Woman faces 30 days jail for cussing in public

  • 70 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for gamerguru100
#1 Edited by gamerguru100 (12459 posts) -

Link

This is the world we live in, folks. Relish in it.

"North Augustus police Lieutenant Tim Thornton said it's uncommon for officers to arrest people under the disorderly conduct ordinance, but in this case 'we have a definite law that's been violated, city code. And we had a witness and a confession.'

He added: 'You can't go someplace in public and use that kind of language in the state of South Carolina.'

I'm glad I don't live in South Carolina Dumbfuckistan. Jesus tap dancing Christ. This makes me wanna bash my head into a brick wall, but since my brain cell count is low to begin with, I gotta preserve what I have.

What do you think of this? Just more pussificiation of America? I say yes.

Avatar image for Iszdope
#2 Edited by Iszdope (13209 posts) -

**** that shit.

Avatar image for mdk12345
#3 Edited by MDK12345 (2528 posts) -

Wow. Pretty soon, you won't be able to do anything, anywhere. This reminds me of the Donald Sterling incident. Next thing you know, you will go to jail if you look at someone funny, even if you didn't know you did! Hell, people will start going to jail for spilling drinks on accident!

Avatar image for GTR12
#4 Posted by GTR12 (11238 posts) -

*Eating popcorn, waiting until someone goes to jail for teasing someone on an internet forum*

Avatar image for indzman
#5 Posted by indzman (23378 posts) -

@GTR12 said:

*Eating popcorn, waiting until someone goes to jail for teasing someone on an internet forum*

You can go to jail if you make fun of ministers or political parties on internet i think lol.

Avatar image for GTR12
#6 Posted by GTR12 (11238 posts) -

@indzman said:

@GTR12 said:

*Eating popcorn, waiting until someone goes to jail for teasing someone on an internet forum*

You can go to jail if you make fun of ministers or political parties on internet i think lol.

Not in Australia you cant, otherwise all of us would be behind bars.

Avatar image for lamprey263
#7 Edited by lamprey263 (31049 posts) -

I thought those right wing conservative yokels were all about "freedom" and shit.

Avatar image for sSubZerOo
#8 Posted by sSubZerOo (45995 posts) -

@lamprey263 said:

I thought those right wing conservative yokels were all about "freedom" and shit.

They don't, its all self rightous bullsh!t in which they use to enforce their beliefs system through coercion and force on others.. The crazier they get religiously, the more you see this sh!t historically.

Avatar image for Buckhannah
#9 Posted by Buckhannah (715 posts) -

A few sporadic states have such outdated laws. Really stupid, and should be overturned.

Avatar image for jasean79
#10 Posted by jasean79 (2592 posts) -

I don't understand the issue. The article states that this would fall under the disorderly conduct ordinance of this SC city. Should she have been arrested? No. A little extreme that the store clerk would seek police assistance instead of asking the woman to wrap it up and leave the store, sure. This could've been handled a multitude of ways. Usually people like this, when called out on their behavior by management, will either stop or leave the store. But then again, not everyone is raised with the same morals as us decent folk, so...

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#11 Posted by foxhound_fox (94304 posts) -

Unless she is threatening someone with violence, her speech, whatever it may be, falls under the first amendment to the Constitution. She can be asked to leave, and if she doesn't, she can be arrested for TRESPASSING, but not this bullshit.

Avatar image for kaealy
#12 Edited by kaealy (1858 posts) -

So, no one take issue with the langauge she's using around her children?

She deserves it, maybe she will stop being such trailer trash.

Avatar image for korvus
#13 Posted by Korvus (10144 posts) -

@gamerguru100 said:

This makes me wanna bash my head into a brick wall, but since my brain cell count is low to begin with, I gotta preserve what I have.

Even if that was true, you'd apparently still be a wise man in South Carolina.

Avatar image for one_plum
#14 Edited by one_plum (6437 posts) -
@Buckhannah said:

A few sporadic states have such outdated laws. Really stupid, and should be overturned.

South Carolinans are free to change the law if they don't agree with it. If the people there don't want that change, then they can by all means keep their laws. That said, it does violate the first amendment.

Avatar image for Buckhannah
#15 Posted by Buckhannah (715 posts) -

@one_plum said:
@Buckhannah said:

A few sporadic states have such outdated laws. Really stupid, and should be overturned.

South Carolinans are free to change the law if they don't agree with it. If the people there don't want that change, then they can by all means keep their laws. That said, it does violate the first amendment.

You say they can keep their law if they want it, then say it violates the first amendment, which actually means the law is null and void and can't be kept if they want it. I bet the majority of people there had no idea such a law was even on the books before this happened.

