I think that the idiom "you can't see the forest for the trees" applies here.

You keep coming up with these convoluted ideological reasons for the school having 'the right to be stupid'...but then refuse to recognize the we have the right (and common sense) to label them as just that: 'stupid'.

It makes no difference as to what reply the police officer made to the school...they initiated the asinine call. He, most likely, held his tongue due to his sensitive public relationship.

You would think that after the past school incidents, the school officials would have figured out just 'who' is on their side...and 'who' might not be. If you go along with the thinking that our children need to be visibly 'protected' from our police officers, then you are beyond any help...regardless of what philosophy you can dredge up!

Being the most sensitive, and inclusive, individual on the planet just might not be the perfect recipe for your survival....

And I hope you weren't addressing me in any manner whatsoever when you said "The worst thing is saying people should wait around for the police to protect them".

I never ever said the word "political"...YOU did. That was YOUR assumption...not mine.

Why are you making all these assumptions about what I'm saying? The prinicipal's decision to call the father (cop) and ask him to stop wearing his uniform on campus makes zero logical sense. It doesn't matter WHO complained, or how many complained (I'm willing to bet ONE parent complained but I have no idea and it doesn't matter). His/her choice to call the police officer and even address this non issue was a power play, by someone who thinks they have power they don't have...hoping the receiver will kowtow and go along with the request. I have no idea what the principle's political affiliation is, or the cop's, I haven't even considered it...because it's irrelevant! This is about (I'm repeating myself here) it's about philosophy...a belief system (or lack there of)...and an irrational thought process....AND to hammer home my point...the fact that he/she immediately started to back pedal and throw out the phrase "didn't mean to offend" when no one even claimed to be offended, proves the mind set we're dealing with here. P.C. for the most part (which lacks all logic all by itself). And on top of that....they then acted as if inviting him to an assembly (which glazed over the need for them to admit wrong doing) was actually another condescending power move...to try and manipulate another into doing some charitable seminar on the good things policeman do in the community. As if HE was the one that had to "make up" for some bad behavior. (community service announcement comes to mind). This whole thing reeks....whether you can smell it or not. I'm starting to think you're the principal of the school in question.

BTW, my silly wild a$$ guess is there's a 30% chance that it wasn't a purely honest request but rather more what you suggest, the "let's have a dialog on the issue of the school's policies" baloney.
My asking "why" should not be construed as asserting it was an honest request.

You're reading between the lines that it's a case of political intimidation / pressure tactics, to you use your words. It could be. It could also be what the text described: an honest request that you and I would reject out of hand.

If your problem is with anyone making a request that you would reject out of hand or a request not fully thought through, I understand your what you're saying; and I think you must have a lot of problems with people b/c unreasonable requests are not illegal and the world is full of them.

I suspect that's not it, though. I suspect your criticism is you think the request wasn't genuine, rather it was a demand backed up by political intimidation. If so, why do you think that?

I stopped reading at "....without stopping to think that the request...." THAT is PRECISELY the problem that I am addressing....the NOT thinking before addressing.....in this case...NOTHING needed to be addressed. It's not political, it's philosophical. (I finished reading.)
I'm not imagining anything. I'm commenting on what we know happened...you're the one making up imaginings...not me. What narrative did I "make up"?

Exactly!!! They are NOT admitting they are in gross error here...they're acting like they're doing him a favor or something. Seriously I want him to go to the assembly and talk about the 2nd Amendment and importance of it. And also say the principal was WAY out of line. It's time to call people out on these behaviors. Consequences are in order, NOT sweeping it under the rug.

Wow, I would be livid if my child was in that school. First off, a police officer is in uniform to protect the innocent people in that town. How can he possibly do that if he doesn't have his uniform and weapon ? Who would think for one minute that there is something wrong with this picture? What is wrong with the idiots in this school? I have had officers come into my business several days a week and I have never felt threatened that they carry a gun, but on the contrary, felt much safer, even though I also carry. Sure that officer should have been upset and spoken out about his right to wear his full uniform to deliver his daughter to school. When those who are being protected by officers that are responsible for our protection are feeling threatened by them for no other reason but they are in uniform, there is no common sense left. This infuriates me.

