Suspended for gun photo

Not surprising in the least I have always thought school boards are given to much power and are very used to running things their own way outside of the law and BOR.
 
Mr X said:
However, what was not positive was everyone prefaced their argument saying that because this happened in Beaver Dam, WI, this whole thing was OK. They suggest that this is acceptable in what they implicitly called redneck Beaver Dam but not in a civilized place like Milwaukee. Some callers said this was fine in Beaver Dam but if it was a Milwaukee or suburban teacher, than this may have been unacceptable.

Plenty of the people I work with though thought that she deserved punishment because as a teacher, she should be held to higher standard of conduct and not play with guns. Sigh, that is quite a prevalent mentality here.
Click to expand...

Glenn E. Meyer said:
Why is it a concern that students can print such a picture? It is not the school's business unless you accept that she is doing something bad.
Click to expand...

I think that, for some people, they see it as a morals issue. They equate guns with "bad things and bad people" due to the demonization of guns in America by the Bradys and the media. Thus, if she handles and is familiar with guns, she must be morally corrupt. Q.E.D.

Let's suppose that instead of holding the rifle, we saw a completely different photo of her. What else would cause parental complaints in a community?
- She posed with a joint in her hand or mouth.
- Photographed sloppy drunk at a party?
- A picture of her in a bikini hugging a teenage boy
- Participating in a wet t-shirt contest at Hooters?

Any of the above would usually be sufficient to warrant a school district to look into a teacher's background. Drug use, excessive alcohol consumption, potential sexual interest in student-aged boys, and public exhibitionism could all be used as part of a "moral turpitude" allegation that she was unfit and/or posed a risk as a teacher.

To liberal-leaning minds, guns equate to people who are criminals, have criminal desires, are beer-swizzling rednecks or violent schitzes ready to "go off". Thus they see this as "morally corrupt" in their belief system.

It's true that a picture is worth a thousand words and a "photograph tells a story". But the viewer can hear the wrong words or get the wrong story from a photograph too. A bikini-clad teacher hugging a 13-15 y/o boy or posing in a "fond embrace" would certainly raise eyebrows today. Unless the caption says "Betsy hugging nephew Danny at his summer birthday BBQ".

Likewise, the rifle photograph tells a story. The question is whether or not the viewer is listening to ESPN or NPR.

That her "behavior" (what little we can tell of it in the photo) is acceptable in a rural setting but not in "the big city" is preposterous. If we turn this around and say "being openly gay in public is okay in the big city, but will get you fired in rural America" the gay rights activists, the ACLU and liberal nitwits would descend on that like locusts.

The Bradyites get free press when they refer to guns as "killing machines", "weapons of war" or that "so many of our children die because of guns". Unfortunately we stand on our "Constitutional Rights" as a moral high ground, something that has an intangible feel to most people.

We - the firearms community - should be putting forth images and/or advertisements that show family recreational shooting or cowboy shooting, happy responsible adults urging safety or training classes both for education and fun. The only way to counter the "bad moral image" the anti-gun propagandists have spread is to show positive images of gun ownership.
 
I have no use for left wing or right wing thought police to make it easy. You do your job and don't break the law. I don't care if some right wing tight butt is concerned with your legal sexuality and I don't care if some left wing tight butt is concerned with you legally using a firearm.

A plague on both their houses. The principle is easy - your behavior off the job, if legal, and doesn't DIRECTLY attack the employer - is not the business of the employer.

I see no difference between a teacher being a topless dancer or posing topless for a college art class as an advanced art elective in painting.

Not the employer's business.
 
BillCA said:
And just because you have "free speech" does not mean you're immune from the consequences of that right.
Click to expand...

I distinctly remember reading a newspaper article, back when I was in high school, which had in it an interview with a high-ranking member of the Soviet government (back when there was a Soviet government). Wish I still had the article. The interviewer asked the Soviet official about free speech in the USSR. "Oh, we have freedom of speech!" the official explained. "It's what happens after you speak that is sometimes the issue. We do have to make sure that these people are not enemies of the state."

Don't worry about it. I'm sure it will never get that bad here.

pax
 
In my opinion, Legal or Not, its dumb.

Legal or not, posting pictures of yourself posing with a gun on the internet is a dumb idea.
As a sanity check, imagine what it will look like to a jury if you ever face charges for a defensive shooting. No thanks.
Because firearm enthusiasts are at the leading edge of personal responsibility, we need to behave that way.
 
Mowog, Also work diligently to change the mindset of the general public (that are our jurors) that just because you own/like guns your not bad. Shooting guns is a sport and good clean fun. MORE pics of people/families enjoying this sport should be made public. Not hidden! Thats the way it should be looked at. Shooting/having guns is not illegal and if I were this lady the law suits would fly.
 
