Monument Riots Come To SCREECHING HALT In Texas After

a reply to: sine.nomine

A can of paint is a potentially lethal weapon.

I'm sure that Texas is a state that allows you to shoot someone attacking you.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

yes it is.....

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: sine.nomine

A can of paint is a potentially lethal weapon.

I'm sure that Texas is a state that allows you to shoot someone attacking you.

You think we're all just a bunch of crazed, gun toting cowboys looking to shoot 'em up every chance we get? Nope... don't be naive.

Did you know that every county in Texas with a major city in it voted Democrat in the last election? Harris (Houston), Dallas (Dallas), Travis (Austin) and Bexar (San Antonio) all voted majority Democrat.

Did you know that Houston is the most diverse city in the US? The Mayor is black and a Democrat... the previous mayor was an openly gay woman.

Did you know that most Texans did not favor Secession from the union at the onset of the Civil war? The state Governor at the time, Sam Houston refused to swear an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy.

I could go on.... the stereotypical view of Texas is not what everyone thinks it is.

And no.... you don't just get to shoot people for being attacked... or defacing public property. Essentially, your life must be in danger... you can shoot horse thieves and cattle rustlers though... ;-)

a reply to: Blarneystoner

All my dreams of me in Texas have now been dashed....I was going to dress up like Yosamity Sam
But cheers for schooling me on Texas

a reply to: 727Sky

I am from Texas, that post is not only dangerous but it is horribly misinformed.

The Castle Doctrine is not written to allow people to gun each other down in the streets for acts of vandalism. The property has to be private, and MOVABLE.

Stop perpetuating this complete and utter ignorance and misinformation.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: 727Sky

Thanks for the fake news.

Glad you're all frothing at the mouth of the idea of murdering people over statues erected by completely white local and state governments in public spaces at a time when these same politicians were trying to preserve segregation and oppressive laws to keep subjugated, former slaves and their descendants.

But alas, you cannot just shoot vandals of statues on public property. Not even in Texas.

KHOU

We turned to KHOU legal analyst Gerald Treece for answers.

"That's just not the law," said Treece. The Texas Penal Code allows for the use of deadly force when protecting people's private property.

"I can used deadly force against you if you're using deadly force or if there's a fear of deadly force against me," said Treece. But statues in public parks aren't private property.

"If the question in a classroom came up, 'Professor, can I shoot someone at night putting magic marker on a statue?', I would say no, a thousand times no," said Treece.

Texas Penal Code 9.43 clearly states the private property being protected with deadly force needs to be "tangible and moveable." A statue doesn't meet that qualification either.

"It's not tangible, moveable property, owned by anybody, but the government," said Treece.

You can’t shoot Confederate statue vandals, Granbury police warn

GRANBURY

Online chatter about a Confederate statue in Granbury led police to issue a warning on its Facebook page this week: You can’t shoot people for vandalizing a statue, in particular the one of Confederate Gen. H.B. Granbury on the lawn of the Hood County Courthouse.

The warning came as residents have debated whether the statue should remain standing in wake of the deadly protest over a Confederate monument in Charlottesville, Va.

At some point during the online discussion, “a person claiming to be a police officer” posted inaccurate information about a state law that allows the use of deadly force to stop another person from committing criminal mischief, Granbury police posted on Facebook on Monday night.

Now let's all go to a thread about how evil liberals want to destroy everything as you all get excited at the prospect of murdering your countrymen over stupid statues that shouldn't be there anyway. That's the moral high ground?

you for that sweeping generalization of every lawmaker anywhere in America who put up a statue

a reply to: Kali74

Well she certainly had her peers supporting her. I personally, although I use the terms because of convenience, don´t think the classical "right/left" political division is much helpful. Not speaking about the USA but in general.

Of course none of the "sides" can be perfect. After all, it´s made up from single individuums and in the end, are all human. There is a great difference betwen EU-liberalism and US-liberalism and it´s not always easy to see the differences.

