There is a horrific story out of Michigan where a couple, Scott and Jennifer Petkov, are accused of a cruel campaign targeting a seven-year-old girl, Kathleen Edwards who is dying from Huntington’s disease. The Petkov’s allegedly posted pictures showing Kathleen’s mother (Laura Edwards, who died of the disease last year at the age of 24) in the arms of the grim reaper and photo shopped a picture of Kathleen with her face above a set of crossed bones. The story (which has gone viral internationally) raises questions over the possible civil and criminal liability for such actions.
Jennifer Petkov is accused of some of the most outrageous acts and raises the same social and legal questions surrounding Lori Drew in the case of Megan Meier.
Reports allege that the Petkovs began a campaign of harassment after they asked if their children could come over to a birthday party for Kathleen. When there was no immediate response, according to the Rose family, the Petkovs turned nasty and started saying horrible things about the dying girl.
In addition to the pictures, the Petkovs allegedly drove their truck named the “Death Machine” up and down their street honking their horn. They later left the truck festooned with coffins in front of the Rose house (though they insisted it is just a Halloween decoration).
Witnesses say that the couple routinely laughed at Laura and her daughter for the neurological disease that causes involuntary writhing movements.
One of most upsetting statements attributed to the Petkovs was their telling Kathleen directly “I can’t wait until you die.” Jennifer Petkov is quoted as admitting that she continued the campaign for “personal satisfaction” and “because it burns Rebecca Rose’s ass raw.” Rebecca Rose is the mother of Laura and grandmother of Kathleen.
Kathleen’s father reportedly begged the Petkovs to stop, asking them ” ‘Just leave us alone; that’s all we want. Don’t make any more comments about our daughter.”
Scott Petkov and his wife have now apologized. Scott Petkov described how his wife’s “brutal honesty” has caused his family to “not get along with a lot of people.” For her part, she now admits “What I did was ignorant and wrong.” Scott Petkov said that, after they posted the pictures on Facebook, he was suspended with pay from his job as a forklift repairman.
They cannot apologize in person because at the height of the harassment, the Rose secured a restraining order against them.
Here is Jennifer Petkov before she decided contrition as opposed to taunting was the proper response to public outrage:
The question is what criminal or civil liability the Petkovs could face. They have a constitutional right to be horrible people. However, their first amendment rights are limited in cases of harassment, stalking, and other crimes. The most obvious criminal charge would be any violation of the restraining order. Such orders generally do not include limitations on speech such as Facebook sites and public statements. The truck could be an issue if parked within the protected zone. I do not believe Michigan has a cyber-bullying statute. What I am unclear about is why the police did not pursue this as a child abuse case, if it is true that the Petkovs confronted the little girl. If that account is false, there remains the campaign directly against the little girl as a possible abuse or stalking case.
The most obvious course for the Rose family would be a civil lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress. There is probably not an action for privacy violations here, such as intrusion upon seclusion or public disclosure of embarrassing private acts. Likewise, words alone are generally insufficient for assault. However, what is fascinating about the case is Jennifer Petkov’s admission that she wanted to harm the Rose family in taking these actions.
In the end, either criminal or civil claims run into the first amendment and the right of the Petkovs to say despicable things, even allegedly to and about a dying seven-year-old girl. This is strikingly similar to the claims in the pending Westboro case before the Supreme Court. Indeed, this drama was unfolding in Michigan at the very time that the justices were hearing arguments on the right of an extremist and homophobic church to say hateful things at funerals for fallen soldiers. I believe that the Westboro Church does have first amendment rights guaranteeing such protests as a general principle. The Westboro church appears to have complied with orders to confine their protest to a certain area that was separated from the family’s church and funeral functions.
The Petkov case could be different if they crossed the line in harassing this child and confronting the family directly. While Jennifer Petkov has been called “the Devil on Detroit Street” the devil will be in the details in whether she would be able to cloak herself in the first amendment to protect her hateful speech. We simply need to confirm the specific acts in the case to determine the viability of criminal or tort liability in the case.
Source: Daily Mail
Jonathan Turley
As usual, there’s more to this story. Police said they had been called to the neighborhood several times over a “long standing family fued”. People usually don’t call police unless severe threats have been made. Either side, or maybe both sides, have apparently been making threats. NEI
These things tend to spiral out of control, especially when times are tough – as they have been in Michigan for years, now.
If the perpetrator(s) have anger management problems, their daughter needs protection.
“And to the little girl, I apologize IF you’ve been hurt.” As far as I’m concerned, not really a statement reflecting remorse.
