Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

originally posted by: retiredTxn








If someone feels guns should not be in schools, I respect your opinion. Respect mine and others. Then let's talk about it.

Actually I'm all for guns in schools but in the hands of trained security professionals.

You sure have a lot more faith in Texas teachers than I have. I'm a product of the Texas Public schools and University system. From my observations the teachers I knew shouldn't even be allowed to drive much less have a firearm on school property. They had little interest in education and were primarily concerned with getting laid and getting paid. Most certainly didn't have the students welfare in mind. Their sarcastic, sadistic, arrogant, power tripping, approach to teaching has made me despise authority figures. There were a few good female teachers but they were in the distinct minority.

University was a bit better because we were bigger and could kick their ass if need be.

a reply to: olaru12

It's not so much that I have more faith in teachers, as much as it is that I would like to believe only the best would be afforded the ability to protect our children. In a perfect world, schools would be able to afford professional security in our schools, but in reality that just isn't the case. I grew up in Oak Cliff section of Dallas. Not your best neighborhood's. I feel lucky to have had mostly good or better teachers throughout school.

Times have changed though, and along with the times, so have teachers. Glad I finished up early in the 70's.

a reply to: olaru12

My god, where did you go to school? Or maybe more importantly, when?

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Ok, I'll bite:

Who on this thread places a computer above a child's life?




The problem I see are the ignorantly stupid scenarios being presented.

a reply to: bbracken677

Not me. In this day and age, computers are cheap, and even back when they were expensive, not worth a child's life.

a reply to: bbracken677

I have no idea who or what you are, sir, except this is the second time you have spoken to me on a thread, Ever. The first time you called me a "moron" over circumstances you knew nothing about, and now you have called me stupid.;

I strongly suggest you get your emotions and name calling under control.

Now: On topic:

1. Make sure you are on the correct thread, as this one has to do with those who would find it permissible to use deadly force even against students, to protect school property.

2. A computer is an example of 'school property'.

3. I would additionally suggest you familiarize yourself with the subject matter before you begin blurting out insults at people you have no knowledge of, which are not only rude and certainly in this case, uncalled for, but also in violation of this site's T&C. Until you learn to speak to me in a civilized manner that doesn't violate T&C, please don't address me again. I have no motivation or desire whatsoever to have any type discussion with you.

tia.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

First of all, I called the scenarios being presented as being stupid, not you. IF you choose to accept that designation as your own, that is your problem. Since I cannot recall calling any specific individual a moron, I would surmise you accepted a generic statement as yours previously as well.

The scenarios presented I referred to was the shooting of a child over a pencil. Stupid? Hell yeah. Suggesting that someone on this thread would value a computer over a child's life? Another stupid remark.

To suggest that ANYONE on this thread places a computer or whatever ahead of a child's life is just wrong...in all caps and emphasis. Wrong headed, wrong in every way you can imagine, and I for one find myself insulted by such BS.

I have 2 kids...grown up now and with children of their own. I have no doubt I would have zero tolerance for anyone who hurt any of them, with prejudice and to the extreme. Do not suggest, for one fracking moment that I would not do everything and anything to prevent harm to anyone's child.

The whole purpose of the legislation is to prevent the stupid crap that happened at Newton, IMO. I can tell you that the school shooting at Pearl, MS was stopped because a teacher had a rifle in his pickup. In Newton there was nothing to stop the shooter...nothing and no one. A huge difference in outcome between the 2 events.

Which would you prefer? The Newton massacre? Immediately following the Peark incident, by a year or so, was the Columbine shootings...once again, no one on the campus was armed and the shooters were free until the police arrived. Again...which would you prefer, the Pearl outcome or the Columbine outcome? Have I made my point yet? Shall we continue?

The difference is one where the sheep have a guardian who can stop a predator and where the sheep just run around being slaughtered by a predator with impunity. Your choice.

