Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

a reply to: Gryphon66

I see you have a similar dysfunction to other posters: simply because you personally disagree with a comment doesn't make it untrue.

Yeah a dysfunction of actually researching FALSE CLAIMS.

Doesn't take much effort.

The LIE :Bankers cause the financial crisis. THEY DID NOT.





Politician's did.

Back to the topic eh.

How does that compare with tossing in your jibe about Ferguson's lost property? Not at all.

Property has been defended since the formation of this country.

And it has taken many lives. Hell the military, and the police, and federal leo's DO IT EVERY DAY.

And then, (speaking of jumping so far off-topic it's ludicrous) you're making generic statements about the American Revolution and, of course, trying to imply that your position is the only one that true Americans would take? Oh, and by the way, the quote is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (see the Declaration of Independence for more details.)

Try READING IT ALL.

This shallow attempt to portray anyone who disagrees with your opinions as un-American is getting really tiring.

Seriously ?

QUOTE that please.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Good morning ATS:

a reply to: Answer

It's pretty obvious that you simply cannot accept that your opinion isn't the only one, and that you equate your opinions with fact.

Apparently, your debate method is to alter the reality of the conversation and discredit your opponent based on your own made-up complaints. With every new post I make, you respond by claiming that my points are not worth listening to because of some discrepancy that you've fabricated. Nearly every one of your "you said this" points are completely incorrect.

I have stated facts and backed them up with links to sources. You then ignore those facts and sources to claim that I'm only posting my opinion.

You're the most intellectually dishonest debater I've ever encountered and it's not worth the frustration to continue dealing with someone who constantly changes the actual debate to suit their agenda.

On top of that, you are intentionally condescending. You should try to debate using factual arguments and counterpoints instead of frustrating your competition into giving up by sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA LA LA you're wrong! LA LA LA LA LA"

Here in Spain about 2 years they finally changed the law after numerous teachers were attacked by students or parents..

AttackIng a teacher now receives the same punishment as attacking a policeman.

However, should they be allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves and other students.. Yes.
That also should include the impunidad from private prosecution as well.

This week the son in law of a famous family of jewellers had to pay 300.000 euros to the family of a kosovar mafia he shot in his garden.
The group of 6 attackers were breaking into his house, they are always armed, knivws, screwdrivers etc.. and they will kill. Fearing for his life he shot one..
He was cleared by state prosecutors, however, the family sued.
Now the family of a dead thief will live well for a good while..and they say crime doesn't pay.

a reply to: neo96

Two Youtube videos "prove" that the banking industry had nothing to do with the Crash of 2008? Your understanding simply cannot be that simplistic to conceive that proves anything.

I've read the Declaration many times as well as the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, the works of Hobbes, Locke, Roussaeu, not to mention Paine, Franklin and Jefferson. You're the one who tried to subvert a phrase from the Declaration to your own purposes, not unexpectedly.

Number of times property is mentioned in the text of the Declaration: 0

Number of times property is mentioned in the US Constitution: 1

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State" Article IV Section 3.

So perhaps you have some reading to do, Neo; start with Locke ... you'll see eye to eye with him, he thought civil rights should depend on how much property was owned.

QUOTE what? Read your own post! People are "insane" who don't agree with your take (all American because you tried to quote the Declaration and referred to the Revolutionary War)?

Actually, it seems to be you who has missed what people fought and died for on those fields ... and it's not shutting down dissent and discussion as you are trying to do.

a reply to: neo96

If the destruction of property has the potential to cause serious injury or death to someone, then I can agree that deadly force should be an option. For instance, if someone is trying to burn the school down during a school day. Or if someone is trying to drive a bulldozer through a wall into an occupied classroom. Sure, deadly force is understandable.

But what happens when school is out? A couple of teachers stay late to grade papers one evening. One teacher observes a student in the bathroom setting fire to a wall. There's no real threat to life at that point. Should the teacher be justified in firing on the student?

The wording of the bill is just too vague. By its very wording, a teacher would be justified in shooting a student for tearing a page out of a text book.

