Somethin’s Gotta Give
A traditional conservative irresistible force meets a traditional conservative immovable object in Texas:
Teachers would be able to use deadly force against students, and would be safe from prosecution, under legislation filed last week in the state House.
The Teacher’s Protection Act by Rep. Dan Flynn, R-Van, would allow educators to use force or deadly force if they feel they need to protect themselves against a student or anyone else on school grounds. It also allows teachers to use deadly force to protect school property, and to avoid prosecution “for injury or death that results from the educator’s use of deadly force.”
Republicans looking to strengthen the Castle Doctrine for a citizens using deadly force protecting herself against someone stealing her TV feels natural. Republicans giving government employees a Get Out of Jail Free card for killing citizens who are vandalizing government property feels weird.
(h/t: TPM)
My high school was in the news last year when a Senior Prank went wrong. A large group of students (I believe 40+) sneaked into the school at night to cause some mischief. Some (not all) got out of hand, doing real damage including urinating and smearing feces on the walls. Arrests were made.
I shudder at the thought of any of them being killed for what they did. This law would seem to allow for that.Report
“A group of young adults, engaged in a biohazardous attack on a school, encountered casualties when a teacher, involved in protecting the school, had his gun discharge.”Report
I wonder if a fairly accurate Red State/Blue State litmus test is whether the word “discharge” automatically makes you think of guns or your junior high health class.Report
It doesn’t seem that different from the current rules governing the use of deadly force if a police officer were present for whatever the teacher is supposed to be able to do. (the same for Kazzy’s anecdote above).
There’s a good case to be made that this isn’t a good idea, because teachers aren’t police officers (and police officers use deadly force enough).
But I’m not seeing this as generating quite the willy-nilly free fire zone as the post does – any armed security guard would have the same authority under the laws of most states. (and for those states that it wouldn’t, the solution is to just make those armed security guards a duly sworn police force – like most colleges and transit agencies do).Report
@kolohe
I’m not sure I’m understanding you. Are the police authorized to use deadly force to protect property?Report
I was thinking in the context of “Police! Stop! or I’ll Shoot” but I see that standard has been amended since the 90s. (if I’m reading that link right)
With that, Flynn’s proposed TPA probably wouldn’t pass a court review. Maybe.
Though we do know a cop can kill a man for selling cigarettes without the nanny state’s permission, so in that sense, it isn’t too far of a stretch.Report
Well, if the person vandalizing the property has something in his hand that could be a can of spray pain, but could also be a gun . . .Report
@reformed-republican
“He was going for his piece!”
“Yea… his penis. He was peeing on his walls.”
“Look, man, I didn’t decide that we’d user he same slang term for someone’s junk and a gun.”
“But you saw he was just peeing!”
“Sure. But in my head, I thought ‘piece’ and that made me think gun so I was fully justified. I could have been shot!”Report
@kolohe No, I don’t think “willy nilly.”
I do, however, think that today’s conservatives generally distinguish between the natural-law sacredness of private property and the “shouldn’t-even-exist” public property. (I’m talking talking points here, not actual beliefs.) And I think their expanding the ability of government employees to use deadly force to defend that public property feels, as I said, weird.
As far as police go, I agree with you there. But at least in my own observational experience, conservatives tend to allow for a different standard of conduct for law enforcement officials than they do all other non-military government employees.Report
I’m not seeing the cosmic dissonance you seem to be feeling in the force.
After Sandyhook the NRA proposed arming teachers.Report
To defend themselves or students? I see that as being very Republican circa 2015. To defend non-private property? I see that as being substantially less Republican circa 2015.
I will confess, however, that much of the disconnect for me comes from out local talk radio shows, where property owned by things like the DMV, public schools, DOT, etc, are seen as stolen goods that citizens have a right to take back.Report
Well, there’s no accounting for am radio rabblerousers… but I’m still not seeing it, unless they are feeling stymied in their attempts to ransack public schools, post-offices, and DMVs?
That’s not really a “thing” in my world of subsidiarity and solidarity traditionalists.
I suppose you might be listening to some sub-set of Murrah Federal building types… but that’s a pretty broad brush with which to paint. Even to paint Republicans.Report
But I’m not seeing this as generating quite the willy-nilly free fire zone as the post does
Until they give guns to the hall monitors, dude. Then bullets will fly.Report
This is Texas. There are first graders with concealed carry licenses.Report
Round here, we call ‘uns like that “patriots.”Report
But the CC permits aren’t shall issue until middle school.Report
I can’t think of anything that could possibly go wrong if this bill becomes law. Actually, I can think of quite a few things that could go spectacularly wrong. Laws expanding the right to use deadly force beyond the common law norm are dangerous to society. Even if we assume the broadest reading of the 2nd Amendment is the correct one, about when or when not a person could use his or her gun without facing liability.Report
Come now, @tod-kelly . When the gummint agency in question is controlled at the local level and local politics is dominated by Real Murcns, there’s no problem with that gummint doing whateverthehellitwants.Report
I thought I saw crazy Uncle Bob there for a minute . . .Report
Sigh, the legislative sessions always mean Texas is going to be an embarrassing place to live for 5 months.Report
Such an optimist.Report
I don’t understand how this isn’t *already* covered under Texas penal code:
The law seems to apply to any person and any property – it even covers criminal mischief – so why not a teacher & school property? Or are you concerned that they are lifting the “nighttime” restriction, which is the crucial bulwark that keeps this law from being abused by daytime vigilantes?Report
Ah, I see now that Section 9.41 restricts the property to belong to the person, so presumably current law only covers school supplies independently purchased by the teacher but not those provided by the school. Makes perfect sense.Report
My understanding is that the Penal Code rule for justification only applies to criminal proceedings (and a similar rule applies to civil lawsuits); this rule is expanding the same standard to cover administrative discipline against teachers (which covered by the education code).Report
No, this isn’t weird at all, if you define “weird” as something counter-intuitive.
When conservatives imagine the kind of students who would be on the receiving end of the gunfire, who do you think they envision?Report
http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/083284d74fd954c4b89bd4129d6ef572?s=40&d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D40&r=GReport
@marchmaine
Now THAT I would understand!Report
I dont agree with the defending property part, i certainly think teachers should be able to defend themselves.Report
When it gets to the part about, “Teachers defend . . . ” it’s already game over.
Teachers should not be inclined to defend anything.
When it gets to that point, that’s a big red flag.Report
Why won’t those silly people in Texas realize that if only they made guns illegal then they wouldn’t need laws like this?Report
*shrug* Worked for England.Report
Anyone who says you can’t see a thought simply doesn’t know art. ~Wynetka Ann ReynoldsReport