Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

a reply to: dragonridr

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.

It does put the burden on the teachers. Not really going to do a lot of recruiting that way. This whole thing seems like a hair of the dog solution. If teachers are in danger I don't see how bringing more weapons into the school is going to make things better

I'm picturing someone like my 2nd grade teacher - a lovely, happy, older, plump and tiny woman - wearing a bullet proof vest with a gun in her boot

Would she be required to put a certain amount of time in at the gun range? Would she be graded?

Would she need to sign a waiver if she chooses not to arm herself?

Right...

I've always loved your avatar by the way :-)

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: dragonridr

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.

It does put the burden on the teachers. Not really going to do a lot of recruiting that way. This whole thing seems like a hair of the dog solution. If teachers are in danger I don't see how bringing more weapons into the school is going to make things better

I'm picturing someone like my 2nd grade teacher - a lovely, happy, older, plump and tiny woman - wearing a bullet proof vest with a gun in her boot

Would she be required to put a certain amount of time in at the gun range? Would she be graded?

Would she need to sign a waiver if she chooses not to arm herself?

Right...

I've always loved your avatar by the way :-)

Making it legal doesn't make it mandatory...

They aren't going to say to teachers "Shoot that kid or lose YOUR JOB!!!!"

Just because something becomes allowed doesn't make it mandatory...

My having the right to keep and bear arms doesn't stop you from being allowed to cower in a corner...

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden

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

No... That isn't true. How read up are YOU on Posse Comitatus?

Posse comitatus (common law)

Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law, it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.[2]

That reads that an existing officer has to actually physically deputize/conscript a person before he is considered a policeman. Heck even the able-bodied male over 18 part is fiction, since an officer can deputize a female too. Therefore a person ISN'T a policeman even in states that still have Posse Comitatus statutes on the books UNTIL they are called to service by an officer of the law.

What you did above is the same as saying that all males over 18 are actually soldiers because they are all eligible for the draft.

By the way,

The posse comitatus power continues to exist in those common law states that have not expressly repealed it by statute. As an example, it is codified in Georgia under OCGA 17-4-24:

Posse Comitatus isn't even the law of the land in the whole country and has been getting repealed state by state. Looks like you need to deny a bit of ignorance on your American laws.

Sadly students attacking teachers is not uncommon. My best friend is a preschool teacher. Even at a very young age kids are out of control and violent. I've heard many stories of out of control kids destroying the class room and hitting, kicking and biting the teacher. My step sister is also a special needs teacher. She has been doing it for over 20 years and has kids of all ages in her class. They are also sometime extremely violent and out of control. She is a very small and petite lady who has been intimidated and threatened by much larger male high school students. She currently has a younger child who runs through her classroom and others like a tornado destroying anything he can get his hands on. His mother is another teacher at the school and is in total denial that her child does this. Even though it has been witnessed by many other teachers. Most of the problem is the parents refusing to understand their so called little angels are the spawn of Satan. Teachers in no way can defend themselves or else the parents cry "how dare you even touch my child!!". Or the student says the teacher hurt me, then its automatically the teachers fault. Even though they are in denial to how horrible their child really is. So are the teachers supposed to allow these horrible children to hurt them, other kids and school property?? I'm not saying shoot the kids but there should be some sort of self defense allowed.

Please go to youtube and search for students hurting teachers. You will so all kinds of horrible videos.

a reply to: macman

Yawn!

I won't be playing your game...

I haven't told anyone what they should or shouldn't do, aside from advising you to visit an American forum if you don't want to hear opinions from around the Globe...


What I have done is share my disgust at such a heinous & backward Law...

You can do what you like, shoot whoever you wish, for whatever reason you please...

I'm not gonna tell you you shouldn't or can't..

But I'll definitely be there to share my disgust.


As for the common sense argument, many Americans in this thread have used their common sense as well...

I actually said I had more common sense regarding shooting people over items than you... Not Americans.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: macman

Yawn!

I won't be playing your game...

I haven't told anyone what they should or shouldn't do, aside from advising you to visit an American forum if you don't want to hear opinions from around the Globe...


What I have done is share my disgust at such a heinous & backward Law...

You can do what you like, shoot whoever you wish, for whatever reason you please...

I'm not gonna tell you you shouldn't or can't..

But I'll definitely be there to share my disgust.


As for the common sense argument, many Americans in this thread have used their common sense as well...

I actually said I had more common sense regarding shooting people over items than you... Not Americans.

Ahhh, so much sad in this post.

So, instead of reaffirming what your sensitive about, you will no longer play in the same sandbox.

As for disgust shown....let me know when you are around to show such a thing. Or is this virtual disgust, behind an ATS login, across a large ocean??

And common sense regarding shooting people...interesting. I wonder. Will you invoke the same knowledge over such things, while loading Hollow Tips into the clip of your Glock?

originally posted by: DAVID64

(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"

Well said and needs to include that theft is not covered.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Kali74

There is no law that states I must give due process to anyone. I would really like to see such a law, if you believe it exists.

If that were the case, then I couldn't throw someone out of my house, couldn't defend my life with force and so on.

Wait.....is it next to the Separation of Church and State???

To clarify... every person on US soil is guaranteed protection by the Constitution, the 5th Amendment applies here.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. - See more at: constitution.findlaw.com...

I'm not saying that you must give anyone due process, I'm saying that by shooting/killing a thief you are depriving a person of the 5th Amendment rights.

