Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

a reply to: Masterjaden

Interesting.

But the question was, in what specific circumstance of protecting property would it make sense for a teacher to use deadly force under these laws?

I.e. what does a kid do to deserve getting shot, in your opinion?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, and touche on the bit about "What comes out of Texas" ... I'm sure no one else made that connection except you. I mean, it was so ... subtle.

a reply to: Masterjaden

... yes and what do 9.41 and 9.42 say but the same thing? That the actor may use force/deadly force if they reasonably believe theft is being committed?

a reply to: Gryphon66

The circumstances that the penal codes already specify. The only time deadly force would be authorized would be when there is no other reasonable way to prevent the crime from occurring or when there is reasonable belief that grievous bodily harm or death would occur if deadly force is NOT used.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

Yes, that's a safe answer, but, in YOUR opinion, Jaden ... put yourself in the classroom.

You're a teacher and your sidearm is accessible.

There's a student in your classroom that's committing one of these listed crimes.

Which one specifically do you shoot them for? What criminal action would make you, as an educator who has devoted your life to helping kids learn and become successful on their way to adulthood, draw down and shoot that kid?

What are they doing that, in your own mind, justifies that response, specifically?

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Gryphon66

The circumstances that the penal codes already specify. The only time deadly force would be authorized would be when there is no other reasonable way to prevent the crime from occurring or when there is reasonable belief that grievous bodily harm or death would occur if deadly force is NOT used.

Jaden

Incorrect.

The penal code states that deadly force is justified if the actor reasonably believes that property crime is taking place.

I'd like to throw the question posed to Jaden open to any and all:

Here's the list of crimes punishable by death:

Trespass on the Land (9.41)
Recover Land Wrongfully Possessed by the Student(9.41)
Student has Dispossessed the Teacher or another Student by using force, threat, or fraud. (9.41)

Arson (9.42)
Burglary (9.42)
Aggravated Robbery (9.42)
Theft at Night (9.42)
Criminal Mischief at Night (9.42)

Fleeing after Committing Arson, Burglary, Aggravated Robbery, Theft at Night, Criminal Mischief at Night (9.42)

Consummated Theft (9.43)
Criminal Mischief [Not at Night, I guess] (9.43)

That's the list of crimes.

Which does a student get taken down for and why?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: retiredTxn




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.


And on to your favorites, 9.41 and 9.42 ...

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.



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.

Which all flies directly in the face of your comment:

Texas Law states quite clearly and repeatedly that the actor's BELIEF is the measure of reasonability AND justification under these code sections.

But, since you say that the law really doesn't say what it very clearly says ... I supposed we should BELIEVE you, right?

Perhaps you should reread the original post: we're right in the middle (finally, since we've left behind whether a teacher should be able to protect themselves) of discussing it.

There, I fixed some spots for you. Where you claim the law says Believes, the word prior to it in every instance is reasonably, changing the meaning from believes, to reasonably believes. Why do you refuse to accept that this is how the law is written?

As for Sections 9.41 and 9.42 being my favorites, not true. I only bring them up because Section 9.43 specifies

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

Could this possibly mean that in addition to meeting the requirements of Section 9.43, the teacher must also meet one or more of the requirements of Sections 9.42 or 9.41? Could it possibly be this simple? Yes Virginia, this is what the law says.

This is in response to Kali

Note that nowhere, either in the proposed bill nor the Texas penal code, regarding use of force/deadly force in defense of property, is value or type of property defined... so that means that defensible property can be a pencil.

You are correct...however, since you say that the defensible property can be a pencil, can I not also say that the average Joe, or Jane, would not reasonably believe a pencil is not worth deadly force being used? Theft of a pencil would be a Class C Misdemeanor in Texas, punishable by a fine of not more than $500, and no jail time.

Oh, forgot to stick to the facts as stated in the OP. Sorry.

OK, teacher can shoot her/his student for stealing a pencil. As soon as the police arrive, they start the investigation, and realize this Nutty Professor just shot a 7 year old for stealing a pencil. IF that teacher actually made it to the police car, or the county jail without resisting arrest, attacking an officer, or attempting to escape, the police would immediately charge the teacher with murder and notify the DA of what they are doing. The DA would immediately adjust the charges appropriately, and be present himself at the arraignment early the next morning.

That is the reality of the scenario you have presented. Deadly force cannot be justified for stealing a pencil. Period.
I'm not saying a kook will never ever pull a stupid stunt and reasonably believe they are justified. Anything is possible. I AM saying any use of force other than self defense or defense of a student, will most likely result in the teacher facing some very serious jail time, and bankrupting the school district.

a reply to: retiredTxn

however, since you say that the defensible property can be a pencil, can I not also say that the average Joe, or Jane, would not reasonably believe a pencil is not worth deadly force being used?

