Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

Consequences. If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. It is the people with criminal intent, whether they act on that or not, that fear this the most. It's not about poor little innocent children being harmed. It's about e-thugs being scared that if they act on their impulses there will be actual consequences. Odd that people who want to live by the "law of the jungle" don't want to be reminded that they are not at the top of the food chain. They feel much safer being "gangsta" if they're reassured that educators aren't allowed to respond to it.

A lack of consequences is what has made our society what it is today. Personally, I have no problem with someone's "perfect little angel" having his face shoved into the floor until police arrive.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: roadgravel
Those that feel the need to trespass and steal property would be better served to stay in someplace where people accept it as a way of life.

So but how in this day and age is bypassing due process and killing someone over theft needed or moral?

I hear ya. One problem is that too many are making of life of crime and never punished for it.

Then we should be looking at better ways to rehabilitate those.

Not use on US states but in UK its something like 60% will reoffend.

Compare that to countrys like Norway or japan (both castly diffrent systems) and its bellow 20%.

I completely agree with this (shocker, I know). The U.S. prison system is a money-making machine and certain groups have a huge stake in keeping the prisons stuffed with inmates.

Repeat offenders are a HUGE part of the prison population. Read this.

There are many reasons for this but part of the problem is that once a person has been incarcerated, it's very difficult for them to find employment. If a person is suddenly released from prison and has no way to earn money, it doesn't take much for them to revert back to a life of crime.

The U.S. has a metric ton of social problems contributing to the prison population and it's difficult to make a comparison to Norway. I wish the answer was simple but our problems are so bad it's hard to know where and how to address them.

Now this is something we agree on,

I only used norway and japan as examples. I understand both would not work in the US at least without modifications. Norway is likely too soft and japan too harsh.

Naturaly one would need to find a method that fits with there own culture and country and to be honnest that would likely differ from state to state in the US.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Answer


How is a Law "based on fantasy" any different than a Law based on the ideology of a select few?
If indeed, religious law is fantasy, as in from the imagination...

I already answered this question in my previous post.

The law has been challenged and scrutinized by the Texas legal system and it still remains. If the citizens of Texas were not satisfied with the "ideology of a select few," the law would have been changed. This differs from Sharia Law in Saudi Arabia because those rules are presented as infallible and can not be challenged.

Debates about morality are inherently pointless because there are so few universally-held ideals.

Another factor of this legislation that the sensationalist article did not mention:

"Deadly force" is not limited to firearms. The definition of deadly force in Texas is force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

So in an imaginary scenario, a teacher witnesses a fight between two students and intervenes. One of the students takes a swing and the teacher hits him in the head with a briefcase. Without the protection of the proposed bill, the teacher could be charged with using deadly force.

The focus of this thread seems to be on the "protection of property" portion with a completely unrealistic interpretation suggesting that teachers will be gunning down students for stealing chalkboard erasers. It's a silly argument with a silly premise.

originally posted by: Answer
Another factor of this legislation that the sensationalist article did not mention:

"Deadly force" is not limited to firearms. The definition of deadly force in Texas is force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

So in an imaginary scenario, a teacher witnesses a fight between two students and intervenes. One of the students takes a swing and the teacher hits him in the head with a briefcase. Without the protection of the proposed bill, the teacher could be charged with using deadly force.

The focus of this thread seems to be on the "protection of property" portion with a completely unrealistic interpretation suggesting that teachers will be gunning down students for stealing chalkboard erasers. It's a silly argument with a silly premise.

Well said. I don't understand why Liberals can't grasp these simple concepts.

a reply to: Answer

Doesn't matter the method... deadly force can result in death, that is the point.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Answer

Doesn't matter the method... deadly force can result in death, that is the point.

That's exactly the point and the bill allows teachers to use deadly force to protect themselves and students from someone else's use of deadly force.

If a student tries to kill another student and a teacher uses deadly force to stop that from happening, does that teacher deserve to go to prison? That's essentially what you're saying.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Answer

Doesn't matter the method... deadly force can result in death, that is the point.

