out people carrying weapons causes more problems so have banned them. 

Please do not spread this appallingly incorrect stereotype. Americans do not believe in cowboy justice. No one here as advocated for cowboy justice. The perpetrator was trespassing after jumping a fence into a cordoned off back yard. He was warned to go away and became belligerent. Homeowner used lethal force as was his right under current law.

Some will call this a 'good kill' not because they believe it is good the man was killed, but because the homeowners actions were lawful.

I have not seen anyone on this form advocate for violence. They are simply trying to explain the laws as written and correct inaccurate statements.

 

(As always, I will repeat - this is a statement of fact. Not my beliefs or my opinions.)

[Otis11 + 551]

On 12/13/2018 at 5:55 PM, Jan van Eck said:

I would expand (and only to you, this is not for the gun crowd) that one cannot shoot to protect theft of property.  The reason is simple enough: let us revisit the case of the motorboat tied up at the dock, and someone has untied it and is about to go roaring off into the night with it.  the owner concludes it is being stolen, so (according to the gun posters) that means he is entitled to start shooting. Yet that boatman may be doing something entirely different. Posit that, out there way out on the waters, is yet another boat, that is sinking, and some family is facing drowning.  Our intrepid boatman dashes to that boat dock to effect a rescue mission.  At that point, legally he is not a "free agent," and is not committing any crime; the circumstances requiring immediate assistance grants him, as a matter of public policy, immunity from claims of theft.  Thus, you are categorically not allowed to start shooting.  [Just because the owner does not realize that there is a rescue operation in way, does not grant the license to start blasting up the countryside). 

 

Jan, I understand that you would like this to be the case, but it is simply not. If someone was stealing a boat in Texas, even to rescue others in a sinking boat - as long as the boat owner believed the person to be stealing their property (and had no reason to believe otherwise), they would be allowed, legally, to defend their property.

In the case cited - that may be sad, but it is the truth. That is what the law states. (How that would shake out in court, I wouldn't place my bets on either side, but that's the law. I say this to make sure everyone is aware. Know the laws, know your rights and the rights of others - whether simply a traveler passing through or resident.)

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

Jan, this is blatantly false.

The Law as written states you can, in Texas, shoot someone who is on your property.  This is conditional on Section 9.31.  It requires reasonable knowledge that the person acted unlawfully and with force, or was committing or attempting to commit a specified crime. 

If they leave your property empty handed, you can not shoot them.  However, if they have stolen something from your yard, you can chase them down the street and shoot them in the back to prevent them from absconding with your possessions. This would be unlawful under Section 9.22.  Moreover, you would risk prosecution under Section 9.05.

Texas lawmakers allow a person to enter another's property, and for all parties to act reasonably.  However, juries can only take the word of the actor once the other party is dead, so getting away with murder is not too hard.

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

Like it or not, the law in Texas clearly states the homeowner was well within his rights. There is no crime here. He was banging on his back door after jumping a fence - clearly trespassing. 

Trespassing is not a basis for use of force under the castle doctrine.  However, if a child lost their ball in your yard and you mistakenly believed they entered your property to commit a robbery, lethal force is considered reasonable by statute.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

24 minutes ago, Red said:

Trespassing is not a basis for use of force under the castle doctrine.  However, if a child lost their ball in your yard and you mistakenly believed they entered your property to commit a robbery, lethal force is considered reasonable by statute.

Not really, Red.  As you pointed out (above), even the outlier Texas test requires knowledge of the commission of a certain class of felonies, not misdemeanors, and also (generally) a requirement that the felony in progress is at nighttime.  

The typical response of prosecutors in these cases, where the defense of Castle Doctrine is likely to be invoked by the shooter, is to present the case to a grand jury for an Indictment.  Then, if the grand jury determines not to return an indictment, the prosecutor declines to prosecute.  Can a prosecuting authority proceed without the Indictment?  Of course it can.  They do not, but that is an election made, mostly for political reasons. 

