General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOhio man gets jail for mocking disabled girl
Ohio man gets jail for mocking disabled girl
CANTON, Ohio (AP) - A northeast Ohio man accused of making fun of a young girl with cerebral palsy has been sentenced to a month in jail.
Canton Municipal Judge John A. Poulos ordered the maximum sentence for 43-year-old William Bailey, who pleaded no contest Tuesday to reduced misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and aggravated menacing.
The (Canton) Repository (http://bit.ly/10Um7Zd ) reports that Bailey was caught on cellphone video at a school bus stop in October making fun of how the 10-year-old disabled girl walks. The video of him seemingly imitating her limp was disseminated online and on local TV news. Bailey denied he was mocking the girl, saying he was reacting to name-calling directed at his 9-year-old son.
Bailey apologized to the girl and her family in a statement Tuesday.
http://www.kfvs12.com/story/20203552/ohio-man-gets-jail-for-mocking-disabled-girl
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)unreadierLizard
(475 posts)If the man was making fun of the girl, it's a low blow and rather pathetic of him, but going to JAIL for it? That treads on some very thin 1st Amendment violations...
rustydog
(9,186 posts)REALLY? A full grown adult has the right to publicly humiliate a child with a handicap? Really???
Maybe a short jail stint will show this asswhipe that it IS WRONG TO DO THAT!
unreadierLizard
(475 posts)The man was vile in his actions but America can't just lock up everyone who bullies and taunts others.
This isn't Soviet Russia, here.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)Drop the commie arguement, that is so yesterday 30-years ago!
BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)and hurting someone's feelings has NEVER been against the law.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)smacks of a police state.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Response to frylock (Reply #63)
Post removed
frylock
(34,825 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)You must try harder to contain your emotions.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Then he is being locked up "for" that, not for the mocking itself.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)and in parking lots with bogus stories of "running out of gas" and "needing bus tickets" and asking me for money--I could have had them arrested? I certainly felt harassed and menaced when it was dark outside and I was alone and they looked crazy. Who knew? Who knew it was illegal to do or say something that makes someone uneasy, sad, angry, or lessens their self-esteem?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that was threatened with getting choked via a chain by an adult male? If so, I'll give you that one.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)surrounding the case--the headline was that the man was sentenced to jail for imitating the way a disabled child walked. The headline wasn't "Man sentenced to jail for threatening to choke child with a chain". The first headline, absent any other aggravating factors such as repeated harassment, etc., would be a wrong action by the court, IMO. The second headline would be clearly criminal in nature.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'd blame my lack of knowledge on the headlines instead of not reading the story too.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)This is hardly the most glaring example of the media getting it wrong. It happens ever day. TG clarified their position, and I'm willing to say fair enough. Jumping up and down all over each other when the media distorts a story does nothing good for anyone involved.
Peace, LW.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Sometimes key facts like that get obscured and it doesn't say much for the media reporting them.
thucythucy
(8,097 posts)If so, it might very well have been appropriate for the police to be involved, especially if you felt threatened (as this girl evidently did).
And you have a problem with that?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)in and of itself, absent of any other aggravating or threatening circumstances--rises to the level of a crime, even when directed toward children by adults. It's terrible behavior, and there is certainly something wrong with someone who does it. I've had adults tease me and say mean things to me when I was a child (a teacher, a coach, a bus driver), but not then--and not now--do I believe it rises to the level of a jailable offense IN AND OF ITSELF. However, if it is a pattern of behavior that continues, becomes physically threatening or stalker-ish, then that would constitute a crime that may deserve jail time. You may see it differently, that's fine with me.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I do see your point of view, even if I disagree with it. This was a shoddily reported story, though, which makes an objective viewpoint rather impossible for anyone - you, me or anyone else.
I'm getting really tired of these knee-jerk response required stories that are misleading and end up with people arguing when the real story is buried so far under the debris that it takes an archaeologist to find it.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)the whole thing pointless. I should know by now not to react to the first thing I read, LOL.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)or the last. I hopped into a heated thread and offered an opinion, and the entire thing turned out to need a backhoe to dig through the bullshit.
It happens to all of us.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)and a lot of DU would be behind bars, too.
My daughter is disabled, too. She's obviously not "normal". But I wouldn't expect anyone making fun of her to survive the experience of the Tiger Mama.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,347 posts)Disorderly conduct is a WAY over used catch-all for cops.
But I say it fits the bill pretty well here.
Yes. We live in a "free" society. But as a "society" we all got together and decided you can't harass little kids to the point I or her father would like to beat the living fuck out of you.
We came up with laws like disorderly conduct and menacing to codify a minimum of civilized behavior so we don't have to get together with her uncles and beat the fuck out of creeps like him. We made those laws to keep the peace.
