Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

a reply to: Gryphon66

There, I forgot to take out one line and edited it. Happy?

Where in that post did I say you had mentioned a gun?

a reply to: retiredTxn

Nothing about this interaction with you could be described as happy, Txn.

I don't care what you think about me, it's not about me, it's about the topic.

You've established that, after only 25 pages, you agree that there is no need for a law which allows teachers or school officials to kill kids over protecting school property.

Good enough. We're done.

a reply to: Gryphon66

And here I thought we were becoming friends.
I'm sorry you aren't happy, thought it was quite invigorating. I have no hard feelings, and hope you would feel the same.
Happy trails to you.

a reply to: retiredTxn

Not caring about your continued attempts in your posts to make it about me is not hard feelings. Best.

In other news, does anyone know the progress of the bill? When will it be brought up for debate/vote?

a reply to: Gryphon66

It does not in any way increase the purview of use.

Just because Alcohol is legal, doesn't mean I go out and drink.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

It does not in any way increase the purview of use.

Just because Alcohol is legal, doesn't mean I go out and drink.

Of course the new legislation increases the "purview of use."

9.41-9.44 etc. regards private property.

Schools are public property.

Perhaps you don't drink, but there those that not only drink, but get drunk, and then drive.

What is the point of the "alcohol is legal" analogy?

a reply to: Gryphon66

The point is just that. Just because something is made legal, doesn't automagically mean people are going to do it then.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

The point is just that. Just because something is made legal, doesn't automagically mean people are going to do it then.

I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from. Here's the only thing I can figure:

You have interpreted what Kali or I or someone else here has said in opposition to the proposed legislation means that teachers are for some reason going to start gunning students down for no other reason than ... they can under certain circumstances.

That's not what I'm saying, and not what I've understood anyone here to say, including OP.

What we are saying is 1) What school property is worth protecting at the cost of a child's life?
2) As schools are public property, this law is basically deputizing teachers and other school officials (as Peace Officers are the only ones authorized to use deadly force in the protection of public property, even in Texas.)
3) It does increase the chances that teachers will carry guns into the classroom and use them, and that, at least in my book, is just a bad idea logistically (as well as morally.)

originally posted by: Gryphon66

I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from. Here's the only thing I can figure:

You have interpreted what Kali or I or someone else here has said in opposition to the proposed legislation means that teachers are for some reason going to start gunning students down for no other reason than ... they can under certain circumstances.

Okay then.
Just because one can, doesn't mean that they will.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
That's not what I'm saying, and not what I've understood anyone here to say, including OP.

What we are saying is 1) What school property is worth protecting at the cost of a child's life?

Don't know. Maybe the Teachers Union or Common Core can define this.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

2) As schools are public property, this law is basically deputizing teachers and other school officials (as Peace Officers are the only ones authorized to use deadly force in the protection of public property, even in Texas.)

No, as that would give them arresting authority as well.
This just extends the school property enforcement to the teacher.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
3) It does increase the chances that teachers will carry guns into the classroom and use them, and that, at least in my book, is just a bad idea logistically (as well as morally.)

No again. Just because they can, doesn't mean that they will.
A law allowing teachers to carry a firearm is more likely to increase the chance of an armed teacher.
Which, I don't see a problem with.
The teacher is a US citizen, and if not a prohibited owner, can carry.

a reply to: macman

And I thought we were doing so well, actually having a semblance of a normal conversation.

Your snide quip about Teachers Unions and Common Core aside, is that all you really think about children's lives?

The proposed law sets teachers and school officials up with quasi-police powers which does nothing but create confusion. The school is a public institution. The school is ultimately owned by the city or the county government, which in turn is subject to the People. The "school's property" is public property, which places the protection of that property into a different sphere, i.e. the provenance of actual police. As well, citizens technically have the "power to arrest" so, in point of fact, this new authorization to use deadly force in the protection of public property IS a singular police power being granted to non-Peace officers.**

The law blurs the edges of definition -- bad when firearms and deadly force are involved

You're foretelling the future again. You can't know what is going to happen with more guns in the classroom, anymore than I do. I understand you don't have a problem with an armed teacher. To me, I weighed the value and decided for myself that the dangers inherent in the situation outweigh the potential good of having an armed "good guy" on the scene.

You know as well as I do that there are and have been limitations on concealed carry onto school grounds. Despite the fact that you will probably disagree and start chanting about "shall not be infringed" there's still reasonable limitations on every right, no?

