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 ...
A few actually, but only because the student voluntarily waived them by complying.
I can see both of my daughters doing that! One of them, particularly, has 2 elementary-age kids. She’s quite a little pistol like your DIL! She’d probably let them have it also! The other one, if she had kids, would also. They’re both feisty little things like their Grandma!
My Mom, their Grandma, was a school teacher. She found out that my younger brother’s teacher had thrown an eraser at my brother when he was goofing around. Well she about did a tap-dance on his head! (He was still a little kid in elementary then!) :-O
Wahlberg is the student.
I would've written a report about the Bank of America shootout in LA,
then made reference that the robbers should have also used foot armor.
I would have told them it was none of their business, and asked them what reason they had for violating my privacy.
He’s probably on “Double Secret Probation” now.
In DC Metro, there’s a website where you submit and swap your “privilege” cards purely to confuse the grocers and marketers.
Me, mine is registered to H. Munster at 1313 Mockingbird Lane. . . a friend’s are registered to Fred and Wilma Flintstone. . .
Recently, my son, who is a history/archeology double major specializing in medieval era and who likes to produce reproduction armor for his SCA pals received a call from campus security. Evidently, someone in a class complained because he was drawing some sketches of medieval armor that he was planning on making. Anyway, he had to go through an awkward interview...awkward for the security guy as well as my son. I scolded my son for doing his sketches in class, but later realized how inane my complaint was. Where are we going as a society? This is so much like what we were told Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, not to mention Saddam’s Iraq was like.
Professor Anderson should be required to undergo counciling for her insensitivity to the trauma she inflicted on Mr. Wahlberg.
The kid should call the cops on her and tell them she makes him feel unsafe since she appears unstable because she calls the police on people for no reason at all.
I get it that a lot of people including me don’t like the idea that the prof called the cops. I don’t think the prof violated his rights. I don’t think the cops violated his rights. Are the police ever allowed to request a voluntary interview?
I know about campus police. I work at a university. My question would be the same if these were city cops, county sherrif deputies, or state troopers.
We’ve been told repeatedly that the instant background check information would not be used except to verify we could leagally buy a firearm. All other uses are illegal.
Then I have to remember, this is Connecticut...
Still, they were once a colony that sent hundreds of minutemen to Massachusetts when the British tried to seize their arms.
New England - They’ve come a long way, baby!
“Harassment under color of law.”
Who harassed whom?
“False report of a crime.”
I guess you mean the prof. Did she really report a crime?
I don’t like it either. The prof over-reacted. From what I read, the cops did not.
“I wouldn’t have answered any questions of any kind until I had a lawyer present.”
And that would be your right, yes? But the guy in the story showed up and answered questions voluntarily, so again, what’s the big deal?
I am only partially ignorant and definitely not pretending.
The cops did not “come and get him.” Did you miss that?
Is is always wrong for the police to request a voluntary interview?
I think we agree that no rights were violated because the interview was entirely voluntary.
Really, we ARE ALLOWED to cooperate with the police IF WE WANT TO, right?
Certainly, they are. In fact, in a free society all "interviews" with police, whether state or federal, are voluntary.
Not to put words in cripplecreek's mouth, but I believe the larger point he was making was "What are the police investigating exactly?
Not to be flippant in any way, but we have law enforcement to enforce laws - not to enforce some arbitrary understand of what is politically correct speech. From everything that is known about this case, I don't believe any rationally thinking person can infer that this young man was intimidating or harassing anyone. In fact, he was following the assignment and discussing a topic that was political and germane to contemporary issues. I can't see any other conclusion, but that the only reason this woman called the police is because she feels private ownership of firearms is dangerous.
This is the steep side of the slippery slope when the state begins to judge what is or isn't hate speech and the like. All speech is free, or so thought our founders.
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.