Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hey Gryph!

Are you alright man? This post does not seem characteristic of you. I consider you an ATS friend, but this post does not seem characteristic of you. There are no hidden meanings here...I am legitimately asking if you are ok.

I will address the rest of this post later.

Perfectly well, thanks for asking.

I would have said the same about your post that I responded to!

For more, I'll wait to see what you have to say.

a reply to: crazyewok

Within the legal realm, most is correctly stated.

Personally, I don't see the issue with shooting someone from stealing.

There has gotten in the life, a loss of respect for other people's property. Maybe this would return the balance and encourage people to not engage in unlawful acts.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Cool story. Thanks for that.

a reply to: Kali74

There is no law that states I must give due process to anyone. I would really like to see such a law, if you believe it exists.

If that were the case, then I couldn't throw someone out of my house, couldn't defend my life with force and so on.

Wait.....is it next to the Separation of Church and State???

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: crazyewok

Within the legal realm, most is correctly stated.

Personally, I don't see the issue with shooting someone from stealing.

There has gotten in the life, a loss of respect for other people's property. Maybe this would return the balance and encourage people to not engage in unlawful acts.

I'd like to see you come out and state that you have no issue with teachers and school officials shooting and killing children.

Not generic references to the good ol' days, or protecting one's self from home invasions.

Go ahead. Tell us how butchering children in their classrooms makes perfect sense to you. Don't be coy.

Because that's what we're discussing here. We're not talking about right to carry, home defense, good guys kill bad guys with guns, self-defense ... we're talking about literal carte-blanche to shoot kids if, in the opinion of a school official, such is done in the name of "protecting property."

Go on. Let's see the courage of your convictions.

Define deadly force..This is kind of not surprising as well due to the fact that such laws and bills are coming out by factory press. I wonder when that change Obama promised will take place

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

Your experience seems to be that of Holiday travel. If you offer input into sword fighting, and have only saw one at a museum, yet read a bunch of books on it, you have no experience.
Very simple.

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

Sore losers are still losers.
Very simple.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
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...

And yet, I have stated to continue on with the opinion making.
Very simple

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
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"...

"Gun lunatics"....and there it is.The "time" has always been not literal 100%. It wouldn't take very much of any US Citizen to recognize this within OUR culture. But, being the world traveler that you are, and Global Affairs guru, you knew that. Much like your incorrect terminology for ammunition. All of that plays into the fact your ignorant to the US, but still need to voice your opinion.
Very Simple

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
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...

And again, banter on. trying to stop the ignorant from voicing their ignorance doesn't work. In fact....I want you to be MORE vocal on subjects you have deemed yourself worthy to soapbox on and on about.
Very simple

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Already said I'm not ok with stealing...You're continuously repeating yourself... Hence...

And you keep bringing up your fedora. I dropped it.
Very simple

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
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...

I guess this is one of those things you just don't get when one multi-tasks. Keep up the banter.
And, it is a very basic observation, that when someone works to remind those of their power and/or intellect, they usually have very little of either.
Very simple

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I'm not obligated to "explain" a thing to anybody...Up to and including repetitive know it alls...

Ahhh, I like this. When something you don't like is challenged, you don't want to play.
Very simple

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
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...

If you were to actually do research into this, and not allow Hollywood to drive what you think happened during this time period in American History, you should come out on the other side knowing the truth.
Very Simple

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
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...

*sigh* If you are going to be insulting, or attempt at a cute form of clever insults....at least get the terminology correct.
A "Hollow Point" is a round. A "Clip" is not an external box that holds said rounds. It is an internal device, feed typically through the top of a firearm, like the M 1 Garand. A "Magazine" is a detachable box which holds said rounds, and us usually connected from the bottom of a firearm. Terms and the definitions behind them matter. At least attempt to come across as knowledgeable.
Very simple.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
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 have repeatedly stated to continue on. And I actually sit here, smiling pretty largely at the moment.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
& 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...

Now that is the funniest thing yet.
Talk about ego. Okay, sure sure. You and all the other foreigners know best.
Don't forget though....with your "logic", there is someone else, in a distant land that knows best over your knowing best for others. I would suggest not spending too much time up on the high horse.
Very simple

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
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...

