first off, disorderly conduct is a general catch all statute that should be ruled unconstitutional....period. It's a piss ant charge used when citizens act out against authority, especially when they are right.
This is Massachussets, right?
A disorderly person is defined as one who:
* with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or
* recklessly creates a risk thereof
* engages in fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior, or
* creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.
nobody has a right to be free from public inconviencence, nor being alarmed or annoyed.
no idea what they actually mean by 'risk thereof'.
fighting or threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior certainly does apply, so at least we have part of a law that is supposed to work.
the last one - "creates a hazard or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose." the last I remember, standing up for civil rights is definitely a legitimate purpose, in fact, it founded this nation.
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Bookmarks