re: #209 lawhawk

No, I think it actually is as insane as advertised.

Note, this bill provides not only the use of deadly force to protect the teacher or other students, but school property.

To wit (the actual text of this bill):

9.43 refers to use of deadly force to protect one’s property:

So, the potential theft of a pen or a backpack would be sufficient grounds for the use of deadly force as construed since a theft of a the pen or backpack is the theft of a item of tangible personal property, and the student who owns the backpack or pen requests help and the teacher would have a duty to protect that student’s property (since the student is under the teacher’s care).

Meanwhile, we’ve got police officers still using deadly force to stop the mentally ill - as I noted yesterday (and the death was captured on video - and indicates that officers screwed the pooch by having her detained and mysteriously let her go, only to shoot her dead moments later).

I’ve come to believe it is wrong to use deadly force to defend property. The only exception might be arson.

Unless one is in danger of losing the roof over one’s head or a car if one is in an isolated place during bad weather or treacherous conditions, I can’t see property being worth a life.

It has to be truly self-defense.