Avatar image for one_plum
#16 Edited by one_plum (6437 posts) -

@Buckhannah said:

@one_plum said:

South Carolinans are free to change the law if they don't agree with it. If the people there don't want that change, then they can by all means keep their laws. That said, it does violate the first amendment.

You say they can keep their law if they want it, then say it violates the first amendment, which actually means the law is null and void and can't be kept if they want it. I bet the majority of people there had no idea such a law was even on the books before this happened.

The first part of my comment doesn't refer to a specific law; the second part refers to the law in question. Either way, it's up to South Carolinans to do something about it.

Avatar image for Blue-Sky
#17 Posted by Blue-Sky (10371 posts) -

Wow she's not black.

Avatar image for turtlethetaffer
#18 Posted by turtlethetaffer (17982 posts) -

Can't wait to see what kind of shit show this story stirs up all across the web.

Avatar image for LostProphetFLCL
#19 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (18526 posts) -

@one_plum said:

@Buckhannah said:

@one_plum said:

South Carolinans are free to change the law if they don't agree with it. If the people there don't want that change, then they can by all means keep their laws. That said, it does violate the first amendment.

You say they can keep their law if they want it, then say it violates the first amendment, which actually means the law is null and void and can't be kept if they want it. I bet the majority of people there had no idea such a law was even on the books before this happened.

The first part of my comment doesn't refer to a specific law; the second part refers to the law in question. Either way, it's up to South Carolinans to do something about it.

Actually I could see this becoming a Supreme Court issue as this woman's free speech is pretty clearly being violated here.

Hope this goes that way and this idiocy can be taken care of.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#20 Posted by Master_Live (17885 posts) -

Doesn't that suck.

Avatar image for br0kenrabbit
#21 Posted by br0kenrabbit (14300 posts) -

So many people in this thread do not understand the 1st amendment. I blame video games and Satan music.

Avatar image for Masculus
#22 Edited by Masculus (2878 posts) -

Meanwhile people complain about sharia law.

Avatar image for MakeMeaSammitch
#23 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4889 posts) -

its the south. what do you expect? If they're not hanging minorities it's social progress.

Avatar image for EPICCOMMANDER
#24 Edited by EPICCOMMANDER (1055 posts) -
@br0kenrabbit said:

So many people in this thread do not understand the 1st amendment. I blame video games and Satan music.

^This. Swearing in public is an obscenity, and obscenities aren't protected by the first amendment.

Avatar image for sammyjenkis898
#25 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (28392 posts) -

South Carolina. Of course.

Avatar image for commander
#26 Edited by commander (11044 posts) -

@gamerguru100 said:

Link

This is the world we live in, folks. Relish in it.

"North Augustus police Lieutenant Tim Thornton said it's uncommon for officers to arrest people under the disorderly conduct ordinance, but in this case 'we have a definite law that's been violated, city code. And we had a witness and a confession.'

He added: 'You can't go someplace in public and use that kind of language in the state of South Carolina.'

I'm glad I don't live in South Carolina Dumbfuckistan. Jesus tap dancing Christ. This makes me wanna bash my head into a brick wall, but since my brain cell count is low to begin with, I gotta preserve what I have.

What do you think of this? Just more pussificiation of America? I say yes.

nope it's the world you americans live in

which is for us europeans pure comedy

Avatar image for Serraph105
#27 Posted by Serraph105 (29710 posts) -

Those fucking freedom hating conservatives in South Carolina.

Seriously though this sounds fake, and seeing that this is from the daily mail only makes it worse/

Avatar image for gamerguru100
#28 Posted by gamerguru100 (12459 posts) -

@korvus said:

@gamerguru100 said:

This makes me wanna bash my head into a brick wall, but since my brain cell count is low to begin with, I gotta preserve what I have.

Even if that was true, you'd apparently still be a wise man in South Carolina.

I'm flattered. :3

Avatar image for BranKetra
#29 Edited by BranKetra (51682 posts) -
@gamerguru100 said:
Jesus tap dancing Christ .

Anyway, I hope some good comes from this situation.

Avatar image for gamerguru100
#30 Posted by gamerguru100 (12459 posts) -

@BranKetra said:
@gamerguru100 said:
Jesus tap dancing Christ .

Anyway, I hope some good comes from this situation.

LOL

Avatar image for xeno_ghost
#31 Posted by Xeno_ghost (976 posts) -

For **** sake guys, yeah I know freedom of speech and all that but do you really want it to be an accepted and common thing that when you are out with your kids shopping or whatever you have people shouting swear words around you and your family. You guys find that acceptable behavior.if anything she deserves the 30days in jail for being such a fine example to her kids.

