Posted on 03/04/2009 1:43:35 PM PST by Zakeet
A professor in Connecticut reported one of her students to the police after he gave a class presentation on why students and teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Now, free speech activists say the professor’s actions are what really need to be investigated.
Last October, John Wahlberg and two classmates at Central Connecticut State University gave an oral presentation for a communications class taught by Professor Paula Anderson. The assignment was to discuss a “relevant issue in the media,” and the students presented their view that the death toll in the April 2007 Virginia Tech shooting massacre would have been lower if professors and students had been carrying guns.
That night, police called Wahlberg, a 23-year-old senior, and asked him to come to the station. When he arrived, they they read off a list of firearms that were registered in his name and asked where he kept them. Guns are strictly prohibited on the CCSU campus and residence halls, but Wahlberg says he lives 20 miles off-campus and keeps his gun collection locked up in a safe. No further action was taken by police or administrators.
“I don’t think that Professor Anderson was justified in calling the CCSU police over a clearly non-threatening matter,” Wahlberg told The Recorder, the CCSU student newspaper that first reported the story. “Although the topic of discussion may have made a few individuals uncomfortable, there was no need to label me as a threat.”
Wahlberg declined to comment further to FOXNews.com, saying he did not want more media attention.
According to The Recorder, Anderson cited safety as her reason for calling the police.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Bingo!
Not to beat a dead horse, but if she didn't report a crime, what in the wide, wide world of sports is law enforcement doing investigating?
This is a problem.
When he arrived, they they read off a list of firearms that were registered in his name and asked where he kept them.
I loaned one to professor Anderson when she broke up with her boyfriend who was recently released from prison. I think she keeps it in her purse now but after our own relationship ended I couldn’t say for sure now.
I guess we would really need to know exactly what the prof said to the police. She may have said something that made it sound like the kid was an imminent threat.
Along those lines, we were letting a friend stay with us temporarily while he was going through an ugly divorce. Estranged wife swears out a restraining order (which I guess is almost SOP in contentious D's now) and two days later, they're at my home to serve the restraining order on him.
Here's the rub, I'm at work when they show up and my wife let's them in, not being the confrontational one. By the time I get home - about 7 minutes, they were trying to drag MY 300 lb gun safe out the garage door. They had already taken my glock and '45. It was a mess. It cost me about $2,345.15 in legal fees and seven months to get MY guns back.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
The cops had no right to talk to this person at all, if you don’t see that then freedom is beyond your reach!
Believe me when I tell you that's what I thought as well. But, the two attorney's we consulted, one of which we retained, explained that they didn't, at least via the "technical" letter of the law - and so did the judge.
That day and that experience with those two sheriff's deputies (coupled with the Elian Gonzalez debacle later that year) forever changed my view of law enforcement in America. I'm much, much more skeptical and less willing to compromise when it comes to defending everyone's civil rights, even those with whom I disagree politically.
“The cops had no right to talk to this person at all...”
All this talk about rights is confusing me. I thought we were discussing whether the students’ rights had been violated.
That's right.
If you haven't done anything wrong, why should you worry about the police stopping you?
Interesting topic...
I have some concerns over what happened this past weekend.
I went to a shotting range that was in the middle of no where....The range has been there fopr many years, off the beaten track...
The rangekinda looke d like the town dump, old tires, bowling pins, any target possible, but hell, we were out in the country and this old gentleman had it for many, many years.
This really bothers me, I have not done anything about it yet.
We went to the rifle area.
Our time was almost up for the hour, a car drove up. Major money car. Stupid me, I did not take dwn the plate.
The first guy that came out was a good ole boy... butt crack and all. The other two were not dressed for a shooting range at all, specially since it was 25 degrees. They were 2 middle Eastern guys. Nice leather coats, creased jeans and very expensive shoes and sunglasses.... It was weird.
The good ole boy started to load the AR’s (one of which I never saw before)...while the GOB was oading them, the other 2 guys were talking in some Arabic....(call me racist) speak....that really bothered me.
Then the GOB was showing them how to load, etc....
My hubby and are very disturbed over this.
It was wrong and weird... we left 5 minutes after they got to the range.
Am I wrong to call the sheriff or ATF?
At least one person that goes to the range has to leave a drivers license... It was creepy.
Did he really? Or did he comply because the government had deliberately created the impression that he would ultimately be going down to the station whether he wanted to or not, but things would be more pleasant if he went "voluntarily"?
Mine was sarcasm. Not very good sarcasm maybe, but it was an attempt!
Often, when police "request" something, they intend to use whatever means necessary to get it. Many people are aware of this tendency. When a person 'voluntarily' complies with a police request, I would suggest that--often as not--the person is doing so because they believe the police might use unpleasant means to force compliance. While there are some truly voluntary interactions with police, any such interactions should be presumed coercive (e.g. a juror should be skeptical of the legitimacy of 'voluntary' searches).
bttt
Did the police stop him? I read it differently.
So is it always wrong for the police to try to talk to people?
If police have probable cause to believe that someone has information related to a crime that has been committed, the person may be subpoenaed. It may be easier for all concerned for the police to explain to the person why they have probable cause and ask the person to come to the station a subpoena, but such compliance should not be deemed "voluntary". If police cannot articulate probable cause, they should limit the scope of their inquiries.
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.