It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

page: 27
30
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
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!!!!!!


Double...negative...
edit on 5-2-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
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


What in the world are you talking about?

NO one here is talking about Presidents or dictatorships. What are you talking about? Wrong thread?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



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.


So, you make a reply that includes 2 sentences concerning the topic at hand, 11 sentences deriding myself and others, and you claim everything I have posted is



just out of place in the discussion.


I will leave you to make insults and attempts at disparaging others on this forum.

Nowhere in any of the current laws, or proposed law, is a person justified by their beliefs. The term reasonably believes is evident in each of these. The reasoning for using the term reasonably believes, is the actor can be judged against what would a reasonable person believe. A grand jury is an excellent example. A group of people are placed in a room, presented with the facts available, and then left to vote whether to return an indictment, or no bill the accused. They are allowed to vote on the facts, and of course whether a reasonable person would believe the actor was within the scope of the law. Did the actor fulfill the requirements of the law, and would a reasonable person act the same way the actor did.

There is the limitation of the persons belief. Can we now keep to the topic of the OP?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: retiredTxn

The person who has just spent three posts droning on about about the defects in my posting style ...

No. Never mind. Waste of time.

From the OP (for the humpteenth time):



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.



And on to your favorites, 9.41 and 9.42 ...



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.





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.


Which all flies directly in the face of your comment:



Nowhere in any of the current laws, or proposed law, is a person justified by their beliefs.


Texas Law states quite clearly and repeatedly that the actor's BELIEF is the measure of reasonability AND justification under these code sections.

But, since you say that the law really doesn't say what it very clearly says ... I supposed we should BELIEVE you, right?

Perhaps you should reread the original post: we're right in the middle (finally, since we've left behind whether a teacher should be able to protect themselves) of discussing it.

Sorry we won't play the game your way, Tx.
edit on 17Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:14:14 -060015p052015266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
I'll try to break it down in smaller parts for people that just aren't getting it.

We've gotten as far as understanding that the proposed bill protects teachers from prosecution for use of force or deadly force if they are covered under Texas penal code Section 9.43... that's where I'll start the breakdown.


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


is justified in use of force or deadly force if under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be
- justified in this situation means immunity
- reasonably believes (I'll note where reasonably believes is defined throughout)


and:



(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;


-reasonably believes that a person is committing theft or criminal mischief with another person's 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.


That part just defines who the property can belong to in order to justifiably use force or deadly force that is being stolen or criminally used.

Note that nowhere, either in the proposed bill nor the Texas penal code, regarding use of force/deadly force in defense of property, is value or type of property defined... so that means that defensible property can be a pencil.

Section 9.42


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



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:



if



he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41


We'll get to 9.41 after.


and



(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:



to



prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime


-in other words to stop theft of property... note that during the nighttime is separated so that means that this isn't just applicable to theft during the night. Ultimately this means you can use deadly force to stop what you reasonably believe is theft of property and again property is not assigned a value.


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


You can ask for the person in the act of theft to stop what they're doing and if they don't stop you can use force to try to stop them...


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.


unless you believe that using force places your life or anothers life in danger then you can use deadly force.

Do I even need to go on with 9.41 or is this clear yet?
edit on 2/5/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

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

DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS

lol! /sar
edit on 2/5/2015 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

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.

edit on 17Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:25:27 -060015p052015266 by Gryphon66 because: Flourish. *snap*



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
smithblawg.blogspot.com...


Here is a decent read for anyone interested.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are apparently incapable of rational thought. You quote believe a hundred times like if you repeat it enough, it will change what the document says.

A person has to have a reasonable belief (meaning that a reasonable person would believe the same in the same circumstances, this has been defined in court as well) that those circumstances require that use of force IF it fits the criteria set for deadly force listed in penal code section 9.41 and 9.42.

You simply want to ignore that it is qualifying it by the ALREADY codified restrictions for using deadly force in defense of a third party's property as set in sections 9.41 and 9.42.

The idea that this legislation makes it alright to kill kids because you BELIEVE that stealing a pencil is wrong is an unequivocally ludicrous notion.

Jaden

p.s. I'm being very nice here, but man, you're making it difficult...
edit on 5-2-2015 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

What do you think reasonably believes means????

I can tell you legally, it means that a reasonable person ALSO would believe it in the same circumstances.

The ONLY possible situation that I can see someone stealing a pencil would REASONABLY justify deadly force is if the person who steals it stabs someone with it and turns and starts to stab someone else with it.

THERE is NO OTHER circumstance that I can see someone stealing a pencil justifying deadly force and I would imagine most other reasonable people would feel the same.

