User login
Recent comments
- Three guys wearing kilts came...
by Chris Olin - Congratulations to you...
by bud prevost - Got ya....
by Bob Harker - I think it's important to...
by Sean Valdes - I had a friend email this to...
by Gabor Deutsch - So basically John, there is...
by Tim Howe - I added the name later and...
by Howard Owens - "We"? Richard. What "we" are...
by Howard Owens - Because they're a publicly...
by Howard Owens - Andrew,
You are 100% right....
by John Roach
Recent posts
- A wee bit of the Irish in Batavia tonight
- Thank Yous
- Raises reported for Graham executives
- Batavia's St. James Episcopal Church hosts fish fry
- Victim asks judge to throw the book at con man, and Noonan grants her wish
- 'Change for Change' update, first week
- 'Maple Weekend' in Alexander and Darien
- Transformer explosion on Walnut Street
- Possible injury accident on Thruway in Le Roy
- Driver in alleged high-speed chase and accident charged
Featured Topics
Site Sponsors
Police Beat: Two women charged with shouting obscenities in public
Printer-friendly version
Send to friendJazzmyne M. Heard, 21, of 965 E. Glide St., Rochester, is charged with disorderly conduct. Heard allegedly shouted obscenities while on the sidewalk on South Main St. The alleged incident occurred Thursday at 11:45 a.m.
Megan J. Dowd, 26, of 16 Church St., Le Roy, was charged with disorderly conduct after allegedly shouting obscenities in a public place. The alleged incident occurred at 337 Bank St.
James S. Gibbs, 33, of 34 Vernon Ave., Batavia is charged with criminal contempt. Gibbs allegedly made contact with a person he was ordered not to contact.
Jay R. Cummings, 23, of 10565 Harper Road, Darien, is charged with felony DWI. Cummings was stopped on West Main Street by Batavia police following a report of a road rage incident in the Town of Batavia. Officers Coffey and Klimjack report Cummings was allegedly intoxicated. He is also charged with felony unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle. Cummings reportedly has a prior felony DWI conviction. He is held on $5,000 bail.
Ryan P. Sutton, 19, of 8290 Lewiston Road, Batavia, is charged with making graffiti. Batavia Police Officer Matthew Baldwin reportedly observed Sutton carving something into plastic play equipment in Pringle Park with a folding knife on Thursday night.
Stephan A. Lewis II, 29, of 541 E. Main St., is charged with petty larceny. Lewis is accused of stealing beer from Wilson Farms, 506 E. Main St.
John J. Smalley, Sr., 46, of 32 S. Main St., Oakfield, is charged with harassment. Smalley is accused of making harassing phone calls to another person. He was arrested by Batavia police officers.
Timothy Ryan McJury, 22, of 334 W. Main St., #5, is charged with petty larceny. McJury is accused of shoplifting three DVDs and a video game from Target.
Travis W. Zeidler, 29, of 502-2969 Kingsway Drive, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, is charged with DWI and DWI with a BAC of .18 or more. Zeidler was arrested following a Sheriff's Office investigation into a reported car accident inside the parking lot of Darian Lake Theme Park. Zeidler is held on $500 bail. The incident was investigated by Deputy Jason Saile.
David J. Reschke, 18, of 9741 Transit Road, Stafford, is charged with unlawful possession of alcohol by a person under 21. Reschke was reportedly found to possess alcohol following a car accident at Route 19 and Cato Street in Pavilion on Saturday at 3:30 p.m.
Stephanie L. Hagen, 26, of 3259 Rose Road, Batavia, is charged with DWI. Hagen was reportedly stopped for an alleged traffic violation on Erie Road in Darien on Saturday morning about 1 a.m. She reportedly had a BAC of .08 or greater.
Ronald J. Tombari III, 21, of Pavilion, is charged with felony unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, leaving the scene of an accident, DWI and driving with a BAC of .18 or greater. Tombari allegedly struck a parked car in Le Roy and then left the scene. Le Roy Patrolman Daryl Robb made the arrest.
- Howard Owens
- Login or register to post comments
-
March 18, 2010 - 7:30pm - March 20, 2010 - 10:00pm
-
March 19, 2010 - 4:30pm - 6:00pm
-
March 19, 2010 - 7:00pm - 10:00pm
-
March 20, 2010 - 10:00am - 4:00pm
-
March 20, 2010 - 10:00am - 11:00am
I think I have an idea for tomorrow's poll ...