That doesn't make this "Soviet Russia". It makes us a civilized "society" with rules.
(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following:
(1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior;
(2) Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person;
(3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;
(4) Hindering or preventing the movement of persons on a public street, road, highway, or right-of-way, or to, from, within, or upon public or private property, so as to interfere with the rights of others, and by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender;
(5) Creating a condition that is physically offensive to persons or that presents a risk of physical harm to persons or property, by any act that serves no lawful and reasonable purpose of the offender.
(B) No person, while voluntarily intoxicated, shall do either of the following:
(1) In a public place or in the presence of two or more persons, engage in conduct likely to be offensive or to cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to persons of ordinary sensibilities, which conduct the offender, if the offender were not intoxicated, should know is likely to have that effect on others;
(2) Engage in conduct or create a condition that presents a risk of physical harm to the offender or another, or to the property of another.
(C) Violation of any statute or ordinance of which an element is operating a motor vehicle, locomotive, watercraft, aircraft, or other vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse, is not a violation of division (B) of this section.
(D) If a person appears to an ordinary observer to be intoxicated, it is probable cause to believe that person is voluntarily intoxicated for purposes of division (B) of this section.
(E)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of disorderly conduct.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in division (E)(3) of this section, disorderly conduct is a minor misdemeanor.
(3) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor of the fourth degree if any of the following applies:
(a) The offender persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist.
(b) The offense is committed in the vicinity of a school or in a school safety zone.
(c) The offense is committed in the presence of any law enforcement officer, firefighter, rescuer, medical person, emergency medical services person, or other authorized person who is engaged in the persons duties at the scene of a fire, accident, disaster, riot, or emergency of any kind.
(d) The offense is committed in the presence of any emergency facility person who is engaged in the persons duties in an emergency facility.
(F) As used in this section:
(1) Emergency medical services person is the singular of emergency medical services personnel as defined in section 2133.21 of the Revised Code.
(2) Emergency facility person is the singular of emergency facility personnel as defined in section 2909.04 of the Revised Code.
(3) Emergency facility has the same meaning as in section 2909.04 of the Revised Code.
(4) Committed in the vicinity of a school has the same meaning as in section 2925.01 of the Revised Code.
Effective Date: 01-25-2002
(A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other persons unborn, or a member of the other persons immediate family.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated menacing. Except as otherwise provided in this division, aggravated menacing is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the victim of the offense is an officer or employee of a public children services agency or a private child placing agency and the offense relates to the officers or employees performance or anticipated performance of official responsibilities or duties, aggravated menacing is a felony of the fifth degree or, if the offender previously has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to an offense of violence, the victim of that prior offense was an officer or employee of a public children services agency or private child placing agency, and that prior offense related to the officers or employees performance or anticipated performance of official responsibilities or duties, a felony of the fourth degree.
Effective Date: 04-10-2001
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)charge disorderly conduct--particularly because it was at a school bus stop. But I still think it's pretty extreme to arrest and jail someone for this.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Nicely done, HBS.
frylock
(34,825 posts)dude broke the law. 99.999% of the time, he would have had his hand slapped. the judge in this case decided to make this a teachable moment by assigning the maximum penalty. i'm finding a real hard time mustering any sympathy for this shit lump, but if you want to take up his cause, then knock yourself out.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)It's emotional abuse, it causes lasting psychological harm, it's already illegal.
Jail is too kind for this piece of shit (who not only mocked and bullied and abused a disabled girl, but threatened to choke her with a chain.)
The judge was right to throw the book at him.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Which is wrong, and I'll agree horribly so, but not criminal.
Now, riding the school bus is a privilege, not a right, and I do think the son could be blocked from the school bus and the family could have to get him to and from school themselves. They did it as they were leaving the bus which makes it relevant to that, and also it sounds like the son has been teasing the girl on the bus, making her not want to ride it. You can get kicked off the bus for a lot less than that. In fact, the son could have suspension from school for behavior on the bus.
But I don't know what can legally be done to the dad. I'm glad this is publicized so the other people he lives and works around know what kind of a person he is.
Drale
(7,932 posts)and Jail won't teach him anything. He should be forced to work with disabled youth for 6 months to a year maybe then he will learn something.
thucythucy
(8,097 posts)You mean, children with disabilities should be forced to try to educate this lout?
He obviously enjoyed taunting and bullying this kid, has obviously traumatized her (the link says she's now afraid to go outdoors) and you want to give him the opportunity to traumatize others?
If someone made racist comments and threats to a ten year old African American child, you'd sentence him to work with minority children?
I see working with disabled youth as a privilege, not a punishment. I certainly don't want this jerk around any of the disabled kids I know.