Avatar image for airshocker
#32 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@xeno_ghost said:

For **** sake guys, yeah I know freedom of speech and all that but do you really want it to be an accepted and common thing that when you are out with your kids shopping or whatever you have people shouting swear words around you and your family. You guys find that acceptable behavior.if anything she deserves the 30days in jail for being such a fine example to her kids.

Just because something is shameful doesn't mean it should be illegal. It's the parents job to explain to their children why something is/isn't appropriate. Not the police.

Avatar image for korvus
#33 Posted by Korvus (10144 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Just because something is shameful doesn't mean it should be illegal. It's the parents job to explain to their children why something is/isn't appropriate. Not the police.

What do you expect? It's today's "It's everyone's responsibility but mine to raise my children" mentality.

- Schools need to raise your children because it's too much work to do it yourself

- There can't be anyone anywhere doing things that you disagree with because then you'd have to explain to your kids why that's not a good example to follow and that's a lot of work

-TV can't have programs that might be inappropriate to children because then you can't just give them the TV remote and leave the tv to babysit them all day

= Video games need to be banned because they turn children into mass murderers and there's no way to prevent children from playing violent video games all day

- Fast food chains should be sued for making children fat, since there's no way to avoid eating fast food every day

So yeah, how dare people curse in public? It's lethal injection for those degenerate criminals!

Avatar image for xeno_ghost
#34 Edited by Xeno_ghost (976 posts) -

@airshocker: are you saying it's ok to have people shouting swear words while your trying to enjoy your time with your family as long as you explain to your kids that it is unacceptable? Does explaining that some how detract from the unpleasant experience? That kind of behaviour is disorderly and has no place in public where families and children are.

Avatar image for xeno_ghost
#35 Edited by Xeno_ghost (976 posts) -

@korvus: hmmm, so you are at the park with your kids, and a group of teenagers are there shouting and swearing so you have to leave, but that's fine your day at the park was ruined but as long as you explain to the kids that that behaviour is wrong that's fair enough.

When you could just call the police have the teenagers removed and warned/arrested and enjoy the rest of your day at the park.

Avatar image for korvus
#36 Posted by Korvus (10144 posts) -

@xeno_ghost: Why would I leave the park just because there are cursing teenagers? It would be a good time to explain to my kids why it's not a good idea to grow up to be like that.

Avatar image for xeno_ghost
#37 Posted by Xeno_ghost (976 posts) -

@korvus: fair enough I guess. It's just not very pleasant to be around people like that.

Avatar image for korvus
#38 Posted by Korvus (10144 posts) -

@xeno_ghost: No, it is certainly not...I just think that children don't necessarily need to be kept away from everything at all costs; now, I'm not saying you should them play with knives and drink beer, but not all undesirable things represent the same level of danger, and that's when you need to use common sense, but I think that's where it goes wrong for so many people.

When people call the cops for every little thing and act like little kids complaining to mommy every time Susan stole their toy, no wonder so many people have taken a liking to vigilantism...someone tried to sell drugs to your kid. What should you do? Call the cops? No way, that's what you do when someone curses...this is beyond the police...guess it's up to you to stab him multiple times...

Avatar image for airshocker
#39 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@xeno_ghost said:

@airshocker: are you saying it's ok to have people shouting swear words while your trying to enjoy your time with your family as long as you explain to your kids that it is unacceptable? Does explaining that some how detract from the unpleasant experience? That kind of behaviour is disorderly and has no place in public where families and children are.

Yes. I don't want to live in a police state where the government is what teaches you what is right and wrong. I would much rather have the learning experiences to teach my child.

If we allow the police to do what you want them to do, what's next? Should they be allowed to arrest you on the spot because you eat pizza with a fork and knife instead of your hands? Should they be able to arrest you for drinking a certain sized soda? Or chewing too loudly? I don't think you realize how much of a slippery slope this is.

Avatar image for xeno_ghost
#40 Edited by Xeno_ghost (976 posts) -

@korvus: @airshocker: I don't know where you guys live but round my ways disorderly conduct is a crime simple;

The criminal charge of disorderly conduct is more or less a catch-all charge aimed at anyone whose behavior is a public nuisance. The behavior is not necessarily a danger to the public, but an annoyance.

Someone can be charged with disorderly conduct if they exhibit combative or raucous behavior, makes too much noise or disrupts a peaceful gathering of others.

Avatar image for korvus
#41 Posted by Korvus (10144 posts) -

@xeno_ghost: Can't speak for airshocker but I live in the Netherlands. We don't call the police because somebody is annoying, we talk to the person in question and ask them to stop or we ignore said person. You think it's annoying for someone to curse in public and call the cops...I get annoyed if you see me eating and decide to smoke right next to me...can I call the cops too? On the other hand, if you're cursing like a sailor next to my food, it doesn't make it taste any differently...

