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.
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.
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.