Question...Legal??

If a police officer walks into a movie theater and sits down for a movie, and someone who doesn't like cops decides to start screaming in their face about how they hate cops, spitting on them, an inch from their face...and the officer asks them politely to stop, but they don't, said screamer is going to jail, right? Isn't that harassment?

Harassment Law and Legal Definition. Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety.

- definitions.uslegal.com...

And...

States vary in how they define criminal harassment. Generally, criminal harassment entails intentionally targeting someone else with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize them. ... Harassment charges can range from misdemeanor to high level felony charges.

- criminal.findlaw.com...

So why, in the case of former FL AG Pam Bondi, didn't someone go to jail, or at least get cited for "Harassment"????

Seems like this should be a simple matter. Why isn't it?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Well first is there any context, is the movie about cops or police brutality?

If so, as long as the person was just talking at an appropriate noise level, i imagine that's ok if somewhat ignorant and bad mannered, especially in a theatre.

Screaming in their face an inch away about how they hate cops and spitting on them through is definitely a breach of the peace at the very least, the idiot probably deserved the gaol if that's what happened.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Protesting in a peaceful manner is one thing, harassment is a different beast akin almost to stalking. Blasting the cries of immigrant children at the home of the head of Homeland Security surely piss ed off their neighbors and "disturbed the peace".

It's a fine line sometimes, but recent actions have crossed normal civility. It's not winning over any hearts and minds.

a reply to: andy06shake

Context? Well, that's what Pam Bondi did and she basically was attacked by at least two and possibly three people shouting at her, right in her face. To the point where SHE (not the people doing the shouting) had to be escorted out by police (for her own protection).

WTH, over?

I don't even know this woman, but why does ANYONE have to put up with that?

P.S. - I know if that happened to me, I'd probably have about a 99.9% chance of physically assaulting someone...which is, I'm quite sure, just exactly what these idiots wanted too! Bondi, being an attorney, was probably smarter than that, but it doesn't change the question...why does anyone have to tolerate that kind of abuse in a public space?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

They don't or at least darn well shouldn't.

I'm with you, i would have twated the fool.

As a burst snib generally phones home the totality of any situation rather sharpish.

Some people are just arseholes through.

a reply to: pavil

No, it's certainly not winning over hearts and minds, not mine anyway!

What am I missing? Free speech is one thing, but shouting in someone's ear is not only "Harassment", but frankly also "Assault". These people who pull this stuff should be going to jail for criminal offenses!!!

I'm ALL for free speech, but this isn't "free speech", not even close!

How is Maxine Waters public cries for people to "absolutely harass" Trump administration officials not "sedition", or using a public office to incite violence and unrest????? It's practically the very definition of "seditious activity"!!!

How?

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
If a police officer walks into a movie theater and sits down for a movie, and someone who doesn't like cops decides to start screaming in their face about how they hate cops, spitting on them, an inch from their face...and the officer asks them politely to stop, but they don't, said screamer is going to jail, right? Isn't that harassment?

Harassment Law and Legal Definition. Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety.

- definitions.uslegal.com...

And...

States vary in how they define criminal harassment. Generally, criminal harassment entails intentionally targeting someone else with behavior that is meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize them. ... Harassment charges can range from misdemeanor to high level felony charges.

- criminal.findlaw.com...

So why, in the case of former FL AG Pam Bondi, didn't someone go to jail, or at least get cited for "Harassment"????

Seems like this should be a simple matter. Why isn't it?

If you were in a grocery or a McDonalds next to a cop and did that? It would def. be disturbing the peace at least...or public nusance.

If you QUIETLY did the exact thing toward said cop...it prob. wouldn't matter due to freedom of speech.

1 disturbs....the other does not.*

*PS. only in the instance you described in your opening op. Variables abound w different recourse(s)

a reply to: mysterioustranger

Well, I used 'police officer' in my example for a reason actually. If an on-duty police officer directs a person to do something, like stop screaming in their face, and they fail to do so, then it can (and often is) considered "failure to follow a lawful order". I pulled back from making this comparison in the OP because I figured it would just confuse the matter. But where I was headed with that was "breach of the peace" is considered an offense in which a person can make a Citizen's Arrest, even if they are not a sworn LEO.

If people now want to start attacking and harassing Trump supporters, or anyone else, in the manner Pam Bondi was harassed, then maybe we should start using these seldom used laws to enforce the "law".

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

"If an on-duty police officer directs a person to do something"

People have to follow the laws of the land not the whims of Police unless they are upholding those laws.

Dependent on the situation of course, I'm not doing anything i don't want to do at some Pigs command.

Then again its nice to be nice, simply treating people how you find them generally works in most circumstances.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

What you described is assault. Yes, the perpetrator would be arrested, and rightly so.

No, violent protest (or violent reaction to protest) never wins over any hearts or minds.

There does come a point when people want it to stop just stop.

People usually turn to violent action when they feel, right or wrong, that they have no redress of grievances.

It happens more prevalently in the US whenever one party controls the White House and both houses of Congress. (see 2008-2010) and usually results in a reaction to give power to "the other side" which then wastes time undoing what the other side did, rinse and repeat, ad nauseam.

a reply to: andy06shake

Actualy, police officers have the same jurisdiction whether they're actively on duty or not.

a reply to: Gryphon66

And i bet it makes them feel really special?

All that power and they cannot even turn it off? LoL

Nobody is on duty all of the time, and if they are, and that's the case, i honestly feel sorry for them.

Because that's not a profession it's a life sentence.

spitting on them

As Gryphon66 mentioned, that can be considered assault.

a reply to: roadgravel

You don't need to even make physical contact with someone to "assault" them under current legal definition. Physical contact tacks on the "battery" element of "Assault and Battery"

a reply to: roadgravel

A nasty horrible thing to do to anyone.

Take what you get really if you are of a mind to go around doing such.

People that wish to exchange their bodily fluid with others generally spring for dinner and a date first.

Spitting in someones face is minging!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I am guessing that she chose to not press charges, and/or the city attorney declined to prosecute if she did, possibly for a lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Horrible behavior is a difficult charge to prosecute, even when the law is on your side.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Sure, but it does certainly bring it to the level (assault) that the OP was questioning.

a reply to: andy06shake

So true. It's an obvious disrespect of and probably an attempt to provoke the person.

Spitting on someone is considered an assault and is a crime.