From The Recorder (Central Connecticut State University):
On October 3, 2008, [John] Wahlberg and two other classmates prepared to give an oral presentation for a Communication 140 class that was required to discuss a “relevant issue in the media”. Wahlberg and his group chose to discuss school violence due to recent events such as the Virginia Tech shootings that occurred in 2007.
Shortly after his professor, Paula Anderson, filed a complaint with the CCSU Police against her student. During the presentation Wahlberg made the point that if students were permitted to conceal carry guns on campus, the violence could have been stopped earlier in many of these cases. He also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses.
That night at work, Wahlberg received a message stating that the campus police “requested his presence”. Upon entering the police station, the officers began to list off firearms that were registered under his name, and questioned him about where he kept them.
They told Wahlberg that they had received a complaint from his professor that his presentation was making students feel “scared and uncomfortable”....
Professor Anderson refused to comment directly on the situation and deferred further comment.
“It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well being of our students, and the campus community at all times,” she wrote in a statement submitted to The Recorder. “As such, when deemed necessary because of any perceived risks, I seek guidance and consultation from the Chair of my Department, the Dean and any relevant University officials.” ...
It's hard to evaluate these stories without knowing more about the details of what the student said and how he said it, especially if the call to the police is just a request to investigate, rather than an outright complaint in the sense of an allegation of a crime being committed. (The story says "complaint," but it's not clear how precisely the term is being used.) If the presentation was indeed simply advocacy of concealed carry, then the police investigation sounds quite heavy-handed, and the professor's worry based on the student's political views on the subject sounds unjustified. If something was said that gives a reasonable person some reason to worry, then some level of inquiry would indeed be sensible. Still, the story seemed worth passing along — please let me know if any of you have more specific information on the subject.
Thanks to Paul Hsieh, who has more thoughts on the subject, for the pointer.
It will most likely hinge on a he said-she heard mismatch. Something like he said "concealed carry is good", she heard "I like to conceal my carrying".
I'm trying the best I can to keep this in perspective, as Professor Volokh. Maybe Professor Anderson watches too much television and assumed anyone wishing to pack a pistol is a criminal, hopefully time will tell.
That's one reason why I record all the classes I teach. I want an actual record of what I said in case of any complaints, particularly given that I teach and discuss all kinds of sensitive topics. (I'm a Ph.D student at CU Boulder; I teach 3 classes per year in that capacity.)
I also record my classes for any students absent due to illness and the like, as the lecture and discussion are usually necessary to understand the basic issues, as well as the reading. That works out quite well -- in conjunction with an attendance policy.
Basically, I'd rather record what I teach than teach timidly.
Isn't there a whole class full of witnesses? It should be very easy to sort out the factual question.
I'm conflicted on how outraged to be, because clearly the professor is being politically biased in a particularly nasty way.
On the other hand, there's nothing illegal about the police "requesting his presence" (although, we'll never know about how they would have responded if he exercised his right to decline this invitation) and asking questions (again, voluntary). CT law does vest in the campus security nearly absolute discretion to deny CCW on campus, so they have a rational reason to be involved.
You probably mean gun-free zones, although I would love to receive a free gun ...
Multiply the ever-increasing evidence that eye-witness testimony is useless and inaccurate (unless it leads to further evidence) by a large number of witnesses and it's like looking at 50 slightly offset watches to determine what time it is...
Is advocating the position that the Second Amendment grants a right to concealed carry regardless of state regulation sufficient grounds for a "take down?" Of course, that's probably not what the student was advocating, but it's an interesting hypothetical.
My own guess? The professor is exploiting fear of another Chu to shut down a policy position he finds uncongenial. That's awfully dirty pool, given that concerns about another Chu are not unreasonable.
I do find it kind of interesting that AFAICT only one student was reported to the police...this might suggest that he in particular said something that worried the prof.
Or it could just be incomplete reporting.
During the presentation, Wahlberg said something about personally carrying concealed weapons on campus--which could be a violation not only of University policy but also the law.
IF Wahlberg said something along those lines, then the professor would not only have a reason to call the police, but the police would also have a reason to investigate.
I am not saying that is what happened, just providing the one alternative that makes this NOT a "nutty professor acting like a liberal PC loon" story.
I wonder if the student would've been reported if he had been a she. Modulo "I Don't Like Mondays," school shooters are usually male; I can't help thinking that a woman giving the same presentation would not have been perceived by the female professor as threatening.
Hope we get more facts about the story.
I'm assuming you're not a litigator.
But, how did they get this list?
Living in Oklahoma (where such things are not done), I am unfamiliar with how these firearm registrations are supposed to work. Are they public records? Can anyone just look up what firearms are registered to any citizen?
Of course the police would have access to the registrations in the course of their work, but does that mean they can just browse them on a whim? With no warrant, and no crime to investigate? They can just say, "Hey, I wonder what kind of firearms John has," and get the list?
It's chilling, is what it is.
You wouldn't have to do that if you had a gun and some marksmanship training.
Depends on the state, really. Connecticut has required registration of shotguns and rifles, but not of handguns. The cops in this instance probably listed off his long guns only, but since CT also requires a permit to buy a handgun, they actually might have that on record (I'm not sure..anyone who knows this care to take a shot?)
If you're interested in the state laws, look at this website:
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/
In many states, these licenses are a matter of public record, just like marriages etc ...
Kirk says:
What if the professor had been "Poul Anderson"? There'd be a store in there somewhere...
I'd go to that store, and buy a story by Poul Anderson...
Clearly the second amendment's right to bear arms means that it is unconstitutional to complain about anyone's advocacy of or relating to that right, or for law enforcement to make requests of any kind of any such advocate.
You are absolutely right. The living document that is our Constitution clearly wasn't intended for anyone to say things like this, right? Furthermore, there should be a 5-day waiting period before anyone can talk about guns on campus, and we need to have some literacy tests passed before anyone gets even close to a gun, too, don't you agree?
1. Did the professor act reasonably or not in making this report?
2. Once the report was made, did the campus police act reasonably?
It is entirely possible that both parties acted perfectly reasonably. And it's possible that one, or both, over-reacted to the extreme. If the professor or a student did record the lecture (video would be best, as facial gestures, body language, etc. often dramatically change the meaning of the spoken word), that would be very helpful. If we could see exactly what the professor told the campus police, and knew exactly what the cops' subsequent investigation revealed, that would of course be helpful.
We all can imaging a situation where a student makes a perfectly benign presentation (linguistically), but does it in a way where we all go, "Jeez! That guy is damn scary, and if he suddenly reaches into his coat pocket, I'm diving under my desk." And we all can think of real situations in our life where we heard something, recognized it as completely harmless, only to see someone else totally over-react and get offended, or scared.
I'm glad to get wind of this story, but I just can't feel anger towards the cops or professor till I know more of the facts. And as we know; nothing exists in a vacuum. Given the horrific mass-murders by a few crazy people on schools, it is entirely understandable (although, not strictly "fair") that someone in authority would err on the side of caution and act proactively.
As I said, not exactly fair, but of course I understand the strong urge for a teacher who has been put into this situation (i.e., a student who is talking specifically about people being allowed to bring guns onto a school) to think to herself, "What if I do nothing and the worst happens . . . I'll be responsible in part for all the dead and injured. I'll feel guilty the rest of my life. I'll be fired. The media and local people will be screaming for my head. I'll be sued." And so on.
