Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

a reply to: Mandroid7

Urinated/shook it too hard...few drops on a tiled floor...damage to school property...bang

a reply to: Gryphon66

I stated this bill is not focused on any one part of the use of deadly force laws, rather all of them. Certain people are focusing on just one point, the protection of property part. So let's see the use of deadly force laws in their entirety first.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
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. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

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. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

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. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Sec. 9.44. USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:
(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and
(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Texas Penal Code

Now, the proposed bill, showing only the part regarding the protection of property section.

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.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense committed by an educator only in the course of defending property of the school that employs the educator that the conduct is justified in the manner described by Subsection (a).

Source

If you will notice, the proposed section states that any use of force must be in accordance with Section 9.43 of the Texas Penal Code. Section 9.43 of the Texas Penal Code gives the justification for Texas residents to use up to, and including deadly force to protect property by citizens, and the proposed bill clarifies this protection also applies to teachers in the same situation(s). The proposed bill clarifies that an educator is justified in using force or deadly force in defense of property of the school that employs the educator.

There are always going to be mishaps when guns are involved, and you alluded to others having happened. Can you source the instances you refer to, or better yet, show stats? Also, did any of these mishaps involve students? As for discounting my input into this thread, Show me where I have alluded to any of what you claim I have. I am not trying to play even-handed, nor have I claimed this is about gun ownership, carrying weapons, or protecting ones own life. Quit trying to interject your own ideas of what I believe or don't, and just read the posts.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: TheJourney

*sigh* or *facepalm*

Taking things to an extreme is a bit ridiculous, don't you think?

Do you honestly believe that a situation where a kid had a gun on campus (verbotten) and shot another kid because of a stolen pencil that any civilized people in the world would be ok with it?

Well, I was basically being facetious in terms of the scenario actually playing out that way and the teacher getting off with that being considered a legitimate defense, while exploring the absurdity of including 'damage to school property' as a legitimate justification for killing a student. However, with as many people who thought selling loose, untaxed cigarettes was a legitimate reason for Eric Garner getting killed, it honestly wouldn't surprise me to hear people say 'hey, he broke the rules,' as there do seem to be a number of people who truly have the attitude 'don't wanna get killed? Don't break the rules.' I mostly know that cuz I have literally read a lot of people say that.

a reply to: olaru12

Doh! I missed the Travis county part...

haha

a reply to: retiredTxn

I'm focused on the property part because I find it absurd and psycho. And sorry but did I not link and quote the relevant parts to the teacher extension in my OP?

a reply to: TheJourney

See...there you go again.

He wasn't killed because he was selling individual cigarrettes.

He wasn't even killed in that sense, unless you believe they intentionally intended to kill him, in which case, whatever....

He died because he refused to allow himself to be arrested. He had asthma. Anyone with half a brain would know that it wasnt the choke hold that killed him.... since when one is in a choke hold you CANT FREAKING TALK.

It was the weight of the officer(s) on top of him combined with his breathing problems and his absolute stupidity that killed him.

Satisfied? I am sure not.

There was no intent to kill him and the way you portray it, he was murdered for breaking a tax law. Way to fully misrepresent the facts.

Some people seem to be forgetting this little tidbit and are instead focusing on the property part.

(b) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense committed
by an educator only in the course of defending the educator's person
or students of the school that employs the educator that the conduct
is justified in the manner described by Subsection (a).

Source

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: TheJourney

See...there you go again.

He wasn't killed because he was selling individual cigarrettes.

He wasn't even killed in that sense, unless you believe they intentionally intended to kill him, in which case, whatever....

He died because he refused to allow himself to be arrested. He had asthma. Anyone with half a brain would know that it wasnt the choke hold that killed him.... since when one is in a choke hold you CANT FREAKING TALK.

It was the weight of the officer(s) on top of him combined with his breathing problems and his absolute stupidity that killed him.

Satisfied? I am sure not.

There was no intent to kill him and the way you portray it, he was murdered for breaking a tax law. Way to fully misrepresent the facts.

Well, given that you think the way the Eric garner situation was handled was legitimate, and you think his death was his own fault, you are among the people whose opinions I have no respect for, so don't really care what else you have to say on this topic not worth any more effort than that.

a reply to: Skid Mark

Not forgetting that part I just have no issue with self defense or defense of others. I do have issue with use of deadly force for protecting property... especially school property. Thus I created the thread.

a reply to: macman


Why ask me about experience outside of London & then disregard what I said?
With another assumption, no less.

Move the goal posts all you want, it doesn't add weight to your argument...
It deflates it.

Ad nauseam.

You're correct I don't have to like the Law, it is what it is...
& I'm still free to voice whatever I feel like about the topic...

Ad nauseam.

I see the Gun lunatics have changed the saying from "can't do the time, don't do the crime" into "commit the crime you can get shot"...

Ad nauseam.

I don't live there, & my voice isn't restricted to within a mile radius of my position...
If I wish to discuss a global topic, you can keep crying about it, or suck it up...

Ad nauseam.

Already said I'm not ok with stealing...
You're continuously repeating yourself... Hence...

Ad nauseam.

I can voice concern with many countries at a time...
My brain works in a way that I'm not limited in my capacity to have a conversation no matter the region...
& again, don't like it, keep crying about it, or suck it up...

Ad nauseam.

I'm not obligated to "explain" a thing to anybody...
Up to and including repetitive know it alls...

Ad nauseam.

I didn't realise Hollywood had the monopoly on the Wild West...
In fact, I was of the belief that Hollywood was spawned in the West around that time...

Ad nauseam.

