Unnecessary Detail?


From the Minnesota disorderly conduct statute:

Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:

(1) engages in brawling or fighting; or

(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or

(3) engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.

A person does not violate this section if the person's disorderly conduct was caused by an epileptic seizure.

I would think that the last sentence wouldn't really be necessary, at least to the extent it's aimed at capturing involuntary conduct: It's a general principle of criminal law that nonvolitional conduct (e.g., sleepwalking and actions during a seizure) isn't covered by the law, under the so-called actus reus doctrine. I suppose it might be good to make this extra clear, though perhaps there's some risk that courts might infer that Minnesota statutes that lack such a provision implicitly reject the actus reus doctrine. [UPDATE: Commenter dwb68 also points out that there's some risk that courts might infer that other nonvolitional conduct is also implicitly excluded from the actus reus doctrine.] But in any event, I've never seen something like this in a statute, so I thought I'd note it.

(It might be a crime to do something knowing that you're at risk of involuntary conduct that causes injury—for instance,  it may be reckless driving to drive when you know you're subject to extremely frequent seizures, or for that matter when you know you're very likely to fall asleep or otherwise lose consciousness—but that doesn't seem to apply here.)

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: July 27, 1929

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Or not specific enough. I guess some poor kid with Tourette’s better stay the hell offa shoolbussez in Minnosota.

    1. And this could be a problem. By being oddly specific about “epileptic seizures” someone could infer other medically valid reasons were left out on purpose, and therefore are not defenses. So, should a schizophrenic person get on the bus or not?

      A wise contract attorney once told me that when first out of law school he favored specific lists, he thought he could think of eveything. But too many times, a judge/mediator would say “well this list is so specific, you must have meant to leave it out, so not thats not part of the deal.” As he got older, he realized he didn’t know what he didn’t know, so he learned to write broader non-specific language.

      1. “So, should a schizophrenic person get on the bus or not?”

        Depends, are they taking their medicine that keeps them from being a threat to others?

        1. Since any medical protocol can fail, that test provides no assurance that a schizophrenic person will be safe from criminal prosecution for getting on the bus.

          For examples of how a medical protocol could fail, consider that your body/diet/stress levels can change resulting in a need to adjust your medication levels – you haven’t had an adverse effect yet so you don’t know it yet. Your comment assumes medical certainty and a level of perfect consistency that does not exist.

    2. Bingo. you beat me to it 🙂

  2. “It might be a crime to do something knowing that you’re at risk of involuntary conduct that causes injury—for instance. . . . ”

    Uh oh, Prof. Volokh. . . .

    As an unabashed 2A advocate, you might want to rethink that statement.


    1. Aiming and shooting at someone — or “at a blurry mass”, to quote one of the sheriffs in that article — is typically a volitional act, not an involuntary one.

      1. Somehow, I think that a blind woman feeling and hearing someone physically on top of her and in the process of ripping her clothes off her could reasonably conclude that the person (a) was a rapist and that (b) she had the right to shoot him.

        Exactly how good vision do you have to have to feel someone else’s hand in your pants?

        1. Please test this out and get back to us with the results.

    2. That article was from 2013. Maybe you could try digging up actual cases of an armed blind person shooting someone by mistake?

  3. Something must have happened, for this provision to be put in.

    1. There may be an interesting, possibly horrifying and tragic, story behind this provision.

      Either that or the legislative attorney drafting the statute was thinking back to criminal law and how difficult it is to draft good criminal statutes and thought they’d better throw the kitchen sink at it.

    2. “Disorderly conduct” is so badly abused by police officers that perhaps someone thought that specifically stating something that the cops ought to have thought of themselves.

      I keep hearing horror stories about cops mistaking hypoglycemia (insulin shock, i.e. low blood sugar) for intoxication.

      1. They’re not stories. I’m an Officer at a small Social Club with a lot of elderly members. We’ve had a member pass out from Hypoglycemia and someone call the police without even checking with the Bartender or a Club Officer. The Police have tried to make an arrest for drunkenness’ and backed off when we check the Glucose level. We keep a meter and strips behind the bar in the first aid kit. It blows their mind how fast they recover after being given Glucose drops. By the way the member that happened to only drinks Club Soda with lime.

  4. I thought the article was going to ask why someone thought school buses needed the call out. Or does Minnesota have a “What Happens on the Bus, Stays on the Bus” doctrine?

