Woman gets ticketed for dropping f-bomb in a Walmart

[RealSNR]

Wow. Can we finally say backwoods Texas is a "special" place?

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?se...cal&id=6325920
Mother ticketed for swearing in Wal-Mart

By Laura Whitley

LA MARQUE, TX (KTRK) -- A woman is in trouble for cursing inside a busy store in La Marque. An assistant fire marshal heard her, and wrote her a ticket on the spot.

But investigators say that's not the only reason she ended up with a citation. The incident happened inside the Wal-Mart off I-45, the night before Tropical Storm Edouard hit.

"She should have gotten a ticket. She's lucky she didn't go to jail," said one shopper.

The woman was responding to a recent incident which sent a mother home with a ticket for cursing in public.

The shopper continued, "Because, you're in public. You can't do that."

That's exactly what La Marque's assistant fire marshal, Alfred Decker, tried to tell Kathryn Fridge, 28, when he allegedly overheard her use the 'f-word' in the store last week.

"He said, 'Ma'am, please refrain from using that language. You're not allowed to cuss in public like that,'" explained La Marque Fire Department Chief Todd Zacherl.

Zacherl spoke on Decker's behalf. He said the officer's warning to Fridge was only met with more expletives.

"I think he just originally went to just ask her politely not to use that type of language," Zacherl said. "Things escalated to the point where he had to do something. He couldn't just walk away."

The single mother walked away with a ticket, and concerns, say the chief, about his assistant fire marshal's actions. Zacherl says as far as he can tell, Decker responded appropriately.

"He said he did have to place cuffs on her in the parking lot because he couldn't get her to calm down," Zacherl said.

Cursing in public is certainly not a federal case. But people do get in trouble for it, just usually not at a Wal-Mart.

Zacherl explained, "These are the type of tickets you would find around the Kemah Boardwalk, things like that, or outside of a bar or something."

Most people we spoke with about the incident sided with the officer, but not everyone.

"It depends on what the reason is," said one woman. "She might have had a reason. She could have had a bad day and somebody just touched her wrong."

We made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Fridge. She was ticketed for disorderly conduct. She will either have to pay it, or go before a judge.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

So, no matter what, you must concede to a public official? Seems pretty slippery there.



Again, what constitutes disturbing the peace? Obviously, it's usually enforced with fights, parties, or something like that. But in honesty, who gets to decide that and why?

Again, what is there not to follow? If you were swearing in a public place, and the public official, at first, politely told you to stop doing it, and you don't, then you are SUBJECTED to get a ticket, becuase you FAILED to follow his request.

It's not that hard to understand.

And as for disturbing the peace, as I pointed out, Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions.

This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words likely to incite violence.


It's not that hard to follow.

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by Coach

Again, what is there not to follow? If you were swearing in a public place, and the public official, at first, politely told you to stop doing it, and you don't, then you are SUBJECTED to get a ticket, becuase you FAILED to follow his request.

First of all, I wouldn't have thought a fire marshall can give a ticket for non-fire related things. That seems to be a stupid thing in and of itself.

Would it be different if it were not merely swearing?

It's not that hard to understand.

No it's not but it's what leads to a slippery slope. And that's hard to understand.

And as for disturbing the peace, as I pointed out, Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions.

Exactly. I know. That's so vague that it could include saying "fuck" to a group of church goers.

This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words likely to incite violence.


It's not that hard to follow.

Yes, yes it is. And if you can't see the slope these are on, I'm sorry.

[Dayze]

I would've recieved 2 tickets; one for the initial infraction, and one for telling the Fire Marshal to get fucked.

Bothh tickets would've ended up on the ground in pieces. F that.

This is assuming of course, that the lady wasn't asked to leave etc. If it were simply a case of the Fire Marshall approaching me issuing me a ticket for dropping an F bomb, it's a whole 'nother story.

[Dayze]

I'm offended by a local Pastor acosting me while I'm mowing my lawn during his door-to-door crusade to inquire about my 'status' betwen God and I etc. I tell him I'm not religious etc, he proceeds to lecture me how I'm going to hell because the inivisible man apparently needs me to go to church on a particular day of the week and give him money.

Next time I need to call the fire marshall and have him ticketed.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

First of all, I wouldn't have thought a fire marshall can give a ticket for non-fire related things. That seems to be a stupid thing in and of itself.

Would it be different if it were not merely swearing?

Not really. They are sworn in law enforcement. No difference from police officers. If she wasn't swearing, then none of this would even happen, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

Exactly. I know. That's so vague that it could include saying "fuck" to a group of church goers.

How can it be vague if she was being handcuffed in the parking lot, becuase she wouldn't calm down? If I was the fire marshal, I wouldn't take any chances, especially with someone who could be "potentionally" physco.

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

Yes, yes it is. And if you can't see the slope these are on, I'm sorry.

What the hell of a slope are you harping on? There is no slope, becuase she was committing by either disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words likely to incite violence.

Seems to be clear cut to me.

[Iowanian]

There was a time or two when I was younger, when Someone asked me to refrain from speaking a certain way, or using colorful adjectives, because of kids, or their own offense.

My response was to realise what I'd done, appologise and curb the behavior out of respect.

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by Coach

Not really. They are sworn in law enforcement. No difference from police officers. If she wasn't swearing, then none of this would even happen, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That's not my point. Should you concede to a public official - say fire marshall - when politically protesting?

How can it be vague if she was being handcuffed in the parking lot, becuase she wouldn't calm down? If I was the fire marshal, I wouldn't take any chances, especially with someone who could be "potentionally" physco.

You continue to miss the point. It's more than this instance. It's about future instances. It's about the law and how vague it is. And how there isn't a law that gives people the right NOT to be offended.

What the hell of a slope are you harping on? There is no slope, becuase she was committing by either disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music or dog barking), or using offensive words likely to incite violence.

Seems to be clear cut to me.

I see now. I'm talking about the big picture. You are still stuck on this one case.

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

There was a time or two when I was younger, when Someone asked me to refrain from speaking a certain way, or using colorful adjectives, because of kids, or their own offense.

My response was to realise what I'd done, appologise and curb the behavior out of respect.

There is no doubt that she should have and could have done this.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by Iowanian

There was a time or two when I was younger, when Someone asked me to refrain from speaking a certain way, or using colorful adjectives, because of kids, or their own offense.

My response was to realise what I'd done, appologise and curb the behavior out of respect.

Doesn't happen that way often, Mr. Iowanian, for such a response requires character - a trait that is all too rare in these dark times.

By the way, did you read about the important, new Sasquatch discovery and related unveiling scheduled for tomorrow? What do you think?

FAX

[FAX]

By way of another by the way, does anyone have an answer to my question regarding the rights of a property owner and presumed offensive speech? I'm actually and sincerely curious about this.

FAX

[SithCeNtZ]

Originally Posted by FAX

By way of another by the way, does anyone have an answer to my question regarding the rights of a property owner and presumed offensive speech? I'm actually and sincerely curious about this.

FAX

Yes they can remove you for speech. It's along the same lines as a dress code. Actually I'm pretty sure you can be thrown out of a store for anything other than something like race or gender.

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by denverdanchiefsfan

I don't see where it gives people the right to drop the f bomb at will. I don't think the founding fathers were walking down the street in tank tops and mullets yelling **** yeah!

Have you SEEN Ben Franklin's mullet?

[Sully]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

I see guns, I don't have an urge to kill.
I see bewbs, I wanna f@ck.

That's true.
But only for those of us who have decided to be straight.

[KCJohnny]

Originally Posted by irishjayhawk

No one has the right to be offended by such statements.

Check out the history of legal precedents about this very thing.





Poor, deprived generation.

I feel badly (really) that our youth honestly do not know what it was like in an era of greater respect and more diligent observance of common decency.

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by KCJohnny

Check out the history of legal precedents about this very thing.





Poor, deprived generation.

I feel badly (really) that our youth honestly do not know what it was like in an era of greater respect and more diligent observance of common decency.

You're a big reason for that, unless respect and common decency includes going around falsely spouting how superior you are.