Is that fair? Again, maybe not. But it is reality. If I stood up in school and advocated for legalizing pot, I am not sure if I would get a 'friendly' visit from campus police. (I hope not.) But I would have known in advance, for damn sure, that after my speech, everyone in the class would have assumed (fairly or unfairly) that I myself use that particular drug.
Oh, really? When will a teacher be sued or disciplined for failing that responsibility?
I think we get ahead of ourselves when we talk about guns on campus or in schools. The first question that needs to be answered is who really does have that responsibility for the well being of the students. Especially at the K-12 level teachers should have that responsibility. Once that is established I'd like to hear how they intend to discharge that responsibility without a gun.
I'd like to know if there were any workers in the Columbine cafeteria on the day of the shooting there. Where did they disappear to when the hammer fell? Repeatedly.
I really don't think Anderson has any intention of protecting any student in a real event.
Given the paucity of information about what actually happened, we don't know if this is "all it takes" because we don't know what "this" is.
Also, at least from the information in the article, the student wasn't actually "dragged out of his home." Rather, the student received a request to see the police. Now, I admit that if I were the student, I'd probably feel intimidated and frightened by the whole experience, and I would probably interpret a "request" more as something I had to do (at least in my case, it's one thing for me to know my rights, it's another thing for me to assert them....maybe I'm just a coward). At any rate, I can bet the experience would have a "chilling" effect on what I say in the future. In other words, if one assumes facts not yet in evidence, what happened might be a violation of freedom of speech.
I don't know. Since I'm not a lawyer, I don't know if such a lawsuit would even have a chance of being successful. But I can certainly imagine a scenario where a professor who should have known that a student was going to go on a shooting rampage would be sued by vengeful victims eager to blame someone. Such a suit, even if unsuccessful, could take a large financial and personal toll on the person sued.
Having said that, I don't claim to have any firm idea what the professor intended.
Gun control, like so many other associated policies...
is about avoiding responsibility. If you can't own a gun, then you can't be held responsible for not protecting yourself or your loved ones.
It's troubling, but need more information.
I wouldn't go down to a police station for questioning, unless I got some brief on the reasons for it. But since he went down, I guess I can see them querying him on known gun ownership and storage issues, if they had a legit reason from a proffy.
Along those lines, I wonder if the registration laws in that state require people to give an accounting of where they keep their firearms, and if such a requirement would be constitutional.
On the other hand, this is the weekend, and if I were a normal, interesting person, I'd be doing other, interesting-person things.
Apparently she was unable or unwilling to immediately call someone to take this kid out of class. That would have been an exhibition of her concern and responsibility to protect. It's up in the air whether there was really any threat or merely a point of view being presented that was unpopular. Her rather ponderous approach of consulting the powers that be indicates the issue was less responsibility and more cover your ass.
Chilling, chilling, chilling indeed.
My guess is (and I am not an academic)is that she is either a new hire or part time faculty.
The reason I searched is that many profs have their own web sites and you can gain a good insight into how they view the world, etc., by checking them out. I admit my first reaction to this story was that this is political correctness run amok, but that may not be the case here. And until more facts come out I think it is tough to make a call. This also may be a case of a female faculty member scared out of her mind by just the mention of guns, expecially given Columbine, Northern Illinois, etc., and that this same presentation may have received a similar reaction by any number of faculty on most campi.
Just imagine the chaos if the little police chat (and background check) came after a student talked about the Islamic religion. There would be rioting in the streets if, after a student had advocated for the ready availability of abortifacients, the police got her medical records from the school's student health centre and had a little chat with her about her activities.
But no, it's the Second Amendment, so any sense of proportional response, levelheadedness, or recognition of the fact that this is, indeed, an integral part of our freedom, goes out the window. Gah.
i agree it's not illegal, but it's extremely disturbing. we have a professor making a complaint because a student advocated for a change in the law. and the campus police "requesting his presence" in an interview where they grill him about his guns, again because he's advocating a legal position. and it's not even a radical position. i live in WA state, and it's perfectly legal here to carry on college campuses.
iow, while i see nothing illegal here, i see a LOT that disturbs me as a matter of policy, and as a matter of campuses that are supposed to be proponents of free exchange of ideas instead subjecting students to police scrutiny for daring to advocate for constitutional rights.
it's also patently absurd that the teacher should claim this is about "protecting" students and the community. how is advocating for an expansion of civil rights (carrying guns - the right being extended to campus) a danger?
I would suggest a day of safety training, a target shoot (either rifle or pistol), a deer hunt, and a bird hunt (either duck or pheasant).
There are plenty of police who would go along with that kind of thing.
Forgot about the threat of expulsion. Yup. That's an easy one. It involves no criminal charges, no lawyers, etc. They can kick you out of college easy for talking about your right to bear arms.
is this canard going to be drawn out on every frigging thread?
i keep smacking it down and it keeps rearing its ugly head up.
it may be the rule #1 FOR YOU, but thankfully for most thoughtful people out there in the real world outside VC, it aint.
Connecticut's registration scheme covers handguns as well as shotguns and rifles. All handgun purchases must be reported to the state police. Any rifles and shotguns purchased from an FFL holder will be reported. Reporting private sales of shotguns and rifles is optional (but "recommended"). The Connecticut State Police have been keeping records for 20 years or so and have quite the database. If you are unlucky enough to be arrested for a family violence crime in Connecticut, the police will contact you within the week and require you to surrender or sell your firearms. AFAIK the records are not public, but I doubt that a local PD would have any difficulty accessing the records.
Are you thinking of A.E. van Vogt?
The school's on duty policeman ran away.
Hundreds of law enforcement officers surrounded the school where, leaving bleeding children on the footpath in from of them, they hid behind cars and corners and trees. Unopposed the gunmen walked to the school library where they executed children one by one. As police saw to their own safety, students barricaded in a history classroom phoned frantic pleas for anyone – please, please, anyone – to come inside to save a teacher shot in the back, gasping for air, bleeding, bleeding.
Cowardly SWAT teams dallied outside for an hour and than half an hour again, swarming inside only after the building was quiet, the desperados dead by their own hands, and the brave teacher – he alone with the courage to go to wounded and dying children – had ebbed out his life's blood on the tile floor.
Twelve children died, one teacher, two monsters.
No police were killed, wounded, shot, scratched.
In the days after the shootings, school authorities expelled students for the crimes of previous acquaintance with the gunmen, and of dressing in coats similar to the gunmen's'. An anonymous tip line generated expulsions based on such dangerous speech as, "At least the jocks are treating us better now."
What would be most chilling would be if the fact of gun ownership itself was what prompted the police request.
This woman is an employee of a public university. Therefore, this is the act of an agent of the government. This needs to go badly for her and her supervisors. The campus police, if sworn officers, need to be discharges.
i keep smacking it down and it keeps rearing its ugly head up.
it may be the rule #1 FOR YOU, but thankfully for most thoughtful people out there in the real world outside VC, it aint.
You keep smacking it down and it keeps rearing its ugly head?
Yeah, I can't imagine why people wouldn't want to talk to cops....
I think we would actually need to see what the kid said/did before we condemn the prof.
