posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:09 AM
I really don't see a conviction on this, in the long run, if he fights. While a lower court might convict, upon appeal he should very well be found
not guilty, for the simple fact that he did NOT do anything illegal.
Tasteless and stupid, yes, but not illegal.
Even the inciting panic, while arguable, would not hold, simply because it's not a clear and present danger, there is no imminent threat or danger
stemming from the so-called panic. While people might have their panties in a wad and some might feel for their safety, that is not necessarily a
*panic.* The only problem is that so many people called with a concern (and not just with disgust but with actual concern), which is why it is
arguable and why i lower court might convict but a higher court wouldn't (legally shouldn't).
And if he is convicted, i would still appeal for wrongful arrest and conviction, especially if he has to do the 30 days and pay the fine.
Joseph Resovsky, 20, says he wanted to make a point with this Facebook post but it could cost him a $1,000 fine and 30 days in jail.
This case promises to test the limits of free speech and answer the question: At what point do hurtful words become criminal?
The the limits of free speech, you betcha. It ought to help redefine what is considered free speech that that no one else is arrested for such a
thing. That's why if the lower court fails to acquit, this should be escalated.
Here's the interesting (but erroneous, IMO), rationale:
"This is the modern day equivalent of yelling fire in a movie theater. He just does it through the internet," Medina Police Lt. Dave BirkBichler
This is NOT the equivalent. Is saying "I'm glad there was a fire in the theater" the same as yelling "fire!"? No. What a stupid rationale.
edit on 20-12-2012 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)