We have a basic difference of opinions; you think more guns equals more safety, and I think the opposite. /shrug

It's okay to disagree.


**

In Texas, any private citizen may arrest someone without a warrant when the offense is committed in his presence,or within his view, if the offense is either a felony or an offense against the public peace. (The Right to Effect a Citizen's Arrest under Texas Law)

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Gryphon66

Gryphon66, I hope you and Kali have learned something from this thread:

DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS

lol!

All I've learned is that there are a group of posters here who want to deny the simplest reality that is in front of their faces time after time after time.

As far as Texas goes, your little bumper-sticker quote is really cute!

I think I saw another one at some point, let's see ... how did it go?

NOTHING COMES OUT OF TEXAS EXCEPT STEERS AND ... and ... oh dangit ... there was another part, I think it rhymed with steers, but I can't remember it right now.

It'll come back to me, I'm sure.

lol Seriously? I have heard that as well... and there are a few here of both.

But the assertion is just as ridiculous as the claim that the law would allow an adult to shoot a child for stealing a pencil.

No logic, no sense, no COMMON sense......

Show me one case, in Texas, where something even remotely as ridiculous happened and the shooter was not charged.

You can make all the claims you want, you can insult Texas all you want, but in the real world it's a fail.

Many states have similar verbage to the justificatin verbage in the Texas law. It's not enough that the person simply states he believes blah blah blah. The court and / or the DA must also agree..

If I shoot someone standing in my yard, and I use the claim that I felt my life was in danger.... and yet it turns out the guy is a one legged paraplegic then obviously the test would find my assertion a failure. I would then be arrested, tried and no doubt the jury would find that my assertion of justified self defense failed as well.

See how that works? It isnt: "Well, he said he felt threatened so we cannot charge him" .. That is just, pardon me, ignorant BS.

IF yall wish to continue this most ignorant of discussions, then have at it, but I am done arguing stupidity.

By the way, Kali...you point in the OP about being able to use deadly force to defend school property is well made. I find myself agreeing with that part.

I do not agree with virtually all the other scenarios and assertions made regarding what the law allows. That's hogwash and yall know it.

I guess it is fashionable to knock Texas, but frankly, I do not find the crappola you find in San Francisco, LA, Detroit, Chicago, Memphis, Atlanta and other major cities in the US. I like living here and from my perspective the jokes and memes about Texas one finds in the media and internet are nothing more that that: Jokes and memes. The truth is a bit different...no doubt there are kernels of truth in many of those, but that is very different than those memes actually representing how it is.

I find it very odd how liberals/progressives (whatever) will point out how close minded and intolerant the right is. Specially when some of the most intolerant are on the left. OH! I am not prejudiced, but I will lump a whole state and cram it into a single square slot whether it fits or not.....because it is the "thing" to do. You are not cool unless you are putting down someone, something or some concept.

a reply to: bbracken677

Wow. So it's to be the adversarial approach? Okay.

Someone joked with me about "not messin' with Texas" ... I just gave back a quippy response. Was I seriously posting a claim that the only thing produced by Texas is cattle and homosexuals? Of course not. Sorry, though, that you think that's an insult.

Yeah, the pencil claim was ridiculous. It was meant to be. It's called an extreme or absurd example. You use it when you want to show that another idea is equally ludicrous, as is the idea that teachers should have the right to shoot to kill a kid over anything "school property" related.

I've asked the question several times and haven't gotten an answer yet. What school property is worth shooting a kid over? Do you have an answer for that? You're a teacher, you have your sidearm, and you're willing to use it because you know that the State has your back ... what do you kill a kid in your classroom over?

There are no states that permit the use of deadly force against a student over property. Show me that I'm wrong.

The only point either Kali or have made is over "deadly force to protect school property." Kali's concern is more humanistic, mine is more directed to ever expanding powers of government officials.

But apparently, all you heard was the pencil item.

Glad you enjoy Texas. That's your right. I wouldn't, and that's mine. We don't have to see eye-to-eye.

Yeah, I've heard that attempt to finesse the right left dichotomy before. Why not say that some people are intolerant.

Who in the world has "put down" Texas here? I didn't know you guys were so thin-skinned, anyway.

I challenge you. Go back and read this discussion from top to bottom. Get you a score pad and keep up with who insults whom.

Or not. Essentially, aside from your issues with perceived slights against Texas, you're agreeing with what Kali and I have been saying for 26 pages.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I have not agreed with what you and kali have been saying for 26 odd pages.

