Judge rules Am. Fork teen who rapped his order was no threat
Mcdonalds needs to get a sense of humor.The marketing department could
have turned the whole thing into a cool commercial.The teenagers in
American Fork should all go to Burger King.
Very funny, the McDonalds marketing does it's best to make the place some sort
of youthful hip hop urban thing and you've got a manager that calls the cops
cause someone raps an order? Priceless. And the cop actually cited
this kid?! You've got to be kidding. Note to self: never visit American Fork.
Stay far, far away from it.
City Prosecutor Kasey Wright needs a dose of reality. Of course it was a case of
wasted resources. Anyone with common sense could have told him that.Does this guy have a license to practice law? If so, it should be revoked for
stupidity!I hope the boys go back through that same McDonald's
tonight and rap the same order!!!
Spenser DID NOT Rap! Spenser DID NOT Swear! Spenser drove the car! He has been
accused of ALL of it, but his part was very minimal! He became the target of
the media because he was the ONLY ONE that was 18!The McDonald's
manager, Ilene Timoko, lied and LIED SOME more (probably at the advice of McD's
Legal Dept), only to be proven WRONG as the video's played! She walked to the
building, and only when she was UP ON THE CURB, is when Spenser chose to drive
away--WHEN SHE WAS SAFE! HE NEVER YELLED ANY OBSCENITIES TO THIS WOMAN! She
stated she "felt" like the boys were following her!This boy should
be Exonerated! His reputation has been tainted, and integrity challenged for
the past 8 MONTHS! Not a way to live, if you ask me!Isn't there a
charge for the manager for FALSE ARREST? Sue them! Sue them GOOD!
This boy was on PRIVATE PROPERTY and the article makes it clear that they
ignored "a request to order normally or leave." The moment they chose not to
comply with that request or leave they were guilty of disorderly conduct and
trespassing and should have been charged and CONVICTED.Those who are
criticizing the McDonald's manager, police and prosecutor should give us their
legal definition of disorderly conduct because Utah's legal definition in part
is: "A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if: (b) intending
to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a
risk thereof, he:...(ii) makes unreasonable noises in a public place;...or (iv)
obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic...(3) Disorderly conduct is a class C
misdemeanor if the offense CONTINUES AFTER A REQUEST BY A PERSON TO DESIST.
Otherwise it is an infraction."These boys were guilty of disorderly
conduct because they a) obstructed vehicular traffic after being instructed to
order properly or leave, and b) made "unreasonable noises" in a public place
which was intended to cause public inconvenience and annoyance.To
argue that this is a free speech issue is wrong. It's a private property issue.
Solomon, make up your mind, either they were on private property or they were in
a public place, it can not be both. Obviously they were not in a public
place, therefore the law clearly does not apply. The appropriate law for
someone who will not leave private property after permission to be there is
trespass, not disorderly conduct.
The kid ought to sue McDonalds and the police department. This is a lot of
hassle he didn't deserve to have.
I would like someone to rap a case in this judges courtroom. As a business owner
I feel that my rights to conduct business are being taken away.
To say this is private property so the owner of the business can do what ever
they want is off the mark. This is a place of public accomidation.To
get upset for someone rapping an order indicates the people running this
business need to find an other line of employment, away from the public.
And which nation on Earth has the largest percentage of it citizens in jail?
This wasn't a fight worth picking. Complete waste of resources.
Don't these kids know that you should never aggravate a food worker unless you
have your food in hand first?
I think Soren Kierkegaard best summed up this case when he said:"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought,
which they seldom use."
Waste of resources
All I have to add is "lighten up" geeez.
anyone get their mouth washed out by their mom ?lol
This was a joke. Oh, and the rapping too.
.....and it took all this time, effort and money to figure this out.....
funny..they never really done no harm.The employee said to speak clear on
food order/or LEAVE!They Did not of course this was aJOKE some way of
thier own way of dumb humor!!