A shouting match, especially when alcohol is involved (in the events noted in the police blotter, we don't know if it was), could easily escalate from name calling to violence.
In Utopia we would find that people are civil to each other and have the language skills capable of discussion without the name calling and the real or perceived threat of bodily harm. No local ordinances would be needed.
Until we reach a Utopian environment our citizens should be protected from those who can't control their anger. Shouting obscenities at another citizen is inappropriate behavior.
As far as taking that bull horn and stepping up to vent your opposition to government officials, I say go right ahead. You may need a permit to hold a public demonstration, but you would be able to say whatever you like without fear of arrest.
Obscenities are part of life, deal with it. Arguments that violent have laws on the books already and we don't need speech police.
That's not true. If he were to call for the death of the President or the City Council members, or if he were to admonish for an armed rebellion, he'd be arrested.
On that note, I mutter, say, and occasionally shout a variety of colorful obscenities daily. Sometimes, within earshot of the Genesee County police. Why aren't I being arrested?
Not if there is no threat mentioned.
A threat doesn't have to be mentioned. Body language can be just as telling.
An out of control person, who's only recourse is obscenities to make a point, may just as easy turn violent without uttering the threat!
The point is, Language should not be outlawed.
When someone engages in public speech in a forum that is generally accepted as one in which public discourse is the norm (a church, stage, conference, bar, or any public forum where speech and discussion are expected) then say what you want and if it offends me, I can walk away. When someone intrudes into a public place or business uninvited and releases a diatribe of obscenities, that is not the practice of free speech, it is disorderly conduct and our laws rightfully support the punishment of it. I knew this would devolve into a debate of free speech but in an orderly society, there has to be a balance between the rights of ALL individuals.
No one said language was being outlawed. The ordinance appears to be a caution to those who use language in an inappropriate manner in public.
Where did you get the idea that they were outlawing language?
"Heard allegedly shouted obscenities while on the sidewalk on South Main St. "
Sounds like language is outlawed to me.
No one has the right to nto be offended. People are offended when I support Survival of the Fittest concepts and letting a child get pulled into an escalator to teach the parents a lesson thinking. I say those things in public, often, and loudly. Should I be arrested for that Jeff since the parents or other on lookers are offended at my speech?
As much as individuals have a right to free speech, other individuals have a right to freedom from the intrusion of offensive and disruptive outbursts.
When someone engages in public speech in a forum that is generally accepted as one in which public discourse is the norm (a church, stage, conference, bar, or any public forum where speech and discussion are expected) then say what you want and if it offends me, I can walk away. When someone intrudes into a public place or business uninvited and releases a diatribe of obscenities, that is not the practice of free speech, it is disorderly conduct and our laws rightfully support the punishment of it. I knew this would devolve into a debate of free speech but in an orderly society, there has to be a balance between the rights of ALL individuals.
Thank you Jeff.
Do you seriously believe that all obscene language is a veiled threat? That's the same (ill)logic you just used.
Yes, I believe that someone hurling invectives can be construed as possibly capable of doing bodily harm. Yes, that is an implied threat.
No one has the right to not be offended.
So, no one has the right NOT to be offended. What does that mean? Someone has the RICHT to offend, but the victim doesn't have the RIGHT to due process if they feel that they might be harmed?
People are offended when I support Survival of the Fittest concepts and letting a child get pulled into an escalator to teach the parents a lesson thinking. I say those things in public, often, and loudly. Should I be arrested for that Jeff since the parents or other on lookers are offended at my speech?
Jeff, I guess this last paragraph was added for shock value. Not worth the bandwidth to discuss it.
You could be offended if I say Christ was an instrument of Satan. That doesn't entitle you to anything legally.
Gabor, this is a public place and that outburst deserves to be squelched because Bea thinks you are going to hurt someone.
And Howard, I may want to borrow that blow horn in the fall! :)
You aren't harmed if you are "offended" Bea. The word has no real meaning anymore just like racist.
You could be offended if I say Christ was an instrument of Satan. That doesn't entitle you to anything legally.
Gabor, this is a public place and that outburst deserves to be squelched because Bea thinks you are going to hurt someone.
People who are unduly harrassed are harmed - if not physically then emotionally. It is a form of torture. A public outburst by someone out of control is different than you making an inane statement. You know that!
