Somers teen charged after making obscene gesture to trooper who ticketed him

[64FFMJK 21]

Thanks for the link, but I read real newspapers like the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal, not the Journal News.

The guy plead guilty. What a shame. He could have had it dismissed had he gotten a good attorney. Then he could have taken the case and used it as a free speech issue in an effort to challenge the reasonableness of that particular section of the disorderly conduct statute. Or, he could have taken the case and used it as an example of the fact that maybe Mr. State Trooper should grow thicker skin.

Not that it matters but if I had pulled a stupid move like that and my father found out I would have trouble walking into the court to plead guilty. Its a sad time when teachers and police have to do the jobs of parents since people don't want to take responsibilty for the actions of their children.

[Guest paramedico987]

While I must agree that it is probably not a good idea to flip off a cop, as it will likely escalate an already unpleasant situation by involving personal emotion, this situation hardly warrants such excessive use of force [any use of law is use of force]. The kid was a prick, and nothing more.

The purpose of the inclusion of the "obscene gesture" clause is clearly to protect the public, and more specifically children, form observing not of their own fee will morally reprehensible actions which would not be covered under other statues. Whereas the Trooper is an agent of the government he/she is not in need of said protection, your a big boy/girl deal with it. I can hardly feign to believe that the observance of such a gesture would be so offensive to a LEO that they would suffer psychological damage that criminal prosecution should seem either necessary or prudent and I would put that officer on the stand in court and ask them if they had ever made such a gesture to anyone [either in earnest or jest] while in the State of New York. I strongly suspect that they could not truthfully answer "no".

The statute in question specifically requires that the act arises "in a public place" of which a private vehicle is not. Furthermore, one would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the action was "with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof". In reality the youth's intent was more likely to "petition [his government] for a redress of grievances". Specifically he would likely argue [as would I incidentally] that there is no reasonable stretch of the imagination that there is any enumerated power for the State to require one to wear a restraint device in a vehicle occupied by only one person; that the decision to use or not use vehicle safety equipment is that solely of the user, so long as they do not endanger others in so doing. Just the same as a person is free to eat Twinkies till they puke or listen to loud music until they go deaf.

If I were the defendant's attorney in this circumstance I would file suit against the State of New York for wrongful arrest and seek just compensation for the impound fees, any set bail, as well as any other damages incurred [i.e. lost wages]. The arrest of this child is a clear and blatant violation of the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. I further challenge the constitutionality of the inclusion of the word "annoyance" in this piece of legislation. I find the adornment of socks with sandals annoying, but that certainly, by any stretch of the imagination, wouldn't make it criminal to threaten to wear them in public or to even go through with wearing socks and sandals.

I would not fault the Trooper and would not hold them personally responsible, though. They were clearly acting as they have been trained [which in my mind opens another can of worms] and above all, I'd likely do the same thing in their position. Rather I would charge that we ALL have become culpable in the progressive and grossly unethical erosion of basic and intrinsic freedom in this country. Where does one draw the line? Can I stick my tongue out? How about squint my eyes? Frowny face? Can I blow kisses at a cop? What about fart while being questioned?

We, individually and as a nation, need to critically scrutinize our belief system, as it relates to government, and return to the genuine freedom for which this country was established. And if freedom is not what one desires, let it be known that you are FREE to leave the country and go somewhere like, say, China. I'm sure you'll be able to find work making all of the crap we love to buy.

End rhetorical rant.

[helicopper 1,050]

The statute in question specifically requires that the act arises "in a public place" of which a private vehicle is not. Furthermore, one would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the action was "with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof". In reality the youth's intent was more likely to "petition [his government] for a redress of grievances". Specifically he would likely argue [as would I incidentally] that there is no reasonable stretch of the imagination that there is any enumerated power for the State to require one to wear a restraint device in a vehicle occupied by only one person; that the decision to use or not use vehicle safety equipment is that solely of the user, so long as they do not endanger others in so doing. Just the same as a person is free to eat Twinkies till they puke or listen to loud music until they go deaf.

The vehicle was on a public highway hence the "public" part of this. Case law, and the disposition of this case, would seem to disagree with you although the definition of "obscene" is frequently the object of debate in the courts.

Quite simply what ever happened to respect?

As for wearing a seat belt, the states and courts have held that it is Constitutional to require restraints by operators of motor vehicles whether alone or not. There is a substantial difference between a traumatic brain injury (and its attendant expenses) and tasting twinkies a second time.

Thanks for the rant, it was an interesting read!

[ex-commish 490]

Not that it matters but if I had pulled a stupid move like that and my father found out I would have trouble walking into the court to plead guilty. Its a sad time when teachers and police have to do the jobs of parents since people don't want to take responsibilty for the actions of their children.

I could not agree more.

[Guest]

I think that is great especialy when I read the troopers name and realized the Phil and I graduated from High School together. Anyone who new him growing up like I did knows that this exactly what he would have done back when he was that age, thats what made me really laugh.