I think most people would not kill someone over a stolen pencil. There's a reason that I use an absurd argument... though it is absurd and the chances of it happening are miniscule, the fact remains that a teacher wouldn't be able to be found guilty of a crime because of the way the proposed bill as well as the relevant sections of the Texas penal code are written whereas the only obligation the teacher would have to claim is that the student was stealing a pencil.

Of course there are less absurd tragedies that can easily occur simply because of extremely bad wording.

a reply to: retiredTxn

Yep, and there are all other types of words before and after the word BELIEVES.

Bold the whole law if you want to, if that does something for you. Enjoy it.

The word is still BELIEVES, and BELIEVES still means what it means.

Neither I nor anyone else has claimed that there aren't other words in the law. You're attempting to make a point that is absolutely non-nonsensical and trivial. I quoted the law in question. Did I delete the word "reasonably"? Did I cross hatch it out? or change it into another word?

No?

Then I did the same thing you just did, and we're talking (still) about the same law, and we've been talking about the same law.

It seems that for you, the word "reasonably" transfers some sort of safeguard to the students ... you do understand that the students themselves are the focus of both Kali's and my concern, right?

Drop the bit about the pencil. You've been told at least three times that it was an intentionally absurd example. Apparently, you don't get absurdity. Deal with the other questions I've asked here. We've all moved on from the obsession with the pencil.

What would you shoot a student for, Tx? You're a teacher, in the classroom, with your shootin' iron.

What possible action in the protection of property do you put a student in your class down for?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: retiredTxn

I think most people would not kill someone over a stolen pencil. There's a reason that I use an absurd argument... though it is absurd and the chances of it happening are miniscule, the fact remains that a teacher wouldn't be able to be found guilty of a crime because of the way the proposed bill as well as the relevant sections of the Texas penal code are written whereas the only obligation the teacher would have to claim is that the student was stealing a pencil.

Of course there are less absurd tragedies that can easily occur simply because of extremely bad wording.

You believe a teacher wouldn't be able to be found guilty. I say the opposite, they would and could be found guilty. Quite easily. For a teacher to claim their only defense is that the student was stealing a pencil, does not justify deadly force. The teacher would have to claim they reasonably believe that defense meets the criteria of Section 9.43, and the criteria for either Section 9.42 or Section 9.41. Then they would have to convince a jury that saying "the student was stealing a pencil" was a valid defense, and met all the criteria above. 12 people would then have to agree that they reasonably believe that defense was valid. Not gonna happen.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

What would you shoot a student for, Tx? You're a teacher, in the classroom, with your shootin' iron.

What possible action in the protection of property do you put a student in your class down for?

Again, if you had "carefully read" the previous posts, as you claimed I and others have not done, you would know my position on theft of property. Just for you, I will repeat myself.

If you are climbing out my window with my new Sony TV, I hope you enjoy it. If you are actually in my home, and I reasonably believe you are or could be a threat to myself or my family, you are toast.

The same applies to the situation you propose. I could care less what you are or have stolen. If you are a student, or anyone else, and I reasonably believe you are a threat to my safety or that of my students, you are toast as well.
Easy enough?

a reply to: retiredTxn

What is a kid stealing in a classroom, Txn? A laptop? A desk? Chalk?

What window is he or she crawling out of?

How would any of that threaten your safety or that of your students?

And when you start shooting, in a room that is probably not more than 30x30 ... are you such a crack shot that you're certain you're not going hit other kids, children who are NOT crawling out the windows with laptops or desks, or attacking you, in your zeal to "toast" this imagined perp?

Tell us, Txn. What is in that classroom that you will kill a child for taking? Either with intent or by accident?

originally posted by: retiredTxn

originally posted by: Gryphon66

What would you shoot a student for, Tx? You're a teacher, in the classroom, with your shootin' iron.

What possible action in the protection of property do you put a student in your class down for?

Again, if you had "carefully read" the previous posts, as you claimed I and others have not done, you would know my position on theft of property. Just for you, I will repeat myself.

If you are climbing out my window with my new Sony TV, I hope you enjoy it. If you are actually in my home, and I reasonably believe you are or could be a threat to myself or my family, you are toast.

The same applies to the situation you propose. I could care less what you are or have stolen. If you are a student, or anyone else, and I reasonably believe you are a threat to my safety or that of my students, you are toast as well.
Easy enough?