JVS
(61,935 posts)thucythucy
(8,097 posts)It isn't a question of his speech having to meet anyone's "approval." It's a question of a ten year old kid with a disability--and her family--having the right to appear in public without being mocked, ridiculed, and threatened with physical assault.
Surely you understand the distinction.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)not a criminal one.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)Now tell me would you approve him mocking her I mean really the 1st doesn't give you unlimited penalty void free speech there are repercussions sorry
BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)simple as that, really.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,347 posts)You obviously don't know the law and you obviously don't even know what is/was being charged here.
Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #77)
Post removed
frylock
(34,825 posts)ladies and gentlemen, i give you your moron!
BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)enough with the mash-notes already...
i'm taken.
sorry.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,347 posts)... "congress shall make no laws abridging the right to threaten little handicapped girls with chain choking"
Clause.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,347 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)AlexSatan
(535 posts)So the guy was convicted of child abuse?
I must have missed that.
So is calling adults names also abuse?
AlexSatan
(535 posts)Or is it OK to mock them?
Remember a lot of kids go to church. So if anyone mocks religious people in public, they are including those kids.
thucythucy
(8,097 posts)Are you saying that if this girl had been on her way to church, instead of school, and this guy had harassed her and threatened to strangle her mother with a chain, THEN it would have been okay? Because harassing and threatening religious people is somehow all right?
Or are you saying: if we prohibit grown men from harassing and threatening ten year olds and their parents, somehow we'll all end up losing our rights to free speech entirely?
Either way, it seems like a stretch to me.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)Folks on this thread were saying mocking someone is not protected as free speech.
Many on here are also fine with mocking those who are religious.
Obviously threatening someone (which is what the guy really was convicted of) is and should be illegal.
on the other hand mocking someone is ans should be legal.
I was just trying to establish who is allowed to be mocked and who isn't according to those who think mocking is not protected.
Nice strawman though by implying I was saying that limiting speech you don't like will lead to ending all free speech rights. Would you be OK with me choosing which of your speech is free and which isn't? Since the right won't be entirely gone, I assume you should be good with that.
thucythucy
(8,097 posts)We have chosen, as you note, to make threatening speech actionable. We have also chosen to make slander, libel, incitement, false statements under oath all punishable under the law. In each of these instances the offending speech is defined by people other than ourselves. The details are adjudicated in open court, and upon conviction a sanction is applied dependent upon the relevant statute. This is precisely what happened in this case.
So no, I have no problem with society choosing to prohibit some speech and not others. Happens all the time. Then again, I've never felt the need, as an adult, to humiliate a small child to the extent that she's afraid to leave her home to be an essential part of my guaranteed liberties as an American citizen.
If you're not making the slippery slope argument, then I still don't get it. You really need someone to explain that there's a difference between, say, a social satirist mocking religion, and an adult man mocking a ten year old child with a disability? That in the one case mockery serves an important political and social function, and in the other it's simple bullying by a sadistic fuck who likes to abuse helpless children? Honestly, you don't see the distinction?
I will say that, removing the threat, another sanction might have been applied, for instance, a restraining order (which, if violated, would then have led to jail time), or a fine, with jail time used for a repeat offense. But that's still a legal sanction, just less severe. Then again, from what I've read, this guy and his kid had been harassing this girl for months, and his threat to her mother was only the latest escalation. So the judge, weighing all the facts--including the defendant's guilty plea--decided a little jail time was appropriate.
And no, I have no problem with that. None whatsoever.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)That claiming opinion as fact is no longer allowed.
Therefore "That in the one case mockery serves an important political and social function, and in the other it's simple bullying by a sadistic fuck who likes to abuse helpless children" will get you in big trouble.
Yep, the guy was a douche. But mocking religion is NOT "an important political and social function". It accomplishes nothing except to help an insecure person temporarily feel superior. Some people take religion very seriously (I'm not one of) and anyone who attacks a person for their religion is simply a "sadistic fuck".
Yes, there is a difference between the two. Depending on the person, one is more reprehensible than the other. But what the guy did was not "slander, libel, incitement, [or] false statements under oath".
If we start claiming that mocking a person is a crime (even someone you consider helpless or unable to defend themselves), comedy clubs are going to go out of business, Stewart and Colbert are gone, and most of us would be facing penalties. You wouldn't even be able to call Hannity the jackass that he is.
And, for the record, I know quite a few kids who could easily hold their own in a battle of insults/wits with folks like the guy in this article.
thucythucy
(8,097 posts)Once again, I'm saying that, given the context and specifics of this case, I think jail time is quite appropriate. I don't think this one jerk being charged or sentenced in this particular instance has any potential for fatally undermining or eroding my or anyone else's First Amendment rights. Not at all.
