Florida Man Arrested For Yelling The Facts Of Life To Children From Atop Playground Equipment

AR-305219718

Otis Dawayne Ryan, 30, has a curious idea of family planning education classes.  The Florida man was arrested in Clearwater Beach at a playground after he climbed atop a piece of equipment at a Clearwater Beach playground Sunday and yelled at a bunch of children in the area about where babies come from.

Police were told that Ryan approached people in the park and said inappropriate things to women.  They felt that he was trying to bait their male companions.  He then decided to lecture on family planning to the kids in the playground on Sunday afternoon.

The police officer witnessing the conduct reported “I watched (Ryan) walk over to the busy playground area and climb to the top of one of the children’s toys that was being occupied by children between the ages of 4 and 6. He then started shouting from the top telling the children that babies come out of women” — and used a vulgar term in doing so. At that time parents were rushing to the area to remove their children.”

The charge was disorderly conduct.  There is no law against speaking in public so presumably this charge is based on the content of his speech.  Most of us are appalled by his conduct and grateful for his arrest. However, what is the standard in such cases?

The Florida law contains language that is highly ambiguous and could raise constitutional issues:

877.03 Breach of the peace; disorderly conduct.Whoever commits such acts as are of a nature to corrupt the public morals, or outrage the sense of public decency, or affect the peace and quiet of persons who may witness them, or engages in brawling or fighting, or engages in such conduct as to constitute a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

What is the meaning of “acts . . . of a nature to corrupt the public morals or outrage the sense of public decency”?  If the key is the presence of children, the standard could apply in a variety of public areas.

Ryan has a history of disturbances including prior charges of disorderly conduct, battery and carrying a concealed weapon.

The actions in the playground may indeed make this an easier case, but I am still unclear on how this line is drawn on the meaning of these highly subjective terms.

Ryan was found guilty and fined $118.  Thankfully, he was also ordered to stay away from the park.

42 thoughts on “Florida Man Arrested For Yelling The Facts Of Life To Children From Atop Playground Equipment”

  1. Looking at the photo of this guy, and the photos of him on his Facebook page — I’m shocked.
    I’m sure I read that Queequeg went down with the Pequod. Can’t even trust Melville. SMH

  2. He appears to be one of those people who just will not be satisfied until he’s either put himself inside a cage, being told when and what to eat and when he can go to the bathroom, or dead. He’s blowing his life up as fast as he can.

    Sorry for the kids who got scared.

    1. No. I am sure he is a really good person, who is an aspiring rapper, and always has a smile on his face!

      Seriously though, what I wonder is, is who is going to hire this person??? Starbucks maybe??? I am curious where he works.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Squeeky – banks hire people like this for filing. They cannot be seen by the general public. 😉

          1. William Bayer – I do not understand the James Dean picture and the dog picture from the X-Files.

            1. LOL — those pages always have some real sphinx-like riddles to them. You type queequeg into the google search engine and a page of references comes up including a few photos on the right of the screen, click on “more images for queequeg — and bam — a hundred images of queeque pop up, with a few totally inexplicable photos.

              It’s a mystery I don’t expect to solve in this lifetime. (maybe because I’m not gonna try)

              “Feel the joy,” said the Maharishi.

            1. The most famous opening line in all of literature — although some people say it’s “None of them knew the color of the sky.”

  3. Ah. I was not surprised to see the usual suspects in here; this red meat has hit its target. Carry on, share the crayons, count time in two hours, chow in four. That is all.

  4. Another one of Obama’s sons or is he just applying for a role in one of The Obama’s new series, docudramas, documentaries or movies about to air on Netflix. Which I just cancelled.

    1. Squeeky:
      Sometimes your “spark of divinity” should be thrown onto a big bundle of dried sticks and brushes all gathered at your feet. Sort of Joan of Arci-Ish.

    2. “… They were stains of some sort or other. At first I knew not what to make of this; but soon an inkling of the truth occurred to me. I remembered a story of a white man- a whaleman too- who, falling among the cannibals, had been tattooed by them. I concluded that this harpooneer, in the course of his distant voyages, must have met with a similar adventure. And what is it, thought I, after all! It’s only his outside; a man can be honest in any sort of skin. …” Moby Dick, Chapter 3

      1. William Bayer – even if he did not go down with the ship, he would surely be dead by now.

        1. Well, if Melville lied about him going down with the ship, maybe he lied about when the story happened.

          1. William Bayer – it is based on a true story so we know when the real boat went down. 🙂

            1. I honestly did not know that it was based upon a true story. It’s been a while since I read it, and unlike most classics, it’s destined to be a single-read book to me, since so much of it was scientific information about whales. If I recall correctly, it was like a 700-page adventure story (steeped in symbolism), which, if the scientific info had been removed, would have clocked in around 300 pages.

