Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Shamrock6

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

Clearly that is not at all an accurate comment to make.

But yes, you're right Kali. This horrendous bill gives teachers a legal blanket to kill a student for taking a pencil! An eraser, too! Egad, even a crayon! In no time we will have headline after headline like "3rd grader shot by teacher for not putting crayon back in box!" or even "4th grader shot for biting eraser out of pencil and swallowing it!"

a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm not saying that it would happen for pencils but that if it did the teacher couldn't be convicted of a crime. But where's the line?

a reply to: Kali74

So by your definition, since the quoted legislation has been in place for some time, that if someone steals a pencil they will not even be charged with a crime in the state of Texas.

You are either very gullible or you know that isn't true. I suspect the latter. No reasonable, critical thinking individual, with a lick of sense, would believe that. You may be making a point, but down inside, you know that what you are spouting is BS.

This is the US. If people were being killed for stealing any miscellaneous item of low value the Feds would be all over it with violation of civil rights charges.

Funny, since the Feds have not gotten involved in the existing Texas law and it's application, then they know, just as you do, that the content of most of this thread regarding the scenarios presented is BS of the highest order. Either that or you are exercising the equivalent of racism and applied to all Texas.

Exercise a modicum of common sense. It is clear you do not grasp, or choose not to, the meaning and application of the legislation.

If you think I am wrong, then show me. Show me one case that is remotely similar to a child stealing a pencil being shot and the shooter does not face a conviction. The proof is in the puddin'

a reply to: bbracken677

So where's the line?

Reasonable force:

The amount of force necessary to protect oneself or one's property. Reasonable force is a term associated with defending one's person or property from a violent attack, theft, or other type of unlawful aggression. It may be used as a defense in a criminal trial or to defend oneself in a suit alleging tortious conduct. If one uses excessive force, or more than the force necessary for such protection, he or she may be considered to have forfeited the right to defense. Reasonable force is also known as legal force.

A person is generally justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm if the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. The person is also generally justified in using such extreme force to prevent or terminate another's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling, if: (1) the entry is made or attempted in a violent manner and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent personal violence to himself or another then in the dwelling, or (2) he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

So what critical thinking individual, DA, Judge or jury would believe deadly force would be NECESSARY in the theft of a pencil.....???

a reply to: Kali74

Uh...no Kali. The teacher could be, if they can't show the level of force was reasonable.

On what planet do you think a teacher can shoot a kid over the theft of a pencil and claim it's justified? And have that actually hold up under scrutiny?

You brought up the "extreme case" of pencil theft. Don't backpedal from it now.

a reply to: Kali74

The line, is reasonable force. Last I checked, Texas and Texans in general do not consider deadly force to be reasonable in the theft of a pencil. There are no cases that claim such...

By your definition, you seem to believe that if the shooter just claims they believed they had to use deadly force then hey! No problem, off scott free. The problem is that the DA must also agree it was reasonable in order for charges to not be brought, and if brought then a Judge and Jury must also agree reasonable force was used.

Do you seriously believe that a Jury in Texas would acquit a man or woman who shot a child for stealing a pencil?

This is Texas....not the meme often presented in the media, in blogs and other BS. Come to Dallas and I will show you that we are not all cowboy hat, boot wearing rednecks with a gun strapped on our hip.

I have lived in Dallas (I am from California, BTW) now for about 4 years. I have yet to see anyone other than a uniformed guard or policeman carrying. That is the honest to God's truth. Not saying there was no one carrying, but I have not seen anyone carrying that I could tell they were.

Yet the media and other's would portray us as otherwise, no?

Personally, I find the following hilarious, but likely for different reasons other's might. I hope you enjoy it...but for the right reason.

Shopping in Texas

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: retiredTxn

Yes reasonably believe that a person is committing theft.

Here is the Texas statute regarding Theft. Theft

I won't quote the entire text, as I was chastised earlier for making someone scroll too much. I will ask you, with your vast knowledge of understanding legal language, to show me how a class C misdemeanor, which is what stealing a pencil would be charged as under Texas statutes, would justify deadly force.

