Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

Please describe the hypothetical scenario you are so worried about.

Just give me one scenario that you see as plausible if this law is passed.

... nothing on the political agenda I'm fronting for then?

Alrighty, you must have been mistaken. Fair enough.

I haven't read any play-books and I'm not at all anti-Second Amendment. I'll wager you can't find any quotes regarding your mistaken opinion on that score, either.

The bill under consideration exonerates teachers who use deadly force against students in the pursuit of "protecting property" among other things. What do you call a State-mandated right to kill others (particularly kids) without due process?

I call it a license to kill. You can call it whatever you wish.

What "outrage" are you referring to? Stop with the dramatics ... it's not going to wash here.

Your "facts" are cherry-picked and you know it.

Concealed carry laws have not traditionally nor universally permitted teachers to carry their weapons onto school grounds, into the classrooms, nor legally entitled them to shoot kids who in their discretion alone are destroying or abusing or misusing property.

Teachers are human beings. They are not trained to carry weapons nor to administer justice. They are in a specific and controlled environment with children.

And I have the strong suspicion you know just how specious your argument is that "there have been no occasions of teachers killing kids under this law" when the law is still in in bill form and has not yet been executed.

Aside from all that though, it seems that you and I have a basic disagreement. I do not believe that the Second Amendment was meant to allow ANYONE to carry their weapons into a school-room, or church, or any other location in which guns are not reasonably going to be needed on any given day.

I do not consider reasonable limitations to be "infringement" and obviously you do. I don't live in Texas and, aside from general human concerns, don't give a rip what silly laws they put into place.

I do have a right to my opinion, as do you. In my opinion, this bill, if it becomes law, will result in tears.

And it will be the tears of parents and grandparents who have children shot and killed for no good reason.

That's not sensationalist, but you're welcome to your opinion.

originally posted by: thesaneone
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.

You want us to believe that you're speaking for all Texans and that you have prophetic powers that allow you to see all possible futures?

I don't believe you. Property means property. They understand that, even in Texas; I believe they mean what they say.

/shrug

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... nothing on the political agenda I'm fronting for then?

Alrighty, you must have been mistaken. Fair enough.

I haven't read any play-books and I'm not at all anti-Second Amendment. I'll wager you can't find any quotes regarding your mistaken opinion on that score, either.

The bill under consideration exonerates teachers who use deadly force against students in the pursuit of "protecting property" among other things. What do you call a State-mandated right to kill others (particularly kids) without due process?

I call it a license to kill. You can call it whatever you wish.

What "outrage" are you referring to? Stop with the dramatics ... it's not going to wash here.

Your "facts" are cherry-picked and you know it.

Concealed carry laws have not traditionally nor universally permitted teachers to carry their weapons onto school grounds, into the classrooms, nor legally entitled them to shoot kids who in their discretion alone are destroying or abusing or misusing property.

Teachers are human beings. They are not trained to carry weapons nor to administer justice. They are in a specific and controlled environment with children.

And I have the strong suspicion you know just how specious your argument is that "there have been no occasions of teachers killing kids under this law" when the law is still in in bill form and has not yet been executed.

Aside from all that though, it seems that you and I have a basic disagreement. I do not believe that the Second Amendment was meant to allow ANYONE to carry their weapons into a school-room, or church, or any other location in which guns are not reasonably going to be needed on any given day.

I do not consider reasonable limitations to be "infringement" and obviously you do. I don't live in Texas and, aside from general human concerns, don't give a rip what silly laws they put into place.

I do have a right to my opinion, as do you. In my opinion, this bill, if it becomes law, will result in tears.

And it will be the tears of parents and grandparents who have children shot and killed for no good reason.

That's not sensationalist, but you're welcome to your opinion.

You are completely focused on the defense of property part of the law and the rest of us are focusing elsewhere because we're completely dumbfounded that any logical-thinking adult human being could look at that section of the proposed bill and think that it will cause problems. There is no basis for your concern and that is why many of us assume you have another agenda.

My facts are not cherry-picked. My facts relate directly to the topic at hand and they are the only facts that matter.

a reply to: thesaneone

SO your response and comment is limited to "hmm"??? What is that even supposed to mean? What does it contribute to the discussion of the topic at hand?

Here, I don't think you read far enough:

Sec. 38A.003. EDUCATOR'S DEFENSE OF SCHOOL PROPERTY. (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 property 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 9.43, Penal Code, in
using force or deadly force, as applicable, in defense of property
of the school that employs the educator.

That's what OP took exception to as noted in their post and multiple times throughout this discussion.

Have anything cogent to say on that beyond "hmm"?

a reply to: Answer

You're completely dumbfounded because teachers never make mistakes, or overreact, or just get angry?

