There was a justified outcry recently when a video surfaced (below) of an Ohio man William Bailey making fun of a young girl with cerebral palsy at a bus stop. It is a brief video but enough to enrage a nation. Now, Canton Municipal Judge John A. Poulos ordered the maximum sentence for Bailey, who pleaded no contest to reduced misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and aggravated menacing. I realize how emotionally charged this case has become, but should mocking be treated as a criminal act?
Bailey insisted that he was reacting to name-calling directed at his 9-year-old son, but most people see the video has a direct mocking of the little girl with a pronounced limp.
The Knight family has lived next door to the Baileys for two years and the families had developed serious problems. The case is reminiscent of the Petkov case.
The film below does not show what normally passes for disorderly conduct or menacing. These terms have always been uncomfortably ambiguous for civil libertarians. Here they seem to be simply the most convenient way to vent well-founded anger at Bailey. The charges were reportedly based on the video, though originally the girl’s family said that Bailey threatened to choke the mother with a chain.
If mocking a little girl can be charged as disorderly conduct and menacing, how about mocking other people for political or religious reasons? This man appears a perfect tasteless cad. However, should he be criminally charged?
Source: ABC
Tony – in a way I really envy bron. The world he lives in is so simple and the answers are so easy. That must be nice. The world I live in is complex and requires a lot of balancing between less than perfect solutions and dealing with shades of uncertainly and doubt.
@Bron: the law cant legislate the elimination of churlishness.
As always, you agree and then ignore your agreement and just reiterate your premise, because you claim you know somebody with a disability that can handle themselves pretty good, so if any other disabled person cannot you will just blame that on them or on their mother not being a sledge hammer.
Then followed by diminishing the crime to just “churlishness.” That is not the crime, the crime is abuse of a child that cannot protect herself, and that IS something the law can address, and something the law should address.
It is also not paternalism, we have no desire to be this man’s father, we have a desire to protect a child from abuse, and not leave that protection up to chance, or random violence. Or the luck of having a strong relative wiling to risk death in a fight against somebody that may well be capable of using lethal force in legal self-defense if attacked.
The threat of legal punishment reduces violence, you want to promote it.
America is the most over-legislated society in the world. Almost everything is against the law. Ignorance of the law is no defense .Even if a defendant knows & understands the law, there is no guarantee that the judge will rule accordance with established law. Most Americans have no experience with the legal system. Those who have know well that judges have entirely too much discretionary power. The rules governing trial procedures are all too often completely ignored which very often make trial preparation difficult if not impossile. Long story short, those who think that going to court with the law on your side and armed with the bare naked truth will result in a fair and just outcome are sadly mistaken.
Frankly:
Of course you are right, but this shouldnt be something the law should be involved with. I know a kid with CP who gets around pretty good and is in pre-law at one of the better schools in our state. He can handle himself because his mother was a sledge hammer and made him stand on his own 2 feet so to speak.
It is too bad people like that exist but the law cant legislate the elimination of churlishness.
Bron – when my kid was in Afghanistan he saw two neighbors hashing out a dispute with RPGs. Just a bit more technological than pummeling each other. What if the disabled kids dad is not bigger & tougher? What if this jerk has brothers? what if he owns a gun? We have laws and courts so we are not reduced to savages where the stronger guy wins.
The problem here as it was with that dreadful woman in MI is that these are some awful people maybe on all sides (who knows maybe he is responding poorly to insults thrown at him & his family). Guys like this seem unlikely to be deterred by the sentence. My guess is someone is going to have to move or this sort of thing will just drag on.
Pete, Darren,
Excellent…..
I consider the mocking to be child abuse and would treat it as such criminally. Would a slap to the child’s face hurt any more than a slap such as this to her psyche?
the problem in this country now is that we rely too much on government. In another era of our country this man would have been pummeled by the father and uncles of the child.
Why are disabled people a protected class? They dont need anymore protection than what is already provided by the Constitution. Additional “protection” is probably part of the reason many disabled people dont work, no one wants to hire them because of the added “protection”.
Paternalism is such BS.
This idiot’s hurtful actions and words should be protected by the First Amendment.
Some states have laws that make abuse of a disabled person a felony. I am not sure if that includes verbal abuse, or physical abuse only.
Darren: Well said.
According to the story JT linked to, the mocking charge carries no jail time. The jail time was from the death threat:
If there is no jail time for that statute is it a crime?
The two put together, and all that went before it, tells me the fool got off easy.
I suggest they get an injunction then when the fool violates it he can get a longer vacation with folks who will likely taunt him an education.
I hope this guys son falls far from the tree,….doesn’t look like it though.
I understand our professor’s concerns here in this about criminalizing inane, childish behavior in adults, but I would consider this. In the brief amount of time I read about this I got the impression this type of mocking behavior had occurred for some time against the little girl. The girl is a member of a protected class (at least in our state). and the harassment of a member of that protected class due to her disability could be considered a harassment offense.
It could be articulated the defendant continued to cause emotional trauma in the girl and subject her to continual humiliation that was unwanted by both the girl and the parents as possibly expressed by words or actions.
Moreover, a 9 year old child does not have the emotional fortitude or life experience to deal with a harassing adult the way an adult could and would be more vulnerable to emotional injury than an adult. Plus, a child is in a position of vulnerability and more easily victimized by an adult where children are socialized to obey and submit to the orders from an adult and they do not have the understanding they do not have to tolerate this behavior.
Harassment can be articulated as being non threatening but that it is by intent and design to annoy the other person by repeated intrusions is enough to justify the PC for the arrest.
The child being mocked is not in the video. The video on its own shows an adult and a child walking as if they have a disability. That they are mocking must have been shown in some other way.
The First Amendment is the most misunderstood and misinterpreted Amendment in the United States. Mental or emotional abuse of a child should be a felony. I will not watch the video and invade the privacy of a minor and this video does not belong on the WEB and not in this BLOG.
http://www.curtisneeley.com/FCC/booklet-complaint.htm
The lawsuit now pending against the FCC DEMANDS the FCC resume regulating ALL wire communications.
I don’t know that it should be treated as illegal but it sure is criminal. And he’s teaching the child with him to do the same. What a jerk!
he has a first amendment right to his opinions. however the video clearly shows him driving off with his sons car door still open and the child not strapped in. looks like child neglect/endangerment to me.
His right to mock is completely protected by the First. This is ridculous. That being said, if he were on fire next to me, I would not put him out.
Absolutely…. this man should be jailed for mere stupidity!!! How Juvenile to mock a child so afflicted….