Wise of him to plead not guilty, since his version of events differs so much from what he says is in the citation. The matter will go to trial (such matters are an issue for a court to decide) and no doubt the ever-honest police will produce evidence of these repeated warnings.  Whether you call it 'error' or a 'misunderstanding of the law' or a 'false arrest,' these sorts of things are not entirely unheard of. Indeed, I have had acquaintances who prevailed in court simply because the prosecution declined to even bother to show up to present evidence... not that there actually was any evidence to present (hence their decision not to trouble with it).
Alas, the man's behavior as described is more than a little 'disorderly.' A reasonable man might well imagine that the likely intent of this behavior was to annoy. 'Alarm' I give him a pass on -- there is nothing 'alarming' about advocating for robot rights. There really are people who quite seriously and sincerely promote such views, and there really are people who find a serious expression of such views to be incomprehensibly 'odd' (to put it nicely). I'm hesitant to ascribe a camp to this fellow on the issue of robot rights, but if he really thought that "the sign would be a good way to defuse the hateful, anti-gay message of the evangelicals," then he had every reason to believe that the evangelicals might be... oh, I don't know... ANNOYED. Does anyone like deliberate attempts to "defuse" their message at their own events? I should think not. To the contrary: I think deliberate attempts to "defuse" another party's message are inherently annoying.
The law does not end where the quotation of it ended, however.
Quote:
§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
1. engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
2. makes unreasonable noise;
3. uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
4. creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
(b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.
(c) Definition.--As used in this section the word "public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public.
While this particular robot rights activist quite probably intended to create a public annoyance, it does not appear that he actually violated the law in doing so. You see, its not illegal to inconvenience others, annoy others, or to alarm others (even dozens of others at once). It's illegal to do so by certain, specific means. Holding up signs does not appear among them.
Was our erstwhile robot rights activist fighting or threatening? Was he violent or tumultuous (and golly would I like to know what 'tumultuous' is supposed to mean here)? Or was he just holding up a sign that read "equal rights for robots"?
Was he unreasonably noisy? Was he perhaps employing obscenities (either by word or gesture)?
Now, hazardous or physically offensive conditions are generally reserved for things like over-fertilizing your petunias with fresh chicken manure. I seriously doubt our robot rights activist was doing anything like that.
Now, perhaps he really was tumultuous. It would be kind of cool to hear what constitutes evidence of 'tumultuousness.' In the over-all context of the statute, however, the man was likely not engaging in Disorderly Conduct. The law does not quite mean what people think it means, and it seems it does not mean what the police in Kutztown think it means either. They might consider reading the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes once or twice. There are quite a lot of things that really are illegal in Pennsylvania. Things like Title 18, § 5508...
Quote:
§ 5508. Disrupting meetings and processions.
A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if, with intent to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession or gathering, he disturbs or interrupts it.
...not that this particular fellow was intending to interrupt or disturb what I assume was a lawful gathering (though trying to 'defuse' an organization's message at a lawful gathering of that organization might well be interpreted by a court as "disturbing" even if it does not amount to "interrupting"). Lots of evangelicals seem to think that interrupting or disturbing the lawful meetings of others are their god-given right and religious duty though.
(And I probably just put way too much thought into what is really a very amusing story.) |
FAQ •
Search •
Register •
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
• 
Sub-Forum