They're all highly-trained operatives accustomed to toting their firearms into a classroom with a bunch of KIDS with carte-blanche from the State to use deadly force against kids if they're defending property?

Come on. A firearm is being inserted into a situation in which it has no place. If the kids are such thugs, are you really telling me you can conceive of NO SCENARIO in which said thug overpowers the teacher, takes their side-arm and now, bingo-bango, what destruction and mayhem is the "thug" going to administer?

You're representing the negative possibilities of the situation as non-existent, because that promotes your agenda of gun proliferation. Your "facts" are indeed not merely cherry-picked but completely fabricated.

As to what degree of pomposity you possess that allows you to state that "the only thing that matters here is your post" ... I have no response to that, aside from profoundly disagreeing with you.

You have no facts about what will happen in classrooms when teachers are allowed to tote in weapons in Texas with the mandate under discussion ... because it hasn't happened yet.

You are promoting one scenario to the exclusion of all others because it suits your rather obvious agenda.

In other words, you're stating your OPINION ... and you know about opinions, eh?

I'll ask again:

What is the hypothetical scenario you are so worried about?



Do you honestly think that a teacher will shoot a child for attempting to damage or steal school property?

Home school your kids. There's no way I would send mine to public schools. You can't police what they force feed your child. You hear the horror stories almost every single day. YOU have a responsibility to YOUR children. Can I get an AMEN?

originally posted by: Answer
I'll ask again:

What is the hypothetical scenario you are so worried about?



Do you honestly think that a teacher will shoot a child for attempting to damage or steal school property?

I just provided one.

Further, I think teachers are human beings. I think they get very angry at kids because they are in tough situations getting tougher because of the cuts to educational programs among other factors. I think whenever a firearm is introduced there is the potential for mayhem. I think the primary, secondary and high-school classrooms are the LAST place we need to be authorizing guns in this country.

You're quite simply claiming knowledge that you don't have, frankly, since you ask what I think.

I see the ROTC has been called to active duty !!

originally posted by: xuenchen
I see the ROTC has been called to active duty !!

I heard it was the JROTC.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Answer

You're completely dumbfounded because teachers never make mistakes, or overreact, or just get angry?

Please post a link to a story involving an armed teacher using deadly force against a student. Your same argument can be applied to police officers, armed security guards, and all concealed-handgun permit holders.

They're all highly-trained operatives accustomed to toting their firearms into a classroom with a bunch of KIDS with carte-blanche from the State to use deadly force against kids if they're defending property?

The teachers who want to carry a gun in class have to be licensed to do so. Please post a link to a story where an armed teacher has used deadly force against a student.

In addition to that, armed security guards go through practically ZERO training to receive their permit to carry a firearm in practically all places. The requirements to be a security guard are laughable. At least a teacher has to be educated.

How many security guards have snapped and used deadly force against innocent people?

Come on. A firearm is being inserted into a situation in which it has no place. If the kids are such thugs, are you really telling me you can conceive of NO SCENARIO in which said thug overpowers the teacher, takes their side-arm and now, bingo-bango, what destruction and mayhem is the "thug" going to administer?

Again, hypothetical scenarios with no basis in reality. The firearm has no place in a classroom until a student decides to bring one and commit mass murder.

You're representing the negative possibilities of the situation as non-existent, because that promotes your agenda of gun proliferation. Your "facts" are indeed not merely cherry-picked but completely fabricated.

No, I'm simply focusing on reality versus imaginary hypothetical scenarios. How, exactly, are my facts fabricated? I'd love to see you back up that lie.

As to what degree of pomposity you possess that allows you to state that "the only thing that matters here is your post" ... I have no response to that, aside from profoundly disagreeing with you.

I didn't say my post was all that matters. I said the facts are all that matter. You should stop lying.

You have no facts about what will happen in classrooms when teachers are allowed to tote in weapons ... because it hasn't happened yet.

You are completely wrong. Many school districts allow armed teachers and none of them have killed students. Again, I'm using facts and you're using conjecture.

You are promoting one scenario to the exclusion of all others because it suits your rather obvious agenda.

In other words, you're stating your OPINION ... and you know about opinions, eh?

Yet, you're promoting an unfounded scenario where teachers are shooting students for no good reason because it suits your rather obvious agenda. I'm posting factual information based on reality. You're posting hypothetical scenarios based on hysterics. What a glaring hypocrite.

originally posted by: xuenchen
I see the ROTC has been called to active duty !!

As always, another wonderfully relevant, on-topic comment, Xuenchen!

Care to elucidate?

originally posted by: Gryphon66


You're quite simply claiming knowledge that you don't have, frankly, since you ask what I think.

Am I? Please provide one statement I've made in this thread that wasn't factual.

