Professor Takes Heat for Calling Cops on Student Who Discussed Guns in Class

Status
Not open for further replies.
How is this a "faulty [comparison] fallacy?"
Click to expand...

While I certainly understand the views on the Columbia/Ahmedinajad issue, I just don't think it has any relation to the OP's original issue.

I would put money on it that the professor in question was not trying to promote any agenda. She is probably just a scared, uninformed person, trying to prevent any possible problems.

Right after 9/11 I hired a driver who was Armenian. He spoke with a thick accent and carried around a large, black bag (almost all drivers carry a small, black bag, but this one was large). I had several other employees express concern that he was carrying around a bomb or weapons. This went on for months. Was he making sure he was strong enough to tote all that ammonium nitrate around? Or maybe he was practicing carrying his AK and 50 magazines?

When he finally came in with a small bag one day, I asked him about it. He said that he had finished his classes and no longer needed to carry his books and laptop around with him anymore.

Fear. It's a powerful thing.
 
gretske, I actually agree with you that Mr. Wahlberg has something of a First Amendment-related civil rights beef with CT State. But in pragmatic terms, I stand by what I said: once alerted, the campus police had, effectively, no choice but to look into his professor's concerns.

Since some of us have been talking about this in terms of signal detection theory, let me make this a bit more explicit, as I think it's a useful way of thinking about what's actually going on here. The following is a sort of simple-minded graphical representation of how the theory works:

attachment.php


To keep this very simple, let's say that two things determine the relative probabilities of responses in each of the 4 categories in the box above: the signal-to-noise ratio (how hard the signal is to detect), and the motivation of the observer, which is determined, among other things, by the relative consequences of hits and misses. In the case we're discussing, call the "signal" that needs to be detected "wacko-who's-about-to-shoot-up-the-campus" -- "wacko" for short. As Glenn Meyer has pointed out, detecting wackos is really hard to do before the fact, which is another way of saying that there's a lot of noise. Now consider the consequences of hits, misses, correct rejections, and false alarms (or false positives).

A hit: A wacko is found, prevented from acting, and lives are saved.
A miss: A wacko kills a bunch of people.
A correct rejection: Mr. Wahlberg's feelings are spared. No one hears about any of this.
A false alarm: Mr. Wahlberg's feathers are ruffled, the U. takes some flak, and people on gun forums get to agonize about his civil rights.

Now, if you're the campus police, your overriding concern is to avoid misses, for obvious reasons, so the probability of false alarms goes way up. The risk of another campus shooting (and of the lawsuits that will result if it gets out that they were alerted that someone might be dangerous and they did nothing) will far outweigh even your concerns about a civil rights lawsuit.

So, yes, they ask him to come in for a little chat about his guns.

A correct rejection would have been nice, in principle: the police could have listened to Professor Anderson's concerns and said, "No, he sounds like just a normal guy who's expressing a belief in the 2nd Amendment."

But does anyone seriously think this was likely, given the consequences of a "miss" coupled with the fact that the campus police would be held responsible?? Give me a break.

theotherTexasRich said:
Fear. It's a powerful thing.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 

Attachments

  • matrix.JPG
    matrix.JPG
    9.3 KB · Views: 129
Vanya -

I see your point, but, as you said, whoever the professor reported this to should have carefully and thoroughly qualified it. If, as the case is, the "qualifier" determines that it was a simple presentation that Mr. Wahlberg made proposing legalized carry, and there were no other indications, then they still should not have acted on it. Acting on the fact that he was only taking a position is harassment. Gun ownership is not illegal, nor is suggesting that students should be allowed to carry on campus. We cannot allow making ideas illegal or the triggers for rousting (ELT*) otherwise innocent citizens. This is inconsistent with the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

At this point, there are some remedies to this. First, perhaps the professor should be charged with filing a false report since there was no crime or potential crime in the making. Secondly, if the ACLU was really concerned with Civil Liberties, they should sue the school and the professor. If a student were brought in for questioning by the police department for advocating abortion, you know the ACLU would be on them like syrup on pancakes.

I understand that you want to give them a pass on this, and believe, "no harm, no foul." But, for me, any compromise of my Rights are always harmful and always foul.

*ELT = Emotionally Loaded Term (I think it is OK to use them. Tom Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John & Sam Adams and James Madison, among others, did. As a courtesy, I identify them.)
 
