Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

a reply to: Shamrock6

Kali and I are only having to repeat ourselves because the several of you who are obsessed with the absolute, unquestioning vindication of this law, which, one might add does indeed SERIOUSLY increase the powers of government officials to which most of you on another day (when it involves *cough*Democrats*cough*) would be just as obsessively opposed to.

We have time after time after time had to point out (as was done very clearly in the ORIGINAL POST that Kali made) that Section 38A 003 refers ONLY to Section 9.43 of the Penal Code which itself refers to 9.41 and 9.42.

We've heard you every time you say "justified" and "reasonable" but none of you are acknowledging that 9.41, 9.42, 9.43 (and others) all state variations on the precept that justified or reasonable cause is primarily based on "circumstances as the actor BELIEVES them to be."

That is the level of empowerment that we're pointing to, repeatedly. (Kali, correct me if I'm speaking out of turn for you.)

In addition, to that issue, my concern is also that this law/bill is (yet another) unwarranted expansion of government power. 9.41-9.43 address PRIVATE property (whether that of an individual or a business.) Schools are not PRIVATE property. Schools are PUBLIC property and are PUBLIC institutions and are there to serve the interest of the PUBLIC (of which the students are a part.) Minor children do not have the option in most cases to NOT be at school, and in a very real way (whether over the theft of property, the destruction of property, et. al.) this turns classrooms, hallways and buses into potential shooting galleries!

Let's say there is a "bad kid" in the classroom who is intent on doing harm (to others or property). Are any of you really trying to get anyone to believe that the other students (not stealing, not destroying property, et. al.) in the classroom are not in mortal danger when the bullets start flying ... IN A CLASSROOM???

It's getting more and more difficult to stay within T&C with you folks! Jeez-louise.

originally posted by: retiredTxn

The use of force or deadly force must be JUSTIFIED under Chapter 9, Penal Code before immunity can be claimed. If the force is not justified, then the immunity is not available or applicable.

The teacher can be convicted of a crime.

Do you realize that is referring to immunity in CIVIL cases? Or not?

You do? Then why are you bringing it up in this context? Neither Kali nor I are addressing CIVIL concerns.

Keep trying to muddy that water, Txn. /barf

a reply to: macman

And the specious nonsense continues unabated ...

You are bound, even more closely than the government, by statutory law, many of which address the concerns at hand as described here.

Yet, you are advocating that, in this case, perhaps since it's Texas, perhaps since it involves guns, that we the people should just TRUST that government employees are ALWAYS going to make decisions to use their power in such a way that it doesn't unduly harm citizens (in this case, citizens under the age of 18, in most cases.)

I'm sure you don't detect the irony or hypocrisy as the case may be in your position ... that doesn't mean it's not present.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm sorry that you have, apparently, such a hard time trying to talk without violating T&C.

In the interest of saving you from yourself, I will end my attempt to help you understand the incredibly simple concept of "reasonable" and "justified."

Buhbye

a reply to: Shamrock6


Shammy, let's be real here ... you're not trying to "help" anyone in your posts. What specious nonsense.

You're using snide innuendo and muddied logic to, at all costs, support your opinion as expressed in your posts.

You can't see that your opinion is JUST that, not fact, not established legal interpretation, not holy writ.

You don't seem to be able to tolerate that neither Kali or I are retreating at your continued repetition of the same argument or your rather ham-handed attempts to be insulting.

You don't like being called on these flaws in your posting style (apparently) and now you're going to stomp off in a huff.

I'll take responsibility for my own actions, as you should, but if you really want to take off ... why then ...

Toodles!

/waves

a reply to: Gryphon66

Amazing that someone like you doesn't want certain Govt peoples to have certain things, yet push for more Govt control, like an increase in the welfare state and such.

I do commend you for your use of large words.

My statement stands.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

Amazing that someone like you doesn't want certain Govt peoples to have certain things, yet push for more Govt control, like an increase in the welfare state and such.

I do commend you for your use of large words.

My statement stands.

Someone "like me"? What do you mean?

Can you cite my pushing for more Government control? How about a quote with me advocating "an increase in the welfare state and such."

I'm sorry you find standard English to be "large words" ... do you have a letter limit that you prefer to make it easier for you to read?

So, you don't have any comment about your either hypocritical or less-than-informed stance on this potential power-grab in Texas?

Fair enough. I'm good to leave it there.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You are for an expansion of the Govt based welfare state, no??

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are for an expansion of the Govt based welfare state, no??

I thought you were letting your comment stand?

I think my answer to your question is off-topic here.

Quick answer: No, I'm not in favor of any unnecessary expansions of any government scope of power anywhere at any time for any reason.

a reply to: Gryphon66

My my. What a rant!

We disagree. You see this as blanket immunity. I see it as something that still requires the force to be justified. The only folks parroting your ideas are the likes of Alex jones and the free thought project. if you want to bang the liberal drum and scream about what an injustice you see this as, by all means. Doesn't make your perception of the bill any more true or false, though.

I'm perfectly fine not agreeing with you, but why you feel the need to turn that disagreement into a personal issue, I don't quite get. You find my posts hurt your feelings a little? Too snide? Too sarcastic? Well, that's your deal buddy. Not mine.

I gather you're one of those that has to have the last comment, so you can call it a win. Otherwise, when somebody is tired of reading your copy/paste material, and is tired of saying the same things themselves, then by God they're just being a poor sport.

Hardly. I just don't like wasting my time. You can have the last word now champ.

/waves back/

a reply to: Shamrock6

Ah. You're back.

One person's rant is another person's discussion, apparently. All a matter of perspective it seems. Rather like an opinion.

Or were you just using the standard rhetorical toolkit to imply that anyone whose opinion you don't agree with is being unreasonable and ranting?