My initial response was "here we go again with these nutjob academics" but then I remembered I went to school (a very prestigious school) with some very disturbed individuals who happened to really like gunplay.
One of them held a gun to one of my friend's head and threatened to blow his head off. Another guy was a totally crazy redneck who carried a gun(s) on him at all times, randomly talked about shooting people who displeased him, probed one of my friends about the possibility of assisting him in killing some drug dealer that his ex-girlfriend was shacking up with and finally - his coup de gras - he unloaded a full clip into a campus ATM seconds after my friend had used it, which didn't take long for the police to come knocking.
Again, all of this was at a university that regularly ranks in the US News &World Report Top 10. And it was before Columbine and the school shooting fad. While there may be some crazy professors out there, I can assure you there are more crazy students...at least in terms of raw numbers.
For some definitions of legal. It is not prohibited by the RCW (Revised Code of Washington) but at least most of the colleges prohibit it in their section of the WAC (Washington Administrative Code), unless permission is granted by the college. For example, a few years ago when metal detectors were installed at the stadium, they turned away SPD officers carrying off duty (I heard there was some arm twisting on the subject of mutual aid, and SPD officers were given blanket permission later).
I picked one of numerous comments about fears of campus shootings after Va Tech or Columbine. There are what - 10 deaths per year in campus shootings? Meanwhile there are 88000 deaths from nosocomial infections and 40000 from traffic accidents. Why not worry about people crossing the centerline - it's orders of magnitude more likely. I understand the odd psychology concerning risk, but we are supposed to be rational beings.
except people DO. here in the rarefied atmosphere of VC people believe that's the best policy. in the real world, common sense trumps theory, and people do.
and it helps everybody.
you are right in line with the "stop snitching" peeps.
i 100% agree with this. columbine was a huge travesty and was a perfect example of how academies teach politically correct police work these days.
it was cowardice pure and simple.
i'm sorry. some guys are running around a school shooting kids, you don't "set a perimeter and wait for SWAT"
you go in and do your frigging job.
Seattle PD did the same thing during mardi gras except they were ORDERED to stand down and NOT engage in rioting crowd. then kris kime got killed.
but i totally agree about columbine. i get bile in my throat everytime i think about it.
the most unforgiveable sin for a police officer is cowardice. just because cowardice is taught in police academies (At least moreso prior to columbine) and institutionalized doesn't make it any more despicable
I'll believe your story when you provide some names and dates.
correct. my graduate school banned guns on campus. i made sure to talk to an attorney and study up and was assured i was not breaking any law by violating their policy when i carried concealed on campus.
the stadium is a special controlled environment, just like a courtroom. iow, if EVERYBODY is scanned, it's not so much an issue.
but the UW cannot (since it is a state school) prevent you from walking around campus with a concealed weapon.
"They told Wahlberg that they had received a complaint from his professor that his presentation was making students feel 'scared and uncomfortable'"
Garden-variety in loco parentis run amok (i.e. treating students like five-year-olds). Ultimately, I don't think such behavior has much to do with politics/ideology (it doesn't rise to that level), but given the utter dominance of the soft-left in positions of authority, it gets attributed to them.
Can't we all acknowledge that there may be a great many relevant facts that are missing from the ONE SHORT CAMPUS NEWSPAPER article we have on this? Especially considering that the primary source for the article is the very student in question? Let's put away the tar and feathers until after we see a follow-up.
fixed that for ya!
I think we could have another Passion of the Christ on our hands, this one Oldline Protestant (yeah, Kowalski wasn't Protestant, but the Hmong weren't White, Anglo, or Saxon either - hence the power of the film) to its bones, and very pro-Second Amendment.
The heart of the movie:
Su (comparing Kowalski favorably to her deceased father): He was really old school.
Kowalski (acting insulted): Hey! I'm old school!
Su: Yeah, but you're American.
Kowalski (half-knowing grin/grimace): What the hell is that supposed to mean?
--pregnant pause--
The idea that a police officer should be just around the corner to rescue your sorry ass is yet one more step on the road away from personal responsibility. Police should have no more duty towards a school full of students than any other group of citizens.
Or we could make a radical change in the law and hold officers to a duty to render assistance, I imagine you'd have to start paying a whole lot more of they were working under such a legal threat.
utter rubbish. we are not paid merely to be armed secretaries.
the first sentence i agree with.
but if you are arguing that police officers should sit idly by and wait for SWAT while an active shooting is occurring, i 100% disagree.
it was shameful.
no. you just have to
1) change the training. which is already being done . see: the ASAP program for instance
2) do a better job at hiring
3) change the culture.
all 3 are being done. it's a start.
what people don't understand is that these officers were TRAINED to be cowards.it's disgusting.
i still work with some people who are institutionalized cowards, but the culture is changing.
we still have PC idiots like those in Seattle PD during mardi gras who ordered cops not to engage rioters (that's because it looks bad on CNN to be mean cops with sticks hitting people, especially minorities).
I take it you disapprove of making schools
Gun-FreeVictim Disarmament Zones, then?They couldn't have arrested you, but they could have expelled you.
5 months????
difficult since i was never a student.
also, i don't think they could (successfully).
carrying is a recognized civil right under the WA constitution.
and UW is a state institution.
i have no idea if it is against their policy for STUDENTS to carry. wouldn't surprise me if they did, but until it holds up in court (have they ever expelled a student for carrying) i would have doubts it would be constitutional to do so.
i do know that employees are prohibited from carryign though.
I disapprove of making any place that the owner does not take responsibilty for a gun free zone. Due to blindness I can no longer carry. However, I also don't leave the house very often and live in an area with very little undirected crime.
I'm sure the reason any gun ban survives is either (a) they aren't really enforcing it all that strictly (not expelling anyone) or (b) nobody wants to risk being the test case. In the absence of more specific evidences, I'm betting on (b).
I don't know if you work in law enforcement, but both of my parents have, and they tell me the same thing: never talk to the police, they are always trying to arrest you, that is their job.
This kid was just foolish to walk down to the campus police station without a lawyer, which makes me think he could be a bit cocky. I forwarded this news blip around to some gun folks, and kind of started a fire, so I'm pretty sure it's going to get some sort of follow up, hopefully at a larger level.
The cops around here have worked long and hard to get to the position they're in now, why do you want to rob them of the reward they have worked so long for?
it may be used against you, if it is incriminating. if its exculpatory, it won't.
if you are accused of X, and give a rock solid alibi, it won
t be used AGAINST you.
second of all, as i have said, i am referring mainly to terry and other field situations. the vast majority (i've done hundreds) do not result in arrest, and the VAST majority of people cooperate.
i am not referring (generally) to situations where you are dragged in and custodially interrogated for a triple homicide.
but my basic point stands, IF you are innocent, it generally benefits you to talk to the police.
in many cases, when you are guilty, it MAY, but i am referring to the cases where you are innocent.
fwiw, i HAVE had it happen to me, when i was a young college punk, i did cooperate, and it was in my best interests.
but i'm not talking about me, i am talking about the general principle, the canard, that it is always better not to cooperate with police, which is utter rubbish.
that's rubbish, too.
like i said, if any student has been expelled from UW for carrying concealed on campus, it's news to me.
i almost feel like enrolling just to test the legal waters! well, except for that boring, pesky, academic stuff i'd have to do.