I wish I could say I was shocked at the sentiment that property is worth more than a kids life... but I'm not

That's true conservative principles for you- money over life every time, but make a lot of noise that you actually care about life and people will be stupid enough to believe you.

a reply to: Kali74

Marching toward fascism
Steadily and securely

I wonder how all this will end

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Ok, I'll bite:

Who on this thread places a computer above a child's life?




The problem I see are the ignorantly stupid scenarios being presented.

Problem is America seem to excel at bringing stupid scenarios into action

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So you are saying they intended to kill him?

Chokehold are banned as a police tactic I believe in that state.


At the very least it was manslaughter.

No intent to kill but was down to illegal and out of proprotion violence.

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: retiredTxn

I disagree. The proposed bill goes out of it's way to include defense of property.

The proposed bill is just covering all bases I think it is you who is going out of your way to make this a bigger issue then it is.

Why is the topic so intimidating that you keep trying to shut it down, thesaneone? If you don't want to participate ...

Obviously, it is a concern to many of us. Even if not, and it's merely a subject of interest ... what's the problem with discussing it?

You're not trying to suppress conversation, are you?

I wasn't asking for your opinion.

You may have noticed that you're posting in a public forum. You've done nothing to contribute but post inane one-liners.

What's your take on the OP? Do you think deadly force is justified against kids in the defense of school property? Do you think that school officials should be automatically exonerated therefore?

Those are the issues. Get it?

a reply to: retiredTxn

This is what you said that I referred to in your original post:

originally posted by: retiredTxn
I think I remember the original topic having to do with teachers being able to shoot someone for theft, and destruction of school property. Yes, that is one thing mentioned in the proposed bill. However, regardless of how some want to focus on this one part of the proposed bill, the bill is not focused on this part alone.

You originally seemed to be implying that the proposed bill has some sort of emphasis that is contrary to the analysis or discussion that some here are involved in, and now you've restated your claims in a slightly more reasonable fashion. However, you're still claiming that legislation (or in this case, proposed legislation) has a "focus" and that is simply absurd. Perhaps it's a peccadillo on my part. /shrug

Any any rate.

Thanks for posting the text of the laws. For future reference, to prevent screen scroll, links would probably be more effective.

You notice that Sec 941 describes "a person." Thus the property under description is more than likely (without checking precedents) referring to personal property and/or individually owned real estate, i.e. a person (including legal entities like businesses) has certain rights in the protection (and specifically recovery) of their own (individual) property.

Schools and classrooms as well as materials and furnishings in and around them are not private property but public.

And yes, there is (and should be) a difference in the two scenarios.

Sec. 942 addresses the use of deadly force in the protection described in Sec. 941. All I can say here, is "it's Texas."

Sec. 943 addresses the protection (and use of deadly force) in the protection of the property of ANOTHER, and Sec. 944 describes devices used in either of these scenarios. Let's focus for a moment on 943 though, as that comes closest to regarding the circumstances (public school teacher using deadly force against CHILDREN in defense of school property).

Notice that in Sec. 941 (and by reference 942-944), the perpetrator against which force is justified must have committed "trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property." Also, these laws assume that the perpetrator against whom such a degree of action would be justified would be an adult of legal age, right?

Can children normally be considered legal adults in a condition of trespass when they are on public school grounds? Should they be?

It's not difficult at all to see that although the proposed law references Sec. 943, the circumstances are NOT in any shape, form or fashion, similar. Kids are not tresspassing while they are in school. In most cases, the minor child will be (or rather should be, again, it's TX) also considered non compos mentis (not fully legally responsible for their actions due to, in this case, their age)

So, to address your original points, the proposed Sec 38A, et. al., while making reference to 943 is certainly more extensive and regards the use of deadly force in the protection of property in an entirely new venue and against a different class of perpetrator: children who are temporary wards of the state on public property.

It is ludicrous to imagine that many in this thread don't see the difference between protecting one's life or property against intruders or trespassers, and the direct and real implications of this proposed legislation, allowing a teacher (or school official) to act as judge, jury and executioner against a f-ing KID!!!

