TexasCHLforum.com

I have to tell ya, a neighbor who is confronting me makes that gesture at me, I am going to take it as a threat. What the heck else could it be?

I’ve had road ragers do it to me. I took it as a threat.

IMO most disorderly conduct laws are a catch all that can be used to arrest a person just because they don't have anything else to charge them with.
In this case, there was prior history of animosity towards each other, but IMO that should have no bearing on the whether or not the person was
charged with a crime. I also think the neighbor who called the police should mind her own business.
Based on their ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court obviously disagrees with me.

2010 Pennsylvania Code Title 18 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES 5503 - Disorderly conduct.
§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
(2) makes unreasonable noise;
(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.

https://law.justia.com/codes/pennsylvan ... le-18/5503

On one level, I know that my comparison is apples and oranges but the news this morning is that the man who shot Kate Steinle had his conviction for gun possession overturned. That man was a convicted felon who claimed that he had just found the gun lying on the ground, picked it up and it went off. That gun had been stolen from a law enforcement official years early.

So a man who is not allowed to have a gun and ends up with stolen gun in his hands and someone dies is not guilty but a man who makes a finger gesture like a gun will be punished. Something is rotten in Denmark.

I think context is actually the issue and you are correct, one does not have anything to do with the other. The grown man was not playing cowboys and indians. He was pointing at someone in a threatening manner as if to gesture that he was going to shoot them. At 58 years old, I don't ever recall a time when this would not be perceived as a threat during an argument. In many cases such a threat could very well escalate the argument to a major confrontation.

03Lightningrocks wrote: Sat Aug 31, 2019 7:27 am I think context is actually the issue and you are correct, one does not have anything to do with the other. The grown man was not playing cowboys and indians. He was pointing at someone in a threatening manner as if to gesture that he was going to shoot them. At 58 years old, I don't ever recall a time when this would not be perceived as a threat during an argument. In many cases such a threat could very well escalate the argument to a major confrontation.

So, point of order here.... if a hearing-able person says, "I’m going right now to get my gun and come back and shoot you," that’s a threat. But if a deaf person using American sign language signs, "I’m going right now to get my gun and come back and shoot you" while making a gun-like hand gesture, that’s not a threat? I guess my point is that—as is the case with most human interactions—context is everything. When the law makes no accounting for context, it is bad law.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Sat Aug 31, 2019 8:37 am

03Lightningrocks wrote: Sat Aug 31, 2019 7:27 am I think context is actually the issue and you are correct, one does not have anything to do with the other. The grown man was not playing cowboys and indians. He was pointing at someone in a threatening manner as if to gesture that he was going to shoot them. At 58 years old, I don't ever recall a time when this would not be perceived as a threat during an argument. In many cases such a threat could very well escalate the argument to a major confrontation.

So, point of order here.... if a hearing-able person says, "I’m going right now to get my gun and come back and shoot you," that’s a threat. But if a deaf person using American sign language signs, "I’m going right now to get my gun and come back and shoot you" while making a gun-like hand gesture, that’s not a threat? I guess my point is that—as is the case with most human interactions—context is everything. When the law makes no accounting for context, it is bad law.

It is a threat either way. Always has been and always will be. Someone makes that gesture to me and I will go offense immediately. Threats are considered assualt. As a matter of fact, that could be considered a terroristic threat. It is threatening me extreme bodily harm. It is very good law and people making such a gesture are punks.

I dunno if it is true but I remember hearing that "shooting the bird" at another person on the autobahn in Germany is illegal. Now that is a bad law. LOL