There is a notorious case in Tennessee where an out-of-state motorist got lost, ended up driving down a back road that got narrower and narrower, and eventually turned into a logging trail heading up a mountain.  At that point the husband, driving, and his wife and five children in the big SUV, decided to turn around.  There was a dirt driveway on one side; the husband started to attempt a "Y-turn" maneuver using the tip of the driveway.  Some woman of age 72 came out with her rifle and shot up the car with the children inside.  She was arrested and charged by police with seven counts of reckless endangerment - I think those are Class B felonies.  Is she mentally disturbed?  But of course.  Who goes and shoots up a carload of kids because Dad is doing a Y-turn on the tip of the driveway, way out in the country with a one-lane road, far too narrow to do a turn in?  

Yet, there are posters here who would defend that type of gun violence, attempting to cite the Castle Doctrine. Those posters are loony-tunes and all you can do is ignore them.  There are crazies everywhere, even on a staid and intellectual discussion forum on Oilprice.  Hey, why not, when in doubt, go get your gun and start blasting away.  Just lovely.

Note to tourists:  watch out for American women who look like this.  They will kill you and your family.

Edited December 19, 2018 by Jan van Eck
added photograph

[Red + 252]

Jan, here's a snippet from the relevant Section:

Quote

 

The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) 

(B) ...or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

 

Actual knowledge is not a necessary condition.

(The relevant Texas Statute)

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, Red said:

Jan, here's a snippet from the relevant Section:

Actual knowledge is not a necessary condition.

(The relevant Texas Statute)

Notice, first, the non-mention of "burglary" or of "property theft."   "Robbery" is basically a mugging, where someone sticks a gun in your face and demands your wallet.  "Burglary" is the entry into a building for the purpose of stealing, coupled with actual stealing.  Notice how that is not recited in your quote.  

Second, "knowledge" is a necessary condition, as the Statute kinda-sorta skirts a little around that by saying, "had reason to believe."  Reason to believe is not your wild conjecture, it is "reason," which imputes knowledge of at least some evidentiary portion of the facts. 

Let me give you an example.  I took a call from a neighbor of mine who lived four doors away.  Turns out the family was in Florida and the son had no ID to board an aircraft to College; would I be so kind as to go over to their (locked and empty) house and enter it, using a key under the planter, and go rummage around in a desk drawer to rustle up an ID known to be there, and express-mail it to them pronto?  Of course I would.

So the next-door neighbor sees someone who does not live there, going into a house where it was known the family was in Florida a thousand miles away and not expected back for another week, and using a flashlight, and then seen rummaging through drawers.  Is that neighbor entitled to barge in and start shooting? 

Of course not.  That said, in Texas assuredly the Grand Jury would refuse to indict.  And therein lies the problem.  Another good reason not to live there  (or even show up, as far as that goes). 

[Otis11 + 551]

1 hour ago, Red said:

Trespassing is not a basis for use of force under the castle doctrine.  However, if a child lost their ball in your yard and you mistakenly believed they entered your property to commit a robbery, lethal force is considered reasonable by statute.

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of 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 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.

 

If the land owner reasonably believes the trespasser is, in fact, trespassing (aka, has no claim of right), and believes the trespasser will not stop trespassing without use of lethal force - then lethal force is lawful even though nothing other than trespassing has taken place.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

If only I could somehow shoehorn in the idea that guns cause climate change, this thread would prolly be complete.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not going away.  Full stop.

In Texas, which is dang near a separate territory from the rest of the U.S. culture (sort of like how California is vastly different from "flyover county" in the U.S.) lots of Texans carry guns.  It's a longstanding culture (reminder, my degree is in Sociology).  Just watch a few old Western movies about the old Wild West to get the idea that guns are a part of the culture in Texas.

[Otis11 + 551]

47 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Not really, Red.  As you pointed out (above), even the outlier Texas test requires knowledge of the commission of a certain class of felonies, not misdemeanors, and also (generally) a requirement that the felony in progress is at nighttime.  