    1. Ever driven a school bus?

      I have, and that provision is necessary — for the parents of the little darlings.

  5. ” It’s a general principle of criminal law that involuntary conduct (e.g., sleepwalking and actions during a seizure) isn’t covered by the law, under the so-called actus reus doctrine.”

    Isn’t that backwards? Actus reus is the unlawful act, specifically without regard to the mental state of the person committing it. It’s mens rea that is the wrongful state of mind.

    1. No, he’s right. The actus rea needs to be a voluntary act. Voluntariness is separate from mental state. Say it’s strict liability to cross a line: it doesn’t matter if you were doing it on purpose or simply weren’t paying attention to where the line was because you were negligent. But you wouldn’t be liable if say someone else pushed you over the line or you fainted over the line. Because those acts aren’t voluntary.

      1. Correct. There must be a physical activity that you consciously engaged in. If someone physically forces my finger to pull the trigger of a gun and I shoot someone dead, I have not committed the actual reus.

      2. I learned that a different way – that being pushed onto somebody else’s lawn can’t be a trespass because trespass is an intentional tort and if you were pushed, you lacked the intent to cross the line. If trespass were a strict liability tort, it wouldn’t matter if you intended to or not.

      3. In Canada there is something known as an “absolute liability” offense, to which there is no defense of inability to comply. There was a dispute over the law providing extra penalties for speeding 50 km/h over the limit. Ordinary speeding was described as absolute liability. If the Starship Enterprise uses its tractor beams to propel you at 101 km/h, you are guilty of exceeding the 100 km/h speed limit. But the extra penalties for going 50+ over were said to be too great for an absolute liability crime. The defendant wanted the “stunt driving” law to be thrown out rather than construed to require a lesser degree of culpability.

  6. Minnesotans like rules, pointing out how someone isn’t following rules, and using rules to their advantage. Part of the German heritage.

    That’s why someone would think to put that there.

    1. What’s in your opinion the most freedom-loving white race?

      1. What’s in your opinion the most freedom-loving white race?

        Apparently Sarc is developing his own special version of Godwin’s Law.

        Hopefully future refinements include providing a list of all the “white races” so we can make an informed choice!

        1. You’ll have to forgive Sarc, the racism is strong with that one.

      2. Com’n S_0,
        Don’t keep us in suspense.
        Tell us the punchline

        1. I thought it was pretty funny as is. But I was born a Pennsylvanian, and we Pennsylvanians enjoy jokes at the expense of others. Part of our Quaker heritage.

      3. You’re the one who has preferred races. I don’t think in those terms at all.

        Race is entirely irrelevant to cultural notions, obviously.

        But I understand you’re just being your usual self. Please consider trying to be kind to others more often instead.

        1. I assume you think he has “preferred” races because he acknowledges the historical reality that systematic racism against certain minority groups is real and public policy might need to correct for that.

          1. “systematic racism against certain minority groups is real and public policy might need to correct for that.”

            You mean like “systematic racism” against Asians? No, you all are good with that.

            1. Not everything is a zero sum game, you know.

              1. When it comes to limited university seats, it is a zero sum game. Any preference for race means that an equally or better qualified student who happens to check the wrong box on census forms gets the shaft. Hence, “zero sum”.

                And that’s where they stick it to asian kids. Though they try to deny it, the numbers speak volumes:

                “After Proposition 209 banned race-based preferential treatment, the gap between their high admission rates and those of other ethnic groups widened with their rigorous high school course loads, high GPAs and competitive test scores. ”


          2. … by ignoring circumstance discriminating based on race.


            1. … by ignoring circumstance AND discriminating based on race.


              Ignoring circumstance and discriminating based on race is bad. Yes, even if you invoke stories about stuff from the past. There’s no limiting principle. It’s merely an open-ended racial preference. The past never changes, no matter how unfair and hurtful you are to your non-preferred races today.

              1. Here’s the thing: this just allows discrimination to continue. “Color-blindness” does have a preferred race and we all know which one it is. Literally from the moment that the 13th Amendment was passed, people in the South were complaining about freed blacks being a preferred race.

                1. Rumors of some sort of mostly invisible implicit discrimination aren’t the same as a definite, explicit discrimination written into a law or policy.