Last edited:
No Pass

Vanya -
By your reasoning, anybody could question anybody elses motives for anything and initiate a police investigation. Why even wait for an accuser. Let's just have the police investigate everyone. Maybe we could also get them to search everyone's property for anything that might indicate that they might be up to something dire. Think of all the possible bad things that we might prevent. Good idea?
 
The trouble with your reasoning Vanya is that sociological systems are complex iterative sets with a stochastic feedback loop resulting in a upward modulation of the setpoint. ;)
 
Gretske, if you read the story linked in the first post, you know that they weren't questioning him on his views. They were questioning him on where he kept his guns, as he was prohibited from keeping them on campus. I assume that their first step was finding out that he did indeed own guns, which would have raised its own "red flag;" see Glenn Meyer's post about predictive factors. Now think about the position the campus police, in particular, would have been in, if they had not acted on the professor's concerns, and Mr. Wahlberg had turned out to be another Cho.
Click to expand...

Now that is a scary direction if i've ever read one.
Are you really advocating that gun ownership in and of itself is a "red flag"?
That all gun owners who have access to "gun free zones" should be interviewed by authorities to judge exactly how much of a threat they pose?
What's left to deter police from running the registration records of all students, faculty, and people who work or live within walking distance, then interrogating them all to make sure they dont also bring weapons onto school property. Do they pose more or less of a risk than this student? Regardless of the answer, what's the basis?


I agree that real threats must be taken a look at, but common sense did not play a role anywhere in this situation.

If we are classifying gun ownership as justification to be classified and treated as a threat, then this is much too close to a witch hunt for my comfort.
 
Rights versus risk

First, in the Wahlberg case there's not much argument about the fact that the faculty member overreacted. To a reasonable person there wasn't evidence of a "threat," at least on the basis of what was reported.In other cases it's not so clear. People may argue with the applicability of the following situations, nevertheless . . .

Suspected child abuse:
Mental health professionals (like myself) are required by law in virtually every state to report to the proper authorities suspected child abuse. The language usually is something like "has reason to believe that a child is or has been abused." It doesn't mean I have to have evidence that would hold up in court, only that I have "reason to believe." Reporting child abuse is not only expected of me, but also of physicians, nurses, teachers, LEOs, and others. In the case of child abuse the requirement supersedes the confidentiality expectation between client and provider of services. Providers who make such reports in good faith are usually protected from liability (being sued by the client) in such cases.

Duty to warn:
Duty to warn statutes have to do with (again) mental health professionals' responsibility to warn potential victims if (again) "they have reason to believe" that a client is intending to harm the potential victim. The threat must be judged to be imminent or highly likely because this also involves overriding the confidentiality of a client. Some states (e.g., Texas) allow these reports but do not mandate them. In some other states such reports are required by law. In Texas the provider is not protected from liability. You can be sued if you don't report (and a targeted victim is injured or killed), and you can be sued if you do report (and violate confidentiality). Case law is murky.

My reason for going into all this is that these complicated laws address (sometimes not very well) the problems of protecting the individual's rights to privacy and freedom from harrassment on the one hand, and protecting the safety of people for whom there is a substantial risk of harm on the other. This is precisely the kind of dilemma that Vanya was trying to point out in the previous posts.

We can probably all agree that there was apparently no evidence of substantial risk to anyone in the Wahlberg case. The faculty member made a mistake and might be vulnerable to law suit from Wahlberg (but what do I know about that? I'm not a lawyer). Other situations are much more difficult to balance - rights versus risk. And, as Glenn Meyer has pointed out the assessment of risk (in terms of potential for violence) is complicated.
 
Last edited:
Who'd a thunk?

This forum continues to amaze me!

When I joined I thought I might be in danger of overly indulging my knuckle-dragging id. Imagine my amazement at finding such restrained and scholarly discussion that my super-ego is actually stimulated!

What disturbs me most about the whole proposition of a 'teacher' authority - or any authority - causing any kind of restrictive action, even one so slight as an interview - is that it is pro-active and preemptive. Condoning such is beyond my most liberal abilities.

What seems to be at issue here - although I'm certainly NOT a lawyer nor would I ever let myself enter that community because I know too many of them (wink, wink) - is defining the threshold of probable cause.

Why should ANY action be appropriate by the instructor when no crime has been committed and no indication has been given that any crime is threatened? To give the instructor and the school grace for having acted in such a manner as described is unthinkable in my opinion. The student should be outraged. His civil rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were impinged - however slightly - and trampled upon on the basis of some figment in the imagination of the instructor.