The typical response of prosecutors in these cases, where the defense of Castle Doctrine is likely to be invoked by the shooter, is to present the case to a grand jury for an Indictment.  Then, if the grand jury determines not to return an indictment, the prosecutor declines to prosecute.  Can a prosecuting authority proceed without the Indictment?  Of course it can.  They do not, but that is an election made, mostly for political reasons. 

There is a notorious case in Tennessee where an out-of-state motorist got lost, ended up driving down a back road that got narrower and narrower, and eventually turned into a logging trail heading up a mountain.  At that point the husband, driving, and his wife and five children in the big SUV, decided to turn around.  There was a dirt driveway on one side; the husband started to attempt a "Y-turn" maneuver using the tip of the driveway.  Some woman of age 72 came out with her rifle and shot up the car with the children inside.  She was arrested and charged by police with seven counts of reckless endangerment - I think those are Class B felonies.  Is she mentally disturbed?  But of course.  Who goes and shoots up a carload of kids because Dad is doing a Y-turn on the tip of the driveway, way out in the country with a one-lane road, far too narrow to do a turn in?  

Yet, there are posters here who would defend that type of gun violence, attempting to cite the Castle Doctrine. Those posters are loony-tunes and all you can do is ignore them.  There are crazies everywhere, even on a staid and intellectual discussion forum on Oilprice.  Hey, why not, when in doubt, go get your gun and start blasting away.  Just lovely.

Note to tourists:  watch out for American women who look like this.  They will kill you and your family.

This is just crazy - and has nothing to do with the castle doctrine.

Unless there is a gate on the driveway, it is considered a public easement and the land owner has no right to 'defend' that public easement from 'trespass' (as it's simply not trespassing). There is no defending that.

Now I will insert my opinion as I've been arguing on one side far too long - I am actually very reasonable on most topics, I simply dislike dissemination of incorrect information - particularly when the stakes are high for people who think they understand and don't. (as is the case for anyone in any of these situations mentioned. Gun owners need to know their rights. So do non-gun owners. And they especially need to know the rights of the other group.)

Start arguing on the Pro-gun side and cite inaccuracies I'm aware of, and I'll start arguing the other way!

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 minute ago, Otis11 said:

Now I will insert my opinion as I've been arguing on one side far too long - I am actually very reasonable on most topics, I simply dislike dissemination of incorrect information - particularly when the stakes are high for people who think they understand and don't. (as is the case for anyone in any of these situations mentioned. Gun owners need to know their rights. So do non-gun owners. And they especially need to know the rights of the other group.)

Start arguing on the Pro-gun side and cite inaccuracies I'm aware of, and I'll start arguing the other way!

That's the spirit, Otis   : )

Nice to see some multiple-perspective thinking there, rather than entrenching deeper in a rut.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

10 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

If only I could somehow shoehorn in the idea that guns cause climate change, this thread would prolly be complete.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not going away.  Full stop.

In Texas, which is dang near a separate territory from the rest of the U.S. culture (sort of like how California is vastly different from "flyover county" in the U.S.) lots of Texans carry guns.  It's a longstanding culture (reminder, my degree is in Sociology).  Just watch a few old Western movies about the old Wild West to get the idea that guns are a part of the culture in Texas.

First up, Tom, this is all your fault, so man up and take the rap!    And, also, you know perfectly well that guns, specifically American handguns, cause climate change. 

The 2nd Amendment will go away.  Not any time soon, but ultimately.  Gun ownership will go to a permit system, the issuance of permits will become progressively more difficult, and eventually you will need a special permit to purchase ammunition.  That is already the case in Connecticut, the bell-weather for the disarmament crowd.  Ironically, the only reason Connecticut is afloat financially is due to the vast sales of nuclear-warhead ballistic submarines, and vastly lethal helicopter gunships, to the US military. 