And as was seen with the Duke case, providing an alibi just gives the system a chance to change the time of the alleged crime.
i said from the very beginning that the guys were almost certainly innocent. it was clear to anybody with a brain.
one bad case does not a principle make.
let me give you two examples. tell me which is more reasonable
Scene: officer krupke is patrolling behind the local safeway. it is 3 am. the city is asleep. the safeway is closed. there have been break-ins at the local businesses several times all occurring between 1 and 4 am.
while cruising the parking lot, ofc. krupke sees a shadowy figure lurking against the rear wall of the building near the service entrance.
suspecting criminal activity might be afoot (the store is closed, crimes in the area), ofc. krupke spotlights the male and approaches on foot
scenario 1. shadowy individual does not believe in the NEVER TALK TO POLICE CANARD.
ofc. krupke: hi sir, what's going on this evening.
shadowy male: just having a smoke, sir.
ofc. krupke: why here?
shadowy male: i'm a nighttime shelf stocker for safeway sir. i'm on my cig break.
ofc. krupke: got proof of that?
shadowy male: sure. can i take off my jacket to show my safeway shirt i;m wearing?
ofc krupke: let your wild self free, sir.
shadowy male takes off jacket revealing safeway uniform.
ofc. krupke: thanks man, have a nice night...
scenario 2. believes in canard.
forward to ...
ofc. krupke: hi sir, any reason why you are back here?
shadowy male: some guy in VC told me never to talk to police.
ofc. krupke: what are you doing behind this building at 3 am
shadowy male: silence.
ofc. krupke: have any weapons on you sir?
shadowy male: i'm not supposed to talk to police
which scenario makes more sense? which will turn out better? in which one is the guy being a moron and wasting everybody's time?
Anybody who seeks guidance from a chair has already had their brain pickled beyond recognition in Political Correctness.
I hope that's generally how things have worked until recently, and still does in some departments. But tell it to Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart. The new rules are, make a good faith effort to answer questions but get a date wrong or make two statements under prolonged interrogation that can be construed in a contradictory manner and go to prison for perjury, even if the charge being investigated doesn't stick. Under those rules, I'm damn well clamming up until I get a lawyer (and, hopefully, my calendar). If that makes your job harder, well, live by the sword, die by the sword.
I have often lived and/or worked in an area largely peopulated by African-Americans. I've had LAPD officers tell me the only reason a white male is in that area of town at night is to score drugs or find a prostitute. It's apparently beyond their ken that white people have black friends or black business associates or clients. I've also had LAPD officers tell me I should never be in that area of town because, as far as "these people" are concerned, you're just another white guy driving around and at risk of getting shot.
You've heard that black people can't go to certain communities at night--for example, Beverly Hills--without getting stopped. Well, it's also true that white people can't go to certain areas at night without getting stopped. The LAPD tries to impose a form of racial segregation.
If the police or FBI knock on my door in an effort to interrogate me or call or take me down to the police station for interrogation, I'm clamming up.
And what about the LAPD in the riots of 1993, I think it was. Chief Gates had bragged earlier that he had a plan for urban riots, but the police withdraw and stand pat a few miles away while we watched on TV as thugs beat up passing drivers at Florence and Normandie. The line they eventually drew was at the Beverly Hills and Hollywood city limits. All those south of there were left to their own devices. What an utter farce.
You're using Scooter Libby as an example of someone who was making a good-faith effort to cooperate and just accidentally confused a few facts? Really? (I was out of the country for the Martha Stewart affair, so that may be more on point.)
Scooter does seem to serve as a good example for a situation when you absolutely *should* have a lawyer present at all times. He was intentionally evasive (and you can find that admirable or awful, depending on your political views and other criteria.), and I do agree that in those situations, being "open" with law enforcement in the absence of counsel is not the wisest choice.
Yeah, I can't imagine why people wouldn't want to talk to cops....
"
There was a good seminar going around the intertubes about a year ago which claimed unequivocally that one shoud never talk without a lawyer present.
The police will use anything you say to build their case. And since you can't read minds, you don't know what they are thinking.
Even the exculpatory may be used against you if the police contend that it conflicts with something else you've said or that it conflicts with other evidence. And in some cases, no matter what you say, it is used against you because of the manner in which you said it--in a way the police contend is inappropriate, for example, insufficient show of grief or feigned grief or an inappropriate smile or overly happy countenance. Time after time when the police have a weak evidentiary case, they try to compensate by claiming the defendant behaved in a suspicious way that is circumstantial evidence of guilt. The tears the defendant shed when we interrogated him were faked, or the defendant shed no tears, or the defendant shed too many tears. So when the police suspect you of a crime, it's best just to ask for a lawyer and invoke the right to remain silent. Do both.
What's next?
My apologies to the list for discussing an issue of only local interest, but I would urge that UW students, staff, faculty, and visitors exercise caution here. I have read the relevant RCW and WAC provisions, and discussed the issue first hand with the UWPD. What they believe is that:
-students would be expelled
-staff and faculty would be fired
-visitors would be told to leave and not return, or
be charged w/ trespass
The WA constitution does indeed have a right to bear arms provision that exceeds the scope of the 2nd amendment. Whether that conflicts with the codified restrictions has not been litigated. Personally, given local attitudes, I doubt such litigation would succeed at present, but YMMV.
I'm no fan of the cops, but in situations like this, it is more likely the cowardice of the leadership than of the individual officers. The individual cops were following orders for good reasons. That's how you behave in a tactical situation.
The commander on the ground should be shot for cowardice - at least figuratively. He refused to engage the enemy. He deserves a Byng.
But the overall conclusion is correct; no cops were endangered at Columbine, and no effort was made to protect the citizens in danger.
OK, I got over my lazy impasse, here's WAC 478-120-020 - Standards of conduct.The immense degree of conflict between (3)(f) and (6) in light of Section 24 of the State Constitution is ripe for some kind of resolution, or would be except for the fact that we probably shouldn't be confident in how the courts would choose to resolve it (i.e. pruning (6) rather than (3)(f)), not to mention that the UW could presumably revise their WAC themselves if they wanted.
Note that the latter isn't actually a threat of violence any more than "I like blondes" is a threat of rape.
The bastard went to court and lied, saying I'd confessed to him, and he made up the so-called "confession" out of whole cloth. Fortunately the moron contradicted himself, so the judge smelled a rat and I got my side heard, but if he hadn't tried to overstate his story, I could have been in big trouble.
Therefore, if a cop ever asks me anything, ever again, I will not say a single word to him, just so I can truthfully say so in court.
Echo. Sue the facist libtards. Or at least demand a refund.
There is no registration requirement in CT, but many transfers of shotguns and rifles and all transfers of pistols are reported to the state police. The state police apparently thought it would be nice to keep a database of transfers. They don't necessarily know all of the shotguns and rifles that you own, but they have a pretty good idea. There does not seem to be any statutory authority for this little project, although I could be wrong on that. In any event, the state police use their database if you are arrested for a family violence crime, or draw their interest in other ways, and I'm sure that they share with other police departments. Pistol permit information is confidential by statute.
Even if your innocent, and you tell the god-honest truth, and you make no incriminating statements, you can be arrested, and can end up in prison.