People say Hollow Tip, & yes people say Clip...
Terminology isn't restricted to words you might prefer...
& calling you disingenuous for claiming you'd never heard the term... No it's not an insult...
It's a factual observation...

Ad nauseam.



Absolute proof of a sour, bitter person with no intention of debate...
Continuously crying (no matter how much you repeat that you're enjoying it) about "foreigners" having input...
You can sit at your screen & froth at the mouth all you like...
Because in reality... Only one of us has done this with a smile on our face...

& I can rest assured, no matter how much you say differently...
It eats you up inside when "foreigners" have more common sense than you about your Countries Laws...


The best thing is, despite your repetitive bellowing about "foreigners" having input...
Those of us from abroad who did speak on the issue, have been saying the exact same thing as some Americans have been saying...

So it's a moot argument...

Though your argument against them has altered slightly due to the fact you cannot cry "foreign input"...
The insults just keep on flying...

I really would have liked to come back to a response I could congratulate, & say well done for putting me in my place...

That's not the case for you sadly...
Assumptions, insults, rare answers, all ad nauseam...


I'm sure you'll see me in future in many more threads "outside of where I'm wanted"...

& you should sparingly use the tissues in front of you in your personal time...

Because I'm sure there'll be many more tears of rage, & frothy mouth moments for you, when you are once again powerless in your attempts to bully someone out of a thread based on their location...



You really should take the advice of many people here...
Join an American only forum...

It may save you some tissues for when you prefer to use them.

a reply to: Kali74

Page 20...
& they're still trying their damned hardest to drift the thread into something they'd rather discuss than the actual topic at hand...


This has been memorable thread...

I'd like to say why, but I must adhere to the T&Cs...

a reply to: bbracken677

Way to fully misrepresent the facts.

You have a lot of balls to say this...
After everything else you said in that post... & I do mean everything!!!

Garner was murdered.
I'll leave it at that.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Mandroid7

Urinated/shook it too hard...few drops on a tiled floor...damage to school property...bang

Yeah right! Id like to see a teacher get away w/ murder over grafitti or a pencil sharpener. You people are overreacting. If a teacher ever blasts someone for such petty reasons, id bet my left nut they get prosecuted.
This is for the Lanzas and gangbangers.
Have any of you ever been to Houston?
Its KNOWN for violence and gangs.
Some of you people have no idea.
I think this could turn out to be a good thing.
Except i think TPTB are behind this, just waiting for a teacher to slip up and misuse his deadly rights, so that this can be used as ammo against the Teachers with Guns movement.

I've lost count of how many times someone else has come along and said "but you're only focusing on the property bit"...


As if that's not the damn topic of the OP...




Mods, I think you do a great job most of the time... Honestly...

But you've really lapsed in here.


Where's all the "Stick To The Topic" alerts?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So you are saying they intended to kill him?

a reply to: bbracken677

Well I wasn't being sarcastic...

We feel differently about it, what can I say...


I'll leave it at that...

I'm sure we'll have a chance to discuss that in an appropriate thread soon enough.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So, having viewed the video, you actually believe they set out to kill the guy? Really?

I hope I never have to depend on you as a witness.....

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: retiredTxn

I'm focused on the property part because I find it absurd and psycho.

I understand your concern. If this section was applied simplistically, it would be an egregious misuse and abuse of power. Find me a teacher who would shoot a student over drawing on the walls in the bathrooms, or for stealing a pencil. Don't think you will. Now, find me a teacher who will shoot someone who has blocked all the exits from a confined area of a school and is trying to set fire to that area, with teachers and students involved. You will find many.

There are times when destruction of property puts a great many people at risk to injury or death. Simply stealing is not one of those times IMO. So, when can an educator use force or deadly force to protect property? The proposed bill says,

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.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense committed by an educator only in the course of defending property of the school that employs the educator that the conduct is justified in the manner described by Subsection (a).

Force or deadly force is only justified when the educator would be justified under Section 9.43 of the Texas Penal Code.
Let's take a look at that.

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.

This clarifies that educators are covered under Section 9.43, if the educator is covered by Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using deadly force. So, let's see what they say.

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.

This section states "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.

Further, it says the circumstances must meet the requirements of section (2), (A) and (B). Both of these have a similar phrase included in them. "During the nighttime". WOW!
We still need to look at Section 9.41 since Section 9.42 states "if he would be justified in using force against the other
under Section 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.

Source

So basically, the proposed bill clarifies the use of force is justified under the same laws that protect an average citizen. It does not create any new laws that would allow teachers to shoot students for any reason they wish. It does not allow teachers to kill for stealing pencils, or any of the other ludicrous reasons that have been made up in this thread, or the many internet news sources who blew this out of proportion.

If someone feels guns should not be in schools, I respect your opinion. Respect mine and others. Then let's talk about it.

People keep saying "set fire to the building endangering students and teachers"...


Pay attention now...


There is already a Law that states deadly force for "endangering students and teachers"...



So they wouldn't need the property law if it only entailed the same thing that's already been given a law...



Face it...

It's material over life... That's what is being pushed.

I read a study recently that essentially said:

"At no other time in history, has western civilization placed more value on human life".

If the people who wrote that comment read this thread, they might seriously consider retracting it. Obviously there are people on this very thread who would place a computer, or whatever else, over a minor child's life.

****

I read a couple of comments about "I saw a vid with an eighth grader body-slamming a teacher", and the like.

Picture this scenario: That same teacher runs to her desk, gets her pistol and introduces it into the conflict. The eighth graders (yes, the same one who was able to body-slam him or her) wrestles the gun away from her, shoots her with it, and then remains so angry and out of control emotionally he turns it on his classmates.

That, my friends, is a very realistic scenario.

Again, no.