I agree with the OP that perhaps the legislation should remove the "in defense of property" part so that the new bill will be solely what it was intended to be, as opposed to the side show it is portrayed here. Protecting children on school grounds is the purpose. Shooting children over property is the side show.

My reply regarding the steers and kwears was humorous as well... the insulting part was not about that but rather other posts, some of which were yours, which were intended as insults and you know you intended them as such. Want me to quote them for you? Normally you do not result to such insults, which is exactly why I asked you if you were ok. Not like the Gryphon I remember, but that's neither here nor there... we all have our days and my respect is not diminished. I still consider you an ATS friend, just not one I always will agree with, but we already knew that, no? lol

So, while I agree with the OP that it should be looked at, not for the reasons and scenarios listed. Even in Texas if a kid, stealing a computer, wwould not be shot with impunity and any assertions to the contrary are either ignorant in nature, or trolling. I suspect ignorance, quite simply due to the memes that fly around regarding Texas...some deserved, most exagerated greatly.

Have ye ever lived here, laddie? (in my best irish).

Regarding the insults, you may be right. I have called several statements a few names, not the people who made those statements, but I am pretty sure that some people would not make the distinction. All I know for sure that I have, for the most part, not participated in the insult game regarding insulting people or states etc etc. I have insulted ideas .. yes.

Anyways, happy Sunday! Going to watch a movie later, and eat some popcorn lol. After that I am thinking about smoking some pork ribs overnight for consumption tomorrow

a reply to: bbracken677

By the way, Kali...you point in the OP about being able to use deadly force to defend school property is well made. I find myself agreeing with that part.

Defense of property needs to be taken out. I'm glad you agree since you live in Texas and I don't. Perhaps you can write to your representatives about it.

I do not agree with virtually all the other scenarios and assertions made regarding what the law allows. That's hogwash and yall know it.

The absurd was argued for a reason. The fact that such is absurd doesn't however change the truth of the matter that were it to happen... it could be gotten away with.

a reply to: Kali74

That last paragraph, particularly the last sentence I continue to have a problem with. This is due primarily to your assertion regarding "reasonable" in the legal text. Just because the shooter claims reasonable does not exclude him from charges and conviction.

But...we disagree. Ain't it great that we can? That is, perhaps, one of the greatest aspects of ATS. You have the information presented on a wide variety of subjects as well as a whole rainbow of opinions about each and every one of those subjects. One winds up being exposed to so many different ideas, thought processes etc that I would hope everyone can learn something occasionally. Thanks for the thread, Kali!

a reply to: Kali74

Problem is the absurd examples the teacher goes to jail law or no law. That's why bringing up the ubsurd does nothing but derail a topic. Because the constitution recognizes your property rights all bills have the right to defend person and property. However in the context of this bill short of a student trying to build a bomb in the school this bill would offer the teacher no further protection against prosecutuon.

a reply to: bbracken677

The only problem that Kali or I have presented is with the "protection of property" section. Check the OP again. You say you agree that there's a problem with that ... or not. You don't seem to be clear on the point.

I personally don't think guns in the classroom make anyone safer, INCLUDING the teacher and the kids. That, however, is solely my opinion and hasn't been presented in any other way.

If you feel strongly about what you feel are insults, feel free to call me out here or privately. Vague allusions don't allow me to respond in any way ... which doesn't seem quite fair play.

I have lived in the US for nearly 49 years. I have seen and heard reports of what goes on in Texas, talked to people who have lived in Texas and have moved away, have seen your elected officials and what they claim to stand for ... none of whom I can find the least reason to respect in any way. So ... at best I can say ... different strokes, eh?

I hope your Sunday activities were wonderful!

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Kali74

Problem is the absurd examples the teacher goes to jail law or no law. That's why bringing up the ubsurd does nothing but derail a topic. Because the constitution recognizes your property rights all bills have the right to defend person and property. However in the context of this bill short of a student trying to build a bomb in the school this bill would offer the teacher no further protection against prosecutuon.

The only reason that Kali's "absurd" example went anywhere is because it became the raving point of a few posters in the thread. Just out of curiosity, which constitution recognizes property rights? and which part of which constitution confers the right to defend person and property.

Actually, if a student were building a bomb to use against the school ... I think that would be a reason to use reasonable force, deadly or otherwise to stop him/her from realizing that goal. Seems ... far-fetched that they would build it at school, though, don't you think?

Bomb building seems like it would require a bit of privacy .... *is confused*