Disorderly Conduct

[KrillBee]

I was curious about the definition of this crime in my state, so I looked it up:

Minnesota Statute 609.72 Disorderly conduct.

Subdivision 1. Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a
public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or
having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to,
alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach
of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a
misdemeanor:

(1) Engages in brawling or fighting; or

(2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its
character; or

(3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or
noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language
tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in
others.


-------------------

ok, so if I'm reading this right according to definition 3, someone who uses abusive language to arouse alarm or anger in someone else can be guilty of this?

Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Could this law be fought in court successfully?

The reason for this thread, is because I have heard of people getting charged for disorderly conduct when swearing at a police officer, or similar things.

I understand points 1 and 2 in the law, but point 3 seems to infringe on freedom of speech. Anyone else feel this way?

 

[CrackRabbit]

#3 is usualy used prior to number 1 or 2 happening.
think about it for a minute

 

[BigJ]

Freedom of speech does not mean you have free reign to infringe on the rights of others. Verbally abusing another human being is not considered to be protected under freedom speech.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say or write anything you feel like without consequence, two classic examples being you can face penalties for yelling "fire" in a theater and for libel or slander.

 

[moomoo40moo]

yeah, thats what I thought too... I said "I sexully assualt women for a living" to some group of older women.... yep DC

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: KrillBee
I was curious about the definition of this crime in my state, so I looked it up:

Minnesota Statute 609.72 Disorderly conduct.

Subdivision 1. Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a
public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or
having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to,
alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach
of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a
misdemeanor:

(1) Engages in brawling or fighting; or

(2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its
character; or

(3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or
noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language
tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in
others.


-------------------

ok, so if I'm reading this right according to definition 3, someone who uses abusive language to arouse alarm or anger in someone else can be guilty of this?

Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Could this law be fought in court successfully?

The reason for this thread, is because I have heard of people getting charged for disorderly conduct when swearing at a police officer, or similar things.

I understand points 1 and 2 in the law, but point 3 seems to infringe on freedom of speech. Anyone else feel this way?

Your freedom of speech is not unlimited.
Remember, one cannot yell "fire" in a theatre or similar location.

Also, if one is accused of "disorderly conduct" one is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court. If there are extenuating circumstances, one may engage in otherwise abusive language, and be found "not guilty".

One can also be charged with assault by using language alone. Battery comes when you make physical contact.

 

[KrillBee]

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
#3 is usualy used prior to number 1 or 2 happening.
think about it for a minute

Yeah, but you are a fool if you try to disrupt a peaceful assembly (assemblies are consitutionally supported)

Also, if you cuss at someone, and they punch you back, no legal fault should be placed on you. its the other person's fault for not controlling their anger and their physical actions.

Originally posted by: BigJ
Freedom of speech does not mean you have free reign to infringe on the rights of others. Verbally abusing another human being is not considered to be protected under freedom speech.

So its not right for us to have a freedom to voice our opinion?

There are obviously ways that are more negative to voice your opinion, but sometimes even if you voice your opinion in a straight fashion it may still piss someone off.

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say or write anything you feel like without consequence, two classic examples being you can face penalties for yelling "fire" in a theater and for libel or slander.

I think fire and slander should be punishable by law. But those can cause a lot more harm. In the first example physical harm can occur within crowd chaos, and in the 2nd example reputations can be falsely ruined.

But emotional harm?? Laws shouldnt be there to protect emotional harm. People just need to suck up and deal with it, and learn not to cry when someone insults them.

Originally posted by: moomoo40moo
yeah, thats what I thought too... I said "I sexully assualt women for a living" to some group of older women.... yep DC

holy crap, this happened? how'd you end up getting charged?

Originally posted by: AlienCraft
One can also be charged with assault by using language alone. Battery comes when you make physical contact.

Do you know of any court cases like this, where they were charged for assault based on language? I'd like to check them out. While I wouldnt be surprised if this happened, I don't agree with it, unless a parent was verbally abusing a young child or something.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: KrillBee
But emotional harm?? Laws shouldnt be there to protect emotional harm. People just need to suck up and deal with it, and learn not to cry when someone insults them.

Let's say you have a 5 year old girl. Would you be ok with some guy walking up to her and yelling vulgarities? Would you expect some type of intervention?

 

[KrillBee]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: KrillBee
But emotional harm?? Laws shouldnt be there to protect emotional harm. People just need to suck up and deal with it, and learn not to cry when someone insults them.

Let's say you have a 5 year old girl. Would you be ok with some guy walking up to her and yelling vulgarities? Would you expect some type of intervention?

read above. I made a post stating that in the case of children I would make an exception, since they are so vulnerable to words.

But in the case of adults, I feel anything should be fair game as long as it remains verbal and doesnt involve slander or anything like that.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: KrillBee

Originally posted by: BigJ
Freedom of speech does not mean you have free reign to infringe on the rights of others. Verbally abusing another human being is not considered to be protected under freedom speech.

So its not right for us to have a freedom to voice our opinion?

There are obviously ways that are more negative to voice your opinion, but sometimes even if you voice your opinion in a straight fashion it may still piss someone off.