I believe teachers should be armed (if they want to be) and should be equipped to potentially deal with an active shooter. But teachers shouldn't be given carte blanche authority to apply deadly force for vague reasons either.

a reply to: Answer

Ah, we're back to critiquing my debate style ...

There has been no alteration of the conversation. Kali's OP and my comments have been directed toward concerns over how the bill in TX could be misused if it became law. Those who can accept no comments that could possibly be seen to affect your uninfringable gun rights of course, jumped on and started implying that we were claiming teachers shouldn't be able to defend themselves or kids, being combat-trained enforcement officer that they all are, of course. I haven't ignored any facts, even when you posted your own summations of what you believe and then insisted that was holy writ.

The discussion is unbelievably simple. 1) Should guns be carried by teachers on campus and into classrooms? Some say nay, some say yay. Some State laws allow it. 2) Carrying is not equivalent to being exonerated for causing violence "in the defense of another's property." That is not and should not be the role of an educator.

Anything beyond that is the typical attempt to portray anyone not on the holy 2nd Amendment bandwagon as agents of gun confiscation. What we see here is pure extremism: you're either for us or against us.

I had hoped we would have grown up a bit as a society by now.

Please don't even start on anyone being condescending, you who have stated that your comments are all factual, and that there are no other facts, not other way to look at it and anyone who does is lying and hypocritical. The irony is just too much!

Of course, you're trying to project what you've been called out on to me. Read back, you're starting to repeat what I've said to you.

Boring.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I've read the Declaration many times as well as the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, the works of Hobbes, Locke, Roussaeu, not to mention Paine, Franklin and Jefferson. You're the one who tried to subvert a phrase from the Declaration to your own purposes, not unexpectedly.

Still TROLLING i see.

www.archives.gov...

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

Trade is about PROPERTY as in goods and services needed to live, on and sell to make a living.

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

Taxes is MONEY that is PROPERTY.

I've read the Declaration many times as well as the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, the works of Hobbes, Locke, Roussaeu, not to mention Paine, Franklin and Jefferson.

So have I and ?

You're the one who tried to subvert a phrase from the Declaration to your own purposes, not unexpectedly.

The only thing that has been subverted is that bill in the op to push a FALSE NARATIVE.

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State" Article IV Section 3.

Yeah and ?

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

www.law.cornell.edu...

How about ACTUALLY reading that piece of paper eh?

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

www.archives.gov...

The Declaration of Independence immortatlzed the RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE. Just like that bill in the op.

a reply to: neo96

So basically what you're trying to claim is that even though the Declaration and the Constitution have ONE reference to property between them (and that refers to Federal US Property) that really, every idea turns on property because ... you just know that it does, right? Taxes=property, navy ships=property, commerce=property, slaves=property (counted at three-fifths of a real person, that being a white, male, landowner?) ... yeah ... how far do you want to take the silliness?

Neither document is about property. The PART OF THE Bill in the OP that exonerates teachers of killing students who may damage property is NOT a matter of SELF DEFENSE no matter how many times you type it in caps.

Section 2 is about protecting oneself.

Section 3 is about protecting property.

How many more times does this have to be said?????

ADDED IN EDIT:

SO, still trying to read your ... stuff ... are the teachers the Patriots and the kids the Redcoats, in your scenario? What "oppression" is being thrown off by letting a teacher carry a gun in their purse or pocket in a room full of 6-year-olds?

You're making no sense.

Can the OP change the title of this post to:

"QUIZ: Are You a Sociopath?"

It's funny how our responses can define us. Now that I know there is a clear division here, I've decided to get in on the debate!

But first, because it's impossible to know if this bill is moraly right or wrong (only God knows, right?), I'll just pick a random side (no actual bias) and generate a random argument for that side:

Let's see...which side to pick?...ok, here:

If you are an adult, and believe using deadly force against a child in order to protect property (of any value) is justifiable, then you lack a conscience and are, therefore, a sociopath. There is no argument in your favor anymore because - now that you have been established as a sociopath - any argument you could possibly come up with in this debate has and will have originated in an unhealthy mind.

