Posted on 01/17/2004 5:55:47 AM PST by carpio
COURT: YELLING AT TEENS A CRIME........................ Associated Press
HELENA - Allison Chapman was fed up that night, fed up with teenagers routinely driving the streets of Geraldine playing loud music on their car stereos into the late hours.
But his attempt to discourage the practice was disorderly conduct, for which he was rightly convicted, the Montana Supreme Court has ruled. A five-judge panel said Tuesday that Chapman's effort to disperse a carful of teens from a public road in front of his house by shouting at them to get out of his town was a crime. Chapman was wrong in arguing that no one's peace was disturbed by his actions, the court said.
Chapman, 38, assailed the high court's decision as depriving him of his constitutional right to free speech. "They're saying we don't have any constitutional rights - we can't say anything; we have to watch everything we say," he said Wednesday. "If you say anything that anybody at all takes any offense at, you're guilty."
At trial, Chapman admitted he went into the street on the night of Oct. 18, 2001, and scolded Nicholas Scribner and three other area youths in a parked car. He said the kids "spend most every night driving around the town of Geraldine with their car stereos thumping," while Chapman was trying to sleep.
In court papers, he recalled telling the youths, "You can't come into this town and drive around all night disturbing people. I just called the police. You're going to jail tonight."
Chapman, who denied shouting or yelling, acknowledge he was angry and that he used an expletive to order the teens to leave town, even though they were not playing music in the car at the time. "I have every right to do this," he said.
Three of the children testified that Chapman did yell at them and they were scared as they drove away. Prosecutors said Chapman's use of threatening conduct and language is not speech protected by the constitution and was rightly considered disorderly conduct.
Chapman contended that, since no argument, fight or confrontation was involved, he could not be guilty of a crime.
But the Supreme Court disagreed.
"Because this (event) established a disturbance of the status quo for those three individuals, we conclude it was sufficient to support a jury finding that Chapman was guilty of disorderly conduct," Chief Justice Karla Gray wrote.
But Chapman, who must pay a $50 fine and $600 in court costs, is not about to let the matter drop. The convenience store clerk vowed to challenge the constitutionality of Montana's disorderly conduct law in federal court.
The law says disorderly conduct includes "quarreling, challenging to fight or fighting; making loud or unusual noises; using threatening, profane or abusive language;" blocking traffic; preventing entry or exit from private or public places; and disrupting a legal gathering.
Then he was arrested for disturbing their peace.
Good for him. I wonder if he's representing himself or something. Lawyerly solutions to problems can get expensive.
As my little boy would say....."pee-pee ca-ca"!
That is the biggest load of hooey if I ever saw one... and I don't believe the kids were scared either.
Great! Now we can send
all the left-wing activists
away to prison
for disturbing our
conservative status quo
with left-wing protests...
First mistake.
They are NOT 'constitutional rights,' they are natural rights that were bestowed upon us by our creator.
Or, constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The constitution is merely a contract between two artificial constructs known as government and only PROTECTS… it cannot give us anything.
There is, however, that pesky little 'republican form of government’ thing, but you NEVER hear of someone being sued for violation of that one!
I calmly and rationally countered that, since they were wearing clothes purchased through the fruits of my labor, I had the "right" to dress them as I saw fit. A few colorful examples of how they might find themselves dressed in the future quickly swung them around to my point of view.
Two points the man who is the focus of this article has yet to learn for all his years: 1. A kind word is much more profitable than a harsh one. 2. The best possible outcome from our judicial system is still gained through avoidance of it.
Matthew 5
25 "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.
26 I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.