Jaden



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
smithblawg.blogspot.com...


Here is a decent read for anyone interested.


It is a decent read. The blog author is taking the position that 38 003 invokes all the terms of 9.41 and 9.42 as many here have done.

Interestingly enough, this blog author also says this:



This is not to say that H.B. 868 is a good idea. Since the law does not seem to give teachers any greater leeway than existing self-defense law, those sections of the law granting teachers the right to use force or deadly force are redundant with existing self-defense laws. As far as I can tell, the only new, significant legal development this law would implement would be to grant teachers civil immunity for any harm caused by their justified use of force or deadly force.


He seems to ignore that this proposed bill shifts the arena of action from PRIVATE residences and PRIVATE businesses into the PUBLIC property of the school, bus, etc. I may email and ask what he thinks about that.

But wait ... who is Michael Smith? Is he qualified to weigh in any heavier than anyone else on Texas law?

From the DISCLAIM PAGE at "Michael Smith's Law Blog"



Nothing on this blog is intended to be legal advice. Nothing in this blog should be relied on as legal advice. This blog should not be relied upon as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

The posts in this blog are for informational purposes only and are not intended to provide any specific legal advice. The author of this blog is not a licensed attorney and no attorney-client relationship is formed between the author and anybody reading this blog. No attorney-client relationship will be created by correspondence with the author of this blog, there is no guarantee that any information sent to the author of this blog will be kept confidential, and no confidential information should be sent to the author of this blog.

The posts on this blog are my views alone and are not endorsed by my employer.


Hmmm ... so Michael Smith is opining about the law just like the rest of us, huh?

Good link!



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

In this bill and the penal code it very clearly means... reasonably believes that theft or criminal mischief involving property is being committed. I don't know how that is hard to read or comprehend.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

You're not being nice at all. And there's no need for you to be.

I QUOTED the law for goodness sake. How can I not be referring to the law when I'm quoting it???

You're making zero sense, not unlike your utterly out of place response to me last time.

What did the President and a military takeover have to do with any thing on this thread again?

Are you just confused completely?

Oh, and, for the record, snap your fingers in front of your face for me. That's EXACTLY the degree to which I'm interested in YOUR estimations of my ability to think rationally, as your posts have demonstrated none, nada, zippo.

ADDED IN EDIT

To minimize your apparent confusion, here's the post that I'm talking about ...


originally posted by: Masterjaden
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

edit on 18Thu, 05 Feb 2015 18:01:40 -060015p062015266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

He also got wrong the part about during the night. He states that:


Most of the crimes enumerated in section 9.42 are severe (e.g., arson, burglary, robbery), and the less-severe crimes mentioned in that section, like criminal mischief, are only applicable to a self-defense scenario if they are committed during nighttime.


I don't know how he makes that error when the penal code states that:


(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


Bold mine.

Link



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Kali, I'm trying to hang with your thread because I believe it is a very important question the rest of us need to think about. Texas is Texas ... at the end of the day, is anyone surprised about this?

We've quoted the proposed law and the current law. We've demonstrated again and again the exact nature of your OP's concern. We worked through whether teachers should be able to protect themselves (they should) and finally got to the matter (clearly stated in your original post) of protecting property.

And now, these folks can't get beyond the example of a kid being shot over a pencil, even though, you and I and you again have tried to make it painfully clear that was an example taken to absurdity.

These guys are shooting blanks in the forensic department ... and the noise is getting tiring.

Best to you though; thanks for bringing the matter up and sticking with it.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

It FURTHER qualifies it based on sections 9.41 and 9.42... I don't see how THAT is hard to understand but seem to keep ignoring it....

Jaden


(post by Masterjaden removed for a manners violation)

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
... and in other news.

Let's see if we can jump start actual conversation in this thread.

Let's stipulate (for the moment) that (hopefully) no teacher would ever shoot a student over any trivial matter.


But, how about non-trivial matters? How do those of you who stand in favor of this proposed law see it being effective?

What kinds of "protection of school property" would it make sense for a teacher to use deadly force on a student for?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

effective how?? It's only purpose is to provide the people that are usually at the school and or serve it in a fiduciary role, the means to defend themselves other students and the property that they are in many ways responsible for without allowing for recourse from litigious parents or a prosecutor being pressured or looking for political points to try a teacher that he probably shouldn't.

In that way, I think it can be highly effective.

Jaden
edit on 5-2-2015 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2015 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   

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.


Look in a mirror, I'm sure it'll come back to you...

Jaden



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 24  25  26    28  29 >>

log in

join