The only issue I can see....

Is that there was no caption stating that the camera was tripod mounted. So, it appears, and people assume, that she is pointing the gun at a person (holding the camera). And, by extension, she is pointing a gun at the viewer.

I wouls suggest that pictures showing enthusiasts holding, and using guns in a positive, recreational manner should be encouraged. Pics pointing the gun at the camera should not be. Don't want some emotionally insecure paranoid individual getting scared by a picture, now do we.
 
Mowog said:
Because firearm enthusiasts are at the leading edge of personal responsibility, we need to behave that way.
Click to expand...

Mowog...are you saying that she was not responsible because she posted a picture of herself with a firearm on the internet? If so, this is the kind of anti-gun attitude we need to confront, not foster.

As I see it, a person can go two directions. They can keep all their firearm enthusiasm contained and not displayed in such public places as the internet, or they can proudly (and yes, responsibly) proclaim their interests in firearms. Even if you don't post pictures of yourself with firearms, do you really think an attorney is not going to drudge your hobby up? The number and type of firearms you own will be discussed as will how often you frequent the range or what kind of ammo you have. You won't be able to hide this, nor should you. What we have to do is insist, through the legal system, that people aren't unfairly convicted because of these details.

Please don't take this as a personal attack Mowog, but if any DA were to look at your blog, they would see that you have shot USPSA matches. That's no big deal, right? Well, you are running around simulating a gunfight. You are shooting at human shaped targets, not rabid badgers. Do you think that might portray a gung ho, "I want to shoot somebody" attitude? I'd bet you dollars for donuts that an attorney would sure try to spin it this way. Again...I'm not attacking you or anyone else that would shoot in these matches. It's just food for thought.

44 AMP said:
Is that there was no caption stating that the camera was tripod mounted. So, it appears, and people assume, that she is pointing the gun at a person (holding the camera). And, by extension, she is pointing a gun at the viewer.

I wouls suggest that pictures showing enthusiasts holding, and using guns in a positive, recreational manner should be encouraged. Pics pointing the gun at the camera should not be. Don't want some emotionally insecure paranoid individual getting scared by a picture, now do we.
Click to expand...

I agree...why make people wonder how dumb or unsafe you are? The problem is that even if you post a comment detailing what precautions you took when pointing a gun at the camera, those details won't necessarily follow the photo when it flies through cyberspace and is duplicated countless times.

Other than that...I don't have an opinion. :rolleyes:

Fly
 
The Rules Mrs. Palin, the Rules.

On topic (sort of),always be careful what you put on the net. Right, wrong or indifferent, someone will disagree and give you grief.
 
@ Shortwave:
"work diligently to change the mindset of the general public (that are our jurors) that just because you own/like guns your not bad."
I agree. To be more clear - posing with a gun pretending to menace the camera or behaving poorly is a bad idea. I think this instance counts.
@ OntheFly:
I'm not taking it as a personal attack, thanks! Absolutely correct that a person's firearms hobby would be used in court, and any evidence with respect to type, quantity, clubs or activities (even if its not on the internet!). I think its a bad (dumb) idea to show a deliberately provocative image of yourself pointing a gun at the camera, sends a bad message. Smiling photos of everyone having a nice time at a match or the range - that makes a more 'responsible' presentation. Why provide a bad image for use against yourself or your hobby if you can responsibly avoid it with some internet common sense. My opinion of course.
 
Mowog, Thanks for clarification! Picture form, bad idea,maybe but not illegal. IMO,Getting put on admin. leave from job for this picture taken on her own time is wrong. As previously stated, this is a 1st Amend. not 2nd Amend. case. Seems as though I remember a situation where a female firefighter posed nude for Playboy and was fired. Believe she sued and got her job back. Since both teacher and firefighter`s are public servants it will be interesting to see the outcome of this lawsuit(if filed). Posing nude;)-holding evil gun:eek:
 
Do what I do put a disclaimer below it then no one can say jack
Ronsighting.jpg

Gun is Loaded

Picture taken with timed camera on tripod NEVER try this with a hand held camera
You can find this picture on my web site under My Brother Ron Nichols and if you want you can use it if you wish.
 
Quote: On The Fly
I don't know. She looks kind of dangerous (possibly mentally unstable) to me. Just look at the way she's holding the gun. It's like she intends to actually shoot it.

And how should she hold it? Like a Bat?
 
And how should she hold it? Like a Bat?
Click to expand...

armsmaster270...In case that was a serious question, you left out my :rolleyes: (sarcasm) and :eek: (eek!) smilies. That was a display of my odd, dry sense of humor.

Fly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top