As to Texas, that gun-toting is not a "culture."  It is an open-season manifestation of serious mental illness.  A good number, probably most, of those people are in need of immediate in-patient hospitalization.  It is what it is. 

[Otis11 + 551]

4 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

If only I could somehow shoehorn in the idea that guns cause climate change, this thread would prolly be complete.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not going away.  Full stop.

In Texas, which is dang near a separate territory from the rest of the U.S. culture (sort of like how California is vastly different from "flyover county" in the U.S.) lots of Texans carry guns.  It's a longstanding culture (reminder, my degree is in Sociology).  Just watch a few old Western movies about the old Wild West to get the idea that guns are a part of the culture in Texas.

 

There are actually many different cultures in and across the US. The exact number depends how you define them, but they can be starkly different. As different as French, from Germans from English!

If you don't believe me, go to San Francisco, Small town Texas, Small town Alabama, small town Iowa, Houston, New York, Florida beach cities, Florida pan handle, Vermont, and good ol' cutoff Louisiana! (If you can even understand the accents of all these different areas, color me impressed!)

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-11-nations-of-the-united-states-2015-7

And Tom here is definitely right that a whole lot of Texas conceal carry, but I would push back on the 'old wild west' narrative as I don't think that accurately conveys the attitude or ideas. Actually, the highest concentration of Gun owners in the US is Plano, Texas - a suburb of Dallas. Go visit and you'll see this is actually a highly affluent, business/engineering centric area that doesn't have any apparent signs of the 'wild west' and almost everyone is well mannered and very polite. Yet you would be shocked at how many of them exercise their second amendment rights (also has shockingly low violent crime rates). 

(For reference, I've lived across the political landscape in the US from California to Texas, and multiple cities in each. I get to move an awful lot.)

 

[Otis11 + 551]

5 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

First up, Tom, this is all your fault, so man up and take the rap!    And, also, you know perfectly well that guns, specifically American handguns, cause climate change. 

The 2nd Amendment will go away.  Not any time soon, but ultimately.  Gun ownership will go to a permit system, the issuance of permits will become progressively more difficult, and eventually you will need a special permit to purchase ammunition.  That is already the case in Connecticut, the bell-weather for the disarmament crowd.  Ironically, the only reason Connecticut is afloat financially is due to the vast sales of nuclear-warhead ballistic submarines, and vastly lethal helicopter gunships, to the US military. 

As to Texas, that gun-toting is not a "culture."  It is an open-season manifestation of serious mental illness.  A good number, probably most, of those people are in need of immediate in-patient hospitalization.  It is what it is. 

In an attempt to span this gap - I'm going to ask for some clarity on what you're referencing.

Are you trying to say that Texas 'culture' is a mental illness? Or only those that participate in 'gun-toting'? (Can you define that last term?)

Also, have you ever visited Texas? What parts?

What specific behavior did you see that was so troublesome?

Most people who come here wouldn't actually see many guns unless they 1) Come here to go hunting/gunshow/other gun related activity, or 2) Come to cause trouble (in which case they're more likely to encounter a gun from an officer than a civilian). In fact, I'd bet I see more guns on officers/security guards/uniformed military at 100:1 ratio to every day citizens having them. (I'd bet it's closer to 1000:1, but I wanted to error on the side of not exaggerating)

As i mentioned in a post above, I've lived many places, and visited many more. I've been accused of being both a 'crazy liberal' and 'a nut job conservative' though my views haven't changed... and I identify with neither. I just try to present facts and push back against over-generalization, mis-statement of facts, and wild conjecture (not accusing you of any of these, but review all my posts here - this thread and others - and you'll likely see the trend).

Anyway, enough of my rambling for now - I'll try to respond if I see further posts, but will be gone for 2 weeks with limited access to internet. So my apologies in advance if my replies are delayed.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

17 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

First up, Tom, this is all your fault, so man up and take the rap!    And, also, you know perfectly well that guns, specifically American handguns, cause climate change. 