Whit's overly simplified and asinine example isn't based in reality. Just watch the video, it's by two people who actually knows what they're talking about. Of course, one should cooperate to a certain extent, but you should avoid explicit questioning by the police, your life could literally depend on it.
If the police end up with unreliable or mistaken evidence that something you said could be contradicted, that will incriminate you. Even if the police have no reliable evidence but only bad information, they might arrest you simply because you're the only suspect, or because you plausibly lied! You can find factual examples of people who CONFESSED to crimes they were innocent of through police manipulation.
Anyways, I'm not arguing this point anymore. If you want to talk to the police, fine, do what ever you'd like.
In NJ you are supposed to have a firearms ID for possession of any firearm including air guns so they would be able to find out whether you have that. They would not know what rifles and shotguns you have as that is voluntary. Pistols are registered so that they would know.
Rent a cops would not have access.
So the question then is what type of cops where they?
utter rubbish, and not supported by evidence.
numerous counterexamples happen every day. my ofc. krupke story is a representation of how this works in the real world.
there is a huge difference between students and staff. i argue they would probably be successful in firing staff. staff can be much further restricted in re: constitutional rights than students.
regardless, who gives a flying fiddlesticks what the UWPD "believes"? cops can be wrong. in this case, i believe they are.
i would LOVE to see them try this. i carry concealed on UW campus all the time. i am violating no law, and it is PUBLIC property. it is an open campus and the public has the right to access the campus (use the library and various facilities).
seriously. now, i would of course COOPERATE. if they told me to leave because i was wearing a firearm, i WOULD leave. then, i would contact a lawyer, etc.
it's inconsistent with the WA constitution.
i don't believe in ceding constitutional rights. i have the right to carry on UW campus, as does every citizen with a CCW.
an argument from authority... yawn.
and i DO know what i am talking about. i have been involved in thousands of terry stops/field interviews, hundreds of arrests, and seen scores of cases play out in court.
the example is neither oversimplified or asinine. it is a perfect example of why the rule NEVER cooperate with police when questioned is in fact the asinine rule.
NEVER? ridiculous. the example (which actually happened, but the officers name wasn't krupke) is quite consistent with the kind of normal encounter innocent citizens have with police, and how to solve them quickly.
brilliant. thread winner!
my training officer had two masters degrees, one in engineering.
pretty sure he understood "engineer-english"
thanks for posting WAC 478-120-020
fwiw (to another poster) that WAC does not apply to non-students.
i still fail to see where the UWPD would have any reason to trespass/eject any NON-student for carrying concealed on campus.
has anybody even found a rule etc. that purportedly bans such conduct? i've never found one. IF it exists, its clearly unconstitutional imo but i am not even convinced there is one at all.
(1) if you are in custody, call a lawyer - don't talk.
(2) never be alone with a woman whom you do not have total trust in.
It's actually the same rule...
" .... As such, when deemed necessary because of any perceived risks, I seek guidance and consultation from the Chair of my Department ...."
Anybody who seeks guidance from a chair has already had their brain pickled beyond recognition in Political Correctness.
Funny, mildly, but also stupid. One is supposed to consult one's Chair or Dean; it's part of the job.
I gather there are few college professors posting on this thread. Those of us who work with undergrads are told - by our quite non-lefty administrators - to be very, very cautious about anything that slightly suggests a student might (a) be violent, (b) have or be thinkiing about getting weapons, or (c) be suicidal. We think about these problems in several ways: (a) are my other students at risk? (b) is this student at risk? (c) is the College at risk if something goes wrong?
As far as I know, our hyper-wariness is a direct result of higher ed laywers who urge the administrators to be 'proactive' about any possible mishaps on our cmapuses.
It is also a result of everyone's terror of having a VA Tech incident. True, these are far rarer than auto accidents, but they are scary to us in much the same way that airplane crashes are scary to people who are in flight. Not a raitonal risk assessment from the perspective of eternity, but quite concerning when you are lving in the context.
I was sure there was such a section in the UW WAC--our #3 son went there so I had a significant interest in being sure I wasn't going to run into any problems, and I recall having researched this before. But I just now scanned all the section heading in WAC 478-120 and darned if I could see any place where they would even put such a thing:
-010 Student conduct code -- Authority.
-020 Standards of conduct.
-025 Off-campus conduct.
-030 General procedures for disciplinary sanctions.
-040 Disciplinary sanctions.
-050 Jurisdiction.
-065 Informal disciplinary hearings.
-075 Appeals.
-085 The university disciplinary committees.
-095 Hearings before the university disciplinary committees.
-100 Faculty appeal board.
-105 Administrative review by the faculty appeal board.
-115 Formal hearings before the faculty appeal board.
-125 Review by the president of the university.
-135 Reconsideration of final orders.
-140 Emergency authority of the president and chancellors of the university.
-145 Recording and maintenance of records.
And now we really are getting a bit too much into local trivia...
... or maybe not. Look at it as an illustration of how vague such restrictions can be, and how much they might rely on completely bogus tradition, even at a state's flagship university.
every day that Congress is in session, I'm scared and uncomfortable. Can I file charges?
i also wanted to seriously make the point that the UWPD rep the person talked to could have been speaking out of his arse.
we had a recent situation in our dept. where we actually contacted the training section and had a training bulleting put out because there was controversy about whether officers could stop somebody for open carry (they can't) legally, and to emphasize that just because some citizen calls out of fear when they see a person open carrying, that this does NOT justify a traffic stop.
there is no law "allowing" open carry, but also no law prohibiting it, and case law already says that cops CANNOT stop people for open carry. it's settled law.
if i worked as a (god forbid) :) UW cop, i would ask for a clarification of policy and law. i doubt there is any policy that says cops can or should "trespass" non-students for Carrying concealed on campus. or that they could take any criminal actions against a student who did so. and of course we probably agree that if they tried (not the cops, but the admin) to expel a student for carrying concealed on campus, they'd be smacked down.
also note there has been a crime wave of sorts in the UW area (mostly off campus). i am certainly not going to hang in the U district without my firearm. and my rights extend on campus.
Some officers in your department initiated the training bulletin, not some put-upon open carrier? That's awesome.
You guys should all quit and apply for jobs in Tacoma, we need the help!
The police on state university campuses are state police. They tend to be younger and more easygoing than the average trooper.
one of the problems with police training, is that cops learn by osmosis and stuff (often wrong) travels down from generation of trainer to trainee (who becomes trainer) and the cycle repeats.
if cops learn something (wrong) from a trainer, and they buy into it intellectually, they defend it without checking source documents (usually) to find out if it's correct.
many old-timers for instance "over mirandize" because they were taught a stricter miranda standard (closer to a focus standard) that is not actually current law. but it's been bought into for so long, it's what they do.
Tacoma's a pretty cool city. It's got the action without such a high percentage of liberal wackjobs and political correctness that seattle has.
iirc, they also recently instituted take-home cars for their officers (one of the few municipal agencies that do so), so i would hope they get better applicants.
considering the economic downturn, i believe cops will be getting a greater pool of applicants, which ceteris paribus, results in better applicants to choose from
One problem is the police have been so de-nutted by fear of lawsuits that every effort is made to spare the life of the *perp*, to get him alive. Hostages? what about 'em?
Its one thing to take it slow with a bank robber who ends up cornered, with hostages he had no intent of taking, or even a crazed ex-hubby holding his family. In those cases it [usually] makes sense to try to avoid escalation, but when people have already died and are continuing to die, the inaction, the 'restraint' is insane. Criminal.
- - - - -
Dissent. (And, sorry - I do understand that this isn't the proper thread for this, but flat out assertions that are completely incorrect shouldn't stand.)
Among the people I know who have worked in crim def, in prosecution, in policing, in counseling - in pretty much every law-enforcement-related field - "don't answer questions for the police" is simple, pragmatic Revealed Truth. Period.
There is no upside to it. Granted, a quick explanation might avoid you some extra time waiting for them to release you, but that's in trade for not having something you said innocently be used to "prove" your guilt. The police are not truthseekers - they're evidence-gatherers. I say that without implying some moral fault - that's just what their jobs have become.
As for the idea that, when a cop stops you on the road, you're somehow "in their world" - no. Emphatically no. That's really the thesis running through much of our Constitution - that it remains our world. It becomes theirs only when we voluntarily cede it to them. I dislike crime and criminals, but I won't empower cops to treat me like a criminal in the hopes that it makes real criminals go away. Number one, they won't, and number two, I won't put up with it.
and amongst the ones i know, including myself, they come to a different conclusion. that much we have established.
utter rubbish and i have already explained the numerous upsides to both yourself, the cops, the DOWNSIDE to the real criminals, and the upside to society at large.
it aint just about YOU.
again refer to my ofc. krupke example.
or take an actual ride-along with cops and see how things ACTUALLY happen in the real world not the way academics, theoreticians and those who live in ivory towers THINK it happens.
again, if you are guilty as hell, there are strong arguments against answering police questions in a field environment, and even stronger arguments (almost always a bad idea) in a custodial environment
if you are innocent as hell (see ofc. krupke example), it is almost always to your benefit in a field environment to cooperate with police, not to mention the benefit to society at large. in a custodial environment, quite frequently i would agree to contact a lawyer first, but the issue becomes more complex.
for example, if you are arrested for DUI , and in fact are not impaired by liquor, it's clearly in your best interests to take a breathalyzer.
link
Faculty Staff Phone Directory
Name: Anderson, Paula
Phone Number: 860-832-2690
Job Title: Lecturer
Department: Communication
Location: R C Vance Acad Ctr 317
Email: andersonpau@ccsu.edu
Ah yes.
They think they do - and they have done so, even to SPD officers.
Is it constitutional? You have an opinion, I have opinion, and the state Supreme Court has an opinion. The only one that matters is the last one. Heller was 5-4 and didn't reach to concealed carry, much less on campus. I wouldn't bet my life savings that a challenge would succeed. I wish it would, but I'm not giving odds.
the device is extremely reliable. furthermore, you have a right in every jurisdiction i have worked ot have a second test done by a medical professional (e.g. an MD take your blood for independant test).
there is no crime where there is a more absolute measure against false charges than DUI. breathalyzers don't lie.
and of course a clear blow is exculpatory. it will result in a release and no filing of charges. whether or not the arrest is subject to false arrest lawsuit etc. is of course dependant on a whole host of factors.
it is an independant witness, devoid of prejudice, readily willing to clear you of suspicion (the breathalyzer).
remind me again, one counterexample involving a criminally rogue piece of garbage does not a principle make.
hth
do you have a cite. i am NOT talking about controlled environments (e.g. the stadium) ,. i am talking about somebody walking around in public on campus.
also, the issue is NOT heller. it is the WA state constitution.
it's that i think it is suboptimal, and harmful
hth
this isn't about personal likes/dislikes.
"breathalyzers don't lie."
Yeah, they do! I know you have a lot of trouble clicking on links I provide, so let me just cut-n-paste only one piece:
Maybe your mouse click button is as broken as your shift key, but doing a little bit of research helps out. That was just the second Google result, there's 67,000 more for "false positive breathalyzer".
any actual students had been harmed in the making of
this commercial to the joys of leftist "freedom", the instructor can certainly find a couple of kids willing to go along and claim to have been frightened. All for the greater good.
I expect a technique among administrators of saying, "Good God, man, you can't possibly be serious. Frightened? Nonsense. But, in any event, we can put an LMF on your transcript if you'd like. In the meantime, you'll be cut by decent society."
"LMF" is RAF shorthand for "Lack of Moral Fibre" when airmen refused to fly in WW II. Read an obit about a guy who managed 100 missions when the average pilot managed ten.
Ten! Think about it. That could be three weeks for bomber crews.
i can't tell you how many protective orders i've seen justified at least in part because somebody "fears" or is 'frightened' of some completely lawful innocuous activity, but it plays.
Thanks, Professor Idiot!
- - - -
Son, I have seen, ridden in, sat on, driven, washed, and thought foul thoughts inside more cop cars than anyone who isn't presently a cop.
And I have sat through and conducted more intake interviews as a PD, and sat through, watched, directed, or tried to later repair so many criminal pleas - as both a PD and a city prosecutor - that . . . that . . . . okay, I'm never sure how to end such sentences without getting goofy. Lots. I've done lots of all of those things. I don't think I've ever actually been in an ivory tower, academics would probably not even sit near me at lunch, and theoreticians . . . I don't think I know any (but I have a couple of ideas why that is.)
I'm not talking about when the cop runs past and yells "did you see the purple guy run past here?!" You answer that one. I don't mean that, when the cop says hi, you ignore her. I'm talking about the questions directed to me - the "how long have you been parked here", or "where were you on the evening of July 3rd", or even the "tell me your side of all of this", unless there are other witnesses who I'm sure are going to tell the truth and thus back me up. (Note that I distinguish between a cop looking at two other people who were fighting and asking me what happened simply as someone who might have seen what happened, and the other situation where I'm one of the people involved in something and the cop is trying to determine if I'm a bad guy.)
I'm not looking to impede investigations in which I'm clearly not involved, and the police are upfront about the fact that they see that I'm not involved. But, in any situation where the cops could somehow see me as the bad guy - and that's always going to include any traffic stop, or any interview where they're asking me about me, or about my actions or thoughts or words or emotions - that's when I smile and tell them that I'm not going to be talking about any of that right then.
And then they start the "well, we just want to eliminate you as a suspect" routine, along with the "do you have something to hide?" pressure. It's very hard at that point - I think most people want the cops to like them, and to think of them as being on the cops' side - and cops know that, and use it well. Point is, they're NOT working hard to clear your name. They're looking to clear a crime - to solve it, to give to the prosecutors a name and a list of facts and statements and then take it off of their open matters. And if I've said something like "I'm just coming home from work", but I stopped at the bike store on the way home to pick up a tire, and things go downhill, then at trial, it's explained that I lied to the cops about where I had been.
Now, combine four or five statements like that - made in innocence, without understanding or expecting that any slight inaccuracy can, and maybe will, be used to show that I'm concealing truth - and the next thing you know, your lawyer is dolefully shaking his head and suggesting that you should probably at least listen if they suggest a plea to a lesser charge, because your car matches the description given by the people who were forced off the road (they said it was yellow or orange and small, and yours is yellow), they say the driver of that car pointed a gun at them and, by golly, you told the cops that you have a gun in a case (legally) in the trunk, you lied about where you had been coming from and thus about the route you drove, and the next thing you know, you have a trial date and a lawyer and you can't find $5k in cash and don't have a house title so you sat in jail for twelve days and so now your job is gone, and your head is still spinning because you know you're a good guy and didn't do anything wrong, but the story that the cops, in good faith, passed on to the prosecution clearly meets the elements of the crime with which you've been charged, and sounds like maybe you did do it after all.