For example liberalism in europe is more centered around less governmental intrusion and freedom than socialistic topics. Quite the contrary to what I observe in the USA. It seems over there, it´s more about social justice, my right over yours and even dictating others lifes while preaching "freedom".

What I often "smell" here is that someone on the "right" is more often the type of person that values personal responsibility and actions, while the "left" fights a battle for "social justice" and with that, trying to dictate others lifes while doing it.

I´m of the opinion, if you want a decent life, work hard for it. But there are people out there who want but can not. If there are huge obstacles that a person can´t overcome alone I´m of the opinion it´s better to give them a reaching hand than leaving the person in the dust. I think such a aspiring person deserves some help. What road are we going down if everyone just minds their own business? Even animals help each other out sometimes.

However I´m not a friend of "helping again and again". It´s better to "help, so the person can gain foot and help itself". May sound strange in english.

It´s like sending food to Africa when it´s better to teach and show agricultural knowledge. The first is wellfare, the second is reaching a helping hand so they can help-out themselfes after time.

I feel, in most cases, the left aim´s for the first one. And that collides with my point of view of "if you want a decent life, work hard for it". But one has to get the chance for it, if their social surrounding prevents them helping themselfes.

Why are there shifting goal posts here? This is hardly the only example of authoritarianism from the Right. Many of the same posters think you should be legally allowed to run over protesters.

No side is really better than the other but like I wrote, just like the "left" attracts certain people, the "right" does, too. Anyone thinking it´s okay to shoot someone over petty issues or run over them, because they "steal their time and time is money" needs to reevaluate their view on the world. Otherwhise they are just soulless beings and then there is that:

On the internet, you can write much. Pushing down the pedal or the trigger in real life, is way different from what I call "cool-speak".

a reply to: theantediluvian

so in order to use deadly force on private property it has to be tangible "and" "moveable"

is anyones property apart from a mobile home moveable ?

does it not mean tangible "or" moveable

if its "and moveable" then no ones private property allows the use of deadly force , as most peoples property isn't moveable


I just find that bit confusing

yet again id be confused as to why someone would want to murder someone just for vandalism
# , Id hate to get caught doing some graffiti in texas on abandonded buildings , lest I be shot dead
for making some art in a run down place

I don't normally agree with Texas on anything. I lived there awhile and found almost everyone I met to be pretentious, snooty and undeserving of their self-proclaimed, various titles of grandeur (Don't mess with Texas, everything's bigger in Texas etc.), I felt like shooting myself in the head, the next time I heard one more person with an ego-inflating "one liner". That said, there's nothing on earth more pretentious and ignorant as a Liberal Antifa member. I agree with Texas on this one. This is. Ore of a personal property law really, but who cares? Make an example of these careless, thoughtless, selfish basement dwellers. I know they think they're untouchable because of the backing of Soros, but once someone gets shot...that look of confidence in their eyes will fade quick.

originally posted by: testingtesting
So a graffiti artist could get killed legally?.
Backward place that to me making property more important then a life...

It's a matter of respect if it's not your stuff don't touch it or face the consequences. stop trying to protect criminals.

a reply to: SilentStigma

there is a general rule in the graffiti community that you dont touch monuments, religious buildings, private property

but corporate /commerical warehouses abandoned buildings are fair game.

Id never bomb someones house or garage wall , however if it was abandoned then yeh Id paint it
still being shot for spraying paint on a surface is a bit extreme
its not like Im cheating with your wife or got your daughter pregnant

the justice system is #ed , especially for vandalism / where as graffiti is involved
you can still get more time in jail for painting in the UK than you can for stabbing someone attempted murder

In my opinion anyone who takes anothers life for something as slight as painting their wall needs their head checked
and probably shouldnt be carrying a gun in the first place.