                  The past isn’t changed by victimizing new people. Rumors aren’t satisfied by victimizing new people. Victimizing new people just victimizes new people.

                  1. RUMORS?! Jesus Christ. How many freaking studies and statistics and first hand testimony of both racists and the discriminated against do you need? Rumors. SMH.

                    1. Stories then. Victimizing new people doesn’t satisfy stories. Victimizing new people doesn’t change historic study data. Victimizing new people just victimizes new people.

                      If you want to make a specific, limited, race-neutral policy that specific individuals can qualify for based on evidence about their own lives, then that won’t be racial discrimination. If they can tell you about their individual history to weave a narrative, why can’t they tell a bureaucrat about their individual history to qualify for relief? If study data is real, then why can’t the individuals surveyed by the scholars present themselves and their history for relief?

                      Because directly victimizing new people by discriminating against them based on race is easier? Because it’s more empowering? Because people who are not like you have it coming?

                      Because you don’t care very much about victimizing (the wrong kind of) new people? I think it’s this one.

                    2. No one is victimizing you dude. Seriously this has been the narrative from the moment the slaves were freed. You’d be the former plantation owner going around saying you’re the victim of the Freedman’s Bureau because they were sort of attempting to reform labor relations in the South. You’re just the continuation of the same story.

                    3. Yeah, I was right. You’re happy to victimize the wrong kind of people.

                      And then you’d claim direct discrimination based on race doesn’t create victims when you do it.

                    4. No one is a two kind of person. And you’re not a victim. You never were. You’re the plantation owner.

                    5. *the wrong kind

                    6. You’re the plantation owner.

                      From “We are the World” to this sort of routine bile, in less than two generations. Good grief.

                    7. “We are the world” was a feel-good song not a statement of reality. Much like there was a concerted effort after the civil war to pretend slavery wasn’t that bad, but it’s gone now so who cares, there has been a consistent effort to pretend that the 60s solved racism (never mind the fact that many of the people who believe that ALSO believe that the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and Fair Housing Act and other accomplishments of the civil rights movement are horrible and want to get rid of them).

                    8. “We are the world” was a feel-good song not a statement of reality.

                      Oh, right — we certainly shouldn’t go around trying to feel good together when there are race-huckster grievances to be had!

                      Hopefully you’ll eventually realize that sort of attitude is a good part of the problem.

                    9. And hopefully you’ll realize that literally every person invested in maintaining white supremacy has used the exact same language claiming that recently freed minorities were getting preferential treatment and calling attention to in-equality is race hucksterism. Nothing has changed since Reconstruction and Redemption or the Civil Rights Movement. In fact the same thing happened in other countries! In Colombia after independence from Spain anyone trying to point out there were racial disparities was accused of starting a race war by people who had an interest in maintaining those disparities!

                    10. And hopefully you’ll realize that literally every person invested in maintaining white supremacy has used the exact same language

                      John Venn would roll over in his grave. You have absolutely zero basis for saying that I am — or anyone else who uses that language is — “invested in maintaining white supremacy.”

                      Seems to me you’re just leaping onto the bandwagon of slapping cartoonish “ugh — good” and “ugh — bad” badges on everyone. Such a poor substitute for actual mental effort.

                      Nothing has changed since Reconstruction and Redemption or the Civil Rights Movement.

                      Much has changed, and for the better — the data is public and ruthlessly objective. But I agree the race baiters haven’t changed their story a bit. To cheerfully work oneself out of a job takes a degree of character they appear to lack.

                    11. Life:

                      Read a book on reconstruction or the civil rights movement. You’ll be surprised at who you sound like.

                      Or this piece


                    12. There’s no productive discussion to be had with someone whose analysis starts and ends with what I “sound like.” I am not a number. TTYL.

                    13. Scared of finding out an uncomfortable truth eh? Well that’s a first step at least.

                2. “‘Color-blindness’ does have a preferred race and we all know which one it is.”


                  1. Whatever one justifies whatever actions they want to take on a given day.

                  2. Imaginary, I think. Or at least that’s the correct answer, since ‘we all know’ is an indicator of in-group biases and accepted ‘knowledge.’

                  3. Careful. If you defend yourself or the principle of not discriminating based on race you’ll be told you’re exactly the same as a plantation owner.

                    Leftists get to do whatever they want and if you don’t go along with it it’s because you’re secretly exactly the same as some dastardly historical villain. So then they’re doubly justified in hurting you (or people like you) because someone from long ago was bad.

                    1. No. You’re not a villain. You just don’t realize that historical continuity applies to you. For someone obsessed with bullying you’d think you’d be interested when the justifications you use for your position are the exact same ones that the plantation owners and segregationists used!

                      Self-reflection and historical understanding are your friends. Use them!

      4. How Hitler came to power is a very interesting and relevant study — the Weimar Republic in general terrifies me because a lot of the same things are happening now in America.

        Do not forget (a) that the same culture had created higher education as we know it a generation earlier and that (b) prior to Hitler, German (not English) was the worldwide language of science and the language in which important papers were written in.

        By contrast, some BIPOC peoples practiced cannibalism.

        1. It is interesting and relevant in the sense that you don’t seem to realize you are the exact type of person that fascist movements appeal to…

          1. And yet you support the real fascism that is being enacted today.

            1. No. Because I know what fascism actually is, that’s not possible given my political beliefs.

                1. I mean I’m not a nationalist, I don’t believe the country is decaying due the corrupting influence of urban elites, I don’t believe the country needs to return to some glorious and mythical past, I don’t believe in a strict adherence to traditionalist beliefs, particularly those involving masculinity, I don’t think martial violence is a positive good. Really, I wouldn’t be welcome in any self-described fascist party.

                  1. Are you sure you’re not a nationalist, in the sense of being a supporter of big centralized government?

                    1. No I don’t think there is a special group of people comprising the nation that is superior to other nations and has a historical or other claim that entitles it to dominate the state or a certain territory to the exclusion of other groups.

                    2. Wow, your made-up definition of nationalism is even more delusional and nonsensical than I ever would have imagined.

                  2. But you are a proud historical ignoramus, which means you’re a perfect target for fascists.

                    “Fascism” came from “faces” (sp?) which are a bundle of sticks. In fascism, the sticks are labor unions, corporations, and the government, bound together by the Party.

                    So, which Party in the US today pushes gov’t – corporate – labor “partnerships”? Hint: It starts with “Dem”.

                    1. Dude. I was a history major. I studied fascist movements in World History, the History of Social and Political Thought, and a class on the Holocaust. Fascism as a movement has a lot of historical markers that I identified. Just because it had corporatist attitudes in regards to labor and private companies doesn’t mean it wasn’t a right wing movement obsessed with national decay and a return to mythic past.

                      Again I can’t be a fascist or a target for fascism because I reject traditionalism and nationalist myths! Their appeals won’t work on me.

                    2. You are welcome to have fun pretending that the things that define fascism (the “corporatism”) don’t matter, what matters is what you’ve decided to negatively attach to it. The fact that the dictators of the Fascists and Nazis (National Socialist German Worker’s Party) worked with each other, and didn’t work with the dictator of the Russian Communist Party had to do with the fact that their ambitions were limited enough that they weren’t threats to each other, whereas Stalin was a threat to everyone. NOT with them being “right wing”. Which they weren’t, certainly not in any American meaning of the term.

                      So far, from what I can see you’re a racist (‘“Color-blindness” does have a preferred race and we all know which one it is’) who approves of the government singling out people because of their skin color, and giving them benefits or costs based on whether or not you like their skin color.

                      Hating the US doesn’t make you not a fascist. Wanting to change the rules so that you get to decide who’s allowed to succeed, who’s forced to fail, wanting the US government to tell people how they’re allowed to run their businesses?

                      That’s you. And that’s fascist

                    3. Talk to or read any historian on the Nazism and the Holocaust: Yehuda Bauer, Saul Friedlander, Chris Browning, Timothy Snyder, etc. Take your pick. Then get back to me. You will find that I am correct and you are not. I know what fascism is and you do not. You are invested in pretending it is not a right-wing movement to make yourself feel better. But in Europe, the Nazis gained power with the support of German conservatives and every aligned power in Europe that was fascist or fascist-aligned was a right-wing government:

                      Tiso in Czechoslovkia
                      Pavlec and the Ustase in Croatia
                      Arrow Party in Hungary
                      Petain in France
                      Franco in Spain

                    4. No, LTG, I’m not going to let some left wing academics with an agenda cause me to reject reality.

                      Try reading some Orwell. Not 1984, his non-fiction

                  3. You are not for the nationalization (IOW socialization) of the means of production??? Then I suspect you are OK with BLM/Antifa, like the censoring of critics on social media, people being fired for the wrong opinions, the “right” people protected by the government, the “wrong” people not protected. Corporations getting in line with the latest diktats and needs of the state, changing when they are not — keeping the rabble and undesirables — the deplorables, to coin a phrase — in line.