And I've tried those cases, and jurors aren't quick to empathize with the befuddled "good guy." The cops have a discrete, fact-filled story to tell, and "uh, no, I wasn't there, and I wasn't really lying, I just left out the bike store, and . . . . " just doesn't often grab them as a response.
And so I don't talk to them -when I am the subject - and, as I said, neither do the other lawyers, or their families and friends, or the cops I know, nor their families or friends. Your world apparently does - and I hope that works out for y'all, but the response that I must be ignorant about real life and cops and courts in order to hold such an obviously stupid view just makes me . . . type faster, I guess.
and i'll continue to give MY advice, and you can continue to give yours.
Whatever your answer, i PROMISE not to use it against you.
You took an unsecured promise.
Call your bail guy.
William Tell- nice catch thanks for the lesson!!!
So the university hires idiot professors,
Yeah. I have nothing to say about this case at this point. But I'm sure that HL's comment is correct.
SSDD
Spend five minutes talking to a criminal defense attorney (my best friend does a lot of court appointed criminal work and another close friend specializes in criminal defense) and they'll tell you that the criminal justice system rarely has anything to do with justice.
Whit's point, it seems to me, is that it's societal suicide to not cooperate with legitimate criminal investigations in which you are not the suspect. That's a legitimate point.
The problem is twofold. A) We all do stuff we don't want the authorities to know about. It may or may not be legal but it's none of their damn business and our society doesn't generally countenance fishing expeditions to put folks in jail. B) As others have pointed out, perfectly innocent folks can unintentionally make themselves appear to be lying or otherwise look guilty based on circumstantial evidence.
Surgeons do surgery. Plumbers fix leaks. Carpenters hammer nails. Police arrest people. Prosecutors prosecute. People in all walks of life use the tools in their toolbox. When the biggest tool in your toolbox is the threat of jail and a disrupted life, it seems to me that's the tool that will most frequently be used. If everyone is a suspect until they are "cleared", one needs to be wary when talking to the police.
While one should never lie to a law enforcement officer in the performance of their duties, one is also not legally compelled to offer information to them that may be incriminating. The rub is that you never know what's going to be incriminating when it's put together with the rest of the investigation. Unless I was absolutely, positively convinced that there was no conceivable chance that I could be charged with a crime, based on my own experiences with cops (on and off duty) and what my criminal defense lawyer friends tell me, my standard response with police would be to say that I'll be happy cooperate with them and that I'll have my attorney contact them to arrange an interview.
Always be polite to cops. Don't lie.
Whit, how would you answer the following question when pulled over in a traffic stop (well, if you don't just flash your badge/ID and expect professional courtesy)?
Officer: Do you know how fast you were going?
My answer: Yes, officer.
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution is a deliberately broad right. The founding fathers knew well how powerful the state can be when it suspects you of criminal behavior. They were revolutionaries who took on a very powerful state that considered them criminals.
Whit may say that every example we bring up like Nifong, or police misconduct or just poor performance and going by the numbers is just an anecdote. Instead of being rogue cops or DAs, those example in fact prove the wisdom of our founding fathers. Cops today treat the exercise of a constitutional right as suspicious behavior because you are not "forthcoming". If you're regarded as a suspect because of what you don't say, imagine the risk you take with the information you do share with the police.
Sure, go ahead and help cops solve crimes. Just be very sure that your help isn't going to turn around and bite you on the ass.
Here
Be polite but make her whimper for her totalitarian abuse of power.
Wow. So you just know that this lecturer is a 'fascist' and decide to encourage people to email her and 'make her whimper'? You are quite a piece of work.
Sorry? I really don't understand what you intended by this response. Let's note that the lecturer did not 'revile' the student, as far as we know. Aside from that, how is she supposed to oppose a 'rule of enforced helplessness'? What is this rule of enforced helplessness? What was rational for the lecturer in this case to do depended on her circumstances. If her college/university stresses that faculty be on guard about potential violence, her reaction may have been quite rational. It might also have been required of her.
I'm going to be honest about this anti-academic stuff. I am a college professor, moderate to liberal, and I am neither a 'fascist' nor a left-wing nut job. I am heartily sick of being presumed to be both. (Isn't it just deeply confused to suggest someone is both a leftist and a fascist?)
I realize that David Horowitz and others have convinced some number of people that all academics are lefties who abuse their 'power' over their students, but this is a myth. I thought people posting on VC were sufficiently informed to realize that.
We really know next to nothing about the incident described in the post. Nonetheless, we have folks posting away as though they just know that this woman is a monster who hates guns and tried to victimize a student.
Critical thinking and reading really are dead.
The professor DID, in fact, victimize a student. Intent can be inferred from actions.
Since no evidence has been offered that charges have been brought against vthe student, not even administrative charges, the student was demostrably no threat. To invoke the power of The State against someone for their political speech is heinous in this country.
Call her whatever you like, she should be the subect of criminal civil rights charges, and a fat civil suit.
take them off.
Also, I have to wonder, did Officer Friendly ever pat down some long-haired social misfit and just happen to "find" some heroin? Or was he just keeping in his locker for a rainy day.
Yeah, I know, I know, it was those no good jerks from I.A. who planted it there...
Of course it can...Just not here, absent more evidence of her intent (and of the reasons for her actions). This is more a question of motive than intent. (No doubt that she intended to call the campus police, but her motive for doing so is unclear).
Of course, because everybody who is a threat is charged with something. Really? If he files a civil rights suit, he better come with a lot more than "I wasn't charged". There could be any number of reasons he wasn't charged other than the logical leap from no charges= liberal professor bent on undermining the second amendment and academic freedom. (Insufficent evidence to charge, or a good-faith misunderstanding of when percieved threats should be reported are two that come to mind right off).
Sorry, I shouldn't assume that just because you're taking part in this discussion now, that you're familiar with all the background.
1. This took place in a Connecticut, a state that does permit some degree of open and/or concealed carry by legal adults.
2. While CT doesn't (apparently) ban carry by college students outright as a matter of state law, in fact the college itself has rules against it.
3. The situation with VA and VA Tech is quite similar (though VA is even more liberal in its gun regulations, overall, than CT is.)
4. Your response here was that the professor's (over-)reaction was understandable given nervousness over the VA Tech shootings.
5. My response was intended to indicate that a far-more-rational response would have been to welcome the point-of-view that college students (and professors) have no lesser right to self-defense (and the tools thereof) than any other adult citizen, not react with hostility to it.
YMobviouslyV's, but hopefully you can at least follow what I was trying to say now; sorry if it was way too elided.