There are school districts that allow teachers to carry guns and none of those teachers have shot a student. You can not argue with that fact. Every concern that you've posted is based on conjecture and lacks factual basis. Period.

Facts

a reply to: Answer

Do you honestly think they won't?

How can you be so cocksure that teachers will just ignore that "inalienable right" to kill a child because of a perceived threat to a perceived value of property?


Why does it have to be politically motivated to feel this could end in disaster?
& to take that into consideration instead of just denying it could ever be a possibility?


I know which sounds more like an agenda... I'm sure many others do too.


Despite some peoples best efforts to continuously copy and paste a part of the bill that wasn't the topic of Kali's thread...

There's another agenda...


Then for them same people to repeatedly keep talking about "self defence" when it's not what is being debated?


The agenda is clear.



None for any of you!

a reply to: Answer

What is the hypothetical scenario you are so worried about?

Again, hypothetical scenarios with no basis in reality.

LOL
Move the goal posts much???


I retract that statement in my last post, you're now completely disingenuous and have no credibility in this discussion...



Transparent agenda, now completely visible!

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Answer

Do you honestly think they won't?

I absolutely think they won't. Police officers, armed security guards, and concealed weapon licensees have the same rights being proposed here and there is not an epidemic of people shooting people in defense of property.

How can you be so cocksure that teachers will just ignore that "inalienable right" to kill a child because of a perceived threat to a perceived value of property?

Because common sense and historical precedent prove that they won't.

Why does it have to be politically motivated to feel this could end in disaster?
& to take that into consideration instead of just denying it could ever be a possibility?

It doesn't have to be politically motivated, it is emotionally motivated. The likelihood of a teacher shooting a child in defense of property is infinitesimally small compared to the likelihood of a student attempting to kill other students. One has historical precedent and is a logical concern, the other does not and is not.

Then for them same people to repeatedly keep talking about "self defence" when it's not what is being debated?

So if the "defense of property" clause was removed from the law, would you support it?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Answer

What is the hypothetical scenario you are so worried about?

Again, hypothetical scenarios with no basis in reality.

LOL
Move the goal posts much???


I retract that statement in my last post, you're now completely disingenuous and have no credibility in this discussion...



Transparent agenda, now completely visible!

What are you talking about?

It's unreasonable to ask someone to explain why they have an issue with a part of a law when they are being completely illogical?

There isn't a single logical reason to fear the "defense of property" portion of this law but you and others have chosen to focus on it. I'm simply asking for someone to explain a likely scenario without resorting to hysterics.

If you think that's "moving the goalposts", you should probably revisit your debate terminology before continuing.

I asked for a hypothetical scenario and expected something logical/based on historical precedent.

I can advocate passing a law that bans flying pigs but that doesn't make my hypothetical concern legitimate.

Push the envelope. See how much they can get away with and keep adding to it until we back them off. You put up with it. Home schooling your children would be a powerful message. Freedom isn't free, you have to fight for that #.

a reply to: Answer

And yet, teachers are not really comparable in any way to police officers, or armed security guards, are they?

Armed security guards are in a specific environment that is, in general, not comparable to a teacher standing in front of a classroom. For the record, I'm appalled at the lack of training on the part of some versions of the "rent-a-cop" but that's really totally out of place in this discussion.

Can you post any indication of the level of training that teachers will be receiving to serve in high-stress situations with a side-arm then? You made the jump to police (who do happen to receive extensive training) and armed guards. Are you advocating that teachers should not be trained to make good decisions with their weapons then? Strange that.

It is not merely the fact of carrying the gun into the classroom that is the issue, as has been repeatedly stated here. It is a matter of the Texas law being expanded to exonerate teachers who do use deadly force in the protection of property.

I realize you wish to ignore that fact and make it a carry issue/2nd Amendment issue. I, and others, simply disagree with you.

Your "facts" were stated in your own words in your own post and you did state "that was all that matters." You seem to have a high opinion of yourself. Perhaps you need to look up a definition of "lying."

How many of those school districts have state laws which exonerate teachers from using deadly force in the defense of property? When you have that answer, you can make that argument, because THAT is what is under discussion here.

I posted one scenario at your request. What is hysterical about thinking that one of these imaginary thuggish kids you guys are positing could take a gun away from a teacher and use it to harm others?

Answer: nothing. In fact, if you guys are right about these throngs of thugs in schools that the teachers need to carry against, it's a very REASONABLE possibility to any thinking person.

While you're looking up what lying means, you should also consider hypocrite ... because you're displaying a growing tendency toward both.

Perhaps you should not concentrate on your opinion of me as much as you should the discussion at hand, because, just for the record, I'm not very impressed with your argumentation or honesty, either.

/shrug