Ozen Teacher Arrested

[tvc184]

Below is parts of Chapter 9 of the Penal Code. It explains defenses to prosecution. A defense to prosecution means that if the defense exists, the crime did not happen. An arrest can lawfully be made and the prosecution can bring the case in front of a jury however the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense did not exist. 

This is some of the key wording in the Penal Code on a defense to prosecution:

(d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted.

You can see that if the defense goes to the jury, any reasonable doubt requires the defendant to be acquitted. The DA must overcome the defense in each instance beyond a reasonable doubt.

For example under TX law, if you kill someone, it is murder. That is all the law says in that section. But you go over to Chapter 9 and it says a person is justified in using deadly force to protect himself or any other person against a robbery, aggravated robbery, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping or murder that may be about to occur. Killing someone intentionally is murder... but Chapter 9 says... not so fast! 

Under a defense to prosecution the defendant must claim the defense in court. If that evidence is brought into trial, the prosecution has to prove that the defense did not exist. An example is someone breaking into your home at night and you defending your family. If you bring up in trial that you were defending your home, the burden is then on the state to basically prove that you are lying. You do NOT have to prove the defense beyond doubt but the DA has to prove that it did not exist. (a great example is George Zimmerman)

The normal procedure however is not to bring such cases to trial. If the cops show up at your home at 3:00AM and there is a dead guy in your living room, your door is kicked in, you are not likely to be indicted and have to defend yourself. That is because the DA is not going to bring a case to court that he not only knows he can't win but is also within the law as a lawful defense and the DA is supposed to seek justice, not convictions. I have seen a few cases where a person was shot and killed and no arrest was made and the DA and grand jury never issued an indictment. 

Another example in the law is that when a doctor gives you a shot, he has caused bodily injury according to the letter of the law and therefore an assault. Why isn't he charged in a crime? Because the law specifically says that it does not apply to a medical professional if the procedure that he does is with the consent of the person. Ever wonder why most medical procedures start with you signing a document of your consent? This is a short quote from that law: it is a defense for a "recognized medical treatment".

There are many such defenses in the law. Things that we do in everyday life can be illegal under some law but most of those things have specific defense or if you like another word, exemptions from the law. 

In the parent/child law it says this:

Sec. 9.61. PARENT-CHILD. (a) The use of force, but not deadly force, against a child younger than 18 years is justified:

(1) if the actor is the child's parent or stepparent or is acting in loco parentis to the child; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary to discipline the child or to safeguard or promote his welfare.

(b) For purposes of this section, "in loco parentis" includes grandparent and guardian, any person acting by, through, or under the direction of a court with jurisdiction over the child, and anyone who has express or implied consent of the parent or parents.

As you can see it clearly says that force "but not deadly force" is justified "to the degree the actor (parent) reasonably believes that force is necessary". 

There are two issues in that law that the parent has to be able to defend. One is for discipline. If a man gets mad because Tony Romo just lost another game in the last minute by throwing yet another interception and he throws an ashtray in a fit of anger and cuts his son's head open, that is a reckless assault, not discipline. He also needs to be able to defend that through his eyes, it was reasonably necessary. Remember the wording says that it goes by the "actor"'s belief with "actor" is a legal term for suspect or defendant. 

Under the teacher law it says this:

Sec. 9.62. EDUCATOR-STUDENT. The use of force, but not deadly force, against a person is justified:

(1) if the actor is entrusted with the care, supervision, or administration of the person for a special purpose; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary to further the special purpose or to maintain discipline in a group.

Again, it says "to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary". Would a person in the actor's (teacher) position believe that such for is necessary? Like officers using force, it is in courts (particularly appeals courts) viewed from the position of the person accused. 

Also remember that it doesn't matter what some people might believe, the DA must convince the entire jury in a case like the teacher was not issuing discipline.  I think most people would see that this is a matter of discipline within the group with the teacher giving out that discipline. The next point would be through the eyes of the teacher, would the amount of force used be reasonable? It doesn't matter if you are for or against spanking, corporal punishment or any other form of force. The law says to the degree the "actor reasonably believes" the force is necessary. 

To get a conviction the DA would have to try and convince an entire jury that none of those cases existed while a defense attorney will bring witnesses and there are very likely to be sympathetic jurors. It takes only one no vote to stop a conviction. 

