This is the report online as to what Terry Meza – Democrat from Irving, Texas has said:
Now listen to what she has to say…
“I’m not saying that stealing is okay,” Meza explained. “All I’m saying is that it doesn’t warrant a death penalty. Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate. They just want to get their loot and get away. When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be killed.”
Meza was quick to reassure that her bill “would not totally prevent homeowners from defending themselves. Under the new law the homeowner’s obligation is to flee the home at the first sign of intrusion. If fleeing is not possible he must cooperate with the intruder. But if violence breaks out it is the homeowner’s responsibility to make sure no one gets hurt. The best way to achieve this is to use the minimum non-lethal force possible because intruders will be able to sue for any injuries they receive at the hands of the homeowner.”
“In most instances the thief needs the money more than the homeowner does,” Meza reasoned. “The homeowner’s insurance we reimburse his losses. On balance, the transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this transfer a peaceful one so much the better.”
To this point, I have found very little evidence to substantiate her to have actually said any of this. However, this is the response that I have found from her. But in all actuality – what she is saying here seems to be completely defensive and leaves out what her bill does remove – of which it does quite a bit – portions to be “repealed.” Her word not mine. And several key aspects of Texas Castle Law being watered down and diminished in many cases.
She continued with 2/3 and 3/3 – to finish out her thoughts.
Terry Meza appears to be upset that she is being misrepresented. So that we don’t hurt her feelings anymore, albeit truth has a tendency to do that – I have the entire Act and Terry Meza’s revisions down below. Green underlines are her adds and red strike-throughs are what she looks to remove. Note – there are entire sections that she is looking to repeal as well. Keep that in mind. Look at what the Bill she sponsored actually states: 1
Details from Texas HB 196 – https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB196/2021
Bill Title: Relating to the use of deadly force in defense of a person or property.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)
Status:(Introduced) 2020-11-09 – Filed [HB196 Detail]
Download:Texas-2021-HB196-Introduced.html
There are several factors here to consider:
Section 1:a:2 – “is unable to safely retreat” is added – giving additional gray area to allow for prosecution, if one were to “help” another person – family or not.
Section 1:c – Is being modified from a place where person “has a right to be present at” to “person’s own habitation.”
Habitation as defined in Texas Penal Code, Title 7, Chapter 30.01:1 as
You can no longer defend where you are lawfully present, you must now be at your “own habitation” to either defend yourself, a person or property.
There is actually more to this. Robbery and aggravated robbery are also stricken from the Castle Law in this HB 196. What does that mean?
Robbery and aggravated robbery as defined in Texas Penal Code, Title 7, Chapter 29.01-03 as
Whether robbery or aggravated robbery – the robber can exhibit a deadly weapon, cause serious bodily harm and that person can place the other in fear or imminent bodily injury… and it is still the responsibility of the person who would normally lean on the castle law to defend the position of deadly force anywhere. It is only the point when someone must prevent aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, or aggravated sexual assault. But if they come into your house or any other place you are located and only intend on robbing you or commit aggravated robbery against you – even causing serious bodily injury to you which would still be prosecuted as a felony – you still must not use “deadly force.”
Remember – robbery and aggravated robbery are no longer justifications to defend property or person with deadly force, unless you are your habitation (excluding church, car, grocery store, etc) and only then if you believe something other than robbery is going to take place.
Section 4 – portions to be repealed: Sections 9:32 (b) and (d)
Repealing the ability to use deadly force for those entering your habitation, vehicle, place of business or employment. Just process that.
Continuation of modifications of Castle Law as described in HB 196.
Here is the entire Penal Code for Title 2, Chapter 9 so that you can review was is missing as well. 2
Process this and then make an informed decision. There are portions being amended, but some critical portions that are being repealed regarding Castle Law. I wanted to hit some of the high points so that everyone could be educated on the facts. Now – you decide – is this something you can support?
This is my response to her –