If this is allowed to stand, I could have the whole of the Texas Legislature, half of the faculty in Austin, and most of the US Congress called in for discussions with LE for what I fear they are going to do.

Someone has to tell the emperor he's buck-naked (or is that butt-naked?). Seems we're about discussing whether his clothes suit our style or are outrageous, instead.
 
I think there is some confusion here. Some of you are bandying terms about, that have specific meanings, and have confused the following two terms:

Probable Cause: When there are grounds for suspicion that a person has committed a crime or misdemeanor, and public justice and the good of the community require that the matter should be examined, there is said to be a probable cause for, making a charge against the accused, however malicious the intention of the accuser may have been. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition. See also here.

Technically, probable cause has to exist prior to arrest, search or seizure. It is evidence sufficient to obtain a warrant for an arrest or search and seizure. Or to effect an arrest or search and seizure when exigent circumstances exist, without a warrant.

Reasonable Suspicion sometimes referred to as Reasonable Articulable Suspicion: an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping (detention) and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time.

So the question becomes, did the lecturer have a reasonable suspicion to report the student to campus police and did the campus police have reasonable suspicion, based upon what the lecturer told them, to summon the student and interrogate him? (According to what we know, probable cause was not at work here.)

If the answer is, no, then a violation of civil rights may exist. Conversely, if the answer was, yes, then no violation has occurred.
 
Actually, Al, it does not matter whether the person is detained (a temporary condition) or arrested (a formal condition). In either case, probable cause must be established before a person's rights can be curtailed.

This is clearly embodied in the Bill of Rights, Amendment 4 -
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

The difference in detainment or arrest is technical, but, in no instance, can an individual's freedom of movement be curtailed unless and until probable cause can be established. In this situation, I contend that the mere expression of a political opinion cannot be sufficient to establish probable cause in the absence of other evidence that a crime has been, or is likely to occur.
 
Quote--"But while permitting concealed carry on campuses might reduce casualties in a future incident, I don't think it will do a thing to prevent one; the people who do this stuff aren't rational and are not likely to be deterred by the fact that others around them may be armed. "

Really? Are you sure that is a completely honest or finished thought, or simply an emotional idea that wants the world to be a certain way that feels good or allows a specific world perception to be true? Think of the shootings that have turned into mass murders in the last few decades. Where have they occurred? Schools, churches, daycares, office buildings and malls that deny the carry of personal firearms, but no one goes into a police station, gun range, military base, guard armory, or any other facility where it is known and accepted that there are people there with loaded weapons who are willing to use it.

And by the by, near Biloxi Mississippi a teenaged boy went on a shooting spree at a local school. He was stopped by a teacher who ran across the street to retrieve his pistol from his car as he wasn't allowed to have it on school grounds. Had he been able to carry concealed there were several folks who could have been saved while he was running to and fro to defend others rather than simply drawing and taking aim.

If it was commonly accepted that a significant (not even most) portion of the population was carrying concealed it is far more likely that petty grievances would be ignored or appropriately sorted out; self-regulation is much easier and physical bullying impossible when you are aware that the person is very capable of stopping you immediately. It's also likely that a "nut" wouldn't get very far in any shooting spree.

Most people respect law enforcement due to the badge and representation of authority that regulates society. Some people only respect violence, and those are exactly the people likely to go "crazy" or commit violent crimes when the opportunity presents itself. How about taking away the opportunity?
 
Response to Antipitas

In my post of yesterday (#69) I thought I made it clear that, regarding the Wahlberg case, I could not see from the reports any evidence to support the faculty member's actions. I did not comment on what the police did. The previous posts about the Wahlberg case served to open up a more general discussion of the problems that exist in our society regarding defending rights versus responding to risk.

I do not pretend to have comprehensive knowledge of the laws regarding such terms as probable cause and reasonable suspicion. However, I suspect that these terms are directed mostly at what must guide the actions of law enforcement and other agencies with legal authority.

Some civilians, who, because of the statutes governing their professional behavior (as in my case as a mental health professional), are expected to balance rights to privacy (confidentiality) against the potential risk to others (as in the cases of child abuse and serious threats of violence). The lawmakers have decided that certain professionals must exercise judgment and assess to the best of their abilities the degree of danger that may exist or harm that has been done. When reports regarding these types of issues are submitted it is then up to law enforcement or agencies with legal authority to determine, under their legal guidelines as to what actions, if any, to take.

In the Wahlberg case I would think (given my limited legal knowledge) that the issues of probable cause and reasonable suspicion are more relevant to what law enforcement did than the actions of the faculty member (which we all seem to agree were unwarranted). Whether Wahlberg has a case against her in civil court is beyond my scope.

The point of my post was not to review the Wahlberg case, but to point out that the lawmakers have determined that there is a balance between rights and risk, and it has been difficult for them to create clarity about this in many circumstances.
 
Semi-jacketed said:
Think of the shootings that have turned into mass murders in the last few decades. Where have they occurred? Schools, churches, daycares, office buildings and malls that deny the carry of personal firearms, but no one goes into a police station, gun range, military base, guard armory, or any other facility where it is known and accepted that there are people there with loaded weapons who are willing to use it.
Click to expand...

Semi-jacketed, you're correct about the locations of these shootings, and it's a good point; but with the exception of a couple of these, such as the one in the Knoxville Unitarian church last year, it's not clear to me that the shooters went to those places because they expected people to be unarmed. Unhappy students shoot up their schools; unhappy workers shoot up their workplaces; and so forth. Whether people will be deterred if they know that someone in a school or church might be armed is an empirical question. If CC in any of these places is ever approved, then we might get some evidence...

MeekAndMild said:
The trouble with your reasoning Vanya is that sociological systems are complex iterative sets with a stochastic feedback loop resulting in a upward modulation of the setpoint.
Click to expand...

Holy Big Words, M&M -- I surrender! :D
 
Deterrence

Good post Semi –

Although this thread was not originally about why many of us believe that carry should be allowed most everywhere, it is hard to separate that issue from the “reasons” the professor and others think that someone who espouses the benefits of carry is automatically suspect as dangerous.

The threat of carry does seem to deter at least some crime and save some lives. Will legal carry stop someone intent on massacre from starting the deed? Might, but I’m not sure in very many cases. There have, actually, been instances where massacres have been initiated at gun ranges, military bases, and even police stations. This seems to be when the object(s) of the hatred? are within those venues. Of course, almost all massacre attempts are prompted by venue along with whatever other reasons for the decision to act. Choice of venue seems, to me, to be most driven by the choice of targets and just how specific that choice is.

Those who believe that carry should be allowed generally believe that there is a deterrent value, but most are mainly concerned with having tool(s) easily available that are needed to end an encounter quickly if it does occur. If someone is able to stop the perp, future casualties within the current event has been achieved, not just in future events.

Are (massacreists?) rational or irrational? By our society’s definition they are irrational (or that they are driven by evil, which is also thought of by most of society as irrationality/insanity, but who knows for sure?). However, once the decision has been made they seem to act quite rationally within the context of the task they have chosen. They seem to have a rational plan, to methodical pursue that plan, and to remain on track throughout the entire ordeal. While there are some instances where an armed person has stopped a perp by threatening with a firearm, most evidence suggests that this is the least likely outcome. Probably because the decision to kill a lot of people is, to the perp, irrevocable, to be ended only when it is stopped, even if that is by self inflicted means.

It seems to me that the student who is the subject of this thread is more likely, after being bullied and disrespected, to do something dangerously irrational than before, i.e., he was treated irrationally and badly, and that he has likely entertained inner thoughts of responding in kind. I really respect him for not raising the emotional level of the event and I pray that God has given him peace regarding the whole thing.
 
Probable Cause or Reasonable Suspicion?

Thank you, Al, for enlightening me on the nuances of these terms. As I said, I am not trained in the law but was aware of the concept and couldn't name it.

My question remains: What evidence is there that the instructor had a suspicion that could be reasonably held that the student represented sufficient threat to warrant the report? If evidence exists, we've not seen it. If evidence does not exist, then I suggest that the instructor acted inappropriately and the consequence was an abridgement of the students civil rights; AND the instructor's actions warrant criticism and censure.

The instructor's fear of firearms posited here - real or imagined - couldn't rise to reasonable suspicion in my mind, but it might at law. Certainly the instructor's political position against firearm ownership - posited here - does not rise to reasonable suspicion in my mind. Finally, absent threat stated or implied by the student, if the instructor acted out of caution based on reaction to VT or any other news story (IOW, from a 'better safe than sorry' mentality) as has been posited, there could have been no reasonable suspicion in my mind and no probable cause because LE should not have been involved.

Similarly, what was the probable cause for the campus LEO to question the student? If it was, as has been suggested, the instructor's report and if that report was incorrectly based, then did probable cause exist? Based on what I know - and that is only what has been presented in this thread and links posted herein - the instructor acted without reasonable suspicion and that action was reprehensible if not culpable. Her actions, in turn, caused the campus LE to act; and I question whether the report correctly constituted probable cause.

That the student lived off-campus should have been a fact easily established before any other LE action was taken. Should LE have questioned the student knowing that he lived off campus. Should the instructor's suspicion give rise to probable cause? Should the police have taken action given that the student lived off-campus? Does status as a student subrogate rights that might exist for a non-student? What, if any, bearing does the student's storage of firearms off campus have on the issue? How was it established that the student owned firearms? Unless memory fails me, there was no evidence that the student admitted to owning firearms. If there was no evidence that the student owned firearms, I suggest that both the instructor AND LE acted inappropriately and culpably.

Too frequently I've seen these points discussed only in terms of legal nuance and court precedent (IOW in terms of law instead of terms of justice and right). I, for one, don't believe that the legal system is consistently correct in its operation; nor do I believe that it is consistently concerned with rights and justice, especially where the latter might contravene the desire and perceived best interests of the legal system when there is a perceived conflict between those interests and the interests and desires of those who are subjected to the machinations of the system.

The burden of proof here should, in my mind, lie with the instructor and LE not with the student. Again, these are only my opinions. I am a layman, not someone trained or experience at law.
 
My college hosts swat demonstrations which is awesome. They get students involved with room clearing excercises (as clearers+hiders) and a lof other fun stuff. It was put together by our Administration of Justice club :P
 
probable cause

Isn't probable cause established either by an LE's actual observations as witness to an active situation (and subject to review after the event), OR by a judge based a request and sworn testimony by LE('s)? That is, even a medicial/psych or other appropriate professional can only judge whether to report, not determine whether there is probable cause - and the LE needed a judge to validate any probable cause. Please, someone who knows, fill us in.

If my speculation is correct, probable cause was not established in this case.
 
Really? Are you sure that is a completely honest or finished thought, or simply an emotional idea that wants the world to be a certain way that feels good or allows a specific world perception to be true? Think of the shootings that have turned into mass murders in the last few decades. Where have they occurred? Schools, churches, daycares, office buildings and malls that deny the carry of personal firearms, but no one goes into a police station, gun range, military base, guard armory, or any other facility where it is known and accepted that there are people there with loaded weapons who are willing to use it.
Click to expand...

Deterrent?

1. Churches - Colorado church recently
2. Malls - Tacoma Mall
3. Police Station - Tyler, TX courthouse
4. Military base - there has been a marine (IIRC) who went on a rampage at a base.
5. DC sniper - in Virginia, there is CCW and open carry
6. There are several gun related suicides at gun ranges. Rampages - not yet.
7. UT Austin, TX tower - started a rifle fight in a venue awash in rifles as we saw.
8. Columbine - there was the known presence of an armed officer.

These kind of overblown arguments are sometimes due to zealotry but zealotry does not always aid in argument.

The deterrence argument is hard to demonstrate in the case of what is known as 'suicide with hostile intent'. The shooter wants to die. They have an issue, either specific or symbolic, with a locale. Their attack and their death is to make a statement. They want to punish and die as a 'warrior'. They expect to kill many quickly and then die reasonable quickly in the action. If they wanted to just kill, you would get folks like the DC sniper. Note, they were not deterred by Virginia CCW or open carry.

The reason for carry is that you have a better chance of stopping an attacker. A targeted attack by some who wants to die but kill first isn't going to be deterred that much by the small chance of having someone armed.

Only 1 to 4% of the population get permits/licenses. Some estimate only 80% carry even with a license. They want a 'car' gun - whatever use that is.

The argument needs to shift away from deterrence as the first point to being able to engage the shooter quickly as the strongest argument. BTW, that means if you claim this second argument - you need to train a touch and not just posture. Sorry to be seemingly nasty here but I see too much of that from some on the INTERNETS!

In some of the instances, I mentioned above and others, armed personnel aided in quickly stopping the shooting. However, at Tacoma and Tyler, the civilian didn't do well. At the Colorado church and Applachian law school - the folks were trained LEO or ex-LEO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top