And that means what exactly.
You do know that a broken clock is right twice a day.
Very simple

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

I think I have addressed this "ad nauseam".
Very simple

Cont..

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

So, like what exactly?? You think that I seek your congratulations on something? Interesting. Egotistical, but interesting.
Very simple

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
That's not the case for you sadly...
Assumptions, insults, rare answers, all ad nauseam...

Yeah I know. I have to keep repeating that I want the ignorant to continue chiming in on affairs most have no knowledge about.
Weird.
But, still very simple.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
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...

Tissues?? Nah. I cry into unicorn pelts and blow my nose into the feathers of endangered owls.
Very simple

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
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...

SO, you think this is bullying?? No wonder the world is going down the toilet. Guess the millennial males can't handle being told no, and fall back into the new trendy lingo of “being bullied”. Is there maybe a hashtag about stopping such abuse?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
You really should take the advice of many people here...
Join an American only forum...

Why?? I find it very nice here. Listening/reading the uninformed, ignorantly debate what America should be doing on such and such a topic, using terms incorrectly.
Very simple.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
It may save you some tissues for when you prefer to use them.

As stated above, yours won’t work for me.
Still, very very simple.

a reply to: Gryphon66

And I would like to see monkeys fly out of the butt of 0bama when he lies to the public.
That would be a sight to see.
We could have a huge Flying Monkey Army. Epic!!!!


When have I stated I was for shooting children for taking a pencil?

If you move past the hyper dramatic rants of a Progressive, and come back to Earth, let me know.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: crazyewok

Within the legal realm, most is correctly stated.

Personally, I don't see the issue with shooting someone from stealing.

There has gotten in the life, a loss of respect for other people's property. Maybe this would return the balance and encourage people to not engage in unlawful acts.

Yet without due process and trials who to say someone wont get it wrong and kill someone innocent?
That's why law and trial are in place.

Plus death and killing should never be taken so lightly.

To do so just perpetuates a culture of violence.


There are other options to cut down on stealing. No easy options there are prison and rehabilitation system out there that have cut crome and re offending rates down dramatically compared to US and UK crime rates.


Just shooting your problem away to me is quite disturbing and just sends a message out that life means nothing and killing people is something to be taken lightly. A message that could encourage less than stable people to hurt others.

a reply to: crazyewok

People like macman will never be convinced. Judging by his avatars now and in the past, he is a military man or at least has military training - meaning he has had the empathy sucked out of him and replaced by an extremely twitchy trigger-finger.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

And I would like to see monkeys fly out of the butt of 0bama when he lies to the public.
That would be a sight to see.
We could have a huge Flying Monkey Army. Epic!!!!


When have I stated I was for shooting children for taking a pencil?

If you move past the hyper dramatic rants of a Progressive, and come back to Earth, let me know.

1. Flying monkeys (from any source). Not on topic.
2. President Obama. Not on topic.
3. Your Wicked Witch of the West Fantasy. Not on topic. (Though if you have pics of yourself in the dress and hat, we'd love to see them.)
4. Your obsession with Progressives (Even though you display no understanding of the subject). Not on topic.

No one has said you wanted to shoot children for taking a pencil, have they? If so, quote it.

You bluster about doing the crime and taking the punishment. The subject that IS on topic here is the use of deadly force against school children by teachers to protect property.

You've stated several times that you have no problem with using force to protect property, so, I know this is complex, but stay focused ... You: it's okay to use deadly force against someone for theft ... Thread topic: Concern about proposed Texas law to exonerate teachers from the use of deadly force against students while protecting school property.

All I suggested, with no element of anything remotely Progressive involved, was for you to go on record and stand up for your convictions and state, clearly, that you are in favor of kids being shot by teachers protecting school property.

Do you lack that courage?