If whit is behind the Safeway and encounters someone loitering, when he interviews this person he has the full spectrum of force at his disposal. If he's talking to the night clerk or a stockroom guy, then all he needs to employ are words. If it turns out that he's encountered someone who just shot up with heroin, or a meth dealer, or a lookout for a robbery gang, then whit has his baton, his Taxer, his sidearm and last but very not least a radio with which he can call lots and lots of other people wearing the same uniform. When they arrive, he will recognize them by that uniform as "good guys" and they will recognize him the same way. From whit's point of view, those who refuse to interact with the police are refusing to talk to him and his very reasonable collegues.
Turn that around, and look at it from the other side. If someone in a uniform stops me as I'm going about my business, or knocks on my door and wishes to enter my house, or walks into my yard and starts trying to talk to me, I have no real way of knowing who it is I'm dealing with. Uniformed police impersonators are rare in the US, but not so in other countries such as Argentina. That's one.
But assuming that I have an actual sworn officer of the law on my hands, I still don't know who I'm dealing with. Is it a peace officer who uses discretion that comes with some years, judgement, etc. to discern what is a big issue and what is not, who is interested in upholding the spirit of the law? Or is it a badge-heavy law-enforcer who is zero tolerance with everyone that's not in uniform, who will seek to enforce the law on every single infraction he encounters? Or is it the police chief's not very bright offspring who has a temper, and a tendency to smack people around if they don't kowtow to his liking? Or is it a marginal hire who used to be with another agency until, um, "something happened" and who now is with Smalltown's agency because while they don't pay well, they also don't worry as much about background? Is it a timid, recent hire who isn't all that sure of abilities and skill, who is scared of "civilians with guns" and inclined to resort to "felony stop" techniques at the first surge of fear?
Or is it a genuine thug, a gorilla in the mist who enjoys taking any and all advantage of the badge, who will rape me in the back seat of the patrol car if he feels like it and then claim it was consensual if I object?
I have no idea who it is I'm talking to. But I do know that each and every interaction with a uniformed officer of the law could cost me a lot of money, it could cost me my job, it could cost me prison time, it could even result in my death. Maybe the timid new hire sees a copy of a gun magazine in my possession, a GOA video playing on my TV set, and voila! I'm on the receiving end of a SWAT raid for some unspecified "gun crime". Maybe the law enforcer sees that the child seat in the back of my car is in some violation or other of a recently passed traffic law, and starts issuing citiations, or sees my children riding a bicycle without a helmet on the grass, and decides to arrest me for "child endangerment". Maybe the chief's stupid son likes my house and car, so he gets some drugs out of the trunk of his cruiser that got "lost" from the evidence locker, plants them somewhere, then phones for a drug dog to come search, based on a "confidential informant" that told him where to look...civil forfeiture has caused some ugly things, ask Donald Scott's widow.
Shall I go on? Or is the point clear? What's the worst potential cost if I don't talk to the police? Being detained longer than I would like, maybe having to call my attorney from jail, spend some money?
What's the worst potential cost of talking to the police? Harassment? Unreasonable fine? Unlawful taking of property? Haing my house gutted by a "search" following a SWAT raid? Being raped, maybe repeatedly? Getting killed?
Now, whit, do you see the difference in potential costs? Do you see why some of us are increasingly reluctant to talk to the paramilitary forces that, for old times sake, we still call "police"?
Now I realize there are cases when they can, should, and must be -- as a high school teacher, I've made more than one report in cases where papers have been "outcry essays" about being abused or molested. And if a student confessed to a violent felony in class or an assignment, I might find myself bound to make a report. But that does not appear to be the sort of thing that happened in this case.
Suppose, for example, this kid had instead given a speech about illegal immigration and disclosed his own (or his parents') undocumented status. Should the professor have made a call to ICE? Moreover, WOULD the professor have made such a call? Or if the kid disclosed that he liked to smoke a little pot on the weekend -- should and would the prof make a call to law enforcement?
Suppose a talk had been given by a Muslim student in support of Hamas in Gaza -- especially if the student argued that Israel had no right to exist and supporting jihad against Israel. Does anyone really think that a professor would have called Homeland Security reporting him/her as a potential terrorist/terrorist sympathizer? Would the professor retain his/her job for long if he/she did? I think we all know the answer -- and I also suspect that everyone here would offer condemnation of the professor for making such a report.
Thanks for the clarification; I think my flu-addled brain took your original post to suggest there is an actual 'rule' of some kind.
You write, My response was intended to indicate that a far-more-rational response would have been to welcome the point-of-view that college students (and professors) have no lesser right to self-defense (and the tools thereof) than any other adult citizen, not react with hostility to it.
My response was intended to suggest that it is not obviously more rational for an untenured lecturer in a college/university setting to buck the system in which she works than to do as her superiors require.
Further, I don't see how it is rational, as such, to encourage students to flout university/college rules. When lefties do this kind of thing in their classes, they are roundly criticized.
More to the point, if one has been persuaded by one's superiors and colleagues that campus violence is a serious problem, responding with some degree of fear or caution (not simply equatable to 'hostility') to perceived indications of violence is quite rational.
Anyhow, neither I nor anyone else posting here has much of a clue about the facts in this case. So, we are all just whistling in the wind. :-)
The rational response to being told your campus is likely to become violent is to be prepared to resist it. One way is to be armed. Perfectly rational except to the guns'r'icky crowd.
What would have happened if Wahlberg had said everybody needs to become savagely efficient with his hands and feet, "...as I am."??
Can the cops call you in to ask about your supply of spare hands at home?
They can't search you and insist you leave your hands and feet out of the classroom.
But, boy would that cause the terminally sensitive to leave puddles under their desks.
BTW, the shooter at VaT had spooked some folks so badly that certain of his classmates stopped coming to class and one instructor had a code word security arrangement with her secretary if the guy came for an office visit.
So this guy really scared people but the U wouldn't do anything. 'course, he was a minority and all.
Wahlberg, on the other hand, merely provides a pretext for feigned fear to shut down a certain category of speech and the U springs into action.
Kirk: My apologies if I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying the lecturer should have encouraged students to flout university/college rules.
Richard A seems to be taking that line by suggesting [students and] faculty arm themselves in case of violence.
I really do not know if having us all arm ourselves is 'the' rational response to possible crimes. I stick by my assessment that this would have been a highly irrational move for an untenured lecturer. Hell, it would be career-dooming for a tenured full professor.
And, given the lag time - and expense -in getting everyone on campus armed and trained to use guns responsibly and effectively, I kind of think speaking to the Chair and the campus security folks was quite a rational response on her part.
At any rate, I am hoping to hear/read some specifics about this case.
Jeez. Missed again.
The objective is not to get everyone on campus trained and armed. What on earth are you...thinking?
The point is that anyone who is trained and armed should have the same rights on campus as off.
Come on. You really knew better. Right?
I have no idea what I thought at this point. I know I started with a narrow claim about moral self-reliance and a broader one in modest defence of academics. Somewhere along the line I got into debating this particular lecturer's 'rationality' in reporting what she found a disturbing incident.
I ended up in some series of posts about ... lots of other things. I actually have no clear opinion as to whether or not colleges/universities should allow people to carry concealed weapons. Maybe, given the tendencies of many helicopter parents, it is 'rational' for colleges/universities to ban weapons so as to cover their legal fannies?
Anyhow. it's been fun.
Interesting. Apparently the view was that some entity, presumably the government, would be involved in "...getting everyone on campus...."
Which nobody has ever suggested.
Sort of a straw man.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.