I am not saying that the DA will not charge her and try to get her scared enough to take a plea deal or try to convince a unanimous jury but I have personally worked on cases way worse that this where the DA refused charges. Of course those cases didn't make the news.............. 

[JWB]

So, does anyone know what lead up to the teacher smacking the boy? Was the kid a trouble maker or a constant disruption in the classroom? Or was this teacher just a ticking time bomb?

[BMTSoulja1]

11 hours ago, tvc184 said:

The student should then get arrested but not a teacher. In the same chapter of Texas law it says that parents can spank a child. It even applies to a person in the place of a parent such as a babysitter or grandparent. That is written into the law exactly like it is for teachers. 

 

 

If a child hits back, there is no such authority under the law. That would be assault. 

 

It is not a hard concept, parents and teachers can use force to discipline, child or students but they cannot retaliate. I have witnessed a parent spank a child and when the child struck the parent back, the child was arrested and convicted in juvenile court. 

 

I understand that people are making statements on what they wish but wishing doesn't always make something legal or illegal. 

The legal part already happened.  She got arrested and more punishment is on the way.  Obviously, your logic wasn't used in thi situation judging how this whole incident is being handled....

[BMTSoulja1]

11 hours ago, baddog said:

Nice post tvc.

Funny how this video has the world looking at Beaumont Texas thanks to social media and news media, yet I have not heard one word from the parents of this kid.

Something you DIDN'T know.  One of the kid's parents work at the school.

[BMTSoulja1]

37 minutes ago, JWB said:

So, does anyone know what lead up to the teacher smacking the boy? Was the kid a trouble maker or a constant disruption in the classroom? Or was this teacher just a ticking time bomb?

Not that it mattered, but more long the lines that she was a ticking time bomb.  The kid wasn't a saint, but wasn't a regular troublemaker either.  

[baddog]

4 minutes ago, BMTSoulja1 said:

Something you DIDN'T know.  One of the kid's parents work at the school.

Thanks. You're right. I didn't know that. Still haven't heard from them.

[BMTSoulja1]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

Thanks. You're right. I didn't know that. Still haven't heard from them.

The thing about it is I understand why the parent that works at the school isn't saying anything, but that OTHER parent that don't work for the district...  That's the one that needs to step up and say something.. 

[Peppermint Patty]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Sec 37.0011

Clear as mud.

[Hagar]

On April 13, 2016 at 9:45 AM, BMTSoulja1 said:

The thing about it is I understand why the parent that works at the school isn't saying anything, but that OTHER parent that don't work for the district...  That's the one that needs to step up and say something.. 

Even though the other parent doesn't work at the school, institutions/companies still have ways to make life miserable for the one who does work.  One thing I learned after working 50 years, most (not all) bosses hate for anyone to rock the boat & create ripples in their pond. 

Another possibility is that the parents may have been afraid their child was getting out of control, essentially fearing "he was becoming a ticking time bomb".   Maybe hanging with a bad group.  My wife & I were always concerned about how things had changed, and the "new" problems in school, & that was in the 80's.   Parents today face concerns I can't imagine.  Yes, the teacher was wrong, but if I found out my son initiated this and was Way out of line, I'd be more concerned with getting my son back on the right track than what that teacher did.  If that's the case, my prayers go out to them.  Molding a good, responsible adult is a parents most important job.  I regret this incident happened for All involved.  

[BMTSoulja1]

16 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Even though the other parent doesn't work at the school, institutions/companies still have ways to make life miserable for the one who does work.  One thing I learned after working 50 years, most (not all) bosses hate for anyone to rock the boat & create ripples in their pond. 

Another possibility is that the parents may have been afraid their child was getting out of control, essentially fearing "he was becoming a ticking time bomb".   Maybe hanging with a bad group.  My wife & I were always concerned about how things had changed, and the "new" problems in school, & that was in the 80's.   Parents today face concerns I can't imagine.  Yes, the teacher was wrong, but if I found out my son initiated this and was Way out of line, I'd be more concerned with getting my son back on the right track than what that teacher did.  If that's the case, my prayers go out to them.  Molding a good, responsible adult is a parents most important job.  I regret this incident happened for All involved.  

This is the best post on this thread.