What kind of gutless cowards populate the state of Texas?

Schools in the West are becoming very odd places to be.

Glad me and mine are too old for school. I have told my children to not have any children..........the world's too crazy now. Run to the hills and save yourselves as the next generation is already 'lost'!

All that aside, you still have the option to home educate in the US.....for now, don't you?

There is still that option in the UK.......but as the schools are becoming 'private academies' I doubt whether any little 'money making' opportunity (ie child) will be allowed to 'escape' the hell that school has become for much longer!

As I said, we are so glad our children are finally too old for state education. If teachers had the 'right' to kill without consequences I suspect a lot more people would walk.

Is it possible that young people are being forced into the 'non education' system for far too long?

Shouldn't they be in part time work at least by the time they are 14?

a reply to: crazyewok

But Not Murder


On one note: I dont really think a chokehold was being used. When one is in a true chokehold it is rather dificult to speak. Let alone say I cant breathe 20 times or whatever. The reason he could not breathe was his asthma and the weight of the officer(s) on top of him. But...we are off topic, and I am guilty of that.

a reply to: crazyewok

Specially the govt: if they have a choice of paths, one convoluted, complicated, bureaucratic while the other is simple and to the point, guess which path will be followed. Everytime.

Btw: When the first child is killed over a pencil, or over a computer in school here in Texas by an armed teacher, Iwill buy you, the Lady and Charley tickets to Dallas and burgers at the best burger shop in Dallas. Not in celebration, obviously (I could see that coming) but as a penalty for being a 60 year old fool (me). Cause I do not believe any of those scenarios will happen.

That's a promise.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz


never gone on eithers site.
Calling me ignorant may make you feel al little better/Bigger about yourself and raise your low set esteem for a brief moment, but ignorant is what I would be if none other than your own clan was not permitted to discuss US policy. Make up your mind, you either don't want to hear foreigners opinions or you love to hear them banter? You are contradicting yourself .

Hearing it is basically like a mangled car wreck. You don't really want to see it, but you can't help yourself.

It is annoying that the ignorant spout off the way they do, but it is enjoyable to hear the ignorance.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
You say foreigners can't discuss a Texan bill, and the next you call them ignorant and insist they can't discuss the bill/educate themselves on it. How can one overcome ignorance on a topic unless they review the topic (Texas bills in this instance) and become informed on it.
Also are you in Texas? ARE WE TO LIMIT THIS DISCUSSION TO TEXANS ONLY? NO US citizen outside of this district should discuss a Texas bill according to your way of thinking.

I did say to continue on, didn't I?

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
That is a lie. False statement and not what I want nor have stated. I now consider you a blatant liar when trying to debate. NOTED.

Could you be any more dramatic?

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

That is not what I said. And you are rambling so far off topic it almost hurts to read.

If it hurts to read, that usually means it is hard to understand.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
I'm a US citizen.

I have an idea in future lets make sure threads have disclaimer "YOU CAN ONLY HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS BILL IF YOU LIVE IN THIS STATE OTHERWISE YOU ARE AN IGNORANT PROGRESSIVE"


Gotcha.

Well said.

(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.

This desperately needs to be re written. to clearly define the threat level. Spray painting a wall is out obviously, but what about a molotov cocktail or explosive thrown in to a classroom? Or they actually caught a kid setting fire the school? If they did it after hours, when no one is there, there are already laws to handle that, but what about during school hours, when hundreds of kids and teachers are there? This should say "in defense of property, when human life is in direct threat"

a reply to: Gryphon66

Hey Gryph!

Are you alright man? This post does not seem characteristic of you. I consider you an ATS friend, but this post does not seem characteristic of you. There are no hidden meanings here...I am legitimately asking if you are ok.

I will address the rest of this post later.

a reply to: Kryties

I do love the dramatic postings of foreign Progressives.

Please, do continue. No better way to display ignorance, then to go full tilt.