Posted on 05/07/2003 4:13:42 AM PDT by .30Carbine
Vermont Cop Story: AP's Bias or America's?
May 6, 2003
I spent Tuesday's Hour One discussing this story about Vermont police officer John Mott. While off duty at 1:30 AM, Mott entered a high school through an open service door. He then asked a janitor to unlock a classroom so he could take pictures of displays by "passionate pacifist" teacher Tom Treece to present to an attorney.
The Associated Press headlines this story: "Vt. Cop Photographed Class Projects," pointing a finger at the cop as the villain. We had to go to a local paper, the Barre Montpelier Times Argus, to find the classroom details. But this is not a media bias story. I held off giving my opinion on these events just to see what my audience's reaction would be, as you'll see below. More:
The officer reports taking pictures of "a poster of President Bush with duct tape over his mouth and a large papier-mâché combat boot with the American flag stuffed inside stepping on a doll, along with pictures of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and his co-thug reactionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara. They aren't "pacifists"! Besides, the whole so-called peace movement was organized around defending and protecting Saddam Hussein! The slogan: "All hail the idiot boy king" was posted next to a picture of President Bush as, Treece claimed, "a reason to reject the high school budget."
If Mr. Treece posted pictures of me and Ronald Reagan on the wall, this cop would be a hero and the teacher would be on his way out. Apparently there were "rumors" about this teacher's curriculum, so this officer investigated. It's reported that there's a "backlash" against Officer Mott, but not that there was any sort of backlash against the class content. Why does it take a cop, taking pictures at 1:30 AM on his own time, to find out what's going on in this class? Where are the parents?
Is this not a public school? Our legal division doesn't see any constitutional issue on the officer entering the classroom in his private or public capacity; there's no expectation of privacy in a public school. We had a police officer call us up and say that Mott was off duty and out of his jurisdiction, so he shouldn't have entered the school or asked to be let into the locked classroom. You can hear such calls below along with my lengthily reporting of the details. I dedicated more than an hour to this story, and here's why:
After 70 minutes of discussion, all my e-mails and calls similarly focused on the cop - just like AP did. "So what, Rush?" So we hear education this and education that all the time in this country. Everybody claims to care about teaching "the children." But if we really cared about education, 90% of the garbage going on inside classrooms wouldn't be permitted. We would have parents involved in their children's education that know every word on the chalkboard and in the books. A police officer - who from this story doesn't seem to have any kids in the school much less in Treece's class - wouldn't have to enter through a service door and then ask a janitor to unlock the classroom for him. The parents would have expressed their outrage; instead, there wasn't a peep.
Try going to a public school where you don't have kids and ask to see a particular classroom. You will be asked to leave. Just because a building or grounds is public, it does not mean that the administrators of that structure cannot restrict access to the structure.
Until we find out if there was any kind of posted trespass policy, we don't know whether this cop broke the law. But it was unethical for him to go outside his jurisdiction while on duty in pursuit of his own personal political agenda.
Lindsey Graham remarked during the impeachment trial that "Where I come from, if you call someone up at 2 am, you're up to no good." That wisdom applies here as well - the cop, by going to the school at 1:30 am, was up to something that would not stand daylight scrutiny. I think it was unethical and the cop should face some kind of sanction, if anything for conducting a personal political matter outside his jurisdiction while on the taxpayer dime.
Yep. One thing that will bring out the loons are subjects like "cop with a camera". I KNEW for a fact that when I heard about this, the usual suspects (the Midol crowd) on FR would be having fits about the cop.
I know the shirt rending response - B-B-B-But what is the cop broke into your own house and tooke pictures of your pro life literature? Of course, that is not what happened
The cop (a military veteran) was on the right side and is a hero. I wish there were more people like him. He exposed a nutcase trying to brainwash a captive audience of children.
So let me get this straight. I do agree that a teacher who pursues a political agenda on the taxpayer's dime should be sanctioned or fired. But the cop in question was ON DUTY and OUTSIDE HIS JURISDICTION when he did this. He was pursuing his own political agenda on the taxpayer dime in a manner that had nothing to do with his official duties. How is that different from what the teacher is doing here?
Yeah, right. I think the big problem people have with this (maybe not yourself) is that it was a cop who tooke the pictures. If it was not a cop, the usual suspects would be praising him. I support what he did.
Exactly. If there is one thing the Midol crowd hates, it is a cop with a camera.
Who was outside his jurisdiction while on duty pursuing a political agenda. It's a lot more complicated than that, but you're trying to stifle the debate by calling our motives into question. Typical...
Balance? Thanks to officer Mott we don't have to take a leftwing rag's word for it.
Not correct, Rush. The cop was on duty and outside his jurisdiction at the time.
That is a blatant lie and you know it. I said all through the last thread that the proper course of action against a teacher spreading politics was to work through the school board and, if they were unwilling to reign the turkey in, to get a new school board. Folks all around the country have done just that. You'll have more credibility if you present the other side's positions honestly, unless, of course, your position cannot stand up to honest scrutiny itself.
What difference does his motives make ? He didn't do anything wrong or illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.