                    For those who deplore fascism, we sure are getting a lot!

                    1. WTF are you even talking about. That’s a bunch of word salad of random cultural grievances.

  7. I assume that sort of stuff is put in there to appease some legislator or advocacy group that doesn’t understand the law.

    So someone proposes the law, but then a epilepsy-advocacy group hears this and thinks someone having a seizure would qualify. They then complain to various legislators, who add the language to please the group.

    I mean, haven’t we all been in committees/meetings where language that seems pretty obvious gets added or changed just to appease the one person who overexaggerates some concern? It’s sort of like that.

    1. The current codification of disorderly conduct dates back to 1963, when Minnesota did an overhaul of its criminal statutes.

      The language about epileptic seizures was added in 1988. The same bill that added it also included direction to the commissioner of human services to establish a demonstration project to help persons with epilepsy live independently.

      That aspect of the bill is the only one that occurs in the weekly and annual session summaries. It is a fair inference that an advocacy group was involved in advocating for the bill.

      If there was a case that triggered the language, it was not one that made it to the appellate level.

      1. It’s possible that it was part of the de-institutionalization movement, and one has to then ask how/why persons with epilepsy had been institutionalized in the first place.

        Putting it into the statute as an exception is also a highly effective way of telling cops and courts that such things *exist.*

        Of course I have to ask about the Federal ADA of 1990 as amended — wouldn’t a D/C arrest of a person for an epileptic seizure be an ADA violation?

  8. Professor Volokh said:

    [P]erhaps there’s some risk that courts might infer that Minnesota statutes that lack such a provision implicitly reject the actus reus doctrine.

    I am skeptical that Minnesota Courts would reject the principle you mention. Here is the Minnesota Supreme Court, quoting a state treatise:

    [R]regardless of whether an offense is described as a specific- or general-intent crime, “a defendant must voluntarily do an act or voluntarily fail to perform an act.” McCarr & Nordby, supra, § 44.5; see also State v. Kremer, 262 Minn. 190, 192, 114 N.W.2d 88, 89 (1962) (explaining that no conviction could stand where the trier of fact found that the defendant “was unable to stop because the brakes on his car failed to operate; that he had experienced no prior brake trouble; and that he had no knowledge that his brakes were defective”). The volitional requirement is “generally expressed in terms of an exercise of the will. A reflex movement is not subject to the control of the will.” McCarr & Nordby, supra, § 44.5. Similarly, an act resulting from a person’s faultless inability to comply with the law is ordinarily not criminally punishable, because the act is not a result of the actor’s will. Id.

    State v. Fleck, 810 N.W.2d 303, 309 (Minn. 2012).

    I would echo tkamenick’s comment, though. I have never heard this called the actus reus rule in my practical experience.

    1. Thanks for the cites — indeed, the principle that nonvolitional acts aren’t criminal is quite firmly rooted and broadly recognized.

      As to the label “actus reus,” it’s the way I learned it in my criminal law class; and it’s still used today, see, e.g., State v. Burbank (Maine 2019):

      Two years ago, in another OUI appeal, we held that involuntariness is a defense to a crime, but will only “negate the actus reus of a crime when the forbidden conduct was an involuntary act, that is, the conduct was caused by a reflex, seizure, or some other act over which the defendant had no conscious control.” State v. Griffin, 2017 ME 79, ¶¶ 17, 19, 159 A.3d 1240 (emphasis in original).

      But perhaps some jurisdictions have shifted away from this term.

      1. The issue I have with the Griffin case is that he was NOT convicted of OUI, i.e. of being “under the influence.”

        In the 1970’s Maine’s BAC level was 1.5 — lowered to 1.0 in 1980. When Maine further lowered it to 0.8, there was a great deal of concern if that actually constituted “intoxication” for everyone — so the state instead criminalized “Operating with an Excessive Blood Alcohol Level”

        In Maine, one is convicted of “Having an Excessive Blood Alcohol Level”, not of Drunk Driving per se.