Being offended does have meaning. Only those who truly believe that they have the RIGHT to offend and not suffer the consequences would believe that. A drunk might believe that when he/she becomes obnoxious and argumentative, in a public setting, that their actions are appropriate. In reality, the person or people they victimize are well within their rights to have the person arrested if they feel their safety is in jeopardy.
It all comes down to language. If a person is capable of controlling their anger and their language, then they aren't about to get in trouble. People who don't have the intelligence to behave appropriately in a public setting and don't have the skills to manage their anger
are at risk of finding themselves in custody.
What Gabor said was hardly offensive to me. He made a statement in good humor. He knows me well enough to know that I would not consider him a threat to my well being.
What if a guy is sitting on bench yelling at you but not moving are you threatened?
Your assessment of me is flawed. If you think you know me based on my posting you are sadly mistaken.
..but then.
Also posted by Peter....
People are offended when I support Survival of the Fittest concepts and letting a child get pulled into an escalator to teach the parents a lesson thinking. I say those things in public, often, and loudly. Should I be arrested for that Jeff since the parents or other on lookers are offended at my speech?
How flawed is that assessment?
Is that plagerism, or just projecting wishful thinking?
Seriously, the words 'offended' and 'emotional threats' are jokes. It's a method used by liberals of reaching censorship. If they don't like the topic du jour, they call it offensive.
The last thing a liberal wants is censorship. You have to be kidding! It isn't the liberals that advocate book burning; banning music; etc.
A person on a street, yelling obscenities, is inappropriate behavior. A person subject to that abuse has a right to protection.
How difficult is it to understand that this isn't a liberal/conservative political thing...it is common sense.
Why politicize it?
I can bet that the person yelling the obscenities wasn't thinking politics.
I can bet that the person subject to that wasn't thinking politics.
No matter how I turn this thing around, I can't defend a person who doesn't have the social skills to behave appropriately in public.
I can sympathize with someone who is bullied. Yes, that is offensive in society.
Tyler, you and your buddies can side with the bullies. You may find that behavior appropriate. So be it.
Quite possibly, you can even diminish the emotional state of those bullied. It would fall in line with those who believe they have the RIGHT to be obnoxious to others. While, in the same breath, saying that those who are the victims have no rights what so ever.
When did I say it was appropriate? It can be inappropriate and legal at the same time Bea.
Fairness Doctrine....need I say more?
When did I say it was appropriate? It can be inappropriate and legal at the same time Bea.
The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable and balanced.
Peter,
You twisted this to make it sound as if arresting people for inappropriate behavior was an attempt to censorship.
You have argued incessently that the person - who is out of control and hurling obscenities - has more rights than the person who is being verbally abused.
You have admitted to informing people loud and often that children should be injured to teach parents a lesson. That statement alone is frightening. School yard bullies grow up to become abusive adults.
You refuse to even consider the possibility that someone who is out of control and being verbally abusive is also capable of bodily harm. You have stated that people who are on the receiving end of such abuse have no right to be offended nor fear for their well being. You have mocked the premise that there is a possibility that someone who is already engaged in disruptive behavior can become violent.
So, in your opinion, your posts throughout this day have been honest, equitable, and balanced?
Sir, I think not.
And, Peter, you and I definitely need to go get some drinks sometime. I love your posts. I don't have enough time to keep up on this site, but I bequest you with the responsibility of defending conservatism. You do a great job and I honestly love coming to my computer at night and reading your posts. Keep up the good work Peter! 90 percent of the people on here just glorify their position on a topic and reassure their insecurities. anything that breaches this is perceived as offensive. It's okay though. Keep up the good work my man.
2. I don't want to see any child get hurt but a parent who sucks at life and can't stop their child from doing something dangerous deserves to suffer. I also yell at parents who make no attempt to stop their child's temper tantrums in public places. Arrest me for that too please. If you think I was a school yard bully, try again I was one who was picked on.
3. The fairness doctrine is not fair. People don't want to hear liberals on the radio. That is why Air America and most every other liberal talk show fails. Liberals are pushing to bring it back instead of letting the market determine what people want. Rush makes millions because millions want to hear what he has to say and advertisers want to get a bit of air time during his show. The liberals are squelching conservative radio.
Talk radio succeeds in a rather bland, one-size-fits-all manner not because the marketplace demands it, but because of chain ownership. For radio conglomerates, syndicated content is much, much cheaper than locally produced content.
