Spinning self-defense into a crime

Austin Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 8 September, 2009 | Howard Nemerov

[marktwain]

When Old Media wants to “re-educate” people on how the unnecessary, regressive behavior of self-defense is inappropriate in today’s “civilized” society, it is important to dredge up “experts” to make their case. KVUE did the “best” job, finding a Texas State student to pontificate:

"I'm sure it was in self-defense, but I'm very against that because they took two lives and who knows if this kid in the hospital is going to survive,” student Alejandro Salazar said.

To his credit, Salazar apparently corrects himself in the comments section. Commenter “asalazar32” wrote: “I am not against self defense i did not realize what i said [sic].”

The Statesman found an ex-student who used to live on the same street:

"It's peaceful type stuff around here," Bagot said. "I hear every once in awhile that a house gets broken into, but it's usually for stupid stuff, like a TV."

No mention was made regarding Bagot’s credentials as an investigator or forensic psychologist.

‘Castle Doctrine’ is bad

Another important Old Media ploy is to attack recent self-defense legislation which clarifies a person’s right to defend themselves against violent attack. Known as “Castle Doctrine,” these laws generally make three changes to existing law:

· Broaden the right of self-defense in public places where a law-abiding citizen has a right to be.

· Remove the duty to retreat. Before, a defender had to prove he tried to escape first, if that was reasonably possible.

· Eliminates the ability of the injured attacker, or the attacker’s estate, to sue for injuries obtained while attacking the defender, thereby using the courts to rob the victim after his own attack failed.

KVUE attacked “Castle Doctrine” immediately in their title: “Double fatal shooting in San Marcos may fall under Castle Doctrine.” From their article:

Police will now see if this falls under the castle doctrine. It gives homeowners the right to defend themselves with deadly force. It's fairly new on the law books and not everyone agrees with it.

This revisionist history persists, where uneducated journalists assert that the use of deadly force appeared with “Castle Doctrine.” As for the assertion that “not everyone agrees with it,” since KVUE included no interviews, the only person in disagreement is apparently their author. This is an important Old Media ploy: Substitute opinion for credible reporting of the facts and call it journalism.

KXAN’s article insinuated there was a problem with Texas’s self-defense law:

This shooting brought up questions regarding the Castle Doctrine - which gives a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend their residence - and its application to the incident.

KXAN never mentions what these “questions” are. Again, Brad Rollins of the San Marcos Mercury provided the best coverage on Texas law:

The state’s so-called Castle Doctrine, passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor in 2007, provides criminal immunity to people who lawfully use deadly force under most circumstances to protect themselves in their homes or vehicles. The law does not apply however if the person provoked the attacker or was engaged in criminal activity at the time of the attack.

Unfortunately, even he falls for the “criminal immunity” myth, to be examined next, including an exclusive interview with the San Marcos Police Chief.

[marktwain]

Excellent expose. Examiners get paid by the hit on their link. Please click to the link.

[Seruzawa]

I think that Texas should extend the self-defense right to include the right to defend oneself from a liberal judge.

[Red in Blue PA]

I think we need an “Open Season Doctrine” similar to the “Castle Doctrine” yet applied outside of the home. If a thug pulls a gun on someone, he has triggered a chain of events where it is now open season on him, regardless of what happens, and no lawsuits can ensue.

You would see crime plummet IMO.

[Le Chien Rouge]

Typical Austin ranters against the ‘Castle Doctrine’ live in their MOSTLY lily,white gated communities like Westlake and preach to the rest of us that ‘violence isn’t the answer’ to perceived aggression.

Unless of course they are somehow threatened than it’s ok.

Hypocrites.

[wolfcreek]

“The law does not apply however if the person provoked the attacker or was engaged in criminal activity at the time of the attack.”

Having seen the residents of the *shooters* house, I suspect there was some sort of *illegal* activity going on in that home. (police suspected the perps had been there before)

My hopes are that the results of these kids doing what I would call an *invasion*, will prevent others from trying the same. (two of them had pellet pistols that looked like handguns)

After all, IMO, this is one of the law’s purposes, to make the criminals THINK.

[chesley]

There was a science-fiction story, years ago. I forget the name of it, but I think it was by H. Beam Piper. “Lone-Star Planet”, or something like that.

I forget most of it, but I remember that all politicians had bodyguards because it wasn’t against the law to kill a political leader.

[556x45]

I’d like to hear the anti-Castle Doctrine/self defense types explain how they know beforehand whether a break in will be a simple theft, assault or both. They, of course, have no idea and count on a miracle to preserve their life. Although modern thought puts this ‘rationale’ in the intelligent and civilized column some would say its stupid and ultimately leads to a mostly lawless society. You know you’re on the down hill side of history when good and bad swap places. I’m not interested in allowing a felon or govt official/representative to call the shots w/ lives I cherish.

[Rifleman]

Also published as “A Planet for Texans”. A fun read. In fact, killing a practicing politician (the definition of which was one of the story twists) was prohibited only if you were more brutal about it than the sum’bitch deserved.

One scene involved the trial of a young man accused of killing a legislator who introduced a bill calling for an tax on incomes. The fellow's machete was reverently returned to him with the suggestion that it be put in a place of honor, "Among your lares and pentates."

I think it would be a very workable system. I would like to see it implemented.

[Vendome]

Great News! Darwin theory will happily oblige them in their moment of need.

[Red in Blue PA]

If you know any anti-2A libtards, you need to show them these quotes:

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
-M. Gandhi

The Dalai Lama: “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” -(May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

[chesley]

I think I would prefer Heinlein's political system described in “Starship Troopers”.

Thanks for the info. I was too lazy to look it up, although I suspect that I still have the book. Piper was a great science-fiction writer. I especially liked “Gunpowder God”.

[556x45]

LOL, as you may be aware liberals and logic rarely, if ever, mix. I’ve asked my questions of several libs which usually gets me that ‘mushy’ look and the ‘I would/could NEVER kill another human being and would rather die!’ line. Oddly, to a man they’re all OK w/ abortion, euthanasia and population control in general. It’s all a mixed up fantasy in their tiny heads. Enough so I try not to go there often. It’s hard to carry on a coherent conversation w/ alib, even the brightest of them. So, in the end if they really stand by their principles and die so a felon might rob, rape murder them/theirs then I guess that’s OK w/ me. Really, it’s sort of sad an pathetic to consider that a rational adult would do such things.

The other group in the lib anti-2A camp I’ve met are all good w/ guns in the hands of govt and, by implication, themselves. They’re not so thrilled about anyone else having them mainly due to trust issues. In others words they’re much better than you (will ever be) and hence should be your lord. In my view these folks are why the 2A exists.