RufusAtticus

Anybody else notice that the cop only took photographs of projects that he didn't like, so he could circulate them and claim the class was one sided. The only thing one-sided here is the cop's choice of what to take pictures of.

brighid

fatherphil,

You miss the point yet again! The students and the teachers did absolutely NOTHING wrong. HOWEVER, if this teacher was putting religious mumbo-jumbo in the classroom the teacher would be doing something wrong and some action would be warranted. It would also require a cop go through the proper channels, such as getting a search warrant, talking to the administration and filing a civil lawsuit.

What business did this cop have in the school after hours? None. He abused his position to gain access to the school and take pictures of projects that he didn't like, not for the sake of exposing some horrible conspiracy or violation of civil, or criminal law but to weed out unpatriotic students and a teacher in order to what?? Harm them socially or otherwise. It is not against civil or criminal law to have an opinion that might offend others. Of all people fatherphil you should be on the side of those wishing to protect unpopular opinions.

As a person who has a great deal of respect for the very many good men and women in uniform I am outraged for them. These types of bad cops only make their jobs more difficult and put their lives in danger because the civilian population becomes weary of these abuses.

Brighid

eldar1011

brighid,

The problem with you post to fatherphil is that it makes too much sense.

I'm fairly certain that he doesn't "miss the point", he deliberately avoids it. His replies are evasive, employ mis-direction and several bales worth of strawmen.

It's a shame really. I, for one, would like to see someone rationally defend the actions of this cop. Though, I believe they are indefensible.

fatherphil

ok, try this. what if the photographer was a drinking buddy of the janitor's. would you be pissed about the undo influence of drinking buddies?
i have the freedom to say what i think, others have the freedom to disagree with what i say. even policemen.

besides, if it was not for me this thread could be a collective "dump on the cop" thread. is that what you guys really want?

Chuck

Or maybe Scotty beamed him in. I'm pissed about how easy it is to get transporter clearance these days.

Chuck

brighid

I would be outraged at a janitor allowing his �drinking buddy� access to a public school he has no business being in after school hours for the express purpose of singling out individuals (minors especially) because they have expressed views contrary to his own liking. I would however be less outraged because the janitor would have known this man and he only used his friendship (presumably) and not the threat of police intimidation, or some other official capacity to enter the school. The drinking buddy has no explicit obligation to observe certain rules of professional conduct and isn�t accountable to the public like a police officer is. They would both be wrong, but the actions of a civil servant paid to protect people and uphold the law is by definition held to a higher standard, and although ignorance of the law is no defense at least the drunk could have a plausible excuse. The cop on the other hand has no excuse.

This man does not appear to be concerned about the welfare of children, or upholding the law. His actions are an implicit denial of those principles he swore to protect and used the influence of his position to gain entry into an otherwise inaccessible, locked public institution. If the janitor were not there he would have had to break into the school to the get the pictures. Why didn�t he go to the school during the time it was open to the public? Why did he not go through the known and proper channels to address his concerns?

Fatherphil it is unfortunate you aren�t actually defending a rational position. No one is jumping on this man just because he is a cop. He is being rightfully criticized for actions taken that border on illegal and are certainly unethical.

Yes, we have free speech. So do those children and that teacher. The projects weren�t hidden and they were not done in violation of any civil or criminal law. The simply espouse unpopular opinions for those who do not appreciate dissent. You fail to understand that it doesn�t matter who did this, but that it was done and it was done with the explicit desire to harm those who hold unpatriotic positions. This man has a right to disagree with what this teacher and those students say, but he has NO right to do what he did, in the manner he did it. His desire to harm minors and a teacher for their opinions is despicable and should be pointed out as such. He should be punished, not for having a different opinion but for the actions he took and the abuse of his position.

Brighid

Edited to add: My concern now is what other motivation did this officer have in discovering the positions and identities of these students (and teacher) with different political opinions? Would he further abuse his power by harassing the parents of these students? Would he single out these people for unwarranted traffic stops, follow these children around after school attempting to create criminal accussations where none exist ...? This is entirely within the realm of possibility.

eldar1011

Yes. I'd be pissed that someone used a personal realtionship with the janitor to gain access to the school while it was closed for the express purpose of furthering their own political agenda.

As pissed as I am because the photographer in question was a uniformed police officer acting in an unoffical capacity and abusing his authority, probably not.

Sure you do, so do they. But, again, that's not the issue, is it?

Is there some reason why the cop couldn't have written a letter to the editor of a local paper to bring this matter to attention?

Is there some reason why the cop couldn't have brought this up at a school board meeting?

Is there some reason why the cop couldn't have brought this up at a PTA meeting?

In short, is there any reason, any at all, why the cop felt that this was the ONLY action he could take? Do you truly believe he had no other option?

Actually, if it weren't for you, this thread would probably have focused on the issue at hand and not your evasive and non-responsive responses....and it's probably be a lot shorter.

fatherphil

who among us does not use the advantages of our social position to cut through red tape when given the opportunity?
but he, i'll back out so as not to drag this discussion down because obviously i really do not see the level of importance you all have attached to the event.
pm me if you got something to say regarding it cause i'm out of here.

Jacey

So it'd be perfectly alright if I had a friend in the Burbank Police Department to investigate you, because I feel your activities have been unamerican? I could look up your license plate number and spy on you?

Your logic is totally.......illogical.

brighid

Can't actually say that I have, but I have had anothers "social" position used in an illegal manner to violate my rights, including false accussations that resulted in temporary imprisonment by one of those lovely officers such as this one, as well as a whole other slew of heinous ethical and criminal breeches!

In any case it is at least ethically wrong to use ones position (in most cases) to gain unfair advantage that would not be otherwise given to you without that position. In the case of a civil servant it is even more egregious.

I don't understand, giving your very unpopular opinions that you aren't up in arms about this. Perhaps you would feel differently if a police officer, after reading some of your ideas here entered your home in the dark of night to take pictures of your belongings ... without a warrant and in an attempt to publically harm you. Put the shoe on the other foot and perhaps you can understand why some of us get so upset when the rights of people are violated because someone didn't like their opinion.

Brighid