Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

originally posted by: Gryphon66


You're doing nothing here but rebleating the same old political agenda.

And you aren't?

We're not talking about appropriate response to violence and you know it. We're talking about teachers being given a license to kill.

Sensationalism. In order for a teacher to carry a gun, they have to obtain a concealed handgun permit from the state AND they would have to work in a district that allows teachers to carry.

Your logic implies that all people with a concealed carry permit are being given a "license to kill" and that is absolutely 100% daft.

There are many school districts which allow teachers to carry a gun yet none of them have killed students. Your argument is baseless.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Did you miss this FACT ?

The Teacher’s Protection Act by Rep. Dan Flynn, R-Van, would allow educators to use force or deadly force if they feel they need to protect themselves against a student or anyone else on school grounds.

Sounds like lot's of people did.

h goody I just cant wait for the body count to pile up!................... NOT!

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Answer

And property.

Which, like I pointed out, is a sensationalist angle to focus on but clearly that's not going to stop you.

Why put it in the proposed law then? If it's in the law that means that teachers can do it and be immune from prosecution for it. Saying that it's sensationalizing to call attention and open discussion about it, is absurd.

originally posted by: stirling
h goody I just cant wait for the body count to pile up!................... NOT!

Right, like the body count from the 11.1 million of Americans who already have concealed firearm permits.

Again, the argument from the anti-side is completely baseless.

a reply to: Answer

What political agenda am I fronting for, Answer? Please, quote me.

It is not sensationalism, and it's not "my logic." The law applies across the board.

Understandably, you wish to focus only on those elements that promote your gun proliferation agenda. Did you actually read the law? The point is not who can carry guns but who can use them and for what purposes. The arena in which these guns are going to be carried are school-rooms in which the kids are (by and large) unarmed.

This issue being addressed by OP and any reasonable person on the thread is the rationale of any teacher anywhere being judge, jury and executioner for a minor child's infractions.

If you consider concerns about the safety of our children and our classrooms sensationalist, that's your issue.

The bill was filed just days before a video of a New Jersey physics teacher being body slammed by his 9th grade student went viral. In the video, it’s clear the teacher is avoiding fighting back or touching the student.

Wow people really.

Making a sink hole out of a mountain.

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Answer

And property.

Which, like I pointed out, is a sensationalist angle to focus on but clearly that's not going to stop you.

Why put it in the proposed law then? If it's in the law that means that teachers can do it and be immune from prosecution for it. Saying that it's sensationalizing to call attention and open discussion about it, is absurd.

Because the law in Texas has the "defense of property" statute and this would extend that legal definition to teachers.

It's not a special consideration being given to teachers.

a reply to: neo96

No one missed that fact, and you've been told this several times in the thread. This is NOT about teachers defending themselves from violence, but about them being given immunity for using deadly force against children.

I know you want it to be different, but that's the simple FACT. Deal with it.

Well we could look at the positive here....and that is the teachers can shoot kids without having to wait for the police to turn up and do it.......clearly a win win situation and a time saver all whilst saving the public purse

originally posted by: stirling
h goody I just cant wait for the body count to pile up!................... NOT!

This is a joke to break up the tension.

a reply to: Gryphon66

This is NOT about teachers defending themselves from violence

That is what that G'damn bill is ABOUT.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

This is NOT about teachers defending themselves from violence

That is what that G'damn bill is ABOUT.

Yes, faux-cursing is really intimidating and gets your point across ... NOT!

(It just makes your post sound silly.)

No, it's not what the bill is about nor what the OP and this discussion is about. We're talking the general connotations and ramifications inherent for other states in the Texas extension of their laws about using firearms to "protect property" to teachers in classrooms against minor children.

No matter how many times you try to make it otherwise, that is the fact of the matter.

I Think that now students have to worry about teachers killing them. They should pass a bill that allows students to off a teacher if they feel threatened. Or when the teacher steals from them.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Answer

What political agenda am I fronting for, Answer? Please, quote me.

I already quoted you. You said the teachers are being given a license to kill. That's sensationalism straight from the anti-gun playbook.

Understandably, you wish to focus only on those elements that promote your gun proliferation agenda. Did you actually read the law? The point is not who can carry guns but who can use them and for what purposes. The arena in which these guns are going to be carried are school-rooms in which the kids are (by and large) unarmed.

You're wrong. My focus is on the following facts that are being ignored by you and those who agree with you:

1) Many school districts already allow a teacher who is licensed to carry a handgun to carry on school property.
2) There are no cases where a teacher pulled out a gun and used it against a student.
3) The proposed bill only expands the current self-defense laws to cover teachers. It is not a new law specific to teachers.
4) All concealed handgun licensees carry in places where everyone else is (by and large) unarmed. That's completely irrelevant.

Your outrage is completely baseless.

If you consider concerns about the safety of our children and our classrooms sensationalist, that's your issue.

This is exactly my point. Teachers legally carrying guns is not a safety concern. The typical political agenda of the left is to make everything about "the children!" to elicit an emotional response instead of attempting to have a rational discussion based on historical precedents and logic.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

This is NOT about teachers defending themselves from violence

That is what that G'damn bill is ABOUT.

Yes, faux-cursing is really intimidating and gets your point across ... NOT!

(It just makes your post sound silly.)

No, it's not what the bill is about nor what the OP and this discussion is about. We're talking the general connotations and ramifications inherent for other states in the Texas extension of their laws about using firearms to "protect property" to teachers in classrooms against minor children.

No matter how many times you try to make it otherwise, that is the fact of the matter.

Sec. 38A.002. EDUCATOR'S DEFENSE OF SELF OR STUDENTS. (a) An educator is justified in using force or deadly force on school property, on a school bus, or at a school-sponsored event in defense of the educator's person or in defense of students of the school that employs the educator if, under the circumstances as the educator reasonably believes them to be, the educator would be justified under Section 9.31, 9.32, or 9.33, Penal Code, in using force or deadly force, as applicable, in defense of the educator or students.

Hmm.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Wouldn't have to curse if some peoples reading, and comprehensions skills weren't so damn atrocious.

The Teacher’s Protection Act by Rep. Dan Flynn, R-Van, would allow educators to use force or deadly force if they feel they need to protect themselves against a student or anyone else on school grounds.

It is clearly talking about two things there.

The use of force is authorized for teachers to defend themselves from getting body slammed, etc.

The second being authorized to use deadly force for anyone else on school grounds like Lanza.

Those are the FACTS.

a reply to: neo96

More insults Neo? Didn't you just claim above that was the last defense of someone who isn't intellectually capable of carrying on a discussion? So, physician, heal thine own flawed reading comprehension.

The OP has never been about a teacher using appropriate or reasonable force to protect themselves or other students from violence.

The discussion IS about giving a license to kill to teachers "protecting" state property (you know, the line just after the one you keep harping on? Yeah, that one.)

You know it; I know it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Protecting state property doesn't mean shooting a child for stealing an eraser but it does mean to protect the property from aggressors like Lanza and others from trying to shoot up a school.