You are reaching for straws if you "reasonably believe that a person is committing theft" of a pencil is justification to use deadly force.

Here, let me help you out.

Theft is a class C misdemeanor in Texas if the value of the property or services stolen is less than $50. (Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(1)(A).) The punishment for a class C misdemeanor in Texas is a fine of no more than $500, and does not involve any jail time. (§ 12.23.)

Source

If you cannot get any jail time for a Class C Misdemeanor Theft, how could anyone reasonably believe it is justifiable to use deadly force against someone who steals a pencil? I think it may be you who is having trouble grasping the concept of legal language. IMHO.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm not saying that it would happen for pencils but that if it did the teacher couldn't be convicted of a crime. But where's the line?

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE
TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT
CHAPTER 83. USE OF FORCE OR DEADLY FORCE
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY.
A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

The use of force or deadly force must be JUSTIFIED under Chapter 9, Penal Code before immunity can be claimed. If the force is not justified, then the immunity is not available or applicable.

The teacher can be convicted of a crime.

a reply to: retiredTxn

The immunity only applies to civil liability? That is the statement in the quote, no? I have no idea but that is what seems to be stated.

Which seems to mean that if it is deemed that the use of force was justified that you cannot be sued.

a reply to: bbracken677

That is correct. If one is not justified in using force in accordance with Chapter 9, Texas Penal Code, not only are they subject to criminal charges, but they also can't claim the Civil Liability exclusion that they are afforded in the proposed bill. And you can bet your local police, DA, or grand jury is going to scrutinize every action taken under any circumstance related to this law.

I doubt very seriously anyone could get past the smell test by shooting a kid for stealing a pencil.

Loved the video too.

Chapter 9 of the Texas Code regards the use of deadly force by one person against another.

Everything we've been discussing (and more) is contained within that Chapter.

Here's a decent easy reference: Chapter 9 of the Texas Code

Some here may be surprised that this area of law does not begin (and end) at Section 931-934.

If you're interested in this discussion, I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the facts.

A section of the proposed legislation was quoted in the OP (and several times since) that being Sec. 38A.003.

This regards, specifically, the use of deadly force by school officials on school property against students to protect said property.

38A.003 directly references Sec. 934. That is precisely why OP very accurately posted that code section and only that code section from Chapter 9.

Those of you who are trying to play armchair attorney or mind-reader and imply that Kali is therefore misrepresenting the situation because they didn't quote from other sections of Chapter 9 are acting speciously either intentionally or unintentionally. Read the bill.

Kali's argument about a child being shot over a pencil is a form of the argument reductio ad absurdum. It is intentionally exaggerated to demonstrate the expanse of the absurdity in this potential law's scope.

Some have said that those of us who have an issue with the implications of this law are overreacting. Well, Kettles, meet the Pots because some of you are virtually "frothing at the mouth" so hard to protect gun rights, or the honor of Texas, or your cherished ideas that more guns in the world actually equals more safety.

Some of you are pointing out that you believe that those of us who disagree with your position on this issue are mentally challenged, poor readers or merely dishonest may need to consider that there are three fingers pointing back at you with the one you're pointing at us, because the only fallacious reading and dishonesty I've seen on this thread are among those that jump to insult other members the fastest.

Some of you are claiming to speak for all teachers not only as if you know the future, but also as if teachers aren't fallable human beings. Your righteous indignation over the argument carried to the absurd about the pencil very clearly indicates that you're simply operating on your cherished BELIEFS and not rationality or facts. The facts are that teachers lose it every day and make poor choices. Sometimes that's limited to a melt-down in the class and screaming at the kids. Sometimes they pull out pellet guns or shoot blanks over their heads, and sometimes they pull knives.

Your argument is that those of us who are concerned by the implications of the law are predicting a future that hasn't happened yet (a teacher shooting a kid over something fallacious) while at the same time you're arguing (based on your infinite knowledge) that such a thing would never happen.

Again, Kettle -----> Pot.

These were provided earlier, but I know that some aren't really reading everything very carefully:

Teacher Pulls Knife on Student during Pop Quiz - The Daily Caller

Teacher Arrested for Firing Blanks at Students - Fox News

... and so on.

