Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Do you think someone who steals is a kind of monster? More so than someone that would shoot that person?

This comment deserves to be highlighted.

Absolutely, one is a monster who is out for selfish gain where not earned, and one is protecting said property, the tax payers, and society...

So, one is a hero, the other a monster.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

Correct if I am wrong, but this is not part of the proposed legislation?

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I always hear an argument from the pro-militia crowd telling us about how we shouldn't worry. Gun owners are reasonable people - with skills

And, apparently, no boundaries. What they say goes, and it all gets decided by what? Reason - or the barrel of a gun?

I know this thread is (supposedly) about protecting teachers from danger. I just think it's interesting that the most support for all this comes from people who see danger everywhere. And when they don't see actual danger - well - then it's OK to shoot anyhow when people are doing something illegal

It's worrisome

:-)

a reply to: bbracken677

yes, this part of the penal code is referenced in the law for the bill.

Jaden

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: crazyewok

Within the legal realm, most is correctly stated.

Personally, I don't see the issue with shooting someone from stealing.

There has gotten in the life, a loss of respect for other people's property. Maybe this would return the balance and encourage people to not engage in unlawful acts.

I'd like to see you come out and state that you have no issue with teachers and school officials shooting and killing children.

Not generic references to the good ol' days, or protecting one's self from home invasions.

Go ahead. Tell us how butchering children in their classrooms makes perfect sense to you. Don't be coy.

Because that's what we're discussing here. We're not talking about right to carry, home defense, good guys kill bad guys with guns, self-defense ... we're talking about literal carte-blanche to shoot kids if, in the opinion of a school official, such is done in the name of "protecting property."

Go on. Let's see the courage of your convictions.

If you think this is carte blanche to shoot kids, then you are either incapable of reading or are a fool.

This law gives teachers no more right to shoot kids at school than they already have to shoot someone breaking into their home. There still has to be a reasonable belief that shooting them is the only way to stop the theft or that grave bodily harm will result to them or another if deadly force is NOT used.

Quit believing the hype.

There was a reason that the OP didn't quote the part of the penal code referenced that goes against his agenda.

I quoted it, read it, this is not carte blanche, let's kill kids in classrooms.

Jaden

a reply to: Gryphon66

I understand current legislation and proposed legislation can get really confusing. As you stated, the proposed legislation does mention Section 9.43 of the Texas Penal Code. In reality, it not only mentions it, but explicitly states;

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.

(Emphasis Mine) Source

All this does is afford the same protections to educators that is afforded to the average citizen. This protection is based on Section 9.43, Protection of Third Person's Property. In addition, Section 9.43 states;

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:
(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

This gives educators the authority to protect the third person's property.

When we go to Section 9.42, we see a similar statement;

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41;

Source

Honestly, I do not see any connection between your claims teachers can shoot children for stealing, trespass, or destruction of property during a normal school day, and the proposed legislation. The only conceivable connection has to do with defense of a person or the teacher. Please, if I am missing part of the proposed legislation, show me. I cannot find it. I think you may be reading more into this than there really is.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Kali74

What the hell! Teachers are educators NOT policemen. I know this is a stupid, reactionary law in response to all the school shootings, but man such idiocy...

Ummmm, actually ALL abled bodied men over the age of 18 are police men. Read up on Posse Comutatus...

Jaden

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: olaru12

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

Yeah, cause everyone knows that Police have Perfect aim :rolleyes: and that private citizens are imbeciles that couldn't possibly avoid shooting everything in front of them...

Jaden

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?

I already gave my opinion on the proposed bill but I don't opine on what ifs.

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.

It only references using deadly force as applicable under existing penal code, no you are only focusing on CHILDREN and SCHOOL...

JAden

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?
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.

No, third person property here IS referencing school property.

They also reference the penal codes that govern when deadly force is authorized to protect property, the simple fact that a kid is stealing something is no where NEAR enough to give license for the use of deadly force.

I quoted the relevant penal codes that cite what constitutes lawful use of deadly force, something the op seems to have purposefully omitted.

Jaden

a reply to: crazyewok

Even with courts, things go wrong. A law or a court ruling has yet to make crime or criminals stop their actions. Nor has it turned back the hands of time to void out wrong doings.

I don't take killing lightly. It is a very serious matter.
But, I also know that making the repercussions of crime painful is one of the largest deterrents out there.

AS for the prison system...that is a joke like the justice system.

a reply to: Kryties

Well, at least Captain Obvious got one thing right out of the whole statement.

originally posted by: Kali74
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?

You left out the penal code that reflects what constitutes justified deadly force...Wonder why that is???

Jaden

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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?

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.

You must not have read the part of the penal code that codifies what authorizes deadly force.

Jaden

a reply to: Gryphon66

Please define what force will be used, within the given scenario.

The "What-if" game can be played both ways.



And flying monkey army, no matter what topic, can always be used within the discussion.

a reply to: theantediluvian

That is funny, because your posts are the definition of willful ignorance...

Jaden

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.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

Two whole posts full of nonsense and still no answers...


Again crying about insults that never happened.

*Looks around* Who is crying?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I'll refer to two parts of your 2 post diatribe...


Go back to the post you replied to...

Where did I mention the Fedora?

& don't lie, when people read the back and forth they'll see it was you who continuously brought it up in some sort of attempt to discredit my manhood...

When did I equate the Fedora to your manhood??
Your over sensitive response, in regards to a wardrobe choice is very telling.
Do you not wear it with enough confidence to think my bringing it up has nothing to do with your "Man-hood"?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
& then you deny that it's an attempt to bully...

& then turn that around and imply that people are too sensitive....

SO, the person, not from the US, telling others what they should do in the home country is not bullying..yet me bringing up your choice of hat is.

Yes, very sensitive in deed.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Get a clue...

Does this mean we can't be Fedora buddies?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I'm not sensitive to a single word you've said and continue to smile at your repeated failed attempts to have a real discussion without ad hominem, deflection, and repetitive lunacy.

Your constant statement, reaffirming that it doesn't bother you sure doesn't lead to that stated outcome.
Is that your final answer?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
But being a bully, & not a very effective one, you probably don't understand that people have no need to be sensitive to notice when someone is trying to push them around...

Yeah, because it totally isn't the same. To go and tell others what to do.
Look, it is clear you have no problem dishing out what you stated earlier as "having more common sense" about American affairs, then Americans do because you have vacationed somewhere and read some books. But, don't like being challenged.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I always hear an argument from the pro-militia crowd telling us about how we shouldn't worry. Gun owners are reasonable people - with skills

And, apparently, no boundaries. What they say goes, and it all gets decided by what? Reason - or the barrel of a gun?

I know this thread is (supposedly) about protecting teachers from danger. I just think it's interesting that the most support for all this comes from people who see danger everywhere. And when they don't see actual danger - well - then it's OK to shoot anyhow when people are doing something illegal

It's worrisome

:-)

In a way in agree with you it is worrisome. That people think there is even a need for teachers to be armed. Just looking at recent events children today aren't the same anymore to get attention they bring a gun to school even brag on what they are going to do. Giving a teacher the right to defend themselves and other students make sense. But this is just a patch not a solution the state is being cheap this looks like there doing something without spending money.

What should be done is school budgets increased to have security if this is truly an issue. In truth this is just an attempt for politicians to look like they are doing Something. At this point our society is in trouble families are breaking down I don't see a solution.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I value life worth valuing.

Very simple.