Teacher placed on leave for questionable Facebook posting

[Danno 1,228]

Unless this teacher was abusing her position and teaching "Firearms 101", this isn't an issue for school administrators or parents to get upset over.

the teacher's position was inappropriate. she was pointing a gun at the person holding the camera. irresponsible gun handling.

the camera could have had a timer set ... for a self portrait

Thats what it looked like to me, a posed shot (by the camera).

[Danno 1,228]

As I said I have no idea what the reasoning behind this case was, if the teacher did nothing wrong surely she'll be back at work. I suspect though that this article doesn't convey the full story.

But obviously there's a need for teachers to be aware of what information they put in the public domain.

I notice on "THESE" type stories... you always dismiss the story because "we just don't know all the details".

This one seems pretty cut-N-dry: This type of thing has the effect of "pressuring" teachers (and others) of hiding or concealing something as normal, legal and Constitutionally protected as, being associated with fire arms.

As I said before it is the evolution of the new Puritan Rules.

Before, a teacher was called into question for Living with someone unmarried.

Now You are questionable if you smoke, or handle firearms. (smoking is outright banned).

No Danno - that's your assumption. Big difference. Doubtless you've heard some cack on TV or Talk Radio that's got you raving over "New Puritanism" - as just yet another one of those examples of evil liberal-ness infecting this country and somehow targetting "innocent" law-abiding Americans.

Never mind that this is an isolated incident made by individuals, and not part of some co-ordinated agenda to silence "dissenting voices".

You want to make an issue out of a story without knowing all the facts - fair enough. Seems kinda pointless to me.

Actually, I have not heard the phrase used anywhere, by anyone, though I don't claim to have "coined it", I'm sure if I google it, it will turn up.

[HAL 9000 96]

You want to make an issue out of a story without knowing all the facts - fair enough.

But of course... anything to label cheap political shots that jump back to bite them in the #######.

[MrsAmera 41]

I knew that story had to be in WI. As someone who has grown up about oooh 60 miles from Beaver Dam I don't know what in the world these parents are getting up in arms about. My god I can remember teachers actually going hunting with students. While I get the whole "school shooting" thing, guns are honestly just a part of life in that area. I grew up around guns, learned how to use them and did use them. I never realized this was not a normal part of growing up until I moved away from the area. Trust me her students have seen guns before, this is not going to be some shock to their moral conscience.

I'm going to edit this becuase my understanding was that she was holding a gun. The picture in the video shows her training a gun at the camera. I don't think this is appropriate, especially if students have access to view it. In general I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to take this kind of photo....

Edited February 9, 2009 by MrsAmera

[DeadPoolX 9]

As I said I have no idea what the reasoning behind this case was, if the teacher did nothing wrong surely she'll be back at work. I suspect though that this article doesn't convey the full story.

But obviously there's a need for teachers to be aware of what information they put in the public domain.

So... "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." That sounds a lot like the rationale many Republicans made for the Patriot Act and other invasions of privacy.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said I have no idea what the reasoning behind this case was, if the teacher did nothing wrong surely she'll be back at work. I suspect though that this article doesn't convey the full story.

But obviously there's a need for teachers to be aware of what information they put in the public domain.

So... "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." That sounds a lot like the rationale many Republicans made for the Patriot Act and other invasions of privacy.

More idiotic obfuscation.

I don't know the ins and outs of why this teacher was put on leave, neither do you. I'm simply saying I find it hard to believe that the photo was the sole reason. Even if it was - that doesn't really validate the OPs suggestion of some sort of far-reaching conspiracy.

If the teacher was treated unfairly she has the recourse of teacher's unions and employment tribunals. Surely...

[DeadPoolX 9]

As I said I have no idea what the reasoning behind this case was, if the teacher did nothing wrong surely she'll be back at work. I suspect though that this article doesn't convey the full story.

But obviously there's a need for teachers to be aware of what information they put in the public domain.

So... "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." That sounds a lot like the rationale many Republicans made for the Patriot Act and other invasions of privacy.

More idiotic obfuscation.

I don't know the ins and outs of why this teacher was put on leave, neither do you. I'm simply saying I find it hard to believe that the photo was the sole reason. Even if it was - that doesn't really validate the OPs suggestion of some sort of far-reaching conspiracy.

If the teacher was treated unfairly she has the recourse of teacher's unions and employment tribunals. Surely...

Hardly idiotic. Although if we decided to discuss your warped ideas, the word "idiot" would surely come up (among others).

I find it odd that there's a pervasive one-sided argument among many here. That's not at all surprising, considering the sources.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said I have no idea what the reasoning behind this case was, if the teacher did nothing wrong surely she'll be back at work. I suspect though that this article doesn't convey the full story.

But obviously there's a need for teachers to be aware of what information they put in the public domain.

So... "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." That sounds a lot like the rationale many Republicans made for the Patriot Act and other invasions of privacy.

More idiotic obfuscation.

I don't know the ins and outs of why this teacher was put on leave, neither do you. I'm simply saying I find it hard to believe that the photo was the sole reason. Even if it was - that doesn't really validate the OPs suggestion of some sort of far-reaching conspiracy.

If the teacher was treated unfairly she has the recourse of teacher's unions and employment tribunals. Surely...

Hardly idiotic. Although if we decided to discuss your warped ideas, the word "idiot" would surely come up (among others).