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: ladyinwaiting/quote]






"The scenarios presented I referred to was the shooting of a child over a pencil. Stupid? Hell yeah. Suggesting that someone on this thread would value a computer over a child's life? Another stupid remark.
First of all, I called the scenarios being presented as being stupid, not you. IF you choose to accept that designation as your own, that is your problem. Since I cannot recall calling any specific individual a moron, I would surmise you accepted a generic statement as yours previously as well. "

Ahem. I perused some of your posts, and see you can scarcely get through a thread without calling someone a "moron", or "stupid". It's easily part of your vernacular. Perhaps you don't understand how off-putting those type remarks are.



Panic can sometimes cause otherwise good people to do stupid things. That's my concern.

The whole purpose of the legislation is to prevent the stupid crap that happened at Newton, IMO.

Of course.

The difference is one where the sheep have a guardian who can stop a predator and where the sheep just run around being slaughtered by a predator with impunity.

With impunity? The justice was swift and punitive. Most of those shooters died at the scene from gunshot wounds.

Your choice.

I doubt it. The lone star state can perhaps be the test ground for this type legislation. I doubt many others will follow suit.

edit on 2/4/2015 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/4/2015 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/4/2015 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Kryties

He/She gone from having an opinion to off topic replies that have no value other than to 'have the last word'
Yeah I'm done picking their low hanging fruit, more challenge is preferred. You know people actually discussing the Texas bills pros /cons.

a reply to: bbracken677


(having trouble with Codes this morning, but you, bbracken said)

First of all, I called the scenarios being presented as being stupid, not you. IF you choose to accept that designation as your own, that is your problem. Since I cannot recall calling any specific individual a moron, I would surmise you accepted a generic statement as yours previously as well."
______________________________________________
Ahem. I perused some of your posts, and see you can scarcely get through a thread without calling someone a "moron", or "stupid". It's easily part of your vernacular. Perhaps you don't understand how off-putting those type remarks are.

To suggest that ANYONE on this thread places a computer or whatever ahead of a child's life is just wrong...in all caps and emphasis. Wrong headed, wrong in every way you can imagine, and I for one find myself insulted by such BS.

Panic can sometimes cause otherwise good people to do stupid things. That's my concern.

The whole purpose of the legislation is to prevent the stupid crap that happened at Newton, IMO.

Of course.

The difference is one where the sheep have a guardian who can stop a predator and where the sheep just run around being slaughtered by a predator with impunity.

With impunity? The justice was swift and punitive. Most of those shooters died at the scene from gunshot wounds.

Your choice.

I doubt it. The lone star state can perhaps be the test ground for this type legislation. I doubt many others will follow suit.

a reply to: macman

Two whole posts full of nonsense and still no answers...


Again crying about insults that never happened.



I'll refer to two parts of your 2 post diatribe...


Go back to the post you replied to...

Where did I mention the Fedora?

& don't lie, when people read the back and forth they'll see it was you who continuously brought it up in some sort of attempt to discredit my manhood...


& then you deny that it's an attempt to bully...

& then turn that around and imply that people are too sensitive....



Get a clue...

I'm not sensitive to a single word you've said and continue to smile at your repeated failed attempts to have a real discussion without ad hominem, deflection, and repetitive lunacy.


But being a bully, & not a very effective one, you probably don't understand that people have no need to be sensitive to notice when someone is trying to push them around...

All that takes is observation.

a reply to: macman

Personally, I don't see the issue with shooting someone from stealing.

There has gotten in the life, a loss of respect for other people's property.

We no longer value life, and we now see (some of us, increasingly) a rise in the number of people that think everything is about them - and their things. Do you think someone who steals is a kind of monster? More so than someone that would shoot that person?

Theft is a crime but not a capitol offense

You actually think it's OK to kill someone for stealing your car?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Only have a couple of minutes, but apparently I missed your reply to a post of mine? I will check it out.

Glad to hear you are ok...long time no see. I am doing well, other than getting fat and lazy lol. I need an exercise regimen I believe. I like to cook and eat too well, I think. Although I am far from obese I am concerned about the increase in weight lol

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Do you think someone who steals is a kind of monster? More so than someone that would shoot that person?

This comment deserves to be highlighted.

a reply to: neo96

He didn't bother to post this part of the pc that specifies when deadly force is authorized...

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.

Jaden