The guy is more than just a douche, he's a criminal douche. Others on this thread have cited the specific ordinances he violated. Mr. Douche himself pleaded "no contest," and last I heard is not appealing his sentence on constitutional or any other grounds. So as far as I'm concerned, it's all good. Song sung, case closed.
I don't worry about Stewart and Colbert "going out of business" because neither of them has felt the need to mock any ten year olds, certainly not face to face at a school bus stop. Why is that, I wonder? Brilliant satirists that they are, haven't they discerned the comedy gold that lies waiting to be mined in the mocking of particular disabled children? Perhaps you might write to them pointing out this oversight. Maybe there's a specific ten year old you think needs to be ridiculed by an adult on national TV. Write to Comedy Central, see what kind of response you get.
And, generally speaking, ten year olds aren't admitted into comedy clubs, which usually serve drinks and thus prohibit kids. So I doubt, therefore, that very many stand-up comics will have to restrain themselves from abusing the ten year olds in their audience.
"And for the record, I know quite a few kids who could easily hold their own in a battle of insults/wits with folks like the guy in this article."
Ah yes, a little thinly-veiled victim blaming. Any ten year old who isn't able to fend off abuse by a 42 year old man waiting at her bus stop just doesn't cut it, is that it? Have you seen a photo of this dirt bag? Hell, if he started verbally abusing ME at a bus stop, I'd be intimidated. Good to know, though, that so many of the ten year olds you know are so thick skinned.
"But mocking religion is NOT an important political or social function." Ever hear Lenny Bruce, "Religions Inc."? Or George Carlin talk about the Catholic Church? Or Roy Zimmerman take down Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell? Not to mention the satire of Mark Twain or Voltaire or Aristophanes. How sad, to think their only purpose was to "help an insecure person temporarily feel superior."
To repeat: in the specific circumstances of this case, mocking a child, along with the other forms of abuse, was indeed considered as a crime, hence the man's arrest, hearing, plea, conviction, and sentencing. Which, evidently, still troubles you.
Really, if you're that concerned, contact the ACLU, maybe they'll take the case. Or you can personally write to the judge. If you truly believe this case threatens your personal liberty, you should certainly be willing to do more than make a few posts on this thread.
Good luck with that, and best wishes.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)then you don't know what rights are.
frylock
(34,825 posts)this asshole plead out ffs!
You seem to be serious...
The fact that somebody pleads guilty to an offense is not evidence of the constitutional propriety of a charge.
Whatever... too late for civics classes for everyone so I'll just back toward the door.
frylock
(34,825 posts)no charge for my free lesson in civics. use that knowledge well!
obamanut2012
(26,158 posts)Why did you choose that example?
I know this is a difficult concept for many, but the girl may have CP and be gay. Like the comedian and actress Geri Jewell.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)I feel a lot of people overlook the bullying of the disabled it wasn't meant to say either or
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)the public throwing rotten produce at his face. Followed by his having to wear a sign around his neck detailing what an utter douchebag he is for a month.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Butterbean
(1,014 posts)to remember that story and the video clip of him making fun of that girl with his son, I don't think jail time is the answer. I think community service with the disabled might be more appropriate.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)unless he stalked, harassed, touched, or threatened the child--or was publicly under the influence, or caused a large public disturbance, I can't see what grounds the local law enforcement even has to arrest him. Being an asshole isn't a crime--until now, I guess.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)... Tricia Knight, the girls mother, filed the menacing complaint with the prosecutors office, saying that Bailey threatened to choke her with a chain, said Jennifer Fitzsimmons, assistant city prosecutor ...
Man gets 29 days in jail for mocking disabled child
By Lori Monsewicz
CantonRep.com staff writer
Posted Nov 27, 2012 @ 12:05 PM
Last update Nov 27, 2012 @ 10:53 PM
http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x1783177129/Man-gets-29-days-in-jail-for-mocking-disabled-child?zc_p=0
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Clever.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)He made a death threat against a disabled child.
Have fun in jail, asshole!
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)"it was determined the threat made was a threat to harm." Not clear whether he threatened the child or her mother, but a grown man following a disabled child around to "mock" her is threatening in itself. The guy is unhinged.
No grave threat to "free speech" that I can see. Maybe he got a heavier sentence because the video shows what a despicable asshole he is, but there's not a great free speech case to be made for an adult harassing a little girl in public.
frylock
(34,825 posts)CHARGES REDUCED
On Tuesday, Bailey pleaded no contest to amended charges and was found guilty by Poulos.
Tricia Knight, the girls mother, filed the menacing complaint with the prosecutors office, saying that Bailey threatened to choke her with a chain, said Jennifer Fitzsimmons, assistant city prosecutor. A Stark County sheriffs deputy filed the disorderly conduct complaint as a result of the video recording of Bailey and his son at the bus stop, citing Baileys actions as offensive behavior, Fitzsimmons said.