Let's get this straight, when they found out he was offended by their actions, they offered to "let him come in and educate the kids on what police officers do"? Why explain to the kids, it is the school that asked him not to wear his uniform and weapon? Seems to me it is them requiring the explanation, when in fact, they owe him one - they are asking for the extra-ordinary behavior. Talk about cowardice and evasion!

He SHOULD express what happened to other people... and no one knows what he expressed to the prinicipal (besides the two of them)... the article's author is assuming. Who cares who was "offended" that is NOT the point. I hope there is a lot more to come from this incident. That principal needs to addressed, by MANY.

A=A, so I'm glad :-)

I think I know what you're talking about. It's a form of the straw man fallacy. They change his original complaint from whatever it was to "I'm offended", and then they deal with his ostensible offense instead of the real issue.

Nothing in the article says that happened. The article says he expressed offense to _other people_, not the person in a position to do anything about it.

I could easily see that thing where they ask for "a dialogue on the issue", but if you don't do exactly what they want they pervert what you're saying into "I'm offended." They should just tell you, "I'm gonna tell you what to do. You're gonna do it. Or else I'll try to make you look like an ass to other people."

The article, which may be biased, does not indicate any of that is happening.

I'm so happy with the pages of comments that people left I'm good now :) lol

They have the 'right' to ask...it was still wrong to do so. There was no good reason for it....intimidation and power lust were the driver behind the questioning. We don't know what his response to the Principal during that conversation... and I'm glad he griped about it on facebook later. He was too nice if you ask me.

I'm not against asking questions...? I'm ALL for asking clarifying questions and demanding answers actually. What I'm against is questioning in the framework of intimidation/pressure fueled by political correctness or plain idiocy. It obvious that's what happened as the back pedaling started with the phrase "didn't mean to offend" showed up. (he never said he was offended btw, but they like throw that emotional verbiage into things for the appearance of sensitivity toward all...gag me). It's a power trip that cowards attempt to pull off and the parents should be outraged.

I agree with cgervasi,
the school officials have a right to ask, and thereby make fools of themselves.
The police officer did the right thing by not confronting the stupidity at the time but to express amazement later.

I agree. The worst thing is saying people should wait around for the police to protect them. I'm for police protection, but that doesn't mean we just turn over all protection to them.

You and I disagree fundamentally then. Asking aloud for the things you want leads to opportunities to create value for everyone. The same is true for saying "no". Giving your answer or objection to someone not in a position to take _action_ is either bellyaching or gossip.

At least I agree it is wrong to be use any type of force to stop someone from what I consider bellyaching. It's a free country. Similarly they cannot stop me from asking dumb questions if I so desire and from saying "no"

agreed.

police scare me.
Guns do not.

You're okay with schools instilling fear in children when there is nothing to be afraid of? The opposite, in fact. How are you okay with that?

School and parents have lost their reason in the name of pacifying, p.c., and zero tolerance spoofs.
The school is trying to back pedal out of this and they look ridiculous. They're saying their sorry for offending him... "offending" him is NOT the point...he's a cop in uniform...he has a right to wear it and he is of no threat to anyone...NOT scary.

Issue 2: IT WAS WRONG TO EVEN ASK! The complainers are WRONG. Not to mention an intimidation tactic.

I'm not kidding at all. I have no problem with security in itself. It seems absurd to ask anyone not to wear his work uniform when dropping off kids.

My comment is there's nothing wrong with ASKING, even if it's asking for something absurd. There's nothing wrong with the officer dismissing the request out of hand. If he feels like the principal is trying to force the issue, he can escalate to someone higher in the school system. There IS something wrong (not illegal, just bad form) with complaining to people who can't do anything about the problem. That's just whining or gossiping. It's behavior conducive to mooching, not interacting with people in a fair and honest way.

Again, I am basing this only on the article, which could be biased or have factual errors. I wouldn't judge anyone based on one article.