Skip to comments.
Vermont Cop Story: AP's Bias or America's?
Rush Limbaugh ^
| May 6, 2003
| Rush Limbaugh
Posted on 05/07/2003 4:13:42 AM PDT by .30Carbine
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 401-404 next last
Comment #81 Removed by Moderator
To: VRWC_minion
What difference does his motives make ? He didn't do anything wrong or illegal.What part of ON DUTY and OUTSIDE HIS JURISDICTION do you not understand? He had NO BUSINESS going outside his jurisdiction while on duty to pursue a personal political agenda.
82
posted on
05/07/2003 8:46:54 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(words in tagline are closer than they appear...)
To: John O
First of all you cannot tresspass on a public building. As a taxpayer you OWN the building.Wrong on both counts. The government owns the building, and citizens can indeed be prohibited from entry onto government lands. Just try wandering into the Naval Special Weapons Depot in Virginia sometime...
As a parallel example, I own Ford stock. I may not, however, legally wander into a Ford plant, or take a new Ford automobile from the line, or take parts, despite the fact that I OWN part of the company.
83
posted on
05/07/2003 8:48:54 AM PDT
by
Chemist_Geek
("Drill, R&D, and conserve" should be our watchwords! Energy independence for America!)
To: CobaltBlue
If Mott's happy, does that make you happy?Unfortunately, no. I've learned to think for myself.
84
posted on
05/07/2003 8:50:31 AM PDT
by
skeeter
(Fac ut vivas)
To: dirtboy
What part of ON DUTY and OUTSIDE HIS JURISDICTION do you not understand? He had NO BUSINESS going outside his jurisdiction while on duty to pursue a personal political agenda.The only issue is whether he is barred from going on school grounds for personal issues while he is on a break.
85
posted on
05/07/2003 8:50:33 AM PDT
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: moneyrunner
"And not a word about what the teacher is teaching the kids."
Thankyou. The outrage should be focused on the teacher. School projects are not top secret things that should be protected from public scrutiny. The public has a right and a duty to inform themselves how their taxpayer dollars are being spent in the education of our children. The citizen has a DUTY to make sure that those teaching our children are not subversives and are not instructing them to become communists or to despise our form of government. If all teachers were like this our government would fall in an instant and our glorious gift from the founding fathers of government by individual rights and responsibilites would vanish.
To: VRWC_minion
The only issue is whether he is barred from going on school grounds for personal issues while he is on a break.No, the issues are much more complicated than that. Post 22 sums it up quite well.
87
posted on
05/07/2003 8:51:33 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(words in tagline are closer than they appear...)
To: .30Carbine; All
Public buildings...
FBI Offices
The White House
Court Houses
Military Installations
Aircraft Carriers(sic).
The Senate.
Grand Jury rooms
DA's offices
Prisons
Police Station Houses
DMV Offices
Public Schools
etc....
Anyone on this thread really believe that they have unfettered 24/7 access to these taxpayer owned facilities? Any of you willing to personally test the theory?
With my apologies to those more rational posters who understand that the public does not necessarily mean the individual.
88
posted on
05/07/2003 8:55:00 AM PDT
by
wtc911
To: dirtboy
No, the issues are much more complicated than that. Post 22 sums it up quite well.You need it to be more complicated because there was nothing he did wrong. He was on his own time in a public building that was opened.
89
posted on
05/07/2003 8:55:03 AM PDT
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: wtc911
Anyone on this thread really believe that they have unfettered 24/7 access to these taxpayer owned facilities? Any of you willing to personally test the theory?If the door is opened and there are no signs warning against entry then yes.
90
posted on
05/07/2003 8:56:30 AM PDT
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: VRWC_minion
You need it to be more complicated because there was nothing he did wrong. He was on his own time in a public building that was opened.Nice try, but no stogie. In the end what matters is what his supervisors decide. There is a lot of additional info here that we don't have, such as the policy of the police department regarding personal business while on duty.
91
posted on
05/07/2003 8:58:06 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(words in tagline are closer than they appear...)
To: wtc911
Anyone on this thread really believe that they have unfettered 24/7 access to these taxpayer owned facilities? Without permission, no.
But the officer didn't climb in a window.
92
posted on
05/07/2003 8:58:28 AM PDT
by
skeeter
(Fac ut vivas)
To: dirtboy
such as the policy of the police department regarding personal business while on dutyLike I said that is the only issue and its between him and his employer.
93
posted on
05/07/2003 8:59:25 AM PDT
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: VRWC_minion
>>If the door is opened and there are no signs warning against entry then yes.<<
Maybe you live some place out in the country where people can just go barging into public schools at 1:30 in the morning if the door isn't locked, I have no idea.
It's certainly not true any place I've lived.
To: VRWC_minion
Like I said that is the only issue and its between him and his employer.There may be some ethical issues beyond the employer relationship, such as those mentioned in post #22. The school district may have legal options here. Superheated topics like this generally don't have all the facts - but I think that both men - the teacher and the cop - are engaging on problematic conduct while conducting public business, and both should face some kind of sanction. I imagine the cop's bosses will do their job. If the school board does not do theirs regarding this teacher, then folks should work to replace the school board.
95
posted on
05/07/2003 9:02:18 AM PDT
by
dirtboy
(words in tagline are closer than they appear...)
To: moneyrunner
I listened to Rush yesterday and I decided to see ... I counted posts to see whether the subject was the cop, the teacher, or neither. I then posted the following: ...I also listened to Rush and then combed FR threads to see if this was being discussed. I found nothing even using every search parameter I could think of. Would you please post a link to yesterdays thread? Thank you!
PS: I live in Montpelier, VT which is about six miles from Barre. Rush's point was well taken here in the TigersEye/.30Carbine household. We were already wondering how it is that parents can be kept from visiting their childs classrooms.
96
posted on
05/07/2003 9:03:11 AM PDT
by
TigersEye
(The Democrats are soooo 9/10.)
To: CobaltBlue
If, as you say, the cop was there in his capacity as a private citizen, he was trespassing. He broke the law. The article said a shool employee let him in...Tresspassing???...Broke the law???
What kind of police state do you want us to live in???
To: CobaltBlue
Except for the fact that the way the officer went about it has precipitated a situation in which it will be legally impossible for the school system to dismiss the teacher. The school system (ie the school board)had already dug in their heels in defense of this teacher. They had no intention of firing him and probably couldn't because of the teacher's union. It has been citizens of Barre that have called for his removal and it is the citizens of Barre that had no chance of getting him fired. The "school system" has aready cited First Amendment rights in this teacher's defense.
98
posted on
05/07/2003 9:19:39 AM PDT
by
TigersEye
(The Democrats are soooo 9/10.)
To: TigersEye
>>The "school system" has aready cited First Amendment rights in this teacher's defense.<<
Well, there you have it. That pesky old First Amendment strikes again!
To: VRWC_minion
There are numerous avenues of access to nearly every large military installation and not all are posted against trespass. I would not though suggest using the "there was no sign where I entered" and "I'm a taxpayer" arguments with MPs.
Anyway, the point of the list is to counter those posters who aver that every public building is open at anytime to any taxpayer, which is of course reducto in absurdum.
100
posted on
05/07/2003 9:30:30 AM PDT
by
wtc911
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 401-404 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson