Unit 3 Assignment--Gideon Goodtime Rough Draft

Submit Assignment

• DueSundayby11:59pm


• Points30


• Submittinga file upload


• AvailableJun 15 at 12am - Jun 21 at 11:59pm7 days

Unit 3 Assignment--Gideon Goodtime Rough Draft

This Assignment will help you to better understand what you have read about in this Unit.

Grading

This assignment is worth 30 points. Use the attached Rubric as a checklist to ensure the successful completion of the assignment.

Deliverables

A revision of Assignment, Unit 2, Gideon Goodtime.

Assignment Instructions

Step 1. Download a copy of the Assignment, Unit 2, Gideon Goodtime.

Step 2. Revise the document, taking into account notes received from your instructor.

Step 3. Upload the revised draft

PLG103 Legal Research & Writing II --Gideon Goodtime Rough Draft This Assignment will help you to better understand what you have read about in this Unit. Grading This assignment is worth 30 points. Use the attached Rubric as a checklist to ensure successful completion of the assignment. Deliverables A revision of Assignment, Unit 2, Gideon Goodtime. Assignment Instructions Step 1. Download a copy of Assignment, Unit 2, Gideon Goodtime. Step 2. Revise the document, taking into account notes received from your instructor. Step 3. Upload the revised draft Assignment Rubric Accomplished 50-40 Satisfactory 39-30 Unsatisfactory 29-0 Quality of Content (75% Weight) Post/Reply: Student is responsive to the assignment prompt. Student shows accurate and in-depth/applied knowledge of the material. Content is detailed and clear. Correct citations used. Post/Reply: Student is mostly responsive to the assignment prompt. Student shows accurate knowledge of the material. Content is somewhat detailed and clear. Mostly correct citations used.  Post/Reply: Student is minimally responsive to the assignment prompt or skims the surface of the assignment. Student shows limited or inaccurate understanding of, or ability to apply, the material. Content is vague and lacks detail. Incorrect citations or citations are missing. Grammar (25% Weight) Student uses complete sentences, correct spelling, punctuation, & grammar. Word usage is appropriate and clear. Student is reasonably clear and generally grammatically correct. .   Submission is unclear and poorly written in terms of grammar.       Content (x 75%): Grammar/Netiquette (x 25%): Final Score: To: Senior Partner Simms From: Newbie Law Clerk File: Les Wexner Re: Disorderly Conduct Facts Les Wexner, is a 23 year old student, was turning in a paper that was due by 5:30 pm on September 10th. He left his home early in order to arrive at school before the deadline; however, there was a traffic accident which caused him to arrive on campus at 5:25 pm. Once on campus he tried to find parking, but was not successful until a third time around the parking lot. The third time around he was able to find metered parking and parked his car. When he got out of the car to pay the meter he was not able to find change to put into the meter, so he decided to leave the meter and go turn in his paper. The professor was gone and Wexner’s paper was considered late and his paper would have 35% deducted from the final grade. After Wexner turned in the paper to the late box he walked out of the building back to his car. Once he saw the car he noticed an officer giving him a parking ticket. Wexner knowing that he could not afford a parking ticket, he snapped. He walked right up to the officer, got right in his face, and yelled “No. You can’t do this to me. It’s not fricking fair. Students can’t park anywhere. Frick this stinking ticket and Frick You too.” Then Wexner took the ticket from the car window and tore it into pieces and then threw the pieces at the officer and the pieces landed at the officer’s feet. At this the officer told Wexner to “move along, buddy, and clean up your mouth or I will cite you right here and right now. You are not so special.” At this Wexner proceeded to scream back at the officer “I won’t just shut up and go along. The parking situation sucks. And you are just one more asshole in my asshole life with your asshole parking enforcement.” At this time there were students who were sitting at the entrance to the building that was about 15 feet away how overheard the situation and began to chime in and encourage Wexner by saying “Yeah.” “Parking here sucks.” “Sucks bad man.” “Don’t be a pig.” “We need more parking less cops.” At this the officer raised his voice over the students and said “Hey quiet down. Take it up with the administration. This is not the place—it’s a public sidewalk—and I’m not your man.” Then the officer directed his attention to Wexner and said “As for you, buddy, this is the last time. Cut the crap and clear on out right now or face the consequences.” Wexner then having been encouraged by the other students responded to the officer by stating “Oh no. I’m staying here. It’s six. It’s fricking free parking now, even though there is not much of it.” He then proceeded to climb onto the hood of his car, raise his arms overhead in a double eagle—with extended middle digits—and did a 90 degree turn where he faced the officer with a final stare and then sat down on the hood of his car. Then he began to mumble to himself about how the system sucks. At that moment the officer looked around and saw that a few students still remained and then arrested Wexner for Disorderly Conduct. Issue Did Les Wexner use words when speaking to the officer constituted “fighting words” as defined under the Ohio Revised