Whatever this case may be about, it is NOT about the First Amendment!The First Amendment does NOT give anyone the right to clog up a place of
commerce located on private property, harming the business position of the
landowner and preventing others from conducting their business, in a
presumptuous and thoughtless attempt to advance some juvenile cause.From the facts laid out in the story, proper exercise of prosecutorial
discretion probably should have seen this individual charged with both
disorderly conduct and trespassing. And proper trial advocacy and the exercise
of proper judicial discretion would have seen him convicted of at least one of
re: procuradorfiscalyea, well the problem is that the judge, and law
does not agree with your point.
This happens all of the time in American Fork. The police and city prosecutor
think they can get away with frivolous charges against these young men because
many of them are going on missions and do not have the time for a lengthy court
proceeding. Many young men end up pleading guilty to bogus charges and paying a
fine just to get their legal issues cleared so they can serve a mission. In my
opinion the police department is committing extortion against these young men.
Somebody should investigate!
Leave it to tenagers..They have Apologized in interview He Will not ever do that
again to PROVOKE an employee takout a meal..I thought it was nothing but a
JOKE/rapping awayAs the mcDs personal did not like it all.
The irony is that half of the time I go through the McDonald's drive-thru, I
cannot understand a single thing that the employee is saying over the intercom
or they don't understand me. Usually either the speaker system is damaged, or
the employee is speaking English as a second language. I have to repeat my
order up to 3 times.McDonald's should just institute a new policy
that all orders must be placed in Spanish.
The manager and the police said the rapping wasn't the problem. So all of you,
"it's my business I should be able to run it my way" folks are wrong. She said
they behaved threateningly when they left and she felt threatened. The video
I think the whole RAPPING Beat should be a COMMERCIAL!!!!
I just can't get over the number of people with no legal training whatsoever who
insist they know the law better than the judge who heard this case. Get over
KSL should invite this kid to do the rap and put it on the news and online.
I hope he enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame.
I don't like rap.Actually can't stand it.But this was
the right decision.A teenage act of silliness and humor.Who of us has not done something similar in intent when we were younger?
They are teenagers I think the whole Story is Funny.I dont care too much
for RAP music either.Teens only thought it was a Joke.I Leave as is
They(Are sorry paid a fine only)Least no one was Hurt in food order
Re:cynic"I just can't get over the number of people with no legal
training whatsoever who insist they know the law better than the judge who heard
this case. Get over yourselves people."I am an attorney so I have
the right to disagree with another attorney including one that is also
temporarily serving as a Judge and especially so since the Judge is wrong. Just because a Judge issues a ruling doesn't make it the right one.
Those who agree with this Judge and defend his ruling without any knowledge of
the law themselves are the ones who need to get over themselves. It may make you
feel good to agree with someone you see as an authority figure but I went to law
school with people who went on to become judges and there weren't special then
and they aren't special now.Just because I went to law school
doesn't make me right and just because this guy went to law school and became a
Judge doesn't make him right. Do you agree with every Supreme Court Justice or
Judge even when they disagree with each other? Are you schizophrenic?
Re:procuradorfiscal"From the facts laid out in the story, proper
exercise of prosecutorial discretion probably should have seen this individual
charged with both disorderly conduct and trespassing."That's because
he committed both offenses and should have been charged with both. It's not
right when the law is applied unfairly and one person can end up in jail for
doing something similar to this yet these boys can get off for essentially the
same acts others are convicted of.Have we already forgotten the case
of Professor Gates who was arrested and forced to plead guilty to disorderly
conduct for making a "your momma" comment to police and being rude to them on
his own property. According to this attorney hurling profanities is freedom of
speech but insulting a police officer's momma apparently is something you can
get arrested. Doesn't anyone find it the least bit interesting that the arrest
of Gates was defended by the majority on this forum but now the majority
denounce the arrest of 4 white boys for doing worse?Is it a
coincidence that most of the conviction for disorderly conduct seem to be of
Re:The Sensible Middle"To say this is private property so the owner
of the business can do what ever they want is off the mark. This is a place of
public accomidation."If it's a public place then disorderly conduct
is defined as any acts intended to cause or create a "public inconvenience,
annoyance, or alarm." It's clear that is what these boys did or intended to
happen.Cashiers, fast food workers and customers don't have to be
inconvenienced because of the choices of others. Their attorney suggests that
freedom of speech allows someone to use profanity but it doesn't prevent
conviction for disorderly conduct and many state's statutes explicitly include
the use of profane language in a public place in the definition of disorderly
conduct.Had this occurred in a sit down restaurant which was busy
and other customers were waiting for the waitress to assist them would you argue
that their refusal to order properly or leave wasn't disorderly conduct and
trespassing that could annoy and inconvenience another customer. Disorderly
conduct and trespassing laws are intended to prevent someone having to use their
fists to deal with jerks.
