Cop takes 'midnight photos' of teacher's classroom

Times Argus ^ | David Delcore

[dirtboy]

This officer was within his jurisdiction since this is public property.

Listen once again - he is a cop in ANOTHER CITY. He lives in the city in question where he entered the school but is a cop ELSEWHERE. THAT is what jurisdiction means.

[Samurai_Jack]

Specifically, Mott disputes Anderson’s claim that he “banged on the front door” of the high school to get the attention of night custodian Arnold Cliche, and that Cliche opened the door and let him in.

No problem here... if the custodian let him in... Fire the custodian if you have a problem.

According to Mott, he entered the school through an unlocked maintenance door, found Cliche and asked him to unlock the door to Treece’s classroom room so he could take photographs with his personal camera.

I dont see a problem here either... the door to a public facility was unlocked and the custodian voluntarily unlocked the classroom. Any private citizen may have done the same thing as a member of the community.

There is no case here for the teacher to grasp onto... The officer was within his jurisdiction whether as an officer or as a member of that community. If the officer had tried to make an arrest based on the information he collected here then there would be an issue.

and as an aside...

condescension (n)

1: the trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior [syn: superciliousness, disdainfulness]

2: a communication that indicates lack of respect by patronizing the recipient

So dirtboy, 'ditch' (no pun intended) the attitude or direct your posts to ALL so they dont show up in my queue.

[GummyIII]

The policeman should be given a mild reprimand for what he did and should be congradulated(sic) by the towns (sic) people. The teacher should be tied to a rail and run out of town along with (all public shool(sic)) teachers who no longer teach America's next generation of children history, reading, mathmatics and science (like conservative patriotic teachers once taught) before the liberal communist takeover of our public schools.

I agree. (Did you go to public "shool"?)

Signed: A (conservative) public school teacher

[dirtboy]

The officer was within his jurisdiction whether as an officer or as a member of that community.

That's not what you were saying in post 428:

The officer was focused on protecting the public, that's his job.

That is his job as a police officer WITHIN his official jurisdiction. And it is NOT the role of a police officer to police SPEECH or what is being taught. Once he goes outside his jurisdiction, he is just another private citizen and jurisdiction is not the proper term for what he is doing. And the super already said that he shouldn't have been there - that is more a problem for the custodian who let him in, but IMO it's still unethical for a cop on duty in one jurisdiction to leave that jurisdiction to pursue a personal political agenda.

You keep sliding your position, which makes it impossible to hold a rational debate.

So dirtboy, 'ditch' (no pun intended) the attitude or direct your posts to ALL so they dont show up in my queue.

Don't worry, you ain't worth the trouble - I prefer to debate people who don't constantly move the target.

[Samurai_Jack]

That's not what you were saying in post 428:

Irrelevant, I left enough latitude in my argument to slide in that direction. You on the other hand have left no latitude in your positions.

unethical for a cop on duty

Not On Duty

I prefer to debate people

Doesnt sound like you prefer to debate people... sounds more like you are being quite defensive of a weak position, and then offering thinly veiled insults to veneer your arguments with a reinforcement of intellectual elitism. You are definitely welcome to not respond.

[dirtboy]

Irrelevant, I left enough latitude in my argument to slide in that direction.

That's special. You just admitted to presenting a moving target. Thanks for confirming what I thought you were doing.

You on the other hand have left no latitude in your positions.

Don't need to, I'm right on the matter. One doesn't need to move a target in that situation.

Not On Duty

On duty and outside his jurisdiction. That has been proven if you would bother to read up further on the story. Oh, and BTW, the story was resolved several days ago, apparently Rush couldn't be bothered to call the officials in question and find out that the department had already addressed the school administrator's complaints (they won't comment on actions taken because it is a personnel matter) and the administrator has told the teacher to remove the offending bumper stickers in his door and he will not be teaching that class in the fall.

Doesnt sound like you prefer to debate people... sounds more like you are being quite defensive of a weak position, and then offering thinly veiled insults to veneer your arguments with a reinforcement of intellectual elitism. You are definitely welcome to not respond.

