A new bill proposed in Texas repeals the castle doctrine, and doesn't stop there.
The author of the bill has stated:
"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."
Further, she goes on to say:
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."
This bill sounds like it stops short of legalizing robbery. I think society is probably still conservative enough that this would struggle to fly except maybe in the most liberal of liberal places, but def a scary view of the future, where not only can you not resist, but you are responsible for the safety of the person robbing you or they can sue you.
https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB196/...TRsp1KFWXCrEL9FhE5JzHz-5Nc0FXxHYRl-2BzUI7qH98
The author of the bill has stated:
"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."
Further, she goes on to say:
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."
This bill sounds like it stops short of legalizing robbery. I think society is probably still conservative enough that this would struggle to fly except maybe in the most liberal of liberal places, but def a scary view of the future, where not only can you not resist, but you are responsible for the safety of the person robbing you or they can sue you.
https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB196/...TRsp1KFWXCrEL9FhE5JzHz-5Nc0FXxHYRl-2BzUI7qH98