Bear with me now,

IF you can say: "welp, maybe they shouldn't steal then." - without contradicting any form of a conscience that you should have, then you are...by definition, a sociopath.

Weird huh?

So as I said...why bother with a reply? You are not qualified to speak of anything regarding morality because you have demonstrated that you lack the ability to function in (a healthy) society which would require a conscience in favor of life, especially that of youth, over material items.

And once again, because you have shown a need for repetition: You lack a conscience.

Here's an automated response to answer that voice of denial in your head saying: "who does he think he is, telling me I lack a conscience?"

- If you had one there would be evidence in your responses that you place more value on human life than your (or anyone else's) STUFF.

Now this time I'll put it in a language you might better understand:

"If you advocate a bill that, if passed into LAW, would allow the means of protecting STUFF (aka property) from children to include the use of deadly force - youuuuuu might be a redneck." - Jeff Foxworthy

Honestly, it's nothing personal. Some people are born sociopaths, others are really just victims themselves. Lets see...Serial killers, for example, are sociopaths. Rapists. And you!

Now you try: Anyone who could justify killing a child to defend any kind of property, is...what? Come on...you know this one, I already told you the answer.

Or, in your defense...maybe instead of listening to your heart that country song came to your mind:

"Mmmmmmm....God bless Texas...uhhh huh...."

..something along those lines. You guys (ya'll) know which song I'm talking about, right?

By the way, DO you, or do you NOT...dress in full cowboy gear? I can't picture it any other way. A little boy in a man's body pretending to be a cowboy?...right? Like make-believe? Is that you? Joshing aside, It's a cool look. Tough looking too. Has "don't #uck with me" written all over it. I'm kinda jealous in my "regular people clothes." Makes me feel like a nobody. Oh well...

Ok, end of random argument...No offence to either side. Honestly. That was just an example of how one might respond, so you cant, in good concience, be offended.

Of course, the answer would actually be to address the issues that cause youths to turn violent, but apparently it's just easier to shoot them in the face and allow those issues to continue.

a reply to: neo96

Trade is about PROPERTY as in goods and services needed to live, on and sell to make a living.

let me get this straight......to you money is more important than life ?

Have i got that right or am i missing something ?

originally posted by: Kryties
Of course, the answer would actually be to address the issues that cause youths to turn violent, but apparently it's just easier to shoot them in the face and allow those issues to continue.

I don't understand what's so hard to comprehend about actions having consequences. For adults, youth, or children. A child steals from the cookie jar, they get a spanking. A youth steals from Kroger, they go to jail. An adult steals from a home, they go to jail, hospital, or casket.

I don't go robbing, killing, or thieving because I don't want to get shot or go to jail. The issue, the ONLY issue, is no accountability growing up.

Now let's not be ignorant.

If you think of it through the way they explain it, it starts to makes sense. Its hard at first cause I didn't get it but just try:

Ok, so Tax payers pay money right? And that money is hard-earned, is it not?

And, kids shouldn't be disrespecting the property that the tax payers use their money to pay for, right? Cause it's hard-earned.

And that money can't just go down the drain. Not the tax payers money. You getting it yet? Because of how difficult it is to earn.

It's the hardest money to earn out of all money, because it's the tax payers'. And some kid can't just disrespect that money.

Still with me?

Ok, so, kids don't usually have jobs right? So they don't have very much money. And they don't pay taxes. Also nothing they do is hard-earned.

And somebody's got to pay for the damaged property, but since a kid cant afford it with their non-existent money, that doesnt mean they can't pay for it.

That's how they came up with the idea: They found way that a kid can pay for the damaging property -with their life! Cause they don't have jobs and the tax payers cant just flush hard-earned money down the toilet.

Now do we get it? We were just thinking about the kids and not the money or the stuff that it buys, but I think now It makes sense cause of the hard-earned part.

originally posted by: Kryties
Of course, the answer would actually be to address the issues that cause youths to turn violent, but apparently it's just easier to shoot them in the face and allow those issues to continue.