The point here is that bad decisions get made; we're all human and humans are fallible.

a reply to: Gryphon66

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

Key phrase: immediately necessary. Stolen pencil: lethal force is not necessary.

It was Kali's scenario. She/he brought it into the equation. No need to try and remove it from discussion for him/her.

You're right: bad decisions are made. Most often when a person is in a poor frame of mind. Or when a person is legitimately seeking to make a bad decision for whatever reason. I fail to see how this bill is going to cause teachers to suddenly say "fantastic! Now I can shoot my students and get away with it!"

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Gryphon66

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

Key phrase: immediately necessary. Stolen pencil: lethal force is not necessary.

It was Kali's scenario. She/he brought it into the equation. No need to try and remove it from discussion for him/her.

You're right: bad decisions are made. Most often when a person is in a poor frame of mind. Or when a person is legitimately seeking to make a bad decision for whatever reason. I fail to see how this bill is going to cause teachers to suddenly say "fantastic! Now I can shoot my students and get away with it!"

I'm not removing anything from any discussion ... what in the world are you talking about?

Some of you are either truly not seeing that the pencil argument is an intentionally absurd example or you're intentionally locking onto the example and going no further in your thought. Yet, you want to stipulate that no teacher, no official would ever make a mistake, have a bad day, have an undiscovered mental ailment, etc., and make a bad decision with this NEW law (which moves the arena of concern out of the home, out of private property onto public property) at their backs.

You do not and cannot speak for every teacher everywhere in the future making that split second decision with a gun in their hand. You just simply CANNOT. Your certainty of what wouldn't happen is as absurd as certainty over shooting a kid stealing a pencil. You're missing the point of that argument: to claim to know the future is absurd!

.. and for the third or fourth time (including the OP) the proposed law cites Section 9.43, not 9.41, or 9.42.

To wit:

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.

Can we stop muddying the water, please? Either address the question as presented, or leave it be.

Or continue to try to derail the thread ... of course, I can't tell anyone what to do.

/shrug

posted on Feb, 3 2015 @ 02:24 PM

a reply to: Shamrock6

Gryphon is correct about reductio ad abusrdum... and it's common to use in debate. It's not likely that a teacher would kill a student over a pencil but none the less if it did happen were this bill to go through a teacher could not be found guilty. Clarifying this (which shouldn't be necessary) is not backpedaling.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Good job posting the same thing over and over again, to you and Kali both.

Both of you are willfully ignoring the words "justified" and "reasonable" every freaking time you copy and paste from the bill.

A teacher has to demonstrate that a) the force was reasonable and b) was justified on being applied. So teachers do not have carte blanche to start offing students all over Texas now. A teacher still has to convince everybody involved in the investigation that the force was reasonable and justified.

Why the two of you seem to skip over that and go straight to "teachers can kill students and never get in trouble!" is beyond me.

You're being intentionally dense about this entire thing. Citing some legalese but not all of it, because it doesn't suit the reality you've falsely constructed.

The Good Samaritan law doesn't cover coming to an accident scene and punching somebody in the throat, then saying "well I thought that's what cpr is so im covered under the Good Samaritan law mmk?" A person still has to demonstrate that the legal protection applies to them. It's not automatic.

If you can't understand that concept, I can't explain it in any more of a plain, simple way.

Shrug indeed

a reply to: Kali74

If I am not obligated to provide someone the 5th Amendment rights, I can't take them away.

Due process is for the Govt and the Court systems.

If, someone can deprive me or anyone else private property rights, then depriving them of their rights in turn is not an issue.

And no, as with the laws governing theft, there is no depriving one of any rights except the thief.

a reply to: Kali74

And here I thought you stated you had an understanding of laws.

If, during the trial, the jury/judge determines that there is to be an off course verdict, then Case Law is created and the new take on the law will be instituted.

So no, the language of the law doesn't automagically mean that a teacher can shot a student for taking a pencil.

Nothing like hyper dramatic "what-ifs" to start the Thursday morning.