Karma Goes Kafka
On Simple Justice, Scott H. Greenfield posts about a 16-year-old who had her car keyed, posted a comment on Facebook naming nobody in particular, "Oh, so you keyed my car. Your karma is going to be a whole lot worse than that," and got charged by the Pinellas County, Florida sheriff with stalking.
As @RadleyBalko put it on twitter:
Zero tolerance + anti-bullying backlash + Internet = Criminal charges for an innocuous Facebook post.
Scott writes:
The unholy consortium of knee-jerk liberal protectionism (no child's knee should ever be skinned) and staunch law and order conservatism (no paper cut should ever go unprosecuted) has resulted in a grocery clerk's wet dream. Radley's equation is painfully accurate, with the removal of all reason from our absolutist treatment of children.Do we absolve Allie because of free speech? Do we absolve her because there was no harm done? Do we absolve her because there is simply nothing criminal, not even wrong, about writing to another that karma will fix her wagon?
To call the arrest of Allie Scott crazy is to state the obvious. That both a school district and a sheriff's office would nonetheless indulge in such insanity is the piece that would make a good subject for Kafka. Our treatment of our children has to involve some greater degree of independent thought than reflected here, and yet neither schools nor law enforcement seem capable, or willing, to risk censure for failing to adhere to formulaic reactions.
It's quite possible that Allie's Facebook posting hurt another girl's feelings, though even that isn't necessarily clear or justifiable. These days, it seems any comment shy of "you're awesome" hurts someone's feelings. The teacups will no doubt inform me that I don't appreciate how horrible it is to feel badly about oneself, the latest craze in wallowing in victimization. If uttering the word "karma" is enough to set someone off, imagine the damage to self-esteem the old "sticks and stones" saw would do.
What's lost in the insanity of rule by rote is that there is real harm done, just not to the purported victims. Perhaps Allie Scott is the nastiest girl in Osceola High School. Perhaps she's up for valedictorian and a shoo-in for the Ivies. Who knows? Regardless, there is no justification for tainting a 16-year-old girl, for shutting one's eyes, putting on that smug administrative smile, and checking off the box that will impact the rest of her life.
For a society that uses 'for the children" as its rationalization of so many dubious initiatives, isn't it worth the five, maybe ten, minutes of thought necessary to recognize that the equation doesn't apply. Would it kill a school administrator to take the chance of some mother's reproach by saying, "no, she didn't do anything wrong"?
These are children. We care about them, all of them. If real harm is done, we need to deal with it, but we also need to be able to distinguish between actual harm and the mindless application of rules by grocery clerks. Spend the five minutes. Think about whether the conduct involved demands the application of the equation. Don't be the instrument of harm.
Here is the Florida law on stalking. Forgetting free speech for the moment (so many do these days), does this even seem to apply in the tiniest of ways?
FLORIDASection 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, so. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.
The police in that jurisdiction need to undergo some workforce attrition, since they apparently have time to attend to things not worth reading, let alone prosecuting.
Spartee at January 1, 2012 6:34 AM
There's got to be something more to this story. Otherwise it's that someone in the school district or PD has it out for this girl.
It's evident that 'bullying' is the new catchall for whatever therapeutic program has caught on among lefty educators at the moment. My nephew's school sent out a letter to parents last year detailing the district's anti-bullying efforts and it was basically a laundry list of the same PC coercions that they've always promoted.
jake at January 1, 2012 7:59 AM
I think it's time to find some country that has free speech, civil liberties, and authority that has some common sense.
This doesn't even rise to the level of using profanity in public.
Jim P. at January 1, 2012 8:03 AM
Maybe this is just an elaborate hoax, designed to lure the stalking 'victim' into the open so he/she can face justice for keying the car.
Naah, too creative for school teachers.
Harley at January 1, 2012 8:59 AM
This is insane, yet things like this keep happening.
