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
His logic is definitely impeccable
Bakersfield:
jolly good show.
The tortious neighbors probably have some assets that could be sued to get. Even if it is not millions of dollars, whatever it is might help the wronged neighbors. Maybe they have a boat or a cabin that the little girl could use.
This is supposed to be a blog for lawyers. (I didn’t go to law school.) Why hasn’t someone stepped up and offered their services to the wronged neighbors and figured out a way to do so without the attorney fees eating up the recoverable judgment?
I’d like to know the time period under which these events occurred. There are so many issues about access to legal services. Here is an opportunity to look into a real life example and find out what went wrong and how the problems could have been deescalated before so much damage was done.
Bakersfield:
your logic is impeccable.
Bakersfield:
such animosity toward a human diety?
So rather than being similar to one imaginary race which doesn’t actually exist, you argue that we’re more like a different completely imaginary race which doesn’t exist.
pretty solid argument you got there ROFLMAO, so much better than facing up to the valid accusations of hypocricy levelled against you.
FAIL 260: still bein you
W=c,
As Worf showed, Klingons are quite competent and intelligent so that kind of rules these trolls out in this instance.
I’m thinking they are more like Ferengi. Just as unpleasant but without the ability to raise an effective offense.
synaptic gap
n.
The minute space between the cell membrane of an axon terminal and of the target cell with which it synapses. Also called synaptic cleft.
Synapse – Definition
Synapses allow nerve cells to communicate with one another through axons and dendrites, converting electrical signals into chemical ones.Synapses are specialized junctions through which cells of the nervous system signal to one another and to non-neuronal cells such as muscles or glands.
Synapses form the circuits in which the neurons of the central nervous system interconnect. They are thus crucial to the biological computations that underlie perception and thought. They also provide the means through which the nervous system connects to and controls the other systems of the body
“The only thing busted around here is[sic] the synaptic gaps in your adolescent troll brain.”
since you refer to the synaptic gap(s) in the plural, then you would be looking to use the verb “are”
pretty ironic since I am allegedly the one “still failing at the English language”
FAIL 256 – acting in a hypocratical manner with an unsound and illogical argument
FAIL 257 – using inappropriate grammar when attempting to take a superior position
FAIL 258 – using offensive and derogatory terms to describe a third party when faced with the undeniable truth of your own hypocracy and grammatical errors
FAIL – 259 being you
Buddha you got a klingon…nasty lil buggers…
The only thing busted around here is the synaptic gaps in your adolescent troll brain.
It’s only nonsensical coz you wrote it all.
you been plain busted lil man.
Nonsensical troll spam sure looks prettier in Cyrillic.
Bakersfield:
good post, I especially like your use of a definition. 🙂
but getting ten out of ten fer quoting you sayin the followin
“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.”
“Since the distinction between justice and revenge was lost on you the first time . . .”
Justice cannot be had without equity. An “eye for an eye” is not equity, but parity. Parity is required to sate the very human need for revenge. Equity can meet the needs of parity but parity alone creates inequity in the form of additional burdens passed on to society to pay.
Which is more just:
A) An eye for an eye, which leave two blind people that will require some form of social assistance and/or accommodation?
B) A suitable punishment that maximizes the inconvenience to the perpetrator by passing the maximum costs to them directly without creating an additional burden on society such as prison time and/or economic damages paid as restitution that leaves the perpetrator physically whole but chained to their bad act socially and economically, possibly in perpetuity?
If your goal is simple revenge, the answer is A.
If your goal is justice, the answer is B.
hyp·o·crite
: A person given to hypocrisy.
: a person who pretends to be what he is not
: A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for.
Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.
li·ar \ˈlī(-ə)r\
: a person who tells lies
Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches. Samuel Johnson made this point when he wrote about the misuse of the charge of “hypocrisy” in Rambler No. 14:
or are you now sayin that you dint say this and that u dont “Normally” condone acts of revenge, seems like u change ur tune more times than a busted jukebox ol’ son
Not interested in your unique interpretation of English little green man or how someone could be “Failing at[sic] the English language”
Professor Turley, please take a minute to make a correction in your article. On the last paragraph; it should read Jennifer Petkov NOT Kathleen Petkov.
Thanks.
My loving support for Kathleen and family.
Thanks Joe.
hyperbole \hī-ˈpər-bə-(ˌ)lē\, n.,
: extravagant exaggeration
You’re still failing at the English language, troll.
“Now aren’t you glad you posted their contact information?”
“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.”
condoning acts brought out of revenge again, illogical and completely hypocritical again
Tautology?
not bin near a ‘puter for a lil while, back now tho
Rhube aint in a fit state to post fer now, but I reckon god willin he will be soon enough I see the Spamheed dude still posts now an then
There are no words. Well, one–sick!
I’m not gonna give this evil family anymore attention. I’m on my way to walmart to buy some cool little things for this precious girl. How awesome would it be for this little girl to get showred with care packages and cards.
Please join me no matter where your from!