At a hearing Tuesday, the prosecutors office reduced the first-degree misdemeanor menacing charge to a fourth-degree charge, citing that after further investigation, it was determined the threat made was a threat to harm and did not occur in the vicinity of a school, court papers said.
http://www.cantonrep.com/newsnow/x1783177129/Man-gets-29-days-in-jail-for-mocking-disabled-child
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)But who is "her" in "threatened to choke her?" Should be the mother, Tricia Knight, the subject of the sentence, but it could be "the girl," who is also being talked about.
This is at least partially a case of poor headlining. The guy's largely being punished for a threat, not a "mock."
frylock
(34,825 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Arkansas Granny
(31,535 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)the rest of the thread, you will see that I can understand the disorderly conduct charge. Edit to add: I think a month in jail is extreme.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Why waste jail space on a jerk, when he could be out doing community service instead? He still would have the opportunity to reflect on his actions.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)for me to say "hope he rots in jail"...but part of me thinks he isn't mentally or emotionally much older than his own son or the child he mocked, and I don't see what jail time will do in this case, since he's already apologized to the family and pleaded no contest.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Will keeping him in jail protect the public from a threatening person? No.
Can he be taught a lesson without jail time? I think so, yes.
He's not a threat to society, so he can clean up roadsides, as passersby give him the middle finger. Makes a lot more sense.
frylock
(34,825 posts)you don't find that threatening? really?!
Quantess
(27,630 posts)a restraining order is usually what the judge decides.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)because I am betting you that he will be charged for a month's stay in the pokey. I have no doubt that a 'month' sentence triggers all sorts of nasty side effects for the little shitstain.
frylock
(34,825 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)The disorderly-conduct and menacing charges are a plea-bargain - I suspect the prosecutor originally intended to charge the guy with assault.
And even after the plea bargain, the judge threw the book at this douchenozzle.
treestar
(82,383 posts)He may have engaged in disorderly conduct but the reporter wants to manipulate the audience into believing it was no more than the mocking described. I check articles like this to see if the defendant and /or his or her spokesmen were the only ones interviewed.
Burma Jones
(11,760 posts)I say, bring back the Stocks......
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Too bad life isn't like that episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)But that would be illegal...
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)the other inmates find out he is in jail for taunting a child.
Hmm, that puts a smile on my face. Yes a genuine smile and I am not ashamed to enjoy his theoretical pain. Stupid POS will get what he deserves.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Prisoners watch the 10 o'clock news too - it won't take long for word to spread.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)He's just taking up space in jail, that instead could be warmed by a truly threatening person.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)What crime did he commit? Am I missing something here?
Quantess
(27,630 posts)I'm just trying to get over "jail sentence".
I don't know what the judge was thinking.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)conduct. Apparently, according to that law, I myself have been guilty of disorderly conduct in the past. Guess I should have been arrested, charged, and jailed, rather than simply thrown out of the bar by the bouncers. LOL.
thucythucy
(8,097 posts)This was at a school bus stop, not a bar. What a bogus analogy.
In any case, if I'm out having a good time, minding my own business at a bar, let's say, and you decide to get in my face and mock me and threaten to choke me with a chain because of who I am (gay, woman, disabled, person of color, whatever) and not because of anything I've done to you, then yeah, I'd definitely want to see you charged. Disorderly conduct seems to fit the bill nicely.
He targeted this child because she has a disability. The child was obviously traumatized (according to the article she's now afraid to go outdoors). Children with disabilities have rights too, you know, for instance the right to be out in public without being harassed and threatened by full grown adults.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)This man is a piece of shit and in a decent society we would drag him through the street and tar and feather the bastard but the best we can do is stick his sorry ass in jail for a month.
How anyone can defend this jerk is beyond me.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Stop supporting bullying and harrassment. It makes YOU look like a horrible person.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)harassment. Nowhere did I applaud this man's behavior. I was merely reacting to the original story as posted, and questioning the grounds for arrest and jail time. I have a son who has been bullied for years in grade and middle school, I am very sympathetic to bullied kids--but I also feel uneasy about people being arrested and jailed for it, too, unless the behavior constitutes a clear and ongoing problem or is clearly criminal in nature. It's possible to see different sides of an issue.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)He threatened to choke either the girl or her mother, and my interpretation of the First Amendment is that it doesn't protect death threats.
Jail's a good place for him.
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)I forgot it got this bad. What...what a fucking terrible thing to do.
PB
rustydog
(9,186 posts)a crippled girl. 9 years old. You are defending his actions?
Seriously? There is such a thing as harassment, he is massively guilty of harassing this child.