Given that so many public school administrators, and more than a few police departments, are unwilling to use even the most minimal level of common sense and good judgment, we need legislation which will establish both civil and criminal liability for officials who abuse their power in this manner.
This alternative is that we will become a country like the darkest corners of traditional Europe and Asia, in which everyone lives in constant fear of The Authorities.
david foster at January 1, 2012 9:01 AM
It could have been worse: instead of a threat of hindi mysticism Allie Scot might have gnawed a slice of pizza into a gun-shape and really traumatized some unspecified victim. I think the lesson is clear here: crush your enemies and break their bones, because thought crimes like bullying are worse than actual violence.
Storm Saxon's Gall Bladder at January 1, 2012 9:21 AM
Or the guy who farted in a police car and was charged with battery...
Eric at January 1, 2012 9:37 AM
I see this as Yet Another Reason to eschew Facebook.
Steve Daniels at January 1, 2012 9:52 AM
Does this mean the dogma is now running over the karma?
Conan the Grammarian at January 1, 2012 10:35 AM
So where would you layer this particular piece of legislation? Would that be before or after the zero tolerance policy for drugs which gets a kid suspended for sharing an asthma inhaler? How about the zero tolerance policy for a kid with plastic army toys on his hat carrying weapons? How about after the anti-bullying rules that are coming from HHS, DOE and the White house?
My point being that they took discretion away from the administrators a while back. We don't need more laws, we need less.
Jim P. at January 1, 2012 10:47 AM
Jim...agree that administrators should have more discretion. However, there is such a thing as abuse of discretion.
To make a business analogy, a CEO of a company has very wide discretion, and properly so. But if he abuses that discretion to buy a building that belongs to his brother, at a price 50% greater than market, he will likely be a target of shareholder lawsuits. If he abuses his discretion to manipulate financial statements in ways not in reasonable accordance with GAAP...which itself has considerable room for discretion...he may well face criminal charges.
david foster at January 1, 2012 10:54 AM
Here a shining example of how Pinellas County seems to have some silly police.
I do not see anything in the Facebook posting that violates the statute.
No harassment, no threat (credible or otherwise).
How wonderful that there is NO OTHER CRIME in Pinellas County. Clearwater and St. Pete are certainly crime-free. Good on you, Bob!
DrCos at January 1, 2012 12:33 PM
And yet the 2nd court of appeals upheld a lower court decision affirming a city's decision not to hire an applicant because he is too intelligent and might get bored doing police work.
I suspect that karma is being reaffirmed.
Mike43 at January 1, 2012 1:22 PM
Utter f'ing nonsense. If I catch you keying my car, you are gonna spend some time in hospital. I cant think.of a lower act by a sub species
ronc at January 1, 2012 2:27 PM
To make a business analogy, a CEO of a company has very wide discretion, and properly so. But if he abuses that discretion.....
If you were the CEO of a company and an employee posted a comment like "The other guy in the another department chewed me out today. May some higher power judge him harshly." You then fire that employee for terroristic threats or whatever and have a trespass warning filed with the police. What are the odds of that termination surviving the courts, lawsuits, NLRB, EEOC, etc?
That is more the equivalent.
Jim P. at January 1, 2012 3:29 PM
It would immediately clicked logical if it turned out that the said sheriff knew very well who was the real perpetrator, the one who had keyed the car. You know, CCTV or other safety gadgets paid for by the taxpayers. And it would seem very logicalm if the real perpetrator was someone dear to the sheriff, or to the mayor, or to some local committee member.
Cronie capitalism brings forth cronie justice, it is indeed very logical.
Oscar at January 1, 2012 9:44 PM
So, who was the complaining witness? The one who would have been brought forth at trail as a victim of said stalking?
lujlp at January 2, 2012 12:13 PM
Every day I hope nothing else so lame will come to pass, and here it is yet again. Unbelievable what some people call the cops for. I mean come on already. The cops should be fired. LAME!
Melody at January 3, 2012 1:09 PM
Leave a comment