Skip to main content

View Diary: Rosemarie (UPDATED) (215 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  13 VSA 1026 provides (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lcs, Todd42873

    for up to 60 days in jail and/or a $500 fine.

    Full statute:

    "§ 1026. Disorderly conduct

    A person who, with intent to cause public inconvenience, or annoyance or recklessly creating a risk thereof:

    (1) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or

    (2) Makes unreasonable noise; or

    (3) In a public place uses abusive or obscene language; or

    (4) Without lawful authority, disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or

    (5) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic, shall be imprisoned for not more than 60 days or fined not more than $500.00 or both. (Amended 1971, No. 222 (Adj. Sess.), § 5, eff. April 5, 1972.)"

    [lawyer hat on]

    Now, having read the law, I frankly don't have a lot of sympathy here.  If our system means anything, it is that we ALL are responsible for our actions -- from the White House on down.

    It seems pretty clear to me from the facts of the case as presented here that she violated the language of the statute by recklessly creating a risk of obstructing vehicular traffic.  She was in the middle of the street, which, it seems to me, creates a risk of blocking traffic, which is covered in the statute.  She may be a fine person and all that, but she broke the law.  We want Bush et al to be held accountable for their lawbreaking but balk at taking responsibility ourselves?  The lesson here is don't block traffic while protesting in Vermont.  If you do, plan on paying the price for your actions.

    She would have been far better off doing what the others did.

    [lawyer hat off]

    Bush 41 to 43: "See, Son, your problem in Iraq is the same one I had with your mother: neither one of us pulled out in time."

    by mattinla on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:54:08 AM PST

    •  This country was founded on civil disobedience (10+ / 0-)

      I view it as an obligation to act to draw attention to an internationally illegal act like the US invasion of Iraq.

      I believe this woman acted in the best and highest duty of a citizen protesting an act of government that countervenes the very foundation of our democracy.

      Our military, especially our National Guard, is tasked to defend our borders. No other function was ever intended for the Guard. Our Iraq invasion countervenes so much international law that we are now an outlaw nation.

      That our military prowress protects the monied interests that run our country has allowed us to be above international law. It is our duty to our democracy to defy Iraq. That this protest breaks a few local statutes is far less important than the reason for the protest.

      As the defendant is willing to stand trial for her conduct, she acknowledges her actions and is willing to be held accountable. My opinion is that she deserves a jury award for the trouble she has been put through, rather than punishment.

    •  Some thoughts (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peace voter, marina, old wobbly, kath25

      on this sort of thing.........

      Thus the State never intentionally confronts a man's sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What force has a multitude? They only can force me who obey a higher law than I. They force me to become like themselves. I do not hear of men being forced to have this way or that by masses of men. What sort of life were that to live?

      Magic 95.5 (800) 296 - 9267 Calls from Kossacks aired FREE! 2-6p EST

      by kestrel9000 on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:35:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  One of the requirements of civil disobedience (5+ / 0-)

      is the willingness (even the expectation) of suffering the consequences of the acts of disobedience.

      One cannot intentionally break a law in order to make a point and at the same time not expect to be held accountable for breaking the law.

      If one's point is to protest the law one is breaking, one is attempting to illustrate the injustice of the law to get it removed from the books for people in the future, not for onesself.

      If one breaks a law to protest something other than the law being broken, then one is breaking the law for the publicity value of the act -- and the consequences of breaking that law is your cost of advertising (so to speak).

      I commend the reasons for Rosemarie's protest and admire her bravery in choosing civil disobedience as her tool. But she cannot expect not to pay the price. The price is what makes the act one of courage.

      "Do not do what you hate" - Tom Fox

      by KJC MD on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:28:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (160)
  • Community (66)
  • Baltimore (48)
  • Bernie Sanders (37)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Culture (31)
  • Law (25)
  • Elections (24)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Hillary Clinton (21)
  • Economy (21)
  • Education (21)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Texas (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • 2016 (18)
  • Environment (18)
  • Media (17)
  • Politics (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site