ShareThis Page

Often misused

| Sunday, May 11, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Adam Brandolph's news story “Legal experts question prosecuting South Fayette boy for recording bullies” cites attorney Phil DiLucente's description of the charge of disorderly conduct as including “harassing, annoying or harming another person,” which is misleading at best. While disorderly conduct includes these factors — which can fit almost any action — the heart of disorderly conduct is four behaviors:

1. Fighting, threatening, violent or tumultuous behavior. While generally self-explanatory, an average person has no idea what “tumultuous” means.

2. Using obscene language and/or gestures. Courts have ruled that this type of disorderly conduct is limited to sexually explicit speech.

3. Creating a hazardous or physically offensive condition for no legitimate purpose, such as icing down a public sidewalk or leaving horse manure on a doorstep. It is totally beyond my comprehension that South Fayette District Judge Maureen McGraw-Desmet found recording a bully's taunt fit into this category. This is not hazardous or physically offensive, and it served a legitimate purpose. Voters should seriously question the judge's competency.

4. Making unreasonable noise. This is vague at best.

Finally, the law requires the public be affected.

Disorderly conduct charges are frequently misused by police, sometimes due to a lack of knowledge. Unfortunately, more often, the charge is simply proclaimed for “disagreeing with cop,” even though police are not members of the general public.

Michael Sheliga


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.