The 2nd Amendment will go away.  Not any time soon, but ultimately.  Gun ownership will go to a permit system, the issuance of permits will become progressively more difficult, and eventually you will need a special permit to purchase ammunition.  That is already the case in Connecticut, the bell-weather for the disarmament crowd.  Ironically, the only reason Connecticut is afloat financially is due to the vast sales of nuclear-warhead ballistic submarines, and vastly lethal helicopter gunships, to the US military. 

As to Texas, that gun-toting is not a "culture."  It is an open-season manifestation of serious mental illness.  A good number, probably most, of those people are in need of immediate in-patient hospitalization.  It is what it is. 

Heh heh, we clearly disagree on the general topic of guns.  My first gun was a 12 Gauge shotgun, given as a present by my Dad for my 12th birthday.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Just now, Otis11 said:

In an attempt to span this gap - I'm going to ask for some clarity on what you're referencing.

Are you trying to say that Texas 'culture' is a mental illness? Or only those that participate in 'gun-toting'? (Can you define that last term?)

Also, have you ever visited Texas? What parts?

What specific behavior did you see that was so troublesome?

Most people who come here wouldn't actually see many guns unless they 1) Come here to go hunting/gunshow/other gun related activity, or 2) Come to cause trouble (in which case they're more likely to encounter a gun from an officer than a civilian). In fact, I'd bet I see more guns on officers/security guards/uniformed military at 100:1 ratio to every day citizens having them. (I'd bet it's closer to 1000:1, but I wanted to error on the side of not exaggerating)

As i mentioned in a post above, I've lived many places, and visited many more. I've been accused of being both a 'crazy liberal' and 'a nut job conservative' though my views haven't changed... and I identify with neither. I just try to present facts and push back against over-generalization, mis-statement of facts, and wild conjecture (not accusing you of any of these, but review all my posts here - this thread and others - and you'll likely see the trend).

Anyway, enough of my rambling for now - I'll try to respond if I see further posts, but will be gone for 2 weeks with limited access to internet. So my apologies in advance if my replies are delayed.

I just got back from a few days in Vietnam.  Met up with  a number of people, including a Dutch guy who in the last 2 weeks has traveled to half a dozen countries for meetings, including the Middle East. He seems to travel worldwide most of the time, overseas more than being home in the Netherlands.  Great grasp of world politics and the diversity of global cultures.  American gun culture is apparently not widely understood in different parts of the world.

[shadowkin + 584]

2 hours ago, Red said:

Texas lawmakers allow a person to enter another's property, and for all parties to act reasonably.  However, juries can only take the word of the actor once the other party is dead, so getting away with murder is not too hard.

I can't emphasize this enough. Gun owners in several states where the law as written is more open to interpretation are strongly advised that if they do shoot an intruder they should make sure they're dead so that the defender's story is the only one that can be told.

[shadowkin + 584]

Foreigners in this thread stating the 2nd amendment will go away and will be replaced by a permit system are displaying wishful thinking and ignorance. Wishful thinking since even if the 2nd amendment were to be repealed it is practically impossible to confiscate all guns without civil war. Even a movement towards repeal might be enough to spark civil war.

On top of that if guns were illegal they would be smuggled in via Mexico and since they would be illegal anyway you would see fully automatic machine guns being smuggled in. You think the drug trade is profitable? Ignorance since the US already somewhat has a permit system but it depends, once again, on the state. Some states don't require you to have a permit at all while others do, so requiring all states to have one achieves nothing. Some of the states with the lowest barriers to gun ownership have the lowest rates of gun violence or any crimes at all. That's sort of another topic but...

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, Otis11 said:

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of 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.

I made my point clear in that the castle doctrine did not apply to trespass.

Moreover, you earlier claimed the person who was killed "clearly trespassed."  However, the conditions satisfying trespass were not met, so your claim is errant.