fatcat46
Regular Member
imported post
gluegun wrote:
gluegun wrote:
I think if I keep bombarding him with legal quotes that he might get annoyed and that would not be my goal. I have a good relationship with him now and I want to keep it that wayAlso this juicy tidbit from the Court of Appeals:
Subdiv. (1) cited. 8 CA 153; Id., 517; 36 CA 625; judgment reversed, see 237 C. 613. Subdiv. (2) cited. 40 CA 643. Cited. 46 CA 661. Subdiv. (1) cited. Id. Subdiv. (2): Held unconstitutional on its face where conduct occurred prior to judicial gloss placed on statute. Id. Subdiv. (2) should be read and applied as follows: A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with the predominant intent previously defined or with reckless disregard for the risks of his or her conduct, the person, by conduct that is grossly offensive under contemporary community standards to a person who actually overhears it or sees it, disturbs or impedes the lawful activity of another person. 83 CA 724. There was sufficient evidence presented by the state and the court reasonably could have inferred on the basis of the size of defendants' belongings and their position on the sidewalk that defendants intended to cause inconvenience, annoyance and alarm and did obstruct sidewalk. 108 CA 146.
Expression of political views found not to constitute disorderly conduct. 33 CS 93. Subdiv. (2): Failure of charge to limit application of section to "fighting words" deprived defendant of freedom of speech constitutional guarantee. 34 CS 689.
Run that one by him and see what he says.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap952.htm#Sec53a-182.htm