                1. A much better movie. If not for that movie, I wouldn’t have much of an opinion of Richard Basehart. My opinion of Gregory Peck, however, would not change. Probably having seen the movie before reading the book contributed to my basic criticism of the book — all that ponderous information about whales. It’s got to be at least 30 years since I read the book, but I can still vividly remember my impatience with the whale-science chapters, wanting to get back to the story.
                  I’m sure Melville is a good writer, but I’d call all of that whale information a literary mistake. If he thought the information was necessary, he should have stuck it in an Appendix.

    1. When the guy tells children between the ages of 4 and 6 where babies come from, he’s just doing what our average pre-school to first grade teacher does on a daily basis. We assume the man was trying to be lewd, but he may have been auditioning for a job. I’m also guessing that individuals with tattooed faces are not represented well in kindergarten hiring numbers, so he may have purchased the tattoos to force their hand. Elizabeth Warren used different but similar tactics in her rise to fame after all.

  5. imho this guys face is offensive and it ought to be against to law to show it in public, and I’m not talking about the natural skin color he was born with

  6. If the points of a line are divided into two sets, such that all the points of one set precede in order of the points on a line all those of the second set, then there is one and only one point which separates the points of the two sets.

    Did anyone ever figure this out?

    1. ? — what’s to figure out. There’s never anything but one point that divides a line into two segments.

  7. Question: How would you tell MS13 from one like this?

    Question: Would you care?

    Question: Which group of people would file law suits to defend this type of individual?

    A. Does it matter they are all God’s Children Source Nancy Pelosi

    B. Why would i care? First Amendment Rights. Source Charles Schumer

    C. They used to be called Democrats but now are Progessively Regressive Socialist Liberals….
    Source the leftist media uuuurrrrpppp barf me with a spoon I meant propagandists

  8. I suspect there was articulated in the police report as to what conduct he displayed that matched the necessary elements of the criminal charge, rather than merely stating how children are conceived or profanity.

    We had a case hear about a decade ago–I don’t remember the citation–that forced the legislature to modify the disorderly conduct charge. The courts required essentially that offensive speech was not in of itself sufficient cause for disorderly conduct charges and the former statute was vague.

    Here is the new statute:

    RCW 9A.84.030

    Disorderly conduct.

    (1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if the person:
    (a) Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk of assault;
    (b) Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority;
    (c) Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority; or
    (d)(i) Intentionally engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct or makes unreasonable noise, within five hundred feet of:

    (A) The location where a funeral or burial is being performed;
    (B) A funeral home during the viewing of a deceased person;
    (C) A funeral procession, if the person described in this subsection (1)(d) knows that the funeral procession is taking place; or
    (D) A building in which a funeral or memorial service is being conducted; and

    (ii) Knows that the activity adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.

    (2) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor.

    The latter part of the statute was codified due to the protests at funerals that were the likes of the Westborough Baptist Church’s shenanigans.

    On the other side of the issue, there is what is considered to be a moral outrage.

    RCW 9.68A.090

    Communication with minor for immoral purposes—Penalties.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes, or a person who communicates with someone the person believes to be a minor for immoral purposes, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

    (2) A person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes is guilty of a class C felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW if the person has previously been convicted under this section or of a felony sexual offense under chapter 9.68A, 9A.44, or 9A.64 RCW or of any other felony sexual offense in this or any other state or if the person communicates with a minor or with someone the person believes to be a minor for immoral purposes, including the purchase or sale of commercial sex acts and sex trafficking, through the sending of an electronic communication.

    (3) For the purposes of this section, “electronic communication” has the same meaning as defined in RCW 9.61.260.

    While it would appear that, as the Florida statute, this reference to immoral purpose is vague, in practice the definition of immoral purpose derives from the common law, as is the case for the definition of Assault.

    1. From a free speech perspective, I am glad that the state took the position that offensive speech on its own is not illegal. Also, I see an attempt to stop the shenanigans of the Westboro Baptist Church.

      Cases like this seem tricky to me, because I’m not an attorney or in law enforcement. I would want a man screaming about sex removed from a playground with kindergarteners, but I wouldn’t want a law that barred political dissent or unpopular opinions in general. I would consider the former to be sexual harassment of children which would be overtly threatening. That said, perhaps some of the explicit sex ed taught to inappropriately young ages could fall under the same purview…

  9. They are teaching Billy has two mommies in the first grade, so I not sure what the problem was. I am sure it was a pilot program under Common Core.

Leave a Reply