Prof calls police on armed officer wearing uniform in class

[WestonDon]

Oh for pity's sake.
My nurse uniform is scrubs and a name badge. Nurses for grown ups have stethoscopes as part if their uniform. I stop places after work, wearing my uniform.

The sergeant wears a police uniform. Part of his police uniform includes a firearm. He isn't asking for special status; he's wearing a uniform. He just wanted to go to class like a responsible student.

I am not sure if you are jealous that he carried on campus, or as unreasonable as those that participated in France's Reign of Terror.

The man went to class wearing all of his uniform. Get over it.

I agree with this for two reasons.

1) If shots ring out from the hallway everybody else in the classroom, including the professor, are going to look to the uniformed cop in the room to protect them.

2) Given that several uniformed cops have been assassinated recently just for being cops I'd say it's unreasonable to require a cop in uniform to be disarmed.

Just because it is also unreasonable to require ordinary students to be disarmed does not change number two.

[Bruenor]

maybe the other student and teacher reasoned what he was doing, was unethical in the context of the law ?

http://2016bulletin.loyno.edu/undergrad ... #phil-w244" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PHIL U244 Law and Morality 3 crs.

Knowledge-Values Courses: Philosophy II: Knowledge and Morality

This course presents and analyzes a number of frameworks for conducting ethical reasoning in the context of the law. Among the questions it studies are: how should we conceive of the relationship between moral principles and legal norms? does the law command our allegiance and respect from a moral point of view? how should moral principles and moral argument inform actual legislation? Relevant moral frameworks for addressing these questions include, but are not limited to, natural law theory, legal realism, legal positivism, critical legal theory and feminist legal theory.

it's not like it was a class on basket weaving.

[Mr. Glock]

So, do I think I should be able to carry my gun wherever/ whenever? Yes

Is it so? No

Does that mean a LEO shouldn't be able to carry whenever/wherever? No

More Guns = Less Crime.

Simple,really. Well, simple in the real world. Armed LEOs off-duty are a generally good thing.

[glocksmith]

So, do I think I should be able to carry my gun wherever/ whenever? Yes
Is it so? No. Does that mean a LEO shouldn't be able to carry whenever/wherever? No
More Guns = Less Crime. Simple,really. Well, simple in the real world. Armed LEOs off-duty are a generally good thing.

The problem is...this state of affairs also says loud and clear "Armed LEO trustworthy and good....Armed citizen untrustworthy and bad".

No matter how you slice it up, the implication here is that an LEO is somehow more qualified and has better judgment than the rest of us...while we ordinary citizens are unsafe and a threat. No one here actually believes that...well maybe one (see above thread).

[Mustang380gal]

So, do I think I should be able to carry my gun wherever/ whenever? Yes
Is it so? No. Does that mean a LEO shouldn't be able to carry whenever/wherever? No
More Guns = Less Crime. Simple,really. Well, simple in the real world. Armed LEOs off-duty are a generally good thing.

The problem is...this state of affairs also says loud and clear "Armed LEO trustworthy and good....Armed citizen untrustworthy and bad".

No matter how you slice it up, the implication here is that an LEO is somehow more qualified and has better judgment than the rest of us...while we ordinary citizens are unsafe and a threat. No one here actually believes that...well maybe one (see above thread).

In your mind, maybe. Not necessarily in the minds of average, non-gun using people. When I talk to people about carrying, they ask if it is legal, then usually say "That's cool!" No one I have talked to has questioned the ability or judgment of non-LEO, and some have said that they are not so sure about guns, but are thinking they may need to be. Also, I think most people who see a police officer in uniform expect to see a firearm.

So what does the bolded part mean?

[bignflnut]

Oh for pity's sake.
My nurse uniform is scrubs and a name badge. Nurses for grown ups have stethoscopes as part if their uniform. I stop places after work, wearing my uniform.

The sergeant wears a police uniform. Part of his police uniform includes a firearm. He isn't asking for special status; he's wearing a uniform. He just wanted to go to class like a responsible student.

I am not sure if you are jealous that he carried on campus, or as unreasonable as those that participated in France's Reign of Terror.

The man went to class wearing all of his uniform. Get over it.

I agree with this for two reasons.

1) If shots ring out from the hallway everybody else in the classroom, including the professor, are going to look to the uniformed cop in the room to protect them.

2) Given that several uniformed cops have been assassinated recently just for being cops I'd say it's unreasonable to require a cop in uniform to be disarmed.

Just because it is also unreasonable to require ordinary students to be disarmed does not change number two.

