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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Getting back to the OP for a minute...

As I think about this case, I can't help being struck by its resemblance to other cases in which people were detained based on some form of "profiling," i.e., were targeted because of their membership in a group which was seen as a threat by the people who reported "suspicious activity."

The case of the "flying imams" who were removed from a US Airways plane in Minneapolis in 2006 comes to mind here:

Shahin and the other imams were escorted from the flight in handcuffs after a passenger handed a note to a flight attendant expressing concern over the group's “suspicious activity,” according to the airport police report. The group was taken off the flight in handcuffs, and after several hours of questioning by federal authorities, released. But though the airline refunded their tickets, U.S. Airways—which released a statement Tuesday saying it does "not tolerate discrimination of any kind"—reportedly denied them passage on any of its other flights and refused to help them obtain tickets through another airline.

What was the group’s suspicious activity? According to the report filed by the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport police, the group’s loud chants of “Allah, Allah, Allah,” [They were praying -- V.] initially drew the suspicion of nearby passengers—one of whom said he heard the imams make anti-American comments regarding the war in Iraq.
(Newsweek)
​
Various other allegations of "suspicious behavior" were made -- where they sat on the plane, and such -- but essentially, these men, five of whom were either US citizens or permanent residents, were detained because of their verbal behavior: "expressing their views," if you will.

As in the Wahlberg case:

  1. They were members of a group another citizen felt threatened by.
  2. That person was made uncomfortable by their behavior and reported it to the authorities.
  3. They were questioned, determined to pose no threat, and released.
  4. This occurred in the context of a climate of fear of incidents of mass murder in the venues where the two cases occurred.

They filed a civil rights lawsuit against the airline and the airport; I think it's due to be heard in August.

In the meantime, the Dept. of Transportation has said that their rights were not violated:

The Associated Press, 19 Feb. '09
MINNEAPOLIS — The U.S. Department of Transportation says US Airways didn't discriminate against six imams when it removed them from a Phoenix-bound flight at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in 2006.​

So Mr. Wahlberg was seen as a threat because he was a gun owner who expressed his views; the six imams at the Minneapolis airport were seen as a threat because they were Muslims who expressed theirs. What is the difference here, in terms of the civil rights aspects of the two cases?
 
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Glenn, I have often thought (in an unacademic and unscholarly way) that a rampage or spree killer cannot be detered only interdicted.

Would you agree with that simpleton thought? My question to you is what impact if any would the belief that a fair number of people were CCW have on the target selection process of the BG?

Would he look somewhere where there might be less CCW? Or would he not even consider it and just go wherever.

My sense tells me that someone who wants to die will not be deterred from the rampage by CCW and would instead seek "help". What do you think?
 
Glenn Myer, I do not take your response as nasty. I see not ill intent there, but do see some frustration. Actually I agree with you, but there is indeed a deterrent factor. As an aside, a courthouse is not a police station unless one is HQ'd there. And my previous argument as to making carry onerous while allowing it remains valid in Virginia as well as Alabama. Saying that, "Yes, you can CCW," with one side of the mouth, while denying a host of places to legally carry out of the other side shows the real intent. (i.e., We'll let you carry to shut you up, but not places that make us nervous or where people actually congregate.)

A single, inattentive LEO is no deterrent to anyone. Which was part of my point. A single armed individual may deter a moment of opportunity; however, should there be no deterrent factor at all at least the act of termination of the threat is available when carry is actually freely allowed. That option does not exist when carry is so curtailed as to be unviable, but allowed in theory.

To a truly irrational person, there is no such thing as deterrence. In their damaged mind they have a mission. As you stated, then an armed response may be necessary to end it. Only possible when armed obviously. But to truly believe that a criminal wouldn't be deterred by the high probability of armed response is not thinking things through.
 
Just to clarify a few questions about probable cause....probable cause is usually defined as a set of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a person commited a crime and this probable cause is what is needed to make an arrest. Police do not need probable cause to question this or any person and he apparently willingly met with them when the asked. Unless he wanted to leave and was illegally detained his rights were not violated. They had a duty to investigate this report once it was made. The professor, on the other hand is in my opinion, guilty of at least a gross over reaction and unjustified in making this kind of report to police. In my opinion ,if the student feels he was somehow harmed by the actions of this professor then he may have a basis for a civil lawsuit against her and the school.
 
Reasonable points, Semi - and I think we are getting somewhere.

It depends what you mean by 'criminal'. I have thought this through quite a bit and spent lots of time reading the professional criminological, law and psych literature on this.

I think the standard use of criminal refers to an economic motivation. The literature is strong in suggesting the economic motivation is subject to risk aversion at the level of what we see with standard CCW/CHL carry rates. Thus, we get deterrence. Same with home burglary - clearly influenced by the risk of an armed homeowner.

The rampage killer, with suicidal intent, wants to die and probably isn't deterred by the level of carry we would see in schools. This is my guess, of course, but even with legalization of carry, most classrooms will not have an armed person. There would have to be a change to an Israeli like situation to have a significant increase in armed folks around.

That 1-4% licensed with only 20% likely to carry isn't going to be different at schools.

To be ruthless - we know that women carry less (sorry, Pax, Tam). We have had killers with high levels of firepower deliberately target female run classes. Go to one of those. Even with carry permitted - the odds of running into an armed person are small in the initial wave.

From my reading, I just don't think that deterrent is our strongest argument. Just my view about what would really happen from the person who wants to die. That's why I think, my argument is:

What would you do, if you heard shots down the hall or Cho steps in?

If I weren't immediately killed and I had my normal carry gun - I might stop him.

Could you? You would die in the fetal position. Or trying the charge of the laptop and pencil stabbing brigade.

Now we are stuck with text messages and after the fact memorial services (which prime the next killer, BTW).

So to conclude, criminals and rampages - different contingencies IMHO.
 
Getting back to the OP for a minute...

In the meantime, the Dept. of Transportation has said that their rights were not violated:
The Associated Press, 19 Feb. '09
MINNEAPOLIS — The U.S. Department of Transportation says US Airways didn't discriminate against six imams when it removed them from a Phoenix-bound flight at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in 2006.
So Mr. Wahlberg was seen as a threat because he was a gun owner who expressed his views; the six imams at the Minneapolis airport were seen as a threat because they were Muslims who expressed theirs. What is the difference here, in terms of the civil rights aspects of the two cases?
Click to expand...

The incident you cited, Vanya, is casually similar to the thread subject, but is crucially different. The most important difference is that under current law when people are flying commercially they do not have the same civil rights as when thay are not.
 
ftd:

Re your closing observation in post 86, "The incident you cited, Vanya, is casually similar to the thread subject, but is crucially different. The most important difference is that under current law when people are flying commercially they do not have the same civil rights as when they are not ", the following comes to mind. I could be taking what you said out of context.

In any event, the following question comes to mind. Do we retain the right of, and or the freedom to travel. It appears that you are saying that re a particular method of travel, we don't. I find this troubling, though perhaps I'm being overly sensitive.

Also, the following comes to mind, an observation attributed to Benjamin Franklin, circa 1760 or thereabouts. No quotation marks are used because I'm not sure of the exact wording, however I believe I've retained the general sense of Franklin's comments. He that sacrifices essential liberties to obtain temporary security shall have neither liberties nor security. Would you perhaps be willing to reconsider your reference to travel via a particuar method?
 
In any event, the following question comes to mind. Do we retain the right of, and or the freedom to travel. It appears that you are saying that re a particular method of travel, we don't. I find this troubling, though perhaps I'm being overly sensitive.
Click to expand...

Alan -
I'm not sure if I am understanding you. I'm reading it as you believe that I said that there is some limitation on the right to travel it self. If not, could you please explain? If so, that is not what I was trying to say.

During plane travel other civil liberties are blunted and or erased. The right to free speech is blunted (if you say or are thought to have said the wrong things you can be taken into custody and removed from the plane and even charged for a crime for what you said. Even vehement complaining about service while in flight has apparently resulted in criminal charges). You also undergo searches of possessions and body that in other circumstances would be illegal. Do I think that this is bad? I dislike it enough to now avoid air travel as much as possible. Do I approve? No, but I’m not sure that it isn’t necessary given the state of our world.

Also, in the recent cases of 12+ hour imprisonments (my word) on airplanes waiting to depart certainly approaches kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment. The practice, however, has been found (I think), uncriminal in these cases.

So in a way your right to travel via certain ways are restricted in that if you don’t sign off on losing other rights, you can’t fly commercial. That is not what I meant in post 86, but maybe I should have included that thought.

Either way, I was not trying to justify the situation, but rather differentiating the travel issue, given current law, from the school project issue in this thread, which Vanya tried to equate.
 
Incredulous

TLeo says (in part)
Just to clarify a few questions about probable cause....probable cause is usually defined as a set of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a person commited a crime and this probable cause is what is needed to make an arrest. Police do not need probable cause to question this or any person and he apparently willingly met with them when the asked. Unless he wanted to leave and was illegally detained his rights were not violated.
Click to expand...

You might note that my misuse of the term 'probable cause' has been corrected. The circumstance that I was trying to castigate was the instructor's reaction not rising to reasonable suspicion. I commented further that I think the LEs over-reacted by not first determining the student's address. If they had called me to come in to talk (and not lied about why, as they are allowed to do), I would have told them to take a hike or get a warrant. Under no circumstance would I have gone in voluntarily to discuss it but might have allowed them to come to me to do so.

Then Vanya cites the case of people repeatedly saying "Allah, Allah, Allah" on board an airplane in at post 9-11 world and states (in part) the following:
So Mr. Wahlberg was seen as a threat because he was a gun owner who expressed his views; the six imams at the Minneapolis airport were seen as a threat because they were Muslims who expressed theirs. What is the difference here, in terms of the civil rights aspects of the two cases
Click to expand...

I have to say that this comparison must be a blatant troll.

In the college incident, the students were completing an assignment - their speech was elicited even if the subject was not proscribed. Unless there was something about the content or the manner in which the students made their case, there could be no reasonable cause for the police report. I'm amazed that academicians who are so often over zealous to protect academic freedoms could be motivated to take the actions they did. Absent any threat - real or implied - the instructor and the faculty were just wrong-headed. The LEA, however, was probably duty-bound to investigate after the report was made.

As for imams, one can speculate about their behavior and their intent as one can speculate about the intentions of the passenger who passed a note to the flight attendant; but I find it incredible that anyone can try to draw a parallel between the treatment the imams received and that dealt to the student. It seems to me entirely reasonable to observe the actions of a group of people traveling together and repeating islamic prayers on an airplane and conclude that their behavior was questionable after having experienced the attacks of 9-11-2001. Such behavior on the part of the imams could more reasonably (pun intended) be thought analogous to yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, id est, the behavior was provocative and thereby not protected.

The example of individuals ceding rights by choosing to pursue certain activities - as is the case when one chooses to travel on airlines - has been well made. I find it entirely relevant and appropriate and the parallel to the school case to be . . . well, ludicrously naive or provocatively disingenuous.
 
It seems to me entirely reasonable to observe the actions of a group of people traveling together and repeating islamic prayers on an airplane and conclude that their behavior was questionable after having experienced the attacks of 9-11-2001.
Click to expand...
BINGO!

If you read the eyewitness reports of the actions of the 6 imams, there was a lot more involved than just chanting "Allah." They also changed seats after boarding taking "strategic" positions ala 9/11, asked for seat belt extensions when not needed, signaled to each other in code while on the plane, made loud anti-American comments and took repeated trips to the bathroom.

By the way, it turns out they were on the way home from a Muslim convention in Minneapolis, where political activism for combating anti-Muslim attitudes in America was extensively discussed.

There is no moral equivalence between the deliberately provocative acts of Muslim political leaders and a student authoring an essay advocating legal carry on-campus by licensed individuals. None.
 
Discussing specifics of the Imans is a bit of a thread diversion for this one.

I think the point was that in times of stress and fear, some folks overanalyze what might be harmless behavior but that looks frightening.

Someone not knowledgeable about the gun debate might overreact to someone postulating more guns on campus. After 9/11, any indication of terrorism might be overinterpreted.

For example, an extreme - Sikhs were harassed for their turbans when they have nothing to do with Islam.

Academics, Joe Six Pack and all of us - probably do such.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Glenn ~

The intervention of both the Tacoma and Tyler civilians did save other people's lives. No question at all about that. They just failed to save their own lives while they were at it. (Tacoma survived, paralyzed; but his survival wasn't his own doing. He was down and helpless.)

If you're an ordinary citizen carrying a gun, get training. The life you save could be your own.

pax
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
I think the point was that in times of stress and fear, some folks overanalyze what might be harmless behavior but that looks frightening.

Someone not knowledgeable about the gun debate might overreact to someone postulating more guns on campus. After 9/11, any indication of terrorism might be overinterpreted.
Click to expand...

That was exactly my point. Overreactions occurred in both cases, and in both cases the people who were "singled out" felt that they had been treated unjustly: that their rights had been violated. If we accept that it's OK to curtail the civil rights of airplane passengers in the interest of public safety, then it's OK to do the same thing in other situations -- it's just a question of where and when.

And in terms of when it's appropriate to be afraid of members of a given group, I'd add that, as far as I'm aware, since 9/11 no acts of mass murder have been carried out in this country by Muslim citizens; but several have been carried out by white, male gun owners (men who owned guns well before they committed their crimes) -- I'm sure we've all been annoyed at the way the press says "He had an ARSENAL!" when, say, eight guns are found in the house of one of these people. (I have seven... so I guess I'd better not buy any more...:rolleyes:). So given that history, fearing gun owners might seem as reasonable to someone as uninformed as Professor Anderson as a blanket fear of Muslims does to many others.

My post on this was not intended as a troll, but as a way of getting all of us, myself included, to think more critically about the balance between protecting civil rights and protecting public safety. Note that I did NOT suggest that the case of the "Sheiks on a Plane" (;)) should have been handled differently. What I asked was how the two cases compare, given that in both, the people targeted for investigation thought, with some justification, that their rights had been violated.

And here's a related question, also quite genuine: I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the current version of the Patriot Act includes the "John Doe Provision," which protects individuals who report suspicious activity from civil rights lawsuits. If Mr. Wahlberg were to try to sue Professor Anderson, would this provision apply? Why or why not? What's the threshold for "suspicion?"
 
Last edited:
Pax - I know that - I tend to criticize those heroic folks in my mantra about appropriate training.

The Tacoma gentleman couldn't answer what Ayoob called the Question - could you shoot? Thus, he was brave but a lesson for those who would act.

The Tyler gentleman also violated tactical rules according to analyses by folks like Chris Byrd (Bird?). I don't mean to criticize them for trying.

It was only a side comment on the action and a caution that if one uses those cases in an argument for civilian carry - you should be able to deal with that critique. I like 'Red team' arguments so you avoid not being able to support yourself.

When it was claimed that rampages happen in places where victims are unarmed (as a blanket statement), that can be shown to be not accurate. That was my point. I think when we make the case for the utility of lethal force instrumentation, we have to have facts and arguments all in order.

I have seen folks argue that the Colorado intervention really 'didn't count' as a civilian intervention because the heroine was a past LEO.

So it was a training aside in the conversation of rampages only occuring in gun free areas. No offense to folks who tried. Just a reasonable after action view.

