Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

originally posted by: neo96

So teachers should not protect multimillion dollar public investments.

Glad we got that sorted.

Not without proper training they shouldn't.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Under Texas law they can do that now

I actually agree that this is likely the case but two points:

1. Why does this legislator feel its necessary to spell out this protection with a new law?

2. Just because something is a law, doesn't mean that it's right or just. A responsible legislator who wasn't a douche bag nut might propose a law that protects kids from being executed for doing the kind of things that dumbass kids sometimes do such as damage or steal school property.

a reply to: neo96

So teachers should not protect multimillion dollar public investments.

No, they shouldn't. It's not their job to enforce laws against theft or property damage and certainly not with the use of deadly force.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Use of deadly force to protect property is fking absurd to begin with.

a reply to: Kali74

Your over reacting it says in defense of teachers or students. If a child brings a gun to my child's school and starts shooting I would hope a teacher shoots back to protect my son.

a reply to: dragonridr

I'm not over reacting the text is right there in the OP.

a reply to: Kali74

Actually it is very much their jobs.

Schools, and teachers have the LEGAL obligation to protect both from people that intend to do harm.

And that means protecting students from students, as well as the Lanza's.

And people wonder why there are mass shootings in this country.

Look at the 'rationale' of those trying to spin the GD op in to, 'Oh teachers are going to go around shooting their students for no bloody reason.

What the hell ever.

a reply to: neo96

Hyperbole? An escort has a disagreement with a john and walks out with $150 and is murdered. Not because she made a threat, not because there was an imminent risk of harm to the person, but because she was walking out the door with his money. That's reality.

Check this out. Man shoots and kills man who ran off with $20 in a tip jar.

Or this case in which a store clerk shot and killed a man for shoplifting a 12-pack of beer.

How about this? Off duty cop shoots into the car of a woman who shoplifted from Wal-mart killing her in front of her two children.

Here's one where another off-duty cop was actually convicted of manslaughter last year for shooting a 19 year-old kid in the back of the head as he attempted to flee into the woods with $50 of merchandise shoplifted from Wal-Mart.

In a state where a life is worth less than the price of a 12-pack, you think what I said was hyperbole?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Kali74

Your over reacting it says in defense of teachers or students. If a child brings a gun to my child's school and starts shooting I would hope a teacher shoots back to protect my son.

So what happens when it turns out that teacher has never fired a weapon in duress before, mishandles the weapon, and ends up shooting more people than just the shooter?

Just owning a gun doesn't automatically mean you can use it properly when the stress is on.

a reply to: neo96

Again, not talking about protecting people. I'm talking about protecting property... that isn't the teachers job, it's the school's and then the justice system in any aftermath.

a reply to: Kali74

WOW. So because of their age, you and others are deeming an attack by a student as anything except an attack??

Insane.

A teacher has just as much right to defend themselves as anyone else.

Wow really, just Krazy, Kali, Mandroid, & AntiDiluvian seem to have any common sense in this thread...

I thought once I read the OP it would have been a unanimous double you-tea-eff


The attempts to justify the unjustifiable...
Clearly the workings of a less than lucid mind!



Imbecilic Law...
Imbecilic justification attempt!

a reply to: macman

No. Try reading the thread... or even just the OP. I'm talking about use of deadly force to defend property, not people.

speechless

a reply to: theantediluvian

So what ?

Yeah hyperbole as NONE of that has JACK SNIP to do with schools or teachers.

Guess you Ignore kids shooting other kids over shoes, and jackets.

chucksconnection.com...

a reply to: occrest

Yes, beating a child is such a GREAT disciplinary tool. So much so that we have to substantially increase the power of our arms that already over muscle the child by adding a wooden instrument to the hitting.

a reply to: neo96

Maybe they thought that the shoes and jackets were going to be damaged and deemed it necassary to use deadly force.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Or the wearer had stolen them from the shooter.

a reply to: Kali74

Destroying of property is not a deadly force scenario. Unless, it is something like destruction of property that will lead to the harm of others. Like....setting a building on fire.

Aside from that, removing the whole "shoot them when drawing on the desk" BS, there is no issue. Again, so long as killing any person is not justified for damaging property where no person has the possibility to get injured.

Look at laws surrounding what levels of force are authorized in regards to destruction of property. I am thinking that the wording from the article author is exactly what the law states.

In many states, trespassing is still an offense where one can react with using higher levels of force.

a reply to: macman

The bill, and the Texas penal code regarding use of deadly force is linked in the OP. read it. I'm not making this up. In Texas you can kill someone for theft...