I am totally not ok with the idea that people can just legally take someone elses life thats a really #ed up thing

originally posted by: SilentStigma

originally posted by: testingtesting
So a graffiti artist could get killed legally?.
Backward place that to me making property more important then a life...

It's a matter of respect if it's not your stuff don't touch it or face the consequences. stop trying to protect criminals.

A matter of respect? So it's ok to shoot you if you disrespect me or my property... good to know.

Have you ever broken the law? Do you think all criminals should be summarily executed? Do you read what you type before you post? :

originally posted by: 727Sky
I am sure there will be those who take issue with this article.. However, those who believe in such things as private and public property rights might just decide to move to Texas. hahaha

Before moving to Texas...consider that it is Illegal to take more than three sips of beer while standing.

blog.lawinfo.com...

As a joke or satire I found this to be very funny. Leave it up to Texas to put a stop to it. Tennessee isn't very keen on the idea either. Even though it's fake satire article I am glad you posted it. I wouldn't be shocked to know that it would have been real either tho. If it would be any state, it would be the great state of Texas.

Next it will be Davey Crockett because he shot and killed Mexicans defending the Alamo. Then it will be statues of British soldiers from Revolutionary war because they brought the slaves and oppressed Americans with Taxation without representation. Then it will be Abraham Lincoln because freeing the slaves was least of his priorities.

The only statues left standing will be a single pregnant black woman with a fist in the air and a Indian Warcheif who terrorized both white and surrounding native tribes. One of which will be guarded by armed crackakillin Panthers with illegal machine guns chanting "Race War!" at little old white ladys trying to feed the pigeons whom has a 1/1 chance of being either a slavic slave, or cheap penny on dollar irish slave, or a semetic slave descendant.

All the beautiful pyramid structures should be torn down because it is a object of slavery, obelisks will need to be removed. It won't stop until every major city looks like Detroit. Then they'll need to inflate the currency because all founding fathers are racist slave owners, all monuments shouldn't exsist on them, all currency can only have JFK, Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton. But instead of folding it to look like twin towers burning, it will be Obama turning into Michelle.

This will all end of course when antifa has burnt the entire country down to nothing- a simple quiet protest to George Soros demanding a raise to pay for the damages of their houses that they were paid $15/hr to blow up or set ablaze.

At least we can easily sort the neanderthals from normal humans with these sorts of threads. No matter how much you despise someone defacing a piece of rock.. it should not justify ending their life. That doesn't even begin to make sense. People are idiots.. and your solution for their idiocy is to take the idiocy to a whole new level. Brilliant!

originally posted by: SilentStigma

originally posted by: testingtesting
So a graffiti artist could get killed legally?.
Backward place that to me making property more important then a life...

It's a matter of respect if it's not your stuff don't touch it or face the consequences. stop trying to protect criminals.

No one says they shouldn't face consequences. People are saying the consequences for spraying paint on a carved bit of rock shouldn't be the end of their life. That doesn't make sense in any realm. Maybe 2000 years ago.. where I think many people's minds still reside.

Not even in backwards-arse middle east would you be KILLED for spraying paint on a statue.

a reply to: SilentStigma

Did I say if caught let them go Scott free? nope.
Like I said before if this op was true (isn't) Texas would be as bad as Saudi Arabia.
Thankfully it isn't despite you wanting it to be.

a reply to: testingtesting

Texas would be as bad as Saudi Arabia

I didn´t know that Texas allowed stuff like

-stoning
-convictim a rape victim of a crime
-slave and human trafficing
-dismembering of body parts
-women surpressed

and the list goes on. Have you ever traveled to any arabic country? Or is everything you know from the media or internet? Even then you should be aware.

Disclaimer:
I´m not advocating the senseless killing of a human over defacing an object. That´s why there is law. Self-defense is another topic.

a reply to: soberbacchus

thats ok I dont "sip" my beer

a reply to: fleabit

yeh you wouldnt be killed but you'd likely lose your hand that you held the can with