Avatar image for airshocker
#42 Posted by airshocker (31700 posts) -

@xeno_ghost said:

I don't know where you guys live but round my ways disorderly conduct is a crime simple;

The criminal charge of disorderly conduct is more or less a catch-all charge aimed at anyone whose behavior is a public nuisance. The behavior is not necessarily a danger to the public, but an annoyance.

Someone can be charged with disorderly conduct if they exhibit combative or raucous behavior, makes too much noise or disrupts a peaceful gathering of others.

And it's what we on the force call a mickey mouse crime. Most of the things that can be labeled disorderly conduct are trivial. We don't enforce it because it does far more harm than good.

§ 240.20 Disorderly conduct. A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof: 1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or 2. He makes unreasonable noise; or 3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or 4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or 5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or 6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or 7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose. Disorderly conduct is a violation.

I have NEVER cited someone for #3. I don't know anybody who has.
Avatar image for korvus
#43 Posted by Korvus (10144 posts) -

@airshocker: Yeah, number 3 seems just weird, especially compared to the rest..."So, you're in for disorderly conduct? Beat someone up when asked to disperse?" "Nah man, stubbed my toe and cursed"...sounds ridiculous.

Avatar image for xeno_ghost
#44 Edited by Xeno_ghost (976 posts) -

@airshocker: @korvus: well I was just stating that disorderly conduct in public is already against the law and is not a new law that means the downfall of citizens rights that you guys make it out to be :P

in the case of this story where it seems the woman swore once at her kids I guess it's a bit much to call the police on her and for her to face jail, but people around May see it as verbally abusing the child. Another situation where someone or a group is being genuinely disorderly and disturbing the peace I really don't see what's wrong with getting the police involved. Why put yourself in harms way asking them to stop or why should you have to put up with it?

Avatar image for korvus
#45 Posted by Korvus (10144 posts) -

@xeno_ghost: I wasn't trying to say "never call the police"...If my neighbors decide to throw a party every night at 3am and I can't reason with them I'll call the police as well (to make them stop, not to arrest them), but if I'm trying to enjoy a meal at a restaurant and there's a group of drunk, rowdy people I ask the manager to kick them out, I don't call the police and ask them to be arrested for being loud.

Avatar image for ferrari2001
#46 Posted by ferrari2001 (17565 posts) -

The tongue out selfie from the article should be reason enough to give her some jail time.

Avatar image for xeno_ghost
#47 Posted by Xeno_ghost (976 posts) -

@korvus: "but if I'm trying to enjoy a meal at a restaurant and there's a group of drunk, rowdy people I ask the manager to kick them out, I don't call the police and ask them to be arrested.

That goes without saying bro. Of course there are a number of different situations where police might or might not be needed to deal with disordely people.

Anyway using your example, so you've complained to the manager and the people have been ejected from the restaurant but they hang outside the restaurant shouting swearing and causing a scene, by your logic it is wrong for anyone to call the police on them. They should just be ignored and allowed to continue being a nuisance.

Avatar image for EPICCOMMANDER
#48 Posted by EPICCOMMANDER (1055 posts) -
@airshocker said:

@xeno_ghost said:

@airshocker: are you saying it's ok to have people shouting swear words while your trying to enjoy your time with your family as long as you explain to your kids that it is unacceptable? Does explaining that some how detract from the unpleasant experience? That kind of behaviour is disorderly and has no place in public where families and children are.

Yes. I don't want to live in a police state where the government is what teaches you what is right and wrong. I would much rather have the learning experiences to teach my child.

If we allow the police to do what you want them to do, what's next? Should they be allowed to arrest you on the spot because you eat pizza with a fork and knife instead of your hands? Should they be able to arrest you for drinking a certain sized soda? Or chewing too loudly? I don't think you realize how much of a slippery slope this is.

I believe you are dangerously close to a slippery slope fallacy.

Avatar image for korvus
#49 Posted by Korvus (10144 posts) -

@xeno_ghost: I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it shouldn't be the go-to solution. Just look at this article...a woman says **** and she gets arrested? Was she causing a scene that was traumatizing people? Was she dangerous, violent, preventing others from shopping, disturbing the peace?

Avatar image for Stevo_the_gamer
#50 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43986 posts) -

Disorderly conduct is a cite, kick and release. If my department housed every disorderly, we would need an additional ten jails. Stating the maximum allowable sentence for a misdemeanor is inherently silly as no judge will sentence something like so to the maximum because something like this wouldn't even go to that stage. I know I live in California, and the way we do things are different, but let's not get carried away here.