Re:dricha65"I would like someone to rap a case in this judges
courtroom. As a business owner I feel that my rights to conduct business are
being taken away."A person who behaved like these boys did in his
court room would be charged with contempt of the court and disorderly conduct.
Imagine the store manager deciding to rap her testimony and jurors having
difficulty understanding her and the Judge ordering the witness to give
testimony properly or leave the witness stand and she refused to comply to make
a point.Or if the prosecutor decided that in order to get the judge
to understand he needed to rap for the entire trial so the judge could
understand just how annoyed people could get. This judge's bias is clearly seen
in his ruling. I can guarantee that if these were 4 black boys that they would
have likely received jail time for their actions.Let's not forget
the cases of Professor Gates who was arrested on his property for disorderly
conduct and Sky Blu who was physically assaulted by former Presidential
candidate Mitt Romney was escorted off a plane even though the Romney's were
Did the article say the boys rapped in the courtroom? Missed that somehow.Solomon- not sure where you're going with this. No one was physically
harmed. If anyone was emotionally harmed they need to grow some thicker skin. Me
thinks you're taking this situation WAY too seriously and way over-applying the
need for law and order in this case. This was a harmless prank. That's all.
I think that McDonald's Legal got to the manager and they had to change the
Reason she called from the rap to something that was more Politically correct.
The manager has given 4 different versions of what happened. Wow! Who is lying?
The fact is the manager asked them to leave and they did. They did not drive
recklessly in the parking lot as the prosector tried to show in his feeble
attempt to go forward. The video tapes do not show any of what Mr Wright claimed
happened. So who is lying now? Justice was served.Let's let it go!!!!
I am both an attorney at law and a law professor. I teach many of those who
become JDs or JYDs.The case involving the teenage rappers reflects a
problem, though not a unique one, that currently plagues our society. There are
those that we shall categorize as Constitution Protesters, because we have
devolved to look to the lower laws, even the lowest of those things that we
refer to as laws, and have no idea what a Constitution does, or what the dangers
are when we have none to rely on.Article IV, Section 4 is supposed
to represent our Guarantee for a Republican Form of Government. The same as with
a Warranty. Warranted. Not open for compromise, or discussion.A
Republican Form of Government is about Law and Law alone. Because it is, it
denies or prohibts all other forms, as false forms, that approach the idea of
True Government itself.This includes, opinions, beliefs, policies,
ideas, theories, tastes, impressions, upbringings, notions, whims, feelings,
speculations, views, a number of other similar elements, and even
"practices."They all FAIL Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S.
When people engage in business with the public, there is a reasonable
expectation that they are dealing with people who are not perfect, or will not
live up to their exact standard of expectation. This comes from principle of
law known as The Reasonable Prudent Person Doctrine.Where no actual
danger is proven, accrording to the Facts, none can be claimed.Claiming it as "private property" at one turn, but allowing law enforcement
officers liberties upon that same property (which all public restaurants do, one
way or the other) runs fowl on the supposition that an owner is entitled to make
demands, no matter how far from the exercise of the Common Law it may be, simply
because he/she/it owns the property in question.The Common Law is,
historically, the Law of the Commoners. The "system" does not like the Common
Law, anymore, because it tends to oppose absolute conrols, absolutely.Only a Jury, a Trier of Fact, has a right to examine the facts and determine
what the Verdict (True Word) should be. But in 1670 in England, in the case of
William Penn, we learn something else.