Code §2917.11 for Disorderly Conduct or were the words that Les Wexner used protected by the First Amendment? Discussion Specifically the rule for Disorderly Conduct is defined as: “(A) No person shall recklessly cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm to another by doing any of the following: (1) Engaging in fighting, in threatening harm to persons or property, or in violent or turbulent behavior; (2) making unreasonable noise or an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display or communicating unwarranted and grossly abusive language to any person.” Fighting Words are defined as “are those words that are likely by the very utterance to inflict injury or to incite and immediate breach of the peace.” (Case 5, pg 3) Also court take into account the surrounding circumstances. The Ohio Revised Code § 2917.11 that looks at fighting words as look at how those words are used, are the words personally directed, must be likely to provoke a reasonable person to breach peace and must be likely to incite a gathered crowd. I. Personally Directed The words that Les Wexner used were personally directed at the officer. This element of fighting words has been satisfied. Personally directed is defined as “profane words specifically and intentionally directed to a * * * [police} officer usually constitute fighting words, while an inappropriate and vulgar commentary about the situation, without more, is not punishable” (Case 2, pg. 3) For example in Sewell case (Case 5) it was determined that fighting words were used because the words were descriptive and direct, and also followed by gestures that were specifically directed towards the officer. Sewell was upset that he received a parking ticket during a heavy snow in Cleveland on February 14, 1985 the snow created an emergency snow ban. Officer Brenders was speaking with the defendant's son and advising him that he should still move the car even though he had received a ticket. Sewell was then "standing on the threshold of the front door of his home, began shouting obscenities at the officer." (p. 1) Sewell also yelled things like "a mother fricking prick and an asshole.” He also used gestures like the middle finger and also pointed his index finger at Brenders while he was yelling. The officer warned the defendant to go back into his house or he would be arrested. The officer listened to the profanities for about 5 minutes before he placed the defendant under arrest, at which time he went into his house and shut the door. Similarly, in this case, the court would likely find that Wexner used words that were personally directed at the officer and not the situation. Wexner said “Frick this stinking ticket and Frick You too.” Here Wexner was addressing the situation, the parking ticket, but he was also addressing the officer with the vulgar language by saying “Frick You too.” Wexner also like Sewell used the gesture of the middle finger that was directed at the officer. This gesture was directed towards the officer and not the situation because Wexner was told he needed to leave and to let the officer know that he was not going to be leaving he demonstrated this by giving the officer the middle finger. There might be a possible counter argument about whether or not the vulgar language and gestures were truly personally directed toward the officer. The court would need to look at the circumstances through and objective test to determine whether or not Wexner was upset with the situation. However, if he was truly upset with the situation then he would not told the officer that “And you are just one more asshole in my asshole life with your asshole parking enforcement.” BY stating this Wexner is personally directing the vulgar language towards the officer and not the situation, because he specifically called the officer an asshole. II. Likely to Provoke a Reasonable Person to Breach Peace The court would likely find that Wexner’s actions and words would likely provoke a reasonable person to breach peace. The rule states that would the situation and words be likely to cause a reasonable person to breach peace in response to those actions and words, and result in a violent response. In the Sewell case it was found that the reasonable person would breach peace and ti would have resulted in a violent response. Officer Brenders fears that Sewell’s conduct was going to turn violent, so Brenders called for backup. Also the court stated that since Sewell used vulgar language and gestures and used them at Officer Brenders for over five minutes, and this was all to do receiving a parking ticket. The actions did not match the situation, a reasonable mind could assume that the situation was likely to provoke the reasonable person to breach peace due to the fighting words that were being used. Likewise, in Wexner’s case, the ongoing use of vulgar language that also occurred for over five minutes would also show that it was likely to provoke a reasonable person to breach peace. Given the situation it was unnecessary for the interaction between the officer and Wexner to last longer than it to give and received the ticket. But it can be determined that the interaction occurred at the minimum for five minutes, because when Wexner approached his car at was 5:55 pm and when the officer told him that he needed to leave Wexner stated that it was after 6:00 pm and parking was free and that he no longer needed to go anywhere. Had Wexner gotten into his car and removed himself from the situation the circumstances would no longer have been