Dunno why some people are ignoring the obvious.

Don't start none. Won't be none.

a reply to: Answer

And property.

a reply to: neo96

Dunno why some people are so quick to poop on the Constitution.

I think the psychiatric-psychological problems that afflict students, teachers and administrators are the root of the problem.

Nobody seems to be able to solve anything.



All reactive.

Those in favor here are only considering the most extreme scenario (a student attempting to kill other students) and pretending to apply that to normal, everyday circumstances. Some of the same folks were arguing recently that violence in schools is a non-issue that is only being used to increase gun controls, and now there's an apparent need to turn teachers into police.

Every issue does not simply break down to "liberal versus conservative." This is a foolish, one-sided step aimed at the proliferation of firearms into our society. Those obsessed with that agenda will jump on any bandwagon, no matter how ridiculous, that seems to push that forward ... even when they're contradicting arguments they themselves recently made.

If it were not so pathetic, it'd be humorous.

15+ year old students can be huge. They CAN do a lot of damage. If the parents can't bring a child up, how do you expect them to be normal. I seen some crazy # in high school. Metal detectors are installed now and have been since the early 90's. Gun violence, stabbings, drug deals, and even rape happens. I witnessed someone getting stabbed to death. Detroit Public Schools were a little crazy then but now it's worse than when I was in.

They have to do something. I would save money by getting a computer in the home and doing away with school altogether. Have classes online. Maybe your lottery can be used for what it was intended for. The money saved from administration costs would pay for it. If the child doesn't log in, you can send the real police to the door. Police don't have a problem defending themselves. I know you'll say that it doesn't teach your child how to interact with society. I would like to point out the above problems our schools face. Murder, drugs, rape, you name it. It might be a trade off but at least you won't promote monsters.

I think that's is what's going to happen and happen sooner than you think. Society in the inner-cities is a combat zone. I feel these are just spreading out into rural areas. With enough time it'll be everywhere. It's best to have a contingency plan. I feel bad for the good kids. The sports, dances, and friends they will miss is part of growing up.

That's why we can't ever have anything good. People tend to screw it up. If they could police themselves, we won't have to go to extreme measures. The best teacher is a good parent. Too bad there's not enough of them.

As to the idea that teachers would never abuse their power, nor simply make bad decisions, nor overreact to a situation ...

Bal timore Teacher Attacks Student for Using Cell Phone in Class Yelling "I'll Kill You!"

13 Year Old Student Beaten by Teacher After Ridiculing another Student (in Texas)

Teacher Hits Child Over Head with Crate ... For Blurting out the Answer to a Question

Nah, teachers are super-human with precisely-trained reflexes that never lose their cool ... who would be worried about them carrying guns in class? *yak*

(These are just a few examples of the hundreds that come up on a basic Google search ... )

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Dunno why some people are so quick to poop on the Constitution.

LOL.

Don't even get me started on that hypocrisy.

Gun owners, and rich folks.

Two groups of people whose constitutional rights that are CLEARLY IGNORED.

But they sure don't fit the false narrative of this thread.

a reply to: Gryphon66

There are plenty of cases where the student has attacked their teachers but I suppose teachers should not defend themselves.

originally posted by: Trihalo42
Consequences. If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.

Claimed every repressive police-state that has ever existed ... at least at the beginning.

Are you guys SERIOUS? You're so concerned about the "overreach of government" but you're in favor of school-teachers becoming armed enforcers???

This is beyond ludicrous.

a reply to: neo96

Don't you love the way they pull that bs.

a reply to: neo96

Oh ya... the Constitution to you is only the 2nd Amendment and it only protects rich people's rights to bear arms. Silly me!

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66

There are plenty of cases where the student has attacked their teachers but I suppose teachers should not defend themselves.

Can you point out where I stated or implied that teachers shouldn't defend themselves from attacks? No?

That's because that's not what I said or implied. Stop trying to distort the argument.