I find it odd that there's a pervasive one-sided argument among many here. That's not at all surprising, considering the sources.

*shrugs* Clearly you didn't read my post before you posted the bolded.

That's not the sense of what I meant at all.

[DeadPoolX 9]

As I said I have no idea what the reasoning behind this case was, if the teacher did nothing wrong surely she'll be back at work. I suspect though that this article doesn't convey the full story.

But obviously there's a need for teachers to be aware of what information they put in the public domain.

So... "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." That sounds a lot like the rationale many Republicans made for the Patriot Act and other invasions of privacy.

More idiotic obfuscation.

I don't know the ins and outs of why this teacher was put on leave, neither do you. I'm simply saying I find it hard to believe that the photo was the sole reason. Even if it was - that doesn't really validate the OPs suggestion of some sort of far-reaching conspiracy.

If the teacher was treated unfairly she has the recourse of teacher's unions and employment tribunals. Surely...

Hardly idiotic. Although if we decided to discuss your warped ideas, the word "idiot" would surely come up (among others).

I find it odd that there's a pervasive one-sided argument among many here. That's not at all surprising, considering the sources.

*shrugs* Clearly you didn't read my post before you posted the bolded.

That's not the sense of what I meant at all.

You know why I wrote that comparison. It was initially said (about the Patriot Act) that no one had anything to fear so long as they didn't do anything wrong. Many argued against that case, including quite a few people here. When the same is said about an individual (the teacher in this case), suddenly it becomes a useful tactic.

We don't know the details, that's right. These details need to be uncovered. However claiming the above is simply ridiculous.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said I have no idea what the reasoning behind this case was, if the teacher did nothing wrong surely she'll be back at work. I suspect though that this article doesn't convey the full story.

But obviously there's a need for teachers to be aware of what information they put in the public domain.

So... "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear." That sounds a lot like the rationale many Republicans made for the Patriot Act and other invasions of privacy.

More idiotic obfuscation.

I don't know the ins and outs of why this teacher was put on leave, neither do you. I'm simply saying I find it hard to believe that the photo was the sole reason. Even if it was - that doesn't really validate the OPs suggestion of some sort of far-reaching conspiracy.

If the teacher was treated unfairly she has the recourse of teacher's unions and employment tribunals. Surely...

Hardly idiotic. Although if we decided to discuss your warped ideas, the word "idiot" would surely come up (among others).

I find it odd that there's a pervasive one-sided argument among many here. That's not at all surprising, considering the sources.

*shrugs* Clearly you didn't read my post before you posted the bolded.

That's not the sense of what I meant at all.

You know why I wrote that comparison. It was initially said (about the Patriot Act) that no one had anything to fear so long as they didn't do anything wrong. Many argued against that case, including quite a few people here. When the same is said about an individual (the teacher in this case), suddenly it becomes a useful tactic.

We don't know the details, that's right. These details need to be uncovered. However claiming the above is simply ridiculous.

That was never my argument. If the teacher was treated unfairly by the school (and it certainly is possible) - she has all sorts of mechanisms at her disposal to seek redress.

I didn't argue anywhere that she ought to be suspended simply for the appearance of wrongdoing.

[Heracles 417]

It's facebook so it's her business. If it was the schools website it would be different.

Exactly. She is not a politician or public figure. Her life outside school should have nothing to do with either the school or the looser parent/s, who most likely complained about it in the first place.

[justashooter 430]

Unless this teacher was abusing her position and teaching "Firearms 101", this isn't an issue for school administrators or parents to get upset over.

the teacher's position was inappropriate. she was pointing a gun at the person holding the camera. irresponsible gun handling.

the camera could have had a timer set ... for a self portrait

without regard to the mechanism, the effect is that the woman is pointing the gun at any person who looks at the pic.

this is an irresponsible gesture on her part. it conveys either aggression, or a complete lack of understanding in regard to the seriousness of firearms ownership and use. in short, it makes her look like all of the other idiots who buy a firearm without first learning how to use one.

speaking as a guy who has from time to time looked down the wrong end of the barrel of a gun in real life, and had to make decisions about what to do in each particular circumstance, i have little tolerance for such behaviour.

[Peikko 1,575]

Unless this teacher was abusing her position and teaching "Firearms 101", this isn't an issue for school administrators or parents to get upset over.

the teacher's position was inappropriate. she was pointing a gun at the person holding the camera. irresponsible gun handling.

the camera could have had a timer set ... for a self portrait

without regard to the mechanism, the effect is that the woman is pointing the gun at any person who looks at the pic.

this is an irresponsible gesture on her part. it conveys either aggression, or a complete lack of understanding in regard to the seriousness of firearms ownership and use. in short, it makes her look like all of the other idiots who buy a firearm without first learning how to use one.

speaking as a guy who has from time to time looked down the wrong end of the barrel of a gun in real life, and had to make decisions about what to do in each particular circumstance, i have little tolerance for such behaviour.

The dude has a point. We don't exactly know what the objection was to the picture or even if it was just the picture that was the problem. Often in these cases it turns out the journalistic 'hook' has little to do with the real issues anyway. Still, this new issue of what was it, librul puritanism has got some right wing knickers in a wad

[HAL 9000 96]

Can someone post the actual picture here?

[Peikko 1,575]

It's in the OP's post, well a link is. It's tiny, but you get the idea of why the pose is a little OTT to say the least.

Wow, that came out bigger than I expected!