Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

a reply to: neo96

If Adam Lanza stole a lap top... no.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: olaru12

Or teacher has bad aim or random student walks in front of...

Here's the thing with a bill like this. Handled responsibly, that means that the teaching force has to be TRAINED to properly respond to a threat. Trained to know when to use deadly force and when to use regular force. Then they need to be trained on HOW to go about doing that. You may notice this as police training. Meaning that such a bill makes the state teaching force into a police force. Talk about police state tactics, then on top of that the costs associated with such an idea are crazy.

Naturally, I'm sure that Texas won't do any of this and just let the teachers bring guns to school and be done with it. Which of course creates new and interesting problems.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

What I'm focusing on is the use of deadly force to defend school property which you are stubbornly ignoring.

You wouldn't want an Adam Lanza put down before he could kill ?

I would lots of parents would too than lose their kids.

You're having a debate with yourself. If you'd like to join the actual debate, it's over the use of deadly force by educators in defense of school property.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: olaru12

Or teacher has bad aim or random student walks in front of...

Here's the thing with a bill like this. Handled responsibly, that means that the teaching force has to be TRAINED to properly respond to a threat. Trained to know when to use deadly force and when to use regular force. Then they need to be trained on HOW to go about doing that. You may notice this as police training. Meaning that such a bill makes the state teaching force into a police force. Talk about police state tactics, then on top of that the costs associated with such an idea are crazy.

Naturally, I'm sure that Texas won't do any of this and just let the teachers bring guns to school and be done with it. Which of course creates new and interesting problems.

And of course then, they will still bitch and complain about how teachers are overpaid and useless... while not giving them cop salaries/benefits/hazard pay. I really could spit bullets at the moment, save Texas some money...

a reply to: Kali74


I'm not ignoring anything.
You seem to think that this gives a teacher permission to kill a student that is stealing a pencil sharpener.
The teacher would have to believe that the school wants teachers to protect the schools property with deadly force. What teacher will be willing to do that? What school would tell a teacher that?
The text says third person property. That is a reference to your neighbor or friends property. I don't believe they are referring to school property. You need a lawyer to interpret the legal ease of the wording.

This is to give teachers the same legal protections a every other Texan.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

If Adam Lanza stole a lap top... no.

Even READ your own article?

]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 ground

Doesn't sound like it.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Didn't READ it either eh.

]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 ground

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

You don't need a lawyer, you just need to understand the language the law is written in.

a reply to: neo96

The relevant (to the discussion) part of the bill is linked in the OP along with the penal code cited in it. Did you read that?

When you read the Penal Code references that are cited in the Bill, all this does is to protect the teacher from liability for performing the same actions that they legally can perform now as private citizens. NOTHING new has been added.

a reply to: neo96

What? Of course I read it. I also read the excerpt from THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION:

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.

Do you deny that it seeks to explicitly cover the use of deadly force in the defense of school property?

a reply to: Kali74

Still missing the GD point.

Force or deadly force IF a teacher NEEDS to PROTECT themselves.

That doesn't mean the teacher is automatically going to go around shooting people for no reason.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Except now school property is now considered so valuable that teachers are now justified in using deadly force to protect it... from students.

a reply to: neo96

Or property...

in defense of property of the school that employs the educator

a reply to: neo96

Violent youth? There are as just as many knuckle heads in school now as their was when we where going to school. Aside from the rare shooing since when have teachers been killed or beaten to a pulp on the job (and I mean regularly), these are KIDS they are teaching not grown adults.

Overall, 9 percent of teachers said they were threatened with injury – lower than the 12 percent who responded similarly in 1993-94, but higher than the 7 percent who said so in 2003-04 and 2007-08. And the 5 percent of teachers who said they had been physically attacked by a student was higher than in any previous survey year, the report found.

Numbers from that article. Not even close enough to justify teachers being able to use deadly force. I bet a lot of teachers will get death threats from the children of parents if anything like what is being proposed is passed.

a reply to: neo96

Still missing the GD point.

That's good. It's only a matter of time before they pass a law in Texghanistan that allows people to execute anyone caught using the lord's name in vain.

You're the only one who seems to still be missing the point. Nobody is arguing against teachers using deadly force to protect the well-being of themselves, students or other members of faculty. The point of contention is the section of the legislation pertaining to the use of deadly force to protect SCHOOL PROPERTY.

I can't decide whether you're just trolling or this is a case of epic willful ignorance.

a reply to: [post=18954336]Kali74[/post

Under Texas law they can do that now

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.


Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: Kali74


I'm not ignoring anything.
You seem to think that this gives a teacher permission to kill a student that is stealing a pencil sharpener.
The teacher would have to believe that the school wants teachers to protect the schools property with deadly force. What teacher will be willing to do that? What school would tell a teacher that?

Teachers aren't generally given psyche evaluations like they do in the police force. So It is incredibly easy for a mentally unstable teacher to become a teacher. Again, we are talking about Texas here. They aren't exactly known for their regulations.

So no telling what a teacher will think justifies their usage of this law.

a reply to: theantediluvian

That's good. It's only a matter of time before they pass a law in Texghanistan that allows people to execute anyone caught using the lord's name in vain.

Nice hyperbole.

You're the only one who seems to still be missing the point. Nobody is arguing against teachers using deadly force to protect the well-being of themselves, students or other members of faculty. The point of contention is the section of the legislation pertaining to the use of deadly force to protect SCHOOL PROPERTY.

So teachers should not protect multimillion dollar public investments.

Glad we got that sorted.

Wonder if pencil sharpener theft will drop now?
Still think this is all an overreaction.