What the FCC should do -- these are public airwaves, so licensing them is a privileged and not a right -- is require at least 50 percent of all air time be locally produced and locally oriented.
Local radio should be for local audiences dealing with local concerns, not over-paid blowhards who put entertainment above honesty.
1. Yes people yelling can become violent but they usually don't. You seem to think it happens all the time and you want to suppress any form of outburst for any reason. You still haven't answer if its ok to scream and yell so long I call people feces-for-encephaloned corpulent torpid bovine instead of shit headed fat slow cow
....
Please give a logical reason for disorderly conduct? Apparently there are reasons that I can't fathom.
Please give a logical reason for 'any form of outburst' that will threaten someone else?
Please give a logical reason to yell and scream obscenities in public?
These people were cited for disorderly conduct and
allegedly shouted obscenities in a public place, in one case and on the street in another. Please explain why you find this behavior appropriate.
2. I don't want to see any child get hurt but a parent who sucks at life and can't stop their child from doing something dangerous deserves to suffer.
You are still advocating hurting the child for the sins of the parents. What kind of person would even consider that sane?
I also yell at parents who make no attempt to stop their child's temper tantrums in public places. Arrest me for that too please.
Your degree is in child psychology? You have vast experience in stopping temper tantrums? Please give your background in raising children that makes you an expert. Do you honestly believe that tantrums are programmed to occur when you are present. They happen...it is part of raising a family. Trust me, parents don't like them either. Is it safe to assume that you NEVER, as a child, had a tantrum?
How pompous can you get?
If you think I was a school yard bully, try again I was one who was picked on.
So now, this is your chance to get even? You are doing a good job of it.
3. The fairness doctrine is not fair. People don't want to hear liberals on the radio. That is why Air America and most every other liberal talk show fails. Liberals are pushing to bring it back instead of letting the market determine what people want. Rush makes millions because millions want to hear what he has to say and advertisers want to get a bit of air time during his show. The liberals are squelching conservative radio.
(see Howard's response)
A single person yelling into the air is A) going to reach a limited area; B) yell for only a relatively short time; C) not monopolize the signal-carrying power of that area; D) not substantially interfere with the ability of anybody else to use that same communications space.
Transmittable airwaves are regulated because they're a finite resource that should be used responsibility for the duel purpose of serving the public, which has a legitimate interest in seeing this limited resource used in a mutually beneficial way, and to ensure this resource also helps promote the general and economic welfare of the public and its businesses.
Nobody owns the airwaves. Operators license the permission necessary to send a signal on a certain frequency. They agree to be bound by the terms of that license. Those terms include obeying the rules of the FCC. Nobody holds a gun to the head of license operators and forces them to buy these licenses. They do so of their own free will.
If a kid has a tantrum that's fine, its part of life, so long as the parent is dealing with it. The ones who just let them scream over and over while others are around need to do something. Should they be arrested? no but society has determined that they shouldn't say anything. I think that is wrong and I make sure that the parents and those around me hear me when I say something about it whether is something very sarcastic or I directly yell at the parent to do something about it.
For an outburst, you are at a restaurant and are served under cooked chicken which could lead to salmonella poisoning, yelling and swearing is acceptable.
Disorderly conduct is too vague.
Not once did I say it was appropriate. I said that language should not be outlawed. Yelling ASSHOLE at the top of my lungs on Main Street is my right thanks to the first amendment. Doing so thanks to social standards is frowned upon. That doesn't mean there should be a law against it. Another example is wrong and impolite to slam a door in someones face without hitting them with it, but its not against the law and shouldn't be.
When will you stop dodging my question about about the language used?
Is it ok to scream and yell so long I call people feces-for-encephaloned corpulent torpid bovine instead of shit-headed fat slow cow?
This is a discussion about about the use of obsenities not about threats, keep trying to twist it that way though.
Licenses are fine just to spread the stations out over the spectrum, to regulate content on the spectrum is wrong and immoral.
Generally using obscenities in public, shouting them or not, when they are not aimed at a specific person or group of people, in my understanding are not fighting words. While there is not much detail on the actual situation, a warning and being told to cease and desist would probably have been a better solution. If those suggestions were not followed then maybe a fine, but arresting someone for using words that are not directed toward a specific person/persons is a type of censorship.
WRONG AGAIN Chelsea