Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers To Use Deadly Force Against Students.

Here is my position on some of the principles in question:

  • I approve of firearm ownership in this current reality (not in a fantasy context where firearms aren't necessary).
  • I approve of licensed and vetted teachers carrying firearms for the protection of themselves, their students, and others around them.
  • I agree more or less with the use of deadly force described in the Texas Penal Code § 9.31 - 9.33.
  • I agree with the use of deadly force described in the Texas Penal Code § 9.41 - 9.43, except that I disagree with the use of deadly force to prevent burglary, theft, or criminal mischief (as opposed to robbery, arson, and such things which pose a threat of harm to person, rather than property), or after there is no longer an immediate threat to a person's safety (e.g., someone running away with stolen property).
  • I approve of the use of deadly force against minors as above. If someone is threatening someone else's life, they need not be of age to face the consequences.

Now the facts of the bill (my best effort as a layman; please correct):

HB 868 seems not to make anything legal that wasn't legal before. Let's step through it:

Sec. 38A.002

This introduces nothing new except to affirm that educators may use deadly force (or force, but I'm just talking about deadly force here) according to TPC § 9.33 (which refers to 9.31 and 9.32), existing law which defines the use of deadly force by anyone, to protect themselves or their students on school property. http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.31.00.html

It's possible that this nullifies previous law that forbade the use of force by educators on school property, but as no such law is referenced in this bill, I assume not.

Sec. 38A.002(b)

If an educator happens to break any laws in the course of the above, they may defend themselves from prosecution by arguing that their actions were necessary to defend themselves or their students as above.

Sec. 38A.003

The educator may use deadly force according to TPC § 9.43 (which itself refers to 9.41 and 9.42) to protect school property.

Sec. 38A.003(b)

See Sec. 38A.002(b)

Sec. 38A.004

This confirms that Chapter 9 of the TPC applies, even though the bill doesn't explicitly mention all of the justifications in Chapter 9. Chapter 9 contains the sections described and linked above.

Sec. 38A.005

Refers to § 83.001. The educator has an affirmative defense against civil action (suing) regarding injury or death caused during lawful use of force as described above. Someone can try to sue them, but this defense may mitigate or even nullify the consequences.

Sec. 38A.006

A student can be suspended for assaulting a school employee, even if the student code of conduct doesn't say anything about that.

In short, the bill refers to existing laws and affirms protection for educators using force in ways that are already legal.

The bill does not concern the use of force specifically against students, but a use of force against a student could be justified under this bill.

The article says: "teachers will have the right to use deadly force against students in Texas classrooms" which, while implied, is not the point of the bill. To reduce the bill to such a falsely specific statement is intellectually dishonest.

I believe in the use of force up to deadly force to protect myself and others, and I approve of bills like this which would confirm (not introduce) the rights of educators to use deadly force on school property to protect themselves or their students (including from other students).

The article goes on to suggest that black and Latino students might become the targets of deadly force by educators, because there are already higher rates of disciplinary action against them than against students of other races. The article uses the words "disproportionately targeted", trying to smoothly imply that the students in question have no agency in this matter, without bothering to actually justify this claim.

This is an interesting matter for discussion, but it can be hard to discuss when people start right off with scare tactics such as acting like a single implication of the bill is the point of the entire thing, and make statements that prove they made no effort to actually read the bill or the referenced law.

/r/politics Thread Link - thinkprogress.org