Man Arrested For Complaining Too Much
Team 4: Complaining Bridgeville Neighbor Arrested For Harassment [The Pittsburgh Channel] (Thanks to Steve!)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam malesuada commodo erat et molestie. Duis pellentesque aliquam bibendum. Suspendisse venenatis lobortis eleifend. Mauris id est sed lectus convallis aliquam.
Post a comment
Comments:
IANAL, of course, but I'm pretty sure the assertion that the law he violated is unconstitutional is correct. His actions don't appear to meet any of the conditions required to consider them unprotected by the First Amendment (yelling fire in a crowded theater, for example).
What bothers me more is the town got their little kangaroo court to convict the guy. That judge should not be a judge. I'd put money on the guy winning on appeal, at least, when he managed to get his case past small-town politics.
IANAL, but harrassment or nuisance statutes are widely abused in any case, but should in no way apply to public officials. Threatening communications would be beyond their scope.
"Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." First Amendment black letter, as they say, made applicable to lower levels of government by the 14th Amendment.
It sounds like this neighborhood has a horrible problem, but if you're relentlessly sending "videos and letters and just about everything I could to just about every government agency I could think of" and leaving multiple angry voicemails, yeah...the people on the receiving end are going to start wondering if you're unhinged and possibly dangerous.
Again, it sounds like his neighborhood has been seriously screwed over, but it also sounds like this guy immediately went the "crazy guy with access to phone numbers and emails" route.
Bogats arrested Pappert on a charge of harassment, which is a criminal summary offense.
"In that voice mail that he left, did he curse?" Parsons asked.
"No," Bogats said.
"Did he threaten?" Parsons asked.
"No," Bogats said.
While it's true that simply calling someone repeatedly may constitute harrassment, it's this woman's job to field complaints such as this. To have him arrested is a bit ridiculous and indicative of the quashing of civil rights in small-town America that's referenced in the article. It wouldn't surprise me if the owner of the concrete manufacturer is friendly with everyone in "power" in this town.
@SVreader:
sounds like this guy immediately went the "crazy guy with access to phone numbers and emails" route.
Um, isn't that kind of modus operandi here at Consumerist?
As someone with urban planning experience, I wish we could get some more information. What (if any) is the zoning in the neighborhood? If there is zoning, how does it reconcile two incompatible land uses like this? Businesses such as concrete plants usually have minimum distances they must be from residential and school uses. How long has the concrete plant been there? How long have the residences been there?
See PDF at markskatz.com/Penn.pdf. This is WEAK.
In the offense definition (a), parts 1-3 are physical acts, 4 includes "lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings or caricatures;" 5 "communicates repeatedly in an anonymous manner;" 6 "communicates repeatedly at extremely inconvenient hours;" (he left VOICEMAIL!), and 7, vaguely, "communicates repeatedly in a manner other than specified in
paragraphs (4), (5) and (6)." Seven cannot, in my lay estimation, withstand scrutiny, and nothing else applies.
Further, section (e) makes the law inapplicable "to any constitutionally protected activity."
@EBone: All the NIMBY arguments in the world don't defend the unconstitutional arrest of this citizen. Undo that injustice and I'll join you in discussing who is right and wrong on zoning, environmental laws, noise statutes, and the like, but not till then.
The problem the government has is that when they did inspections they found actionable violations.
He is angry and complaining because his neighborhood is in poor condition due to a business and the local government isn't doing anything about it.
It's amazing how people hate complainers who point out that they are not doing their job.
@SVreader:
He did not threaten, use profanity or any such thing. He asked reasonable questions. The officials stated they would perform certain services, and failing to do so, he has called and written until they do perform such services. Nothing illegal about that. These people work FOR him and the community...he does not work for them.
@SVreader: He sent some letters, was ignored, sent some more letters, was ignored, called some people, was ignored, and on and on.
If that's crazy (hint: it isn't) then what sort of non-crazy method should he have used? Smoke signals? An awareness concert? A bakesale?
@Techguy1138: Also known as "hypocrisy".
