Oathkeeper defends individuals rights! Suspended!

[phill4paul]

This guy is great. This organization and its adherents need to be supported.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/11...nored-at-ok-conference-for-upholding-the-law/

November 1st, 2009
Police Officer Honored At OK Conference For Upholding The Law

armbrusterCorporal Steven Armbruster won an Oath Keeper of the year award at the first Oath Keepers conference in October 2009. In April 2007Armbruster refused to violate the constitutional rights of a group of Christians peacefully assembling on the Kutztown University campus.

Video from the protest/rally

Armbruster is not able to discuss the case but the ADF has put out a press release about the issue.

Penn. police officer punished for upholding the law
ADF-allied attorneys file suit to defend officer who wouldn’t violate First Amendment rights of Christians at Kutztown University
PHILADELPHIA — ADF-allied attorneys filed a lawsuit against officials of Kutztown University and its police chief Monday on behalf of a police officer who refused to violate the constitutional rights of a group of Christians peacefully communicating on various issues on campus. As a result of Corporal Steven Armbruster’s objection to forcefully removing them from the campus, the Kutztown Univ. Police Dept. suspended him without pay for five days, issued him a disciplinary letter, and threatened him with termination if he takes a similar stand in the future.

“Police officers who understand and respect the constitutional rights of American citizens should be commended, not punished,” said ADF-allied attorney Randall L. Wenger, chief counsel for the Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center. “Corporal Armbruster honored his conscience as a Christian and his duty as a civil servant to protect--not violate--these citizens’ free speech rights. He knew that he was being asked to punish the wrong party in the situation.”

On April 18, 2007, approximately 15 members of a Christian group peacefully shared their faith on the KU campus, including speaking about moral issues such as abortion and homosexual behavior. As the members shared their message, about 300 protesters from several organizations and clubs appeared on the scene and loudly opposed the message, causing KU President F. Javier Cevallos and the chief of the KU Police Dept., William Mioskie, to insist the Christian group leave campus.

Shortly after one member of the group was arrested, Armbruster became concerned when Mioskie ordered the officers to “push” others in the group off campus for “disorderly conduct.” Armbruster understood that this would involve arresting or threatening to arrest the rest of the group upon whom the protesters had descended, though he saw no evidence of disorderly conduct among the members of the Christian group.

Armbruster explained to Mioskie that he believed such action would violate the group’s civil rights. Mioskie immediately relieved Armbruster of his duties and told him to leave the scene while other officers executed his orders. After hearing the evidence, the court dismissed the charges against members of the Christian group who were arrested.

Armbruster was placed on paid administrative leave. Following a pre-discipline conference, he was suspended without pay for five working days and warned that he will face termination if he makes a similar decision in the future. He currently has a disciplinary letter on file that jeopardizes his promotion to sergeant.

* Complaint in lawsuit Armbruster v. Cavanaugh filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

 

[phill4paul]

Contrast:

the Kutztown Univ. Police Dept. suspended him without pay for five days, issued him a disciplinary letter, and threatened him with termination if he takes a similar stand in the future.

I have recently read a number of cases involving civil liberties where the recipient recieved much worse and the officer recieved much less.

 

[me3]

If the university is not federal government property, then the first amendment does not apply.

The Oathkeepers should read the Constitution.

 

[devil21]

If the university is not federal government property, then the first amendment does not apply.

The Oathkeepers should read the Constitution.

It's a little stickier than that. What if they were students of the school? They have every right to be on the campus so trespassing doesn't apply. The only thing a cop could arrest them for is "disorderly conduct". That only applies if they are indeed disorderly, as per the law (which may not even include private property), and this cop didn't have reason to believe they were violating the law. Otherwise it is a private matter for the school, ie expulsion.

You can't necessarily use PUBLIC police to enforce PRIVATE wishes if no crime is committed. Yes, I get that the article talked about the 1st Amendment but that's simpler than getting into all the nuance I described. I also get that cops overstep their legal bounds quite often so such false arrests are viewed as "common" and "acceptable". They are not legal, however.

Good for the officer. I hope to read more stories like his soon.

 

[nobody's_hero]

It's a little stickier than that. What if they were students of the school? They have every right to be on the campus so trespassing doesn't apply. The only thing a cop could arrest them for is "disorderly conduct". That only applies if they are indeed disorderly, as per the law (which may not even include private property), and this cop didn't have reason to believe they were violating the law. Otherwise it is a private matter for the school, ie expulsion.

You can't necessarily use PUBLIC police to enforce PRIVATE wishes if no crime is committed. Yes, I get that the article talked about the 1st Amendment but that's simpler than getting into all the nuance I described. I also get that cops overstep their legal bounds quite often so such false arrests are viewed as "common" and "acceptable". They are not legal, however.

Good for the officer. I hope to read more stories like his soon.

Actually, all Kutztown U. has to do is accept public funding for the Constitution to apply. There's a good lesson to be learned there about 'no free lunches'. Everything the government does comes with strings attached.

It's hard to find a college anywhere these days that doesn't accept some amount of funding from the State.

 

[devil21]

Actually, all Kutztown U. has to do is accept public funding for the Constitution to apply. There's a good lesson to be learned there about 'no free lunches'. Everything the government does comes with strings attached.

It's hard to find a college anywhere these days that doesn't accept some amount of funding from the State.

Cite a source? First time I've seen that assertion before.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Cite a source? First time I've seen that assertion before.

The matter at hand that I'm thinking of wasn't "free speech", but an organization called SCCC (Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, which advocates that students who have permits to carry weapons be allowed to carry firearms on public school campuses) has fought several cases on the grounds that public schools are obligated to allow Constitutional rights (in this case, 'to bear arms') and has made some headway (fortunately).