Funny how easy it is to apologize than ask permission: "Hey little girl, can I make myself feel more like a big tough man by mocking your medical condition?"
I have the 1st amendment behind me!!!! Even though I am a poor excuse for a man, I have my 1st amendment....Really?
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)an ONGOING thing, something that prevents the child from going about her daily activities? As vile as this man is, I cannot see a crime here.
johnnie
(23,616 posts)That's why they caught it on video.
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)The girls' parents asked the father to stop it and the situation escalated.
This wasn't a one time thing with no larger context of harassment and intimidation.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)what a douche the guy is, is perfectly fine (great, in my eyes).
Jail? No way. If we start sending people to jail every time they act like an asshole, there's not going to be many on the outside.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)as verbal harrasment in a public venue.
On that basis I should be able to ban Fred Phelps, the black panthers, the KKK, anit-war protesters, union strikers, animal rights activists, etc.
Free speech means exactly that, and this country has never recognized a right to not be ridiculed.
If this was emotional abuse (which requires more than making fun of someone), or actual threatening behavior that's a different story. But charging him for disturbing the peace is very troublesome.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)...just ten minutes alone with the girls' parents should do it...
And i feel sorry for this asshole's son...what a life-lesson at such a young age...
Silent3
(15,339 posts)On the other hand, since the guy apologized for his assholishness and pleaded "no contest", it sounds like he isn't fighting the sentence hard enough for there to be any sort of appeal to a higher court.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)Wow, are you in remedial constitutional studies class or something?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)What is in that video is mocking, but not harassment. It sounds like the son has been harassing her at school, but it sounds like the dad just mocked her this one time. Harassment would have to be continuing, and the father can't be charged with behavior the child did.
Not everything wrong is illegal.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)was illegal?
frylock
(34,825 posts)so ummm, what was your point?
AlexSatan
(535 posts)BTW the guy is not still in jail.
But there are people in jail for murder. And that is equally as relevant.
frylock
(34,825 posts)yeh, welcome to the police state motherfuckers.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)As he should.
But we were talking about going to jail for mocking someone--and yes, you do have the right to do that. Concede or I shall mock you a second time.
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)Sorry for your loss 3 weeks ago.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)I love it how, anytime someone points out hypocrisy or asks for consistency, some douchebag who cannot support his stance tries to label them a republican. Obviously this doesn't apply to most on here . I wonder if, like with homophobes, it is because the accuser really has a certain predilection he/she is trying to compensate for or hide?
Yes, I realize this post will likely be hidden, but for the sake of intellectual integrity, it needed to be said.
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)your screenname is AlexSatan, interesting name for someone who upthread has a problem with people mocking religion, and you also have a problem with people mocking George W. It doesn't take a genius to figure out you're a Republican.
Now with your idiotic homophobe projection it's a no-brainer.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)"AlexSatan" has nothing to do with the Bibilical Satan. It is a play on words that I find amusing.
I don't have a problem with people mocking religion. I also don't think it should be illegal to mock people, especially W.
I DO have a problem with hypocrites who think it is OK to mock things they think need mocked but that it should be illegal to mock things/people they hold as special. Either you believe in free speech and the right to mock or you don't.
I also have a problem with people who are too intellectually lazy to discuss a point and, instead, resort to as ad hominem to try to shut the person up.
Good day to you. I'll stick to discussions with folks who just aren't as "geniusy". They are able to hold their end of the discussion.
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)As for the rest, you compared a grown man harassing a disabled little girl to people calling George Bush a chimp on the internet. Your comparison was so laughably stupid only a Republican could have made it.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Were the police called to the scene, or did they arrest him based on a video? A civil suit for mental distress on the girl's behalf would make much more sense.
ecstatic
(32,748 posts)for internet/streaming video related crimes that didn't exist 10 years ago. The one thing I hope is that at some point, lawmakers will come up with a new set of rights/rules so that everyone can be on the same page about what's legal vs. what's not.
Setting standards could save lives, as most bullies won't be willing to do things that are clearly recognized as illegal, and their potential victims may not be pushed towards suicide.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)reasons on the basis of PAST videotaped meanness. I don't think a crime was committed here, I think the charges are stupid.
frylock
(34,825 posts)without being sent to jail? not the kind of country i want to live in, that's for sure. new territory, indeed.
ecstatic
(32,748 posts)the bully, I just wanted to clarify that I'm not. But there are a lot of less clear cases where people have been convicted for things that people may not realize are crimes. There needs to be a line drawn where everyone knows what type of statements are bullying versus strong disagreement, etc.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233428/Police-grapple-internet-troll-epidemic-convictions-posting-online-abuse-soar-150-cent-just-years.html
trumad
(41,692 posts)This wasn't a one time incident... The boy and the father were harassing this girl before this.