You're making the case that a uniform carries special rights...careful there...

[bignflnut]

According to hearsay, some Police Depts./communities consider their Officers to be "on duty" 24/7.

A) Are they paid accordingly?
B) Why ever take "shifts"?
C) How exhausting... or... they're entirely lazy (don't get a lot done in a 24hr period)!
D) I pay them to sleep or "enjoy the company of" their wives? I might protest such activities on the clock.
E) Do they never utilize alcohol?

[curmudgeon3]

I'll bet you could get some firm replies if you ran those questions by Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr.

[Curzyk]

According to hearsay, some Police Depts./communities consider their Officers to be "on duty" 24/7.

A) Are they paid accordingly?
B) Why ever take "shifts"?
C) How exhausting... or... they're entirely lazy (don't get a lot done in a 24hr period)!
D) I pay them to sleep or "enjoy the company of" their wives? I might protest such activities on the clock.
E) Do they never utilize alcohol?

I'd substitute "on duty" with "on call". This is how my brother's department provides 24/7 coverage for their small town with only three officers.

[Mr. Glock]

So, do I think I should be able to carry my gun wherever/ whenever? Yes
Is it so? No. Does that mean a LEO shouldn't be able to carry whenever/wherever? No
More Guns = Less Crime. Simple,really. Well, simple in the real world. Armed LEOs off-duty are a generally good thing.

The problem is...this state of affairs also says loud and clear "Armed LEO trustworthy and good....Armed citizen untrustworthy and bad".

No matter how you slice it up, the implication here is that an LEO is somehow more qualified and has better judgment than the rest of us...while we ordinary citizens are unsafe and a threat. No one here actually believes that...well maybe one (see above thread).

You assume much from a plain and simple statement.

[glocksmith]

So, do I think I should be able to carry my gun wherever/ whenever? Yes
Is it so? No. Does that mean a LEO shouldn't be able to carry whenever/wherever? No
More Guns = Less Crime. Simple,really. Well, simple in the real world. Armed LEOs off-duty are a generally good thing.

The problem is...this state of affairs also says loud and clear "Armed LEO trustworthy and good....Armed citizen untrustworthy and bad".

No matter how you slice it up, the implication here is that an LEO is somehow more qualified and has better judgment than the rest of us...while we ordinary citizens are unsafe and a threat. No one here actually believes that...well maybe one (see above thread).

You assume much from a plain and simple statement.

Only thing is...I wasn't talking about you or your post. Who's doing the assuming now?

[M-Quigley]

So, do I think I should be able to carry my gun wherever/ whenever? Yes
Is it so? No. Does that mean a LEO shouldn't be able to carry whenever/wherever? No
More Guns = Less Crime. Simple,really. Well, simple in the real world. Armed LEOs off-duty are a generally good thing.

The problem is...this state of affairs also says loud and clear "Armed LEO trustworthy and good....Armed citizen untrustworthy and bad".

No matter how you slice it up, the implication here is that an LEO is somehow more qualified and has better judgment than the rest of us...while we ordinary citizens are unsafe and a threat. No one here actually believes that...well maybe one (see above thread).

I couldn't find the thread you were referring to.

[WestonDon]

I agree with this for two reasons.

1) If shots ring out from the hallway everybody else in the classroom, including the professor, are going to look to the uniformed cop in the room to protect them.

2) Given that several uniformed cops have been assassinated recently just for being cops I'd say it's unreasonable to require a cop in uniform to be disarmed.

Just because it is also unreasonable to require ordinary students to be disarmed does not change number two.

You're making the case that a uniform carries special rights...careful there...

That is certainly not my intent. My point is that while it is wrong to grant special rights to group X and not to group Y, my preferred approach is to campaign to obtain the same rights for group Y. Not to strip group X of whatever rights they may be granted.

As a member of a gun rights organization I think it is counterproductive to publicly call for limiting the rights of anyone. I would rather aspire to elevating everyone else to the "special rights" status until they are no longer special.

[JustaShooter]

My point is that while it is wrong to grant special rights to group X and not to group Y, my preferred approach is to campaign to obtain the same rights for group Y. Not to strip group X of whatever rights they may be granted.

This. This right here.

[bignflnut]

My point is that while it is wrong to grant special rights to group X and not to group Y, my preferred approach is to campaign to obtain the same rights for group Y. Not to strip group X of whatever rights they may be granted.

This. This right here.

Agreed.
The group that has been given the special rights, however, disagrees on a formal / leadership level, advocating that they're special and should have special rights. That assertion is to be challenged.