TexasCHLforum.com

Page not found

------------------------------

Years ago there was a columnist for the Albany NY Times Union whose name was Barney Fowler. Barney was a self admitted curmudgeon and not just a little bit of rabble rouser, and held very conservative views quite foreign to the rag he was published in.

Barney once went on a campaign to require all criminals to register as businesses and carry proper insurance, and be held financially responsible for any damage they might cause in plying their trade, as well as recognizing that their victims would be held blameless for injuries to the criminals incurred through the victims' response to thei activities.

Unworkable to be sure, but an interesting concept. Put the law on the books, even if they ignore it, and sue them for the psychological trauma they caused by bleeding in the yard, for the damage to hearing caused by having to fire a gun at them in the close confines of the house, and so on.

And if they did indeed die as a result, the survivors and estate become responsible.

This is a cute sounding idea that comes from a naive suburban mindset. It is founded on the faulty assumption that violent criminals are like homeowners and have assets that can be recovered through the court process.

They don't, and they are therefore what is known to the legal trade as "judgment proof". The entire exercise to enforce such a law would be a complete waste of time.

Castle doctrine laws take care of the liability issue.