Mike S wrote: “They are mean, sadistic, crazy bastards who should be shunned socially by all.”
Couldn’t agree more. I have one word to add: Evil.
“That is a pro-active and positive course of action and the first prong
Exposing the perpetrator to public notice; publicizing their actions is the second prong
Filing a law suit is the third”
————————————————-
Blouise I agree except that sociopaths are sick, not stupid…they will obstruct every attempt at the above and time is often used by them as weapon. The law is not always as saavy as I used to think….
“We need a shrink on this blog to explain to us dummys what the hell is wrong with people like that and what makes them act that way.”
MetroCowboy,
I’m not a shrink but I am a psychotherapist. I will give you a diagnosis which I hope is not too complex for the readership here.
They are mean, sadistic, crazy bastards who should be shunned socially by all.
I know this will kind of sound stupid and come off stupid to those that are….But how do you legislate morality…..Abortion is a primary example….Stupidity is something that just can be legislated…Whats the minimum drinking age in Wisconsin? It depends on if you are with you parents or not….Truthfully….Whats the legal Age that a minor can get married in Arkansas….Depends on what age the parents are….they have to be able to consent for you to get married…. hence at birth….Common sense is not age specific. You either have it or you don’t. The Bushes proved that….
The home address of Scott and Jennifer Petkov is available on the web. DO with it what you want.
The home address of the grandmother is also on the web. Perhaps cute cards for the child are appropriate?
There are so many things wrong with this country and the fact that there are not clear and defined laws against this, is truly shocking..
As soon as I saw this, I thought of the Westboro “Baptist” Church case. What’s the difference?
MetroCowboy
1, October 11, 2010 at 9:53 am
We need a shrink on this blog to explain to us dummys what the hell is wrong with people like that and what makes them act that way…
=======================================================
Man, do I agree with you on that!
“I think the best response is to shore up the abused…the ones harmed…that helps the victim back to their feet …” (Woosty’s still a Cat)
That is a pro-active and positive course of action and the first prong
Exposing the perpetrator to public notice; publicizing their actions is the second prong
Filing a law suit is the third
Canoeist Goes to Court, Fighting for Right to Curse
By KEITH BRADSHER
Published: June 3, 1999
STANDISH, Mich., June 2— If Timothy J. Boomer had kept his balance in a canoe, an obscure Michigan law against swearing in front of women and children might not be tested now.
The heavily publicized prosecution already seems to be prompting the police in other northern Michigan cities to enforce the law, which carries a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and a $100 fine.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/03/us/canoeist-goes-to-court-fighting-for-right-to-curse.html
Although the case was upheld on appeal after the man was convicted I am unsure if this case ever made it to the US Sct….
Only Men have been charged and convicted of this charge…women nor children have been convicted that I am aware of…
Is this not harassment? How about stalking? I don’t see how this has anything at all to do with free speech? These are actions that demonstrate intent to cause harm…I don’t see the speech part.
We need a shrink on this blog to explain to us dummys what the hell is wrong with people like that and what makes them act that way…
“When there was no immediate response, …….the Petkovs turned nasty and started saying horrible things about the dying girl.”
———————————-
there’s an awful lot of this shit going on right now…and the recourse is as untenable as the abuse. One problem with dealing with these types of a-holes is that they make it very clear right up front that they won’t and don’t play by any rules but their greedy guts. I think the best response is to shore up the abused…the ones harmed…that helps the victim back to their feet and I’d best is the best way to show people that behave in that low fashion that they are not supported in their abuses…
Let’s see . . . a horrible disease that puts a little girl in fear for what kind of life she is going to have in addition to fear of dying young.
Normally I’m all for procedural remedy, but there’s nothing wrong with the Petkovs that a good old fashioned country ass whooping wouldn’t cure.
Pick on someone your own size and age, jackasses.
The use of a civil action to bring a common law tort would be better than a criminal prosecution for two reasons: a big civil jury award in a verdict holding them liable; 2) the criminal side could be more easily politicized because it could be applied to thwart free speech.
just sayin’ …
If it turns out there are no legal remedies, a large dose of good old fashioned public shunning through constant and repetitive local exposure is quite appropriate. A steady bright light of infamy should, how did she put it, oh yeah; burn their ass raw.
“Free speech!”
with no responsibility, in action.
Anti-Stalking laws are as good a PPO’s…..They only work if…an offense that is verifiable occurs and is brought to court.
I read that this was Trenton, MI….downriver from the factory’s…maybe they should check the quality of water…seems some folks have no shame….so the dad of the abuser has been suspended from work as a forklift operator…may face termination…now they want to make peace….Sick MF’s…..