(3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or
noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language
tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in
others.

Read that bolded part.

So if you voice your opinion under the proper ways (read: USING TACT), or maybe even not using tact, it is not necessarily disordely conduct unless you intended to cause alarm, anger, or resentment in others.

So say your mother was raped, right? And I knew that and wanted to piss you off.

You think that I should legally be allowed to tell you that I'm going to tie up your mother, shove a thorny cactus up her arse, and have her watch me violenty rape your sister in every hole she has with a splintery broomstick, and then sh!t on her face?

 

[KrillBee]

Originally posted by: BigJ
(3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or
noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language
tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in
others.

Read that bolded part.

So if you voice your opinion under the proper ways (read: USING TACT), or maybe even not using tact, it is not necessarily disordely conduct unless you intended to cause alarm, anger, or resentment in others.

So say your mother was raped, right? And I knew that and wanted to piss you off.

You think that I should legally be allowed to tell you that I'm going to tie up your mother, shove a thorny cactus up her arse, and have her watch me violenty rape your sister in every hole she has with a splintery broomstick, and then sh!t on her face?

I understand what you are trying to say. But, I do still think people should legally be able to say those things. And as a result society will ostracize those people, but I dont think its a matter the police need to take part in.
I think its mean to say those things. But a lot of things in life are mean, and we are stronger if we are able to deal with this type of talk without having to call the police.

If someone said that to me, I wouldnt try to convict them of a crime. I would just shake my head and move on. The mature thing to do.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: KrillBee

Originally posted by: BigJ
(3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or
noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language
tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in
others.

Read that bolded part.

So if you voice your opinion under the proper ways (read: USING TACT), or maybe even not using tact, it is not necessarily disordely conduct unless you intended to cause alarm, anger, or resentment in others.

So say your mother was raped, right? And I knew that and wanted to piss you off.

You think that I should legally be allowed to tell you that I'm going to tie up your mother, shove a thorny cactus up her arse, and have her watch me violenty rape your sister in every hole she has with a splintery broomstick, and then sh!t on her face?

I understand what you are trying to say. But, I do still think people should legally be able to say those things. And as a result society will ostracize those people, but I dont think its a matter the police need to take part in.
I think its mean to say those things. But a lot of things in life are mean, and we are stronger if we are able to deal with this type of talk without having to call the police.

If someone said that to me, I wouldnt try to convict them of a crime. I would just shake my head and move on. The mature thing to do.

Most disorderly conduct charges are not issued because a person was directly offended and decided to "tattle" and call the police.

They usually come in public settings, when someone is out of control, and for liability issues, the people in charge will call officers to take take care of the problem. They are also often issued to individuals after conflicts occur, to the party that initiated the conflict at the very least.

Disorderly conduct is really a tool used by officers to preserve the peace.

 

[1sikbITCH]

In response to the OP, keep in mind when reading laws that many of them were written decades ago, and only remain worded the way they are because no one has successfully misused the wording in such a way that is not consistant in the context of today's society. In other words, even though the law could possibly be construed to allow the trampling your first amendment rights, no lawyer or prosecutor has ever tried to use it; probably knowing it would just get shot down anyhow.

If it was really a problem, the state lawmakers would enact legislation to have it fixed.

An extreme example of this is video voyerism. I would hope they have fixed this everywhere by now, but in some (most?) states, the only laws on the books state that you can't audiotape someone without their knowledge. It doesn't even address video, because the laws were written before people had access to tiny video cameras. So if you want to set up a hidden camera in a public womens restroom or in a hotelroom or something, just turn off the audio and you are completely legit. Now lawmakers are scrambling to bring the laws up to speed.

 

[KrillBee]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Most disorderly conduct charges are not issued because a person was directly offended and decided to "tattle" and call the police.

They usually come in public settings, when someone is out of control, and for liability issues, the people in charge will call officers to take take care of the problem. They are also often issued to individuals after conflicts occur, to the party that initiated the conflict at the very least.

Disorderly conduct is really a tool used by officers to preserve the peace.

Thankfully for the most part it is only used to charge the guys who start bar fights and things like that. But it would be unfortunate if the persons offended started trying to use this law for payback.

As I said before, I've heard of cases where police officers have charged people for this, if the person swears at the officer or insults them. This seems like stretching the law.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: KrillBee

Originally posted by: BigJ

Most disorderly conduct charges are not issued because a person was directly offended and decided to "tattle" and call the police.

They usually come in public settings, when someone is out of control, and for liability issues, the people in charge will call officers to take take care of the problem. They are also often issued to individuals after conflicts occur, to the party that initiated the conflict at the very least.

Disorderly conduct is really a tool used by officers to preserve the peace.

Thankfully for the most part it is only used to charge the guys who start bar fights and things like that. But it would be unfortunate if the persons offended started trying to use this law for payback.

As I said before, I've heard of cases where police officers have charged people for this, if the person swears at the officer or insults them. This seems like stretching the law.

If it seems like stretching the law, then do you think that people should be made to face the consequences of their actions? For example, if the officer decided to strike the man for insulting him, would that be ok?