I watched an interview the little girl and her parents while news surfin the tube. Saw the video...was utterly appalled. Like you stated, this is not a one time incident, it has been going on for some time. No where does 'freedom of speech' give anyone the right to harass and literally stalk this child simply to mock her. At this level it is abuse....the guy absolutely deserves a little jail time. This is all my opinion from watching the video, the interview, plus several articles online....YMMV.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)That's why he got jail - the actual charges he pled to were part of a plea bargain - he took disorderly conduct so he wouldn't go to trial for making a violent threat against a disabled child.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I must have missed that. Or maybe it was in an article I didn't read. Well that is a much more serious offense and worth of jail time.
Silent3
(15,339 posts)My post was only in reference to the mocking done by the adult. Are you possibly mixing in some of what his son had done previously, which is a separate issue?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)I'm not talking about the boy.
From one of the articles:
Yeah, I'd say that jail's a good place for him.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Because that is exactly what the folks defending him in this thread are doing, even though they don't intend it.
BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)but- it's not illegal.
nobody was ever arrested for mocking my birth defect when i was a kid.
but then- i would never even consider going running to the cops about it.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,347 posts)BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)i really never would have considered going to the cops about it- it's not illegal to hurt someone's feelings.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Red Mountain
(1,739 posts)This is the sort of thing that can get somebody hurt.
Which is to say if it were my kid and I saw him doing that somebody would get hurt. Maybe me.
Not proud of that but I think many fathers would feel the same way.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)what a great dad.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)A 10-year-old disabled girl? Is there an article where someone talked to him? I really want to know how he could possibly try to defend his behavior as reasonable.
frylock
(34,825 posts)that's pretty evident.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Looks vaguely like some white power imagery.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)i could be wrong.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I looked it up and got articles on obscure alchemical references, but I'm thinking it is not very likely he's a medievalist either.
BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)otherwise this case could have a chilling effect on comedy clubs in the greater Canton metropoitan area...
frylock
(34,825 posts)disorderly conduct was the charge.
BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)is that what they did...?
lousy drunks.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)a public figure and less entitled to the protection of the law.
BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)that's what happens when you seek publicity.
frylock
(34,825 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)DU does need jury nullification sometimes!
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)His actions initially appear to fall well within the charge of Disorderly Contact as written, especially..
"Making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person."
and
"Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response."
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)regularly mocked her or threatened to choke her with a chain, that would be quite likely to "provoke a violent response" from me
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Though that would probably push it over the edge.
This guy was begging someone to beat the ever loving hell out of him, which would have been far worse for all involved than a disorderly conduct charge. This was a better ending than it could have been. The judge and the prosecutor exercised sanity, something that this father lost a grip on.
BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)which is why we have by far the largest incarceration rate in the civilized world.
frylock
(34,825 posts)sorry that i gave you the benefit of the doubt.
BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)where exactly did your parents fuck up when raising you?
frylock
(34,825 posts)at least i have parents. you were clearly raised in a cesspool by a pack of turds.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"they can always find a reason to lock someone up..."
Especially when one is in violation of written law, regardless of whether one melodramatically calls it a police state or not...
BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)none so blind, and all...
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine we often think people with different opinions are somewhat less intelligent-- it's both convenient and self-validating.
But, if melodrama's your thing, have at it as you struggle on your cross.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)This part: (3) Insulting, taunting, or challenging another, under circumstances in which that conduct is likely to provoke a violent response;
It's reasonable to think that you're likely to provoke a violent response from the child's parents if you taunt their disabled child like that. So while I can't see it fitting under the definition of "harassment," I can see this better.
Though this would seem to be a charge that would get probation rather than jail time.
Judi Lynn
(160,648 posts)okwmember
(345 posts)It appears his actions fit the description in the law, and he pleaded no
contest. He could've pleaded not guilty, but he didn't.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)... The video was shot last week by Hope's grandmother at a bus stop, and shows what appears to be both Bailey and his son each walking with a pronounced limp. Bailey, for his part, declined to talk on camera, but told The New York Daily News that he was injured on the job and was suffering from bruised ribs and twisted back when the video was shot. "I would never do that," he told the paper. "I wasnt out to make this kid look bad" ...
Ohio family says video shows neighbor mocking disabled daughters walk
Published October 04, 2012
FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/04/ohio-family-says-video-shows-neighbor-mocking-disabled-daughters-walk/
... 'I love that little girl. I never even meant that or anything at all toward little Hope. I dont make fun of anybody with a disability,' he said to the Canton Rep. 'I wasnt making fun of anyone. They just kept calling my little boy (names) and I reacted badly. You have to defend your son, your children ...' Explaining the video, he said that he was retaliating for the Knights calling his son a 'retard.' He claims they were present during the taping and were hurling insults at Joseph. 'They were down at the bus stop yelling "retard" and I told my son, "If they want to call us 'retard,' well show them a 'retard.'" And we walked to the car from the bus like that. I did that with my son,' he said ...