Its the American way! YEEEEEHAAAAAA!

why do complicated # when you can have a excuse to blow someones head off!

Now I feel stupid. The answer was always right in front of my face!

So after some additional responses were posted I learned something new:

Alright, so now I finally get that kids need to learn about consequences.

I don't know why I didn't think of that before.

See it makes sense because they need to learn accountability. Just like If an adult steals, he goes to jail. No fun for the adult! Doubt he'll do that again!

And if your child steals something from his school where they teach things then he gets shot in the face. And just like the adult, he won't be doing that again! right?

See, its the same concept. They need learn about consequences. Being shot to death is a consequence that they can learn from in the safety of their elementary school. And next time, they won't do it again. The lesson is learned and all the teacher needs to have is good aim and good judgement.

You need to trust that the teacher will know when its ok to shoot your child. He or she is a teacher for a good reason, and that is because they have the ability to correctly decide whether to execute your child for damaging or taking school property.

And it's cost effective. I think something like 1 bullet = not a lot of money.

Anyway, now we know

a reply to: Kali74

While I consider this to be to the extreme, I have witnessed first hand as a teacher what can happen in a classroom when it comes to that minority of students that careless about schools and the safety of other children.

Specially in high schools.

I witness a young man because he was not a littler child throw a male teacher against a wall when I was working as a tutor in one of the town I live high school.

It wasn't pretty.

But Then again, a law?, it will help nothing.

If kids with guns present an statistically appreciable risk to others kids and teachers,
then this becomes an option to consider.
but what, when a teacher goes postal on some children who are not armed to defend themselves ?
The paradox !

In correctional facilities we have C.Os...check
In school we have campus police..check
In correctional facilities we have metal detectors..check.
In school we have we have metal detectors..check.
In school your locker can be raided or inspected without warning..check
in correctional facilities your locker can be raided or inspected without warning..check
In school deadly force can be used against you by school officials..check
in correctional facilities deadly force can be used against you by school officials..check

So the difference between a corrections facility and school is kids get to sleep at home??

The issue, despite what some have tried to turn this into, is not whether adults (teachers) should be able to carry their firearms so long as they are licensed and the school allows it.

It is not suggesting that teachers should not be able to defend themselves or others if attacked.

It is not another "gun control" effort masquerading as concern for the safety of children.

It is not some sort of hysterical overreaction, bleeding-heart malfunction, etc.

What IS being expressed here by the OP and by some of the rest of us, is considerable concern over the emphasis in this proposed TX law that specifically empowers school officials and teachers to use deadly force to protect property and exonerates any official who makes that claim.

The concern for kids being attacked is a component (and has been backed up by multiple examples) but that's really not the only concern, I don't think.

Some of us are also concerned about agents of the government (and teachers/administrators do represent the government) being awarded a specific indemnity toward violence over and above what the average citizen is accorded. Once again, these examples of the creep of government overreach are only opposed by some when it seems to violate their own political agenda.

As to my own personal perspective, every effort needs to be made to keep firearms OUT of the classroom, rather than finding ways to bring them in. The presence of a gun in such a volatile environment is simply one more hazard that is unnecessary. This is not to say that folks cannot own guns, or that we should take away their guns, merely that there should be some environments held sacrosanct, in which we do our best to keep weapons out 100% of the time.

Schools are one of those places, in my opinion.

a reply to: crazyewok

Although I was pissing about with the above post there is a sort of point.

The eagerness some have on this thread to shot someone over petty crime (not violent crime as agree with self defense) like theft shows me a disturbing culture trend in the US that its acceptable and easier to just shot the problem up than deal with it in a better way. That Gun are ok to use as a first resort to a problem than last resort. This to me is were the mass shootings are coming from.


Before some dumb nuts accuses me of being a gun grabber re read as I did not mention gun control.

There are plenty of country's in the world with lax if not laxer gun control laws to the US and gun violence is far lower.

That indicates there is a culture problem in the US and I think what I mentioned above covers that well.