I suppose I should include a disclaimer that it varies from state to state, Utah apparently being most friendly when it comes to gun rights of students.

Although, jumping back to this story, I could see a dilemma in that governments are not allowed to establish religions, but as far as I can tell from the story, the campus never endorsed the Christian group.

EDIT: This should get you started on the 'free speech, public school' issue, though:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm

 

[devil21]

I looked at the link you posted. There's very little (if anything) regarding First Amendment rights in private colleges. The cases referenced are either state sponsored grade schools or state chartered and sponsored colleges, where First Amendment rights obviously apply. What if Kutztown receives no money from the state or the Feds? It appears to be a private college according to their website. More research needed I guess.

 

[torchbearer]

If the university is not federal government property, then the first amendment does not apply.

The Oathkeepers should read the Constitution.

if the university accepts pell grants or subsidized student loans- it falls under federal guidelines. even "private" universities are no longer really private.

 

[devil21]

if the university accepts pell grants or subsidized student loans- it falls under federal guidelines. even "private" universities are no longer really private.

Again, Id like to see this definitively explained somewhere.

 

[torchbearer]

Again, Id like to see this definitively explained somewhere.

It was apart of a law suit in louisiana. Louisiana College is a private baptist college in pineville, la. at one point in time it had rules that forbid interracial dating on campus.
LC argued that it was a private college and could set any rules it liked, the judge stated that since LC recieves federal money through vehicles like pell grants and loan subsidies it had to follow federal rules.
Thus, LC lost its case and had to allow interacial dating.
I'm sure you could find the lawsuit if you searched for it.

 

[me3]

if the university accepts pell grants or subsidized student loans- it falls under federal guidelines. even "private" universities are no longer really private.

Many people drive on public roads, does that mean everyone who uses public roads is an agent of the state? Private businesses receive government services in return for taxes, does that make them public enterprises?

Conservatives have never supported positive civil rights enforced in this manner, I am pretty sure Ron Paul would not support it either.

The Oathkeepers are wrong on this one. It is not a first amendment issue.

 

[me3]

It's a little stickier than that. What if they were students of the school? They have every right to be on the campus so trespassing doesn't apply.

If they are asked to leave, and will not, then they are trespassing. Just because I invite a guest into my house, doesn't mean I have to tolerate whatever he does on my property.

You can't necessarily use PUBLIC police to enforce PRIVATE wishes if no crime is committed.

The purpose of law enforcement or security, is to protect property. If someone is using your property (or the property you are assigned to manage) in a manner you will not tolerate, and will not stop, they are violating your property rights. In that case, you can indeed use enforcement to remove them because trespassing (violation of property rights) is indeed a criminal act.

Good for the officer. I hope to read more stories like his soon.

He didn't follow orders, he didn't obey the law, and he hasn't defended the Constitution. I'm not sure why you are high fiving him. I doubt Ron Paul would.

 

[devil21]

If they are asked to leave, and will not, then they are trespassing. Just because I invite a guest into my house, doesn't mean I have to tolerate whatever he does on my property.

That would be true unless your guest paid an admission price to enter your home, under contract. Last I checked college isn't free and is a contractually binding agreement, so your comparison is apples and oranges. You do indeed have to tolerate it unless they are violating your rights or breaking a law, otherwise you are guilty of fraud for taking someone's money then refusing them the "service" they paid for.

The purpose of law enforcement or security, is to protect property. If someone is using your property (or the property you are assigned to manage) in a manner you will not tolerate, and will not stop, they are violating your property rights. In that case, you can indeed use enforcement to remove them because trespassing (violation of property rights) is indeed a criminal act.

Your property rights are not trumped by my property rights, according to the Equal Protection Clause. While I am paying for access and use of the property, your rights are no more important than mine. In this case, the students are renters of the property. Landlord/tenant law covers this quite well. Whether it has been constitutionally tested in court, I don't know. Can your landlord evict you for having different political beliefs than your landlord does after your lease is signed? Your statement essentially is that your Obama-supporting landlord can legally evict you or have you arrested for putting out a Ron Paul sign.

He didn't follow orders, he didn't obey the law, and he hasn't defended the Constitution. I'm not sure why you are high fiving him. I doubt Ron Paul would.

Prove it.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Many people drive on public roads, does that mean everyone who uses public roads is an agent of the state? Private businesses receive government services in return for taxes, does that make them public enterprises?

Conservatives have never supported positive civil rights enforced in this manner, I am pretty sure Ron Paul would not support it either.

The Oathkeepers are wrong on this one. It is not a first amendment issue.

Ummm, you aren't even free to do what you want with the 10 to 15 feet next to a public road (right-of-way). Basically, if you use a public road, you don't get to make the rules. The best thing to do is avoid accepting public money from the start.

Buy your own road—fund it yourself, maintain it yourself—and you can do pretty much whatever you want to while you're on it. You could make the speed limit five miles per hour, or 500. You could forbid Christians to drive on it. Even have them arrested for trespassing when they do.

But the second that a college accepts public money, everyone who pays taxes has the right to express themselves there.

If you owned a totally private college, the Constitutional rights of others wouldn't matter. You'd set the rules. You could even say that Oathkeepers are not allowed on campus.

(Kutztown University is a public school, BTW).

But, the subject at hand is the oathkeeper, and I'm inclined to agree with devil21, he should be commended.

 

[Baptist]

Even if the cop was in the wrong because it was a private university, this is probably the first time I've heard of a cop questing an order because he thought it might violate the Constitution. And for that, I applaud him. Every cop should ask themselves if an order violates the Constitution.

Heck, if every soldier did we wouldn't be fighting this war because nobody would be over there.