Thanks for pointing out that they did help.
 
Gagging on a Gnat and Swallowing a Camel

That's the only way I can describe the dismissals by both Vanya and Glenn. To take the 1% of similarity between the two incidents and use that 1% to equate them is ludicrous. Yes, the imams probably thought they were treated unfairly but they provoked the situation and thus the treatment. We have no evidence that the student felt he was treated unfairly and he DID NOTHING PROVOCATIVE! Where is your evidence that there is any equality of concept in the comparison? Your argument - a very, very weak and ill-considered one IMO - has no traction. It doesn't give credence to all of the variables at play but chooses only one tiny aspect. That's not just poor logic and bad debate technique (grade=F or "Fail" if Pass/Fail grading), it borders on dishonesty (to the same extent and in the same manner as misdirection in advertising, political campaigns, etc. do).

If you two can't produce more compelling arguments than those proposed so far, fold your tents and steal quietly away in the night. Your arguments are as specious and perverted as those who would attack the SA. We deserve better from you. You do yourselves grave injustices by the narrowness of your argument and the speciousness of your views.

A word to the wise: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight!"
 
1. You misunderstood what I said. I was explaining the process, so your rant is quite off base. I did not dismiss anything. That is in your emotional misperception. I made no value judgment on the Imans. So you are wrong. What I did was an explanation of how behaviors are misinterpreted. Whether the Imans did XY or Z wasn't my point. Thus, your analysis of what I said was incorrect. I was discussing the general process.

The issue of the motivation of the professor is easy to view as a deliberate antigun agenda (as commonly done on the Internet) or perhaps someone going off on a misinterpretation of cues. That could be generated by fear and not a political agenda. That was what I was pointed out and not to be taken as perverted or an attack on the SA, unless you didn't understand what I said. So again, your analysis of my comments is specious, vacuous and incorrect.

Is that perfectly clear. I can write it five other ways if you want.

2. Personal invective is not allowed. You need to argue better than that. If you don't like what I said, even if you do understand it now - please feel free to have the list owners dock my salary or remove me.

There is an unfortunate tendency by some to want ideological purity to their self-defined ideological position on gun rights. If you don't fit in - then you are an enemy of their state of mind. But that is better argued if you understand the arguments. Get of the list, quit the cause. Only my definition of the true believer is worthy of contributing to my self-defined view of the world and/or 2nd Amend.
 
Last edited:
FTD:

I had replied to your post, I believe it was 86, but my computer appears to have eaten the reply, and I'm quite annoyed, not at all your fault. I will therefore wait till tomorrow, and reconstruct my thoughts, when I cool off.
 
In this thread - we discussed deterrence as compared to threat termination as reasons to consider carry at schools or anywhere.

For information's sake - if you can - read:

http://www.policeone.com/active-sho...urch-shooter-expected-to-be-killed-by-police/

http://www.policeone.com/active-sho...hooter-hoped-attack-would-spur-more-violence/

Such a person is not deterred as he is clearly a case of suicide with hostile intent. He clearly wanted to die to make a statement, punish the specific locale, etc.

To make this clear (to some who need clarification) - I am not arguing against deterrence as part of the argument. In Israel - with an much higher level of armed presence, there is clear evidence of deterrence of gun based terrorist attacks from statements of captured terrorists. I am arguing that there is subset of folks who want to die and will not be deterred. In Israel - we probably saw the move to suicide bombers because gun based attacks lacked efficacy. Just as speculation, if we did increase carry, we might see a shift in such attacks to softer targets and other tactics. We know such occurs with property crimes. Terrible thing to think about.

I am arguing that we argue for quick termination of gun based attacks as the first argument for carry.
 
So Glenn, although you did not answer my earlier question directly (that's OK:)) you would agree that Rampage/Spree killers cannot be deterred only interdicted? Therefore the best argument for CCW against this threat would be mitigation of damage?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top