Maybe you’ve heard of the Texas “Castle Doctrine” — supposedly intended to allow you to shoot people who invade your home, car, or workplace if you “reasonably [believe] the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force.” In real life, what it means is that you can shoot people you think are robbing your neighbor’s house without even going to trial. Yes, in Texas, being suspected of robbery is grounds for a death sentence.
It’s working out so well that their violent- and property-crime rates are essentially identical to California’s. But at least they got to shoot some motherfuckers! I bet that makes you feel so badass! Oh wait I don’t have to bet: “Well, here it goes, buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking, and I’m going,” said the corpulent, visibly-alcoholic judge, jury and executioner you see pictured above to the police dispatcher frantically urging him to stay inside. Summoning the closest thing he could manage to a phrase that might have appeared in Die Hard and trying his best to hide his erection, he stormed outside to boldly confront two guys who were threatening his neighbor’s VCR.
Let’s be honest, the scientifically-proven fact that white people are gigantic pussies scared of imaginary invaders despite being in the midst of a two-decade trend of increasing safety, in combination with said dickweeds’ persistent Rambo fantasies, are the real explanations here. One might say that the perpetually palpitant pusillanimity of puerile paunchy pale-skinned people pretending put-on persecution by pitchy purloiners proves the pretense of poor police protection plastic. For example, in the late 80’s Texas, with a population of about 18 million, experienced about 1.3 million violent crimes and 1.2 million property crimes per year. Now, with a population of about 24 million, they’re experiencing about 1.1 million violent crimes and 950,000 property crimes. I’m sure plenty of Texans are jacking themselves off about how their awesome gun laws made that happen, but the truth is that this is a nationwide trend that began when Bill Clinton signed the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act in 1994, putting a fuckload more cops on the streets. It’s almost as though reality is standing in direct contradiction to this claim that macho vigilante bullshit is the way to keep crime down.
Now, the reason I bring this up is that some asshole wants to pass a federal version of this law that would shield folks from liability for blowin’ sumbitches away (yeehaw!) as long as they clear the lofty and well-defined standards of “reasonably perceived suspicion” of “serious bodily harm.” Hey kid, if you didn’t want to get your brains blown out, you shouldn’t have been playing with that squirt gun alright? (And if you say that sounds ridiculous and that no court would ever construe reasonable perception that way, then maybe you can follow up by explaining how leaving the confines of your own home in order to shoot someone in the back as they’re walking toward a car with your neighbor’s stuff is justified based on an imminent threat to your life.) Yeah, this is a great idea. My first reaction was, “Well, this won’t pass the Senate.” Then I remembered that Democrats are worthless cowards and that by the time this comes up for a vote in the Senate (well, only if this pro-gun bill gets past the House GOP… ha ha, I kid) we’ll be in full-on campaign season mode. This does not inspire confidence.
(How’s that for burying the lede? Sy Hersh eat your heart out.)
*Lots of loose cash just laying around the neighbor guy’s house, was that it? I wonder how he was able to see into the bag to determine its contents? Did it have a fucking dollar sign on it?