You're infringing on the rights of another, so why shouldn't they be able to retaliate and infringe upon your rights?

 

[zanieladie]

Your rights stop where mine begin.

 

[KrillBee]

Originally posted by: 1sikbITCH
In response to the OP, keep in mind when reading laws that many of them were written decades ago, and only remain worded the way they are because no one has successfully misused the wording in such a way that is not consistant in the context of today's society. In other words, even though the law could possibly be construed to allow the trampling your first amendment rights, no lawyer or prosecutor has ever tried to use it; probably knowing it would just get shot down anyhow.

If it was really a problem, the state lawmakers would enact legislation to have it fixed.

An extreme example of this is video voyerism..

True, I understand what you are saying. The law was intended to be used for one purpose and not another.

I suppose there are other laws meant for dealing with harassment. Restraining orders deal with that in my state.


This is sorta off topic, but speaking of old laws, i discovered that fornication is considered illegal in my state as well, lol!
here's a site with more lists of states where fornication and similar sex crimes are illegal.
http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/laws-affecting.html

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: KrillBee
read above. I made a post stating that in the case of children I would make an exception, since they are so vulnerable to words.

But in the case of adults, I feel anything should be fair game as long as it remains verbal and doesnt involve slander or anything like that.

Yeah, you made the edit after my post.

So you have no problem with some guy walking up to you in public and screaming in your face, so long as he doesn't touch you?

 

[KrillBee]

Originally posted by: BigJ


If it seems like stretching the law, then do you think that people should be made to face the consequences of their actions? For example, if the officer decided to strike the man for insulting him, would that be ok?

You're infringing on the rights of another, so why shouldn't they be able to retaliate and infringe upon your rights?

using physical force is going too far, thats never okay. that should be illegal.

It would not be okay if an officer struck a man just because the man insulted him. If it happened, sure the man may have to deal with the bruise and face that consequence, but the officer would be facing far greater consequences, and rightfully so.

Its one thing to infringe on someone's rights by verbally insulting them, but its far worse to infringe on their rights by physically abusing them.

Maybe someone who insults another, deserves an insult back, but by no means do they deserve a fist in the face. but sure it might happen, and if it does, whoever throws the punch, should serve time.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: KrillBee
using physical force is going too far, thats never okay. that should be illegal.

Physical force is NEVER ok?

 

[KrillBee]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Yeah, you made the edit after my post.

So you have no problem with some guy walking up to you in public and screaming in your face, so long as he doesn't touch you?

I didnt add that because of reading your post, if thats what you are thinking. I certainly hope that isnt what you were thinking. I added that in before I read what you said. (I gradually edited and added a lot of things in that post to address all the people who posted above)

If some guy screams at me without invading my personal space (if he isnt screaming right into my ear) then fine whatever. I would ignore it. If its repeated, then i think we are dealing with some similar to stalking, since its repeated harassment, and the guy should pay legally.

 

[KrillBee]

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: KrillBee
using physical force is going too far, thats never okay. that should be illegal.

Physical force is NEVER ok?

for an officer its okay to use force only if necessary. and for a person, its okay to use physical force to defend themselves or someone else.

but what i meant is that its not okay to use physical force to attack someone just because you are angry at them.

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: KrillBee

Originally posted by: bradruth

Yeah, you made the edit after my post.

So you have no problem with some guy walking up to you in public and screaming in your face, so long as he doesn't touch you?

I didnt add that because of reading your post, if thats what you are thinking. I certainly hope that isnt what you were thinking. I added that in before I read what you said. (I gradually edited and added a lot of things in that post to address all the people who posted above)

If some guy screams at me without invading my personal space (if he isnt screaming right into my ear) then fine whatever. I would ignore it. If its repeated, then i think we are dealing with some similar to stalking, since its repeated harassment, and the guy should pay legally.

No, I didn't think that.

So if it happens once it's ok, but if it happens more than once then it's ok to "limit his rights"? What if he *does* do it in your personal space, even though he's not touching you or obstructing any movement?

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: KrillBee

Originally posted by: bradruth

Originally posted by: KrillBee
using physical force is going too far, thats never okay. that should be illegal.

Physical force is NEVER ok?

for an officer its okay to use force only if necessary. and for a person, its okay to use physical force to defend themselves or someone else.

but what i meant is that its not okay to use physical force to attack someone just because you are angry at them.

I have a general problem with people using the words "always" and "never" because they can rarely apply to anything, especially legal issues.

 

[KrillBee]

Originally posted by: bradruth

So if it happens once it's ok, but if it happens more than once then it's ok to "limit his rights"? What if he *does* do it in your personal space, even though he's not touching you or obstructing any movement?

invading personal space in order to bother someone should be a crime. in regards to shouting in one's ear, its definately an issue since thats bad for their hearing.

if something happens once, its something you can deal with. I mean theyve made their point so they dont need to do it again. if they do it again, then its repeated harassment, aka stalking.

Originally posted by: bradruth

I have a general problem with people using the words "always" and "never" because they can rarely apply to anything, especially legal issues.

ok. i thought everyone on here understood the context i was talking about in regards to physical attacks (being motivated solely by anger with another), i was wrong.