Shamed father sentenced to a month in jail after he and his son mocked 10-year-old neighbor with cerebral palsy every day by imitating her limp
By Emily Anne Epstein and Daily Mail Reporter
PUBLISHED: 10:47 EST, 28 November 2012
UPDATED: 11:03 EST, 28 November 2012
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239838/Father-son-caught-camera-mocking-limp-girl-10-cerebral-palsy.html
... His attorney, John R. Giua, handed out a media statement, which read: To Hope and her family, please accept my apology for my inappropriate behavior. I know that my actions were immature and lacked the respect you deserve. I didnt realize the impact this incident would have upon both of our families and I truly regret it ...
Man gets 29 days in jail for mocking disabled child
By Lori Monsewicz
CantonRep.com staff writer
Posted Nov 27, 2012 @ 12:05 PM
Last update Nov 27, 2012 @ 10:53 PM
http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x1783177129/Man-gets-29-days-in-jail-for-mocking-disabled-child?zc_p=0
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)He's trying to blame a work injury for his actions. He knew exactly what he was doing. I'm glad he's going to jail.
NickB79
(19,276 posts)Jesus Christ but this guy is dumb.
Mariana
(14,861 posts)Which one of these statements is a lie? One of them has to be.
"I would never do that," he told the paper. "I wasnt out to make this kid look bad..."
"And we walked to the car from the bus like that. I did that with my son," he said.
still_one
(92,454 posts)Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)People with disabilities don't need to be subjected to someone like him in order to punish him.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)He can't be trusted to behave like a human being around them. He'd spend his community service being a jackass to them.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)I'd say on top of the jail sentence, make him pick up trash on the highway like other criminals.
still_one
(92,454 posts)burnsei sensei
(1,820 posts)BOY!
I don't care if he's 43 and a parent.
I just have trouble calling such a person a man.
Smilo
(1,944 posts)sentence would have been community service within the disabled community.
Sorry still-one for some reason your post didn't show up until after I reviewed.
A month's sentence behind bars for this jerk would not do any good - in fact it would probably make him feel more substantiated in his jerkness. By forcing him to live among those who he ridicules there is a hope - yes may be faint - that he may start to understand the hardships faced by those who are not just like him. I would also have his son serve along with the dad - that way the son can understand just how wrong his dad was.
obamanut2012
(26,158 posts)Anti LGBT criminals shouldn't volunteer at PLAG for CS. And, someone who mocks the disabled shouldn't be allowed with 100 feet of them, especially for CS.
His sentence is fair, and he should also have to pay a fine and do CS, but something like trash pickup.
get the red out
(13,468 posts)IMO that sentence is too light for the fucker.
obamanut2012
(26,158 posts)Definitely menacing, and in many states also assault. You can't treat a minor like you can an adult, nor can you systematic menace someone. He is probably lucky his sentence was as light as it was.
This is not a 1A issue.
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)I'll call this what it is: child abuse.
Reportedly, this guy threatened to choke the girl with a chain.
Personally, I think jail is too kind for this psychopathic subhuman.
I'd have him horsewhipped until the flesh on his back was turned into hamburger.
Are we sure that Singapore-style caning is unacceptable as a punishment?
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)why is this judge infringing on bailey's constitutional right to threaten to choke people with a chain? what is this, north fucking korea??!!1
CHARGES REDUCED
On Tuesday, Bailey pleaded no contest to amended charges and was found guilty by Poulos.
Tricia Knight, the girls mother, filed the menacing complaint with the prosecutors office, saying that Bailey threatened to choke her with a chain, said Jennifer Fitzsimmons, assistant city prosecutor. A Stark County sheriffs deputy filed the disorderly conduct complaint as a result of the video recording of Bailey and his son at the bus stop, citing Baileys actions as offensive behavior, Fitzsimmons said.
At a hearing Tuesday, the prosecutors office reduced the first-degree misdemeanor menacing charge to a fourth-degree charge, citing that after further investigation, it was determined the threat made was a threat to harm and did not occur in the vicinity of a school, court papers said.
http://www.cantonrep.com/newsnow/x1783177129/Man-gets-29-days-in-jail-for-mocking-disabled-child
frylock
(34,825 posts)why does he hate his constitutional right to mock disabled little girls? anyone?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)The man threatened to choke the girl with a chain. That's not protected speech.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)forestpath
(3,102 posts)blueknight
(2,831 posts)he needs his fucking ignorant, redneck, ass whipped. and i would be glad to do it