Either way ... meh.

The only "folks parroting my ideas"? Only my ideas then, not Kali, not the OP? Not hundreds of news magazines and blogs that are available with a simple Google search like "Texas Authorizes Teachers to Shoot Students"? Huh.

Maybe you and I are communicating with each other from parallel universes here ... because none of what you're saying in this post is accurate, factually, in the here and now.

Your perception of my posts as "liberal" is more than likely part of your issue in seeing that we have differences of opinion. I haven't even focused on the "immunity" question as much as Kali had ... but I guess that doesn't matter to your agenda, eh? To focus on what individuals actually say.

Turned it into a personal issue? Wha? Because I pointed out that you wanted your opinion to be taken as fact? Beg pardon, that's obvious to almost anyone I'd think, but as far as making it personal ...

... no, your posts don't hurt my feelings. I'd have to have some respect for your opinion for that to happen. You're just another line of characters on the internet to me, "champ" ... one that doesn't argue very well for your position at that.

Please, don't waste anymore time on me. If you can't move beyond your own opinion and discuss the issues, farewell. There's nothing to win here. We're sharing information and ideas. Your posts seem a bit too brittle to do that with out getting upset ...

IF however, you can stop pigeon-holing anyone who doesn't suck up to your own patter, and have a reasonable conversation on the issues inherent in this unmitigated power grab on the part of the State of Texas ... it's probably best that you go.

We should always part on good terms, eh buster? (You may prefer slick or Chief ... if so, insert that as you wish)

a reply to: Gryphon66

I stand corrected. From what I reviewed, you are in fact not for an increase in Govt control.

As for Govt employes having a firearm, this law doesn't grant such permissions. It grants a legal grounds for "force" to be used during certain situations.

Now, I am one to want and understand that Govt control should be restricted. But...here we are.

a reply to: Gryphon66

IF however, you can stop pigeon-holing anyone who doesn't suck up to your own patter,

Funny that it's okay when you do it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: retiredTxn

The use of force or deadly force must be JUSTIFIED under Chapter 9, Penal Code before immunity can be claimed. If the force is not justified, then the immunity is not available or applicable.

The teacher can be convicted of a crime.

Do you realize that is referring to immunity in CIVIL cases? Or not?

You do? Then why are you bringing it up in this context? Neither Kali nor I are addressing CIVIL concerns.

Keep trying to muddy that water, Txn. /barf

IF you had "carefully read" the posts, you would see I have already addressed this. I have never, nor will I ever, need anyone to instruct me on how to read, understand, or interpret Texas statutes, most especially you.

Immunity in law has the following meaning:

Law. exemption from criminal prosecution or legal liability or punishment on certain conditions.
Source

When you or Kali claim "the teacher can't be convicted of a crime", that is not a true statement. If the teacher fulfills the requirements of Section 9.43, and the police, District Attorney, and the grand jury (if the DA decides to present the case to the grand jury) agree that the teacher fulfilled those requirements, the teacher then gains immunity from prosecution. By gaining immunity from prosecution, the teacher also gains immunity from civil cases.

How hard is this to grasp? This is not "muddying the waters" as you claim I am doing. I'm trying to state it as simple as possible, yet you start every post by telling anyone who doesn't agree with you, we can't read, we don't comprehend, we are armchair lawyers, etc. and it's really tiresome. It's OK for you and yours to claim insults from those who feel you are full of it, yet you have insulted many in most every post you make.

/projectile barf.

a reply to: macman

No, this statute assumes that the teacher, et. al. has a gun. Never said otherwise.

It does, however, dramatically increase the purview of the license to use it.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Gryphon66

IF however, you can stop pigeon-holing anyone who doesn't suck up to your own patter,

Funny that it's okay when you do it.

/yawn

When you give an example or show how your opinion of me makes any factual difference in this thread, let me know.

a reply to: Kali74

Well, then you would be wrong and would need to revisit your reading comprehension.

The or's and ands actually mean something. The ands require ALL conditions they represent to be met, while the ORs require EITHER to be met.

In between the ors where there are ands, everything between the or MUST be met.

There is NOTHING about this bill that allows a child to be murdered for stealing from the school or just BEING on the property without authorization.

Jaden

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm not saying that it would happen for pencils but that if it did the teacher couldn't be convicted of a crime. But where's the line?

What crack are you smoking??? You honestly believe that this bill means that a teacher could shoot a kid for stealing a pencil and NOT be convicted of a crime????

And you claim to understand legal writing???

WOW... where do these people come from and why are they allowed to vote...

Jaden

a reply to: retiredTxn

You and your compatriots are the ones constantly questioning everyone's reading ability Tx, not me.

You brought a point about CIVIL immunity into a thread about possible CRIMINAL liability and want us to believe that you were just providing backup?

Your apparent fit of apoplexy is directed at the wrong person. I may have mentioned immunity once here.

I don't need your handy-dandy references to legal terms either, for the record. Feel free to stick to the facts.

Both Kali and I have addressed, repeatedly the concerns about justification and reasonabilty.

None of you have bothered to respond to the limitation of the given actor's "Belief." (A terminology all these laws and the proposed law share.)

Nothing you've said in your posts is hard to grasp in any way ... it's just out of place in the discussion.

You're repeating yourself and trying to seem authoritative in your posts.

Your posts also seem confused about who you're talking to.

Maybe you need to look up the definition of insult while you're looking up legal terms ... because I have insulted no one.

Sorry if you're thin-skinned about your posts; that is what I have focused on.

a reply to: Gryphon66

WTF?????

Can you say that no president who will ever be elected won't attempt to use the military to create a dictatorship in America??? No??? well then I win!!!!!!

That was the most asinine argument I've ever seen...

JAden