Pennsylvania channeling Surry County?

[TFred]

This might bring back some memories...

TFred

Pennsylvania court rules that man's 'gun-like hand gesture' is a crime

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled that a Manor Township man’s “gun-like hand gesture” aimed at his neighbor is a crime.

Last year, Stephen T. Kirchner, 64, was charged with summary disorderly conduct for the finger gun gesture which prompted a witness to call 911.

...

 

[color of law]

I hope he appeals.

 

[bbMurphy]

At least he didn't use an assault Pop-Tart.

 

[sidestreet]

I remember when Skidmark's saga was taking place, a bunch of us were at River City Diner, the discussion had moved outside to the "smoking area" and I asked the question "Is there any position that you can hold your hands that won't be taken as a threat?", and Grapeshot just smiled wryly and raised both hands in the air in the "surrender" position. The prophetic truth? I think we're just about there.

sidestreet

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

Jeremiah 29:11-13

Philippians 1:3

 

[color of law]

Commonwealth v. Kirchner, Pa: Superior Court 2019 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Kirchner testified in his own defense, and admitted that he made the gesture. However, he said he did so after Klingseisen "gave [him] the finger with both hands." N.T. at 13, 16. The court found Kirchner guilty, and imposed a $100 fine and court costs.

My appeal would have been "ineffective assistance of counsel". Not one word about free speech, did the pointing of the finger rise to the level of fighting words? I would have gone after Klingseisen for violating the restraining order.

 

[user]

The essence of "disorderly conduct" is behavior that is likely to lead to an escalation in violence. I suppose the "escalation" that could have been engendered would envision the neighbor using a "gun-like gesture" of his own. Horrors!

I had one such case in which my client had accidentally brushed his hand against a woman's bottom in a crowded shopping mall (or so he'd said). The woman had been accompanied by her husband at the time, and the gist of the Commonwealth's case is that the husband could likely have reacted violently if he'd known about it at the time. It's one of a class of crimes that I think are absurd. Like the complaining witness said in Scouser's case: "I didn't know what he MIGHT do."; crimes are supposed to be about things that actually happen, not what could happen or what someone fears might happen. Personal liberty hinges on the principal that there can be no prior restraint - no government can prohibit hypothetical crime. And the concomitant rule is self-reliance - each of us is his own "first responder" and has a duty to society to protect ourselves, our homes and our familes. But tell that to the fascists who have taken control of the House of Representatives.