TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

mjoplin wrote:Take the opportunity to let him know we don't appreciate his knee jerk reactive meddling with a well crafted and appropriate law. You can email him via his web site at: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/me ... strict=147" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I just sent him the following email:

Your proposal to dilute or do away with Texas' Castle Doctrine is a mistake of HUGE proportions. Thugs of all colors will love it. The rest of your constituency—regardless of their skin color—work hard to make a life for themselves and their families and will not support it.

When you make it illegal for people to stand their ground wherever they have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to be, and where the aggressor has criminal intent, all you do is to surrender society to the criminal element. That makes you an aider and abettor.

Do the right thing—the colorblind thing—the thing which promotes justice for ALL people, regardless of who they are, the color of their skin, or what neighborhood they either live in, or find themselves in during the lawful course of their days.

Your proposal is obviously a reaction to the Martin/Zimmerman case in Florida. This is not Florida. Fortunately knowledge is power, and the more we learn about Martin, the more it becomes apparent that he was a thug. Period. Regardless of his age. The more we learn about Zimmerman, the more it becomes apparent that he was already retreating, was attacked from behind, and had a broken nose and lacerations on the back of his head where Martin repeatedly bashed his head into the pavement. We have eye-witnesses to the assault who corroborate Zimmerman's version of the events.

The longer this story plays out, the more it seems that Zimmerman's self-defense shooting of Martin was a legitimate use of deadly force. Did Zimmerman show questionable wisdom by following Martin to see what he was up to? Possibly—but that is not illegal. Did Zimmerman ignore the 911 operator's request that he not follow Martin? Yes—but that was not illegal. By following Martin, He broke no laws. He was within his rights. In a gated community where Zimmerman lived and Martin did not, Zimmerman had more right to be there than Martin did. Over 30% of its residents are black, so race wasn't an issue. Zimmerman’s best friend is black and Zimmerman and his wife mentored African-American children, race wasn't an issue.

People with a racist agenda are making this a race issue. If we can't talk about our rights, including that most fundamental right of self-defense, without race-baiting, then we all lose. It then becomes all about power politics and people of one color trying to get an edge over the people of another color. It ignores Justice—and it is merely a perpetuation of Jim Crow with a different set of victims. It is nothing more than revenge politics, and that is NOT acceptable. Revenge is God's alone, and when you perpetuate evil, you are not a soldier in God's army. I don't think I need to explain that any further, but if you’re not certain, reread Dr. King’s biography.

Your bill would make it illegal for a black person to stand his/her ground against a black assailant. Need I remind you that African-Americans are far more likely to be the victims of black-on-black crime than white-on-black crime? If murdered, their murderer is far more likely to have the same skin color. If a black woman is raped, it is overwhelmingly likely that her rapist will be black, not of some other race. If a black victim is robbed, he/she is far more likely to be robbed by another black person than by someone of another race. If their home is invaded, it is almost overwhelmingly likely to be invaded by someone of the same color. It is sad that such conditions exist, but it is fact.

Your bill would make it illegal for a woman—regardless of her skin color—to stand her ground and defend herself against a rapist. It would make it illegal for a home owner/tenant—regardless of his or her skin color—to stand their ground and defend their home. Your bill would turn upright citizens into people who have to flee from their own shadows in order to stay alive. Shame on you for perpetuating cowardice.

Your bill is an immoral bill, and if you have a shred of decency, you will announce that you have reconsidered and you will not be filing this bill. If you cannot do that, then you will be known as an enemy of justice. Justice is blind, and She knows no skin color. Justice is blind, and She assumes that if a person has a right to be where they are when they are attacked, then the attacker is in the wrong, and the victim not only has a right to defend himself, but he has a duty to survive so that he or she can take care of their loved ones. Too many black children are motherless or fatherless because their parents lacked the means to protect themselves—either having been disarmed by illegitimate laws, or by having been told the lie that their lives were not worth defending and believing it. Shame on anybody who perpetuates that line of thinking.

Do the right thing, and withdraw this immoral and ill-conceived bill from consideration.

Do the right thing.

Sir,

I am writing to ask you personally to clarify what you intend to change in Texas' Castle Doctrine, which allows us to protect ourselves and our property from harm.

Allow me to quote you from a news article from KHOU.com, "All it takes is a tragedy for people to understand that something needs to be changed," Coleman said. "And I don’t think any legislator in this state wants to be perceived as allowing somebody the ability to shoot someone without good cause."

If you examine your quote, you may see your mistake. Your quote is assuming that the homeowner is the one shooting without good reason. Consider how your statement can be viewed from the other side of the coin. You state that you wouldn't think any legislator in this state would want to be perceived as allowing someone the ability to shoot without good cause. I ask, sir, would amending this not do exactly that? Essentially, it would allow someone to shoot without good cause, but that "someone," would be the intruder.

I understand that I may not be as eloquent or clear in writing as I am in what I am thinking. Simply, I am stating that amending this would give criminals the ability to walk right into my house, unafraid of me drawing a weapon on him to protect myself. If he chose to shoot me, there would be nothing I could do to prevent that.

God forbid I draw a weapon on an intruder and fire to protect myself and my wife. That would be madness, and for a guilty man do die in my house, by my hand, in protection of my family would be inhuman and unjustified. Excuse my sarcasm, but this is unacceptable.

I ask to think of yourself in that situation. I am certain that you do not live in a bad neighborhood. I am certain that you are able to afford proper security in your home. Alarms and security cameras are not affordable to many Texans, myself included. As much as I would love to have a layer of protection that would give me advance notice that someone was breaking into my house, even just 30 seconds would give me time enough to get my wife and I out of harms way, I simply do not. I have my front door, and various windows. I may or may not hear an intruder even come in. A person can break in my front door and be in my bedroom in less than 6 seconds. If that person has a weapon and intends to do me harm, I have very few options.

Weakening the power of the Castle Doctrine will weaken the ability of Texans' to defend themselves, and their property. The tragedy that you are speaking of in your quote will in most cases be a family being killed, of children being murdered because their father or mother could not properly protect them. There is no tragedy in some hoodlum breaking into my home and being killed for threatening my family, I would not be happy to take action-but I will do anything in my power to protect myself and my family from evil-doers. That is the beauty of America. We are able to live without fear, and should maintain the ability to protect ourselves.

Therefore, I ask you to reconsider what you intend to propose. For years, politicians have used media hype to push their agenda on American's who are emotionally charged. Trayvon Martin is no exception to this, and I am afraid that you may not be either.

Please do not take this as an insult to you, sir. I mean no disrespect, but I think it is necessary to be a bit of a cynic in this case. To be quite honest, I doubt that anything you recommended where Castle Doctrine is concerned would even pass. My point isn't to prevent you from passing a ridiculous amendment, but to attempt to show that you are wrong in attempting.

Very Respectfully,
Snatchel