• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maybe the dumbest decision I've ever read

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
54,679
Reaction score
60,046
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Court upholds conviction of man who pointed "finger gun" at neighbor


According to the article the finger gun gesture presented a serious risk of prompting an altercation but, apparently, the double barreled bird is't expected to have such an effect.

Fellow Americans, it's a pretty damned sad state of things when we have people suing each other over hand gestures and it's pretty damned pathetic that courts are actually hearing these cases.
 

Will he be “Red Flagged” and have his fingers amputated?
 
But then again, this may simply be the judge making a fine point on the "no contact" order.
When the judge said "no contact" they really did mean NO CONTACT.
That means no eye contact, no gestures, no secret stalking at odd hours, no hangup phone calls, no notes in the mailbox, NO CONTACT.

I agree it's stupid but apparently so is the ongoing cold war between these neighbors, and apparently other neighbors have taken notice as to how far things have gotten out of hand.

So I suspect that, if asked, the judge might even agree that it is an outlier ruling.
However the judge might also hasten to say "Consider the source of this ruling, and the events which brought us here."
 

Depends, if that person had threatened his neighbor with gun violence than making a gun gesture could be seen as a threat. But that is just speculating because I do not know what the judge had as evidence.
 
This ruling seems to pretty specific to this case only!

From the article:
At the time, Natore had a "no contact" order against Klingseisen.

However, the Pennsylvania state appeals court ruled this week that "given the history of the parties involved," making the gesture did amount to disorderly conduct because it created a "hazardous condition ... involving danger or risk," including "the risk of an altercation."

"Despite Natore's no-contact order against Klingseisen and the ongoing rift between them, Kirchner, while accompanying Natore, approached Klingseisen in his own backyard, created a gun-like hand gesture, pointed it at Klingseisen, and made a recoil motion as if to suggest he had shot him," the appeals court ruled. "This act served no legitimate purpose, and recklessly risked provoking a dangerous altercation."
 

It does seem a bit one sided here since the hand gestures made by neighbor A did not result in a disorderly conduct charge while the hand gestures of neighbor B did. This was not a civil case and it is virtually impossible to decide why the prosecutor sought to bring criminal charges only on neighbor B in this apparently mutual and long standing feud. I suspect it had much to do with the witness testimony of neighbor C, the no contact order (being only one way?) and the distinct possibility that neighbor A made his hand gestures outside of the view of his security camera coverage.
 
His article links to the decision, containing things like:

Josh Klingseisen was mulching in his backyard when Kirchner and Klingseisen’s neighbor, Elaine Natore, walked through an alley that runs behind Klingseisen’s yard to Natore’s residence. Kirchner stopped, made eye contact with Klingseisen, and then made a hand gesture at him imitating the firing and recoiling of a gun.

The incident was video-recorded by Klingseisen,2 who had previously installed six security cameras at his home due to ongoing confrontations between him and Natore. At the time of the incident, Natore had a “no contact” order against Klingseisen. Klingseisen testified at trial that he felt “[e]xtremely threatened” when Kirchner made the gun gesture at him. Trial Court Opinion, filed January 7, 2019, at 2 (quoting N.T., 10/17/18, at 7).


So there's apparently a serious enough history of confrontations between them that the person at whom the shooting gesture was made installed six security cameras. The victim of the gesture had a no-contact order against the person who made it. That's where the "risk of altercation" angle is coming from. That's also why the victim - the one with the no contact order - wasn't charged.

You will also note that the fact that the prosecutor charges only one of two parties involved in something does not somehow make it unfair to the one person charged.

Another thing Luther got wrong is that this wasn't "people suing each other over hand gestures". It was a disorderly conduct charge.



The decision was only 9 pages, double-spaced, in huge font. You could have at least read it and honestly discussed it. You do this **** all the time.

Too much to ask, I guess.
 
Last edited:

It's pure speculation on my part but I suspect that the guy pissed the judge off.
 

Yeah okay, maybe the neighbor (Neighbor A?) with their double barreled middle finger salute should have gotten some heat, too.
 

I did read the decision and it's crap. The judge determined that the act was "public" because another neighbor saw it. If the neighbor saw that act then she could have seen the double bird as well which made THAT act public and, in the esteemed justice's world, also subject to the statute in question.

The trial judge should have told them to get the **** out of his or her court. That would have been the proper way to handle things.
 

Common sense ruling by the judge
The perp violated the no contact provision
Obvious call
 
justabubba said:
Common sense ruling by the judge
The perp violated the no contact provision
Obvious call
Click to expand...

No. A "common sense" ruling would have been to have both parties turned across their father's knee and paddled until they came to their senses.
 


And now you're lying to try to paper over the fact that you were BS'ing. If you had read it, you would have addressed what the actual context was and how that factored into the decision.

But you're you, so you're just going to keep insisting that you did read it and that you're right. Whatever.
 
Lutherf said:
It's pure speculation on my part but I suspect that the guy pissed the judge off.
Click to expand...

Yep, either that or neighbor A pissed off the responding LEO and/or neigjhbor C. The appeal decision did seem to be very (entirely?) case specific. Much like a review in an NFL game - the intiial ruling (official call on the field) carries weight and is often allowed to stand (as opposed to being either confirmed or overturned).
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Yeah okay, maybe the neighbor (Neighbor A?) with their double barreled middle finger salute should have gotten some heat, too.
Click to expand...

It was never mentioned if the no-contact order was mutual, if not then that may have been the deciding factor. I can't imagine either hand gesture resulting in criminal charges without that standing no-contact order as it's basis.
 
The OP fails to comprehend the stupidity of the people driving this issue into the courtroom in the first place.
I cannot imagine the effort the city/county and state have consumed over a couple of complete idiots. You cannot imagine how vial two neighbors can become.

Personally, I wish the judge would force the two to become a tag team in a wring with a professional fighter and drive then to resolve their difference or die.
 

It really takes so very little to piss you off. I mean, I don't even have to try at this point.
 

That's what I thought. That there must be much more to the story than that seemingly harmless gesture that any one of us might do symbollically or in jest.
 

Depends upon their view/where they were walking. Did they provide evidence, and were they asked about this?

Clearly she did not see the double bird or it would have been presented to the Judge.
 
JANFU said:
Depends upon their view/where they were walking. Did they provide evidence, and were they asked about this?

Clearly she did not see the double bird or it would have been presented to the Judge.
Click to expand...

It isn't a matter of whether she saw it or not. It's a matter of whether she could have seen it. The judge is rather clear on that distinction in the decision.
 

He could have at least fired back! (With his fingers, that is.).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…