Self defense is obviously exempt.

a reply to: Masterjaden

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.

What part of that makes the bill any better? What part of it doesn't allow (yes it's extreme case but true none the less) a minor to be killed for stealing a pencil?

a reply to: Masterjaden

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

Agenda?

BOO!!

Scared ya didn't I?

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: DAVID64

(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"

Well said and needs to include that theft is not covered.

I understand many of you do not agree with this proposed bill, and feel it should be changed, or at least the language should be. If you feel that strongly, have any of you called or emailed the state Representative who originally wrote the bill? Even if you do not live in his district, if enough people contact him, he may feel the need to go back and look at the bill as it is currently proposed. Below is his contact information.

Rep. Dan Flynn
District 2
Capitol Address:
Room GN.7
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
(512) 463-0880
(512) 463-2188 Fax

District Address:
P.O. Box 999
Canton, TX 75103
(903) 567-0921
(903) 567-0923 Fax

In addition, you can go to this page and send him an email.

Email Dan Flynn

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Masterjaden

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.

What part of that makes the bill any better? What part of it doesn't allow (yes it's extreme case but true none the less) a minor to be killed for stealing a pencil?

If a pencil can't be recovered by anything other than deadly force, I would think the situation has escalated rather significantly beyond pencil theft.

a reply to: Kali74

I would have to ask under what reasonable assessment would one decide that immediate deadly force is necessary in order to stop a pencil theft?

Ask a lawyer, or a DA about applying the quoted towards shooting a child and see how fast the shooter would be held and charged with murder or attempted murder, not to mention the ire of the entire community.

Or more specifically, in the proposed legislation, it clearly states the use of force in self defense and in the defense of the students. And then follows up with it is a defense ... not exempt from being charged and tried, just a defense.

Sec. 38A.004. NONEXCLUSIVITY. This chapter does not prevent
an educator who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution from
offering as a defense to prosecution any justification provided
under Chapter 9, Penal Code.

Doesn't say "hey...it's ok and you wont be charged"... Does not say "we refuse the right to exercise common sense in bringing charges against a weapon being used in a school".

Just as in a self defense case, one does have to prove it is justified. There is zero that suggests that shooting a child for stealing a pencil is a justified use of deadly force and any claim of such is utterly ridiculous.

a reply to: Shamrock6

A lot more is mentioned than simply trying to retrieve the stolen property. You can use deadly force. The proposal is to add teachers on school property to the protection of this section of the Texas penal code:

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.

Sec 9.42

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.

And just because I was found out as propagating an agenda (sarcasm)

Sec 9.41

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.

Every letter and number is an 'or' not an 'and'.

a reply to: Kali74

I think you need to go back and look at the statutes you quoted. I find 4 "ands" and 5 "ors". I'm old, so I could be mistaken, but I should be pretty close.

a reply to: retiredTxn

Seriously? My point was that each letter or number is it's own justification by itself to use deadly force. Meaning that a person is only obligated to meet one criteria.

So say a teacher does do the extreme and kills a student for leaving the school with a school pencil. Because of this criteria:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

The teacher can't be found guilty of a crime.

a reply to: Kali74

You should probably check the legal definitions in Texas of what is spelled out in the bill.

First off, the force has to be reasonable. Taking a pencil off somebody else's desk and not giving it back doesn't meet that criteria.

Sec. 30.02. BURGLARY. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person:
(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault; or
(2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault, in a building or habitation; or
(3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.

Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

Sec. 29.03. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits robbery as defined in Section 29.02, and he:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon; or
(3) causes bodily injury to another person or threatens or places another person in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, if the other person is:
(A) 65 years of age or older; or
(B) a disabled person.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.

I don't see any reason to define theft or arson for you.

Bottom line: this bill doesn't make it any more likely that Mr Smith is going to off little Billy for taking Sally's pencil than Mr Smith was before. I know it's more fun to come up with an extreme what if scenario and posit it as a plausible outcome of this bill, but I think it's over reaching a bit.

Now if little Billy takes Sally's pencil and then jams it into her neck and tells Mr Smith the only way Sally can have her pencil back is by prying it out of his cold dead hand, that's a different story.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: retiredTxn

Seriously? My point was that each letter or number is it's own justification by itself to use deadly force. Meaning that a person is only obligated to meet one criteria.

So say a teacher does do the extreme and kills a student for leaving the school with a school pencil. Because of this criteria:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

The teacher can't be found guilty of a crime.

Yes, seriously. You are the one who made the statement. All you have done in this thread is present hypothetical situations, and ignoring the obvious. In your quote above, the obvious is stated, yet you ignore the most important part.

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property

No, you are wrong that each letter or number is it's own justification, and a person is obligated to only meet one criteria.
Sec. 9.43 is very explicit in stating the opposite.

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.

Your claim that a teacher could not be found guilty of a crime, is false. The person using deadly force must be justified under Sections 9.42 and 9.41, and reasonably believe one of the following criteria apply.

Who in God's name would reasonably believe stealing a pencil is justification to use deadly force? Even if some whack o tried to use this as a justification, they would be subject to scrutiny from the police, the DA, or a grand jury. Nobody "reasonably believes" shooting a child for stealing a pencil is the basis or intent of these laws. And if there is someone who believes that, they should be reported to the authorities, and subjected to some serious psychological evaluations.

a reply to: retiredTxn

Yes reasonably believe that a person is committing theft.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I did and understand legal language quite well. It's you and retiredTxn that don't seem to.