Why go to all the effort to maliciously prosecute this guy when they could have just done their job long ago and not gotten any more complaints from him?
"In section 2709 of the Pennsylvania crimes code, dealing with harassment, it specifically states that when a person, they harass, annoy or alarm an individual based upon the conduct, then it's harassment," Bogats said.
Based on the crimes code, shouldn't Mr. Pappert be able to have the entire cement plant arrested due to harassment?
@bobpence: I agree with you 100%. It's the elected representative's responsibility to listen to her constituent's complaints. He should never have been locked up for that.
I was just curious how two such polar opposite land uses could be co-located in the first place.
I hope this story ends up everywhere and the manager and everyone involved with arresting this guy reaps what they sowed.
It sounds like he didn't actually do anything harassing. But sadly this doesn't surprise me. I have seen some really ugly biases when it involves smaller local government. Think HOA with the ability to arrest someone.
I live near Kirkwood MO. where that Black man went to a evening town hall meeting and shot and killed six or seven people because he was pissed about the cops hassling him about stupid shit related to his business. Moral of the story, be careful who you piss off because they may just show up and shoot you in the face.
I'm tempted to say there's more to the story, but cops can be pretty wierd about "harassment" issues.
On one hand people abuse them all the time (as in above?), on the other hand people report slightly abnormal behaviors that cops can't really act on, then get raped/killed/etc by the person they reported as harassing them ...
@SVreader: Wait, didn't you just describe our beloved EECB, but applied to the government?
I think before anyone in those offices could say he was harassing they should have investigated the claims (assuming he wasn't making threats of violence of course).
I'm pretty damn sure this is unconstitutional - being in a public office strips you of a lot of the same level of protection. For example, false statements about a public official require evidence of actual malice for a defamation suit (in the states with which I am familiar) - and that's a civil statute. Actually... that's a civil statute in Pennsylvania.
It's not the law here, as far as I can tell, it's the application.
Lord, how I want to see that District judge get a serious lashing.
For your EECBing pleasure:
Business Office
425 Bower Hill Road
Bridgeville, PA 15017
(412) 221-6012
FAX (412) 257-8854
Mayor
Donald Dolde: mayordolde@bridgevilleboro.com
Members of Council
Joseph Mizia, President: jmizia@bridgevilleboro.com
Nino Petrocelli, Sr., Vice President: npetrocelli@bridgevilleboro.com
Mary Weise, Council Member: mweise@bridgevilleboro.com
Terry Herbick, Council Member: therbick@bridgevilleboro.com
Michael Chiodo, Council Member: mchiodo@bridgevilleboro.com
Pasquale DeBlasio, Jr., Council Member: pdiblasio@bridgevilleboro.com
Jason Sarasnick, Council Member: jsarasnick@bridgevilleboro.com
Borough Manager
Lori Collins: lcollins@bridgevilleboro.com
hmmmm sounds like the local government official would rather punish the complainer instead of do their job & possibly alienate a local business.
This reminds me of the story of the couple charged with "stalking" because they complained repeatedly to a police chief about a particular police officer who routinely sped thru their neighborhood.
@EBone:
Zoning doesn't matter when there is a residential receiver for noise and I'm pretty sure air quality too (I only do noise).
The concrete factory was probably already there when he moved in and decided to triple capacity or something. I wonder what the noise ordinance, if any, says about that. Probably says that they can't be doing work at 2 am. Just a guess.
@trujunglist: My point is, zoning typically prohibits such incompatible land uses from occurring in close proximity to each other.
Of course, it could be like Houston was in the 1970s and 80s, when there was no zoning, and people could (and did) open up 24-hour tile cutting businesses in the middle of a residential block after tearing down the existing house, and the neighbors could do nothing about it.
Holy shit, everyone remember what happened last time a citizen's fight with a concrete plant made headlines?





























I think I'd like to pick up some of that "ready-mix complaint." That's some good stuff!
;-)