WHIIIINNNEEEEEE. Sorry, dude, you can squeal all you want, but it doesn't change the facts here. The cop was on duty and out of his jurisdiction. And, regarding your ludicrous claim that he was protecting the public safety by taking pictures in a classroom - since when did that rise to the level of a crime? The fact that you think it merits police action speaks volumes about your lack of respect for the Constitution.

[Samurai_Jack]

Not that it really matters to me dirtboy... but you have a genuine attitude problem. Have a nice life.

[Samurai_Jack]

And now to hold my nose and respond to your caustic and condescending post...

That's special. You just admitted to presenting a moving target. Thanks for confirming what I thought you were doing.

Dont blame me if you arent willing to give yourself enough latitude in your positions. Im not going to apologize for presenting my arguments in any fashion that I please.

Don't need to, I'm right on the matter. One doesn't need to move a target in that situation.

You are not 'right' on the matter at all... And for your information... there is no 'MATTER' here. You should really have that anger management issue checked out before you hurt someone. You act as if you are the oracle of all knowlege and rightness and all you have demonstrated is that you are unable to tolerate other peoples opinions. This officer was well within his rights as a citizen and an officer to enter a public place. Your contention that the Public Classroom is a constitutionally protected free speech zone during the school day when the teacher is supposed to be educating these teachers within the boundaries of the community standards is completely without basis. You might get away with that argument at the 9th Circuit of San Fransisco.

On duty and outside his jurisdiction.

He said he was on a lunch break... I say he was on a lunch break. I could care less what you say, and since it was not specified what action came out 'against' the officer... the 'fact' is not in evidence.

since when did that rise to the level of a crime?

Are you then adding to your pool of 'facts' that the teacher was arrested or charged with a crime? Could this be an example of 'moving a target', or would this be an example of a strawman?

The fact that you think it merits police action speaks volumes about your lack of respect for the Constitution.

I never said it required police action... since you have now resorted to adding words that I never posted I assume you have run out of cogent arguments.

[dirtboy]

Your contention that the Public Classroom is a constitutionally protected free speech zone during the school day

Now that is really, really special. I have NEVER made any such contention on any of the three threads on this topic. Is this part of your "latitude" for debating - that you can claim I am staking positions that are not based in the responses I have made? I don't have an anger management problem - I instead have a low tolerance for nonsense, hence my involvement with your posts. Good day.

[dirtboy]

I never said it required police action...

Hint - merits does not equal required. You said this earlier:

the officer was focused on protecting the public, that's his job...[th]his officer was protecting the rights of the parents, again... thats his job.

So you said JUST THAT - that police action was acceptable here, even part of his job. Now, I would like you to find ONE police jurisdiction that has listed as an official duty for their officers that they ensure that offensive materials are not hung in classrooms. I'll be glad to give you all the time you need.

[Samurai_Jack]

I instead have a low tolerance

Otherwise known as... INTOLERANCE

[dirtboy]

Otherwise known as... INTOLERANCE

Yeah, for stupidity, I am quite intolerant. Interesting that you saw fit to try and make that a point out of that.

[Samurai_Jack]

official duty for their officers that they ensure that offensive materials are not hung in classrooms.

If there was no arrest... you got no beef.

[dirtboy]

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to produce a response anywhere on this thread or the two others on this topic where I said what the teacher was doing was protected 1st Amendment Speech. Oh, that's right, you can shift your stance and instead attack my use of the phrase "low tolerance" to try and deflect from the fact that you were lying about the positions I am taking here. Never mind.

[dirtboy]

If there was no arrest... you got no beef

YOU are the one making the claim that it was the officer's duty to do this. Arrests have nothing to do with it. Please find me ONE police department that lists as a public safety responsibility for officers that they should investigate offensive political materials in classrooms. You made this claim - now back it up with facts.

[dirtboy]

You know what? You just gave one of the most amazing displays of circular logic ever seen on FR. First, you say this:

the officer was focused on protecting the public, that's his job...[th]his officer was protecting the rights of the parents, again... thats his job.

And then, when I question that statement, you defend it with this:

If there was no arrest... you got no beef.

Why would an officer face arrest for doing his duties? He would only face that if he was doing something WRONG. So you go from saying that it was part of his duties ... to saying that what he was doing didn't get him arrested. Oh, that's right, you're allowed to shift your position. Gotta keep remembering that.