So, there's no need for the Section of the law then that Kali pointed out as a problem then?

No property to be protected in the classroom that is worth killing a child over?

Would you say that this is a meaningless and unnecessary portion of the law, then?

Because, there's no scenario in which you would shoot a child over something in a classroom, a hallway, the lunchroom or on the bus??? Nothing worth killing a student over?

That's the thing, Txn ... neither do we. That, I believe, is all either of us have been saying throughout.

Human life is more important than public property.

By cracky, we agree!

a reply to: retiredTxn

More so... not even tried. I sincerely hope that it doesn't take a real world example to see how extremely absurd the law and penal code as written, are. A crap lawyer could easily pull this off.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: retiredTxn

What is a kid stealing in a classroom, Txn? A laptop? A desk? Chalk?

What window is he or she crawling out of?

How would any of that threaten your safety or that of your students?

And when you start shooting, in a room that is probably not more than 30x30 ... are you such a crack shot that you're certain you're not going hit other kids, children who are NOT crawling out the windows with laptops or desks, or attacking you, in your zeal to "toast" this imagined perp?

Tell us, Txn. What is in that classroom that you will kill a child for taking? Either with intent or by accident?

Comprehension problem here?

I stated that I could care less what someone is or has stolen from a classroom or my home.
If a student or other person is in my classroom or home, and I reasonably believe they are a threat to myself or my students, they are toast. I did not say I would shoot a student for stealing anything. You are trying to insinuate I did, and trying to evoke a reaction, which is very childish. I stated very plainly my response to your questions, so now why don't you shower down your perfect response to your own questions?

a reply to: retiredTxn

Why do you insist on trying (you're continually failing) to insult me or Kali with the "reading comprehension" schtick???

You just come off as a clueless curmudgeon and I'd like to think that's not who you are.

I don't agree with your summations, that doesn't mean I didn't or can't read them.

Further, I ASKED you a question. I didn't INSINUATE anything. I wanted your response I wasn't saying anything about you, insulting you, etc. etc. unlike your pathetic attempts to direct that at other posters.

Get ready for the shower from on high ... I wouldn't shoot a kid over any kind of property, because I wouldn't have a gun in a classroom. It's LUNACY.

You're the one standing up for this law as a necessity; I guess you've changed your mind about the portion in question.

Progress.

Over stealing, I cannot foresee any situation worth a child's life, except one in which someone is threatening my life or that of students. If I reasonably believe they pose a threat to me or my students, then I would take steps to eliminate the threat. Simple.

a reply to: retiredTxn

Bully! You can quote!

Can you find a reference to a gun anywhere in what I said?

Look again.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: retiredTxn

Why do you insist on trying (you're continually failing) to insult me or Kali with the "reading comprehension" schtick???

You just come off as a clueless curmudgeon and I'd like to think that's not who you are.

I don't agree with your summations, that doesn't mean I didn't or can't read them.

Further, I ASKED you a question. I didn't INSINUATE anything. I wanted your response I wasn't saying anything about you, insulting you, etc. etc. unlike your pathetic attempts to direct that at other posters.

Get ready for the shower from on high ... I wouldn't shoot a kid over any kind of property, because I wouldn't have a gun in a classroom. It's LUNACY.

You're the one standing up for this law as a necessity; I guess you've changed your mind about the portion in question.

Progress.

I don't know, maybe posts like this

What is a kid stealing in a classroom, Txn? A laptop? A desk? Chalk?

What window is he or she crawling out of?

How would any of that threaten your safety or that of your students?
And when you start shooting, in a room that is probably not more than 30x30 ... are you such a crack shot that you're certain you're not going hit other kids, children who are NOT crawling out the windows with laptops or desks, or attacking you, in your zeal to "toast" this imagined perp?

Tell us, Txn. What is in that classroom that you will kill a child for taking? Either with intent or by accident?

Am I to believe this is asking a simple question, and not trying to elicit a response that you so desperately desire? If you care to talk, do so as an adult.

a reply to: retiredTxn

To quote a guy I'm sure you're a big fan of ... "There you go again."

You don't like the way I talk, don't talk to me. You're the one that can't let a horse die that's been beaten for 25 or so pages now.

And what does your esteemed opinion of how I communicate have to do with the subject at hand. Nothing.

You're merely doing what your posts have done for most of the thread ... diffuse, distract and distort.

You haven't made one single point (aside from buying yourself screen time) except that there is no need for the property protection part of the bill in question. There's no school property that's worth killing a child over.

Congrats. Kali said that on page 1.