        This raises issues of both “involuntariness” and “mens rea” as while one can understand what one has consumed, one does not know (absent equipment not available to the general public) what the BAC brewing in one’s stomach is.

        And the other thing he didn’t raise was ADA — the state has to issue a license to a person with no legs upon demonstration that the person is “otherwise qualified” to operate a motor vehicle. If he could show that he was “otherwise qualified” to operate a motor vehicle with his internally produced ethanol, which he very likely would be as he would have developed a tolerance to it, then wouldn’t ADA mandate him being excepted from the EBAL?

        Of course, the SJC likely was terrified that every alcoholic would then claim ADA and claim a similar tolerance….

        Of course my issue with the 0.8 law was that by the same rationale, we should prohibit pregnant women from driving…

        1. The other thing to remember is that this is Maine where courts are as fair to drunk drivers as southern courts once were to Black defendants.

          Maine’s where prohibition started with Niel Dow and then Maine had a REAL problem with drunk driving in the 1970s because it is a tourist state. There were *so* many fatal crashes off the road up Cadillac Mountain to see the sunrise that the National Park Service no longer allows anyone to go up there before daylight. It was not uncommon in the 1970s for someone to pass out at a red light and sit there in traffic. And a lot of Maine roads were no wider nor safer than they had been in the 1920s when they had been built — it was the 1976 ban on river log drives that forced the state to widen & straighten all the roads.

          I don’t think the SJC has ever ruled in favor of a defense raised by an accused drunk driver. In one case, they actually upheld the conviction of an *accessory* to drunk driving even though the police couldn’t prove that the other person was actually driving…

  9. Does this mean no Qualified Immunity for cops beating an epileptic / diabetic seizure (thinking it was a DUI) now? I mean the law specifically says it isn’t illegal, so the cops MUST determine whether the behavior is involuntary, right? Right?

    1. Under federal law no. Just because you clearly violate a state law doesn’t mean you are also violating “clearly established” federal constitutional rights.

        1. I am. And you’re right.

  10. disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character

    Could this be used against hecklers or protesters at a guest speaker event at the university?

    1. It should be able to be.

      Of course, that requires cops willing to arrest, and prosecutors willing to prosecute

    2. Yes, though there really has to be a substantial disruption; see, e.g., this post about the UC Irvine prosecution.

      1. Video conferencing solved this problem, were the hecklers can be muted, to allow the speaker to proceed.

  11. Well, since “congress shall make no law” doesn’t really mean congress shall make no law — lock those epileptic bastards up!!!!

  12. Lawyer idiocy on full display. The Latin phrases void all legal utterances, especially by government. They are not allowed in our secular nation, and they promote the Catholic religion.

    Mind reading is involved in this discussion. That is a supernatural power attributed to God by the Medieval Church in accordance with its faith. Man cannot read minds or intent. Many times, the defendant cannot determine his own intent, having forgotten the crime.

    There is misunderstanding of epilepsy, as well. Repetitive, simple behaviors are possible, such as lip smacking or arm waving. Complex criminal acts are impossible during a seizure. Find me a proven case of someone in a seizure strangling someone. Altered states of consciousness, part of epilepsy, can cause crime. That is where the confusion comes from. Could you speak to a neurologist before making stupid legal policies? Half of crimes are committed while drunk, and may appall the regretful defendant once sober.

    The definition of the crime refers to any act annoying the police. Burning down a federal court by leftist criminals is not disturbing the peace, in a leftist jurisdiction. Yelling at Democrats in Congress in a pro-democracy protest is now an insurrection. The law allows the imposition of biases, spitefulness, feelings, and just bad moods.

    That is why judges must replaced by algorithms written and owned by the legislatures. they should carry full product liability when a defect damages a defendant. Because they involved punishment, strict liability applies.

  13. Stay out of Oklahoma. Don’t even be tempted to drive throught it or fly over it. Stay out!

    Look what happened to this couple from Missouri who strayed into the banana republic of Okiehawma: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=319390416430541

    Don’t carry any benjamins in Okiehawma either, or they will be seized. Notice that the crooked cop stuck 10k of it down in his pants:


  14. What if your disorderly conduct is caused by someone else’s epileptic seizure? Like, you start boisterously making fun of him?

Please to post comments