# Student charged for stealing free milk. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 25, 2016, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-charged-for-stealing-free-milk/755625 "2016-05-25T03:55:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![yellowjacketcoder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/4bbf92/32.png) [@yellowjacketcoder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yellowjacketcoder)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-charged-for-stealing-free-milk/755625/121 "2016-05-27T14:00:01Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Abso-fuckin-lutely not. You never touch a child in a school to stop them unless you have to e.g. preventing a fight or other violent act. The first thing would be to call out his name or at least yell out hey to get his attention. As people around what his name is then call it out. Follow him to where he will drink his illicit milk while chortling over his masterful crime. A lot of things you can do before grabbing him. Clearly we disagree. Of course, you’re also disagreeing with most of the teachers, mentors, and other authority figures I had growing up, and I managed to graduate high school without getting arrested, so it’s not like I mind disagreeing with you. > [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Like I said before, the kid is black so he’s lucky the cop didn’t put him in a chokehold for resisting arrest. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-charged-for-stealing-free-milk/755625/122 "2016-05-27T14:07:56Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > [From the Florida statute](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0843/Sections/0843.02.html): “Whoever shall . . . obstruct . . . any officer . . . in the lawful execution of any legal duty . . . .” > > Yet here we have a matter in which the officer was acting in the lawful execution of his legal duty, but the skid who obstructed the officer in the lawful execution of the officer’s legal duty skated due the skid not having been legally detained. The statute does not mention a thing one way or the other about detention, which makes it vague, such that the average person upon reading it would assume the law reaches further than it actually does and submit to the officer’s request rather than risk being arrested based on an ordinary meaning of the words. So what? That still doesn’t suggest that the ordinary meaning of the word “obstruct” is the same as “any disagreement or displeasure.” The claim you’re defending, by proxy, is the law is defined “…so broadly that any disagreement or displeasure becomes an arrestable offense.” In the case you quote, the words used went beyond simple disagreement and displeasure; they were a lie, and one that sought to mislead the officer. It’s true that since the officer had not detained the speaker, that speaker was free to offer such a lie, and it’s true that this distinction may not be apparent on reading the statute – but it remains crystal clear that this conduct was not merely disagreement or displeasure, but a more active attempt to interfere. So what law is defined so broadly that **any disagreement or displeasure** becomes an arrestable offense? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-charged-for-stealing-free-milk/755625/123 "2016-05-27T15:01:55Z")
So what law is defined so broadly that **any disagreement or displeasure** becomes an arrestable offense? [/QUOTE] That law is so vague that the average person upon reading it would assume the law reaches further than it actually does and submit to the officer’s request rather than risk being arrested based on an ordinary meaning of the words. That in turn means that a person who disagrees or expresses displeasure would assume, on a plain reading of the vague law, that the law reaches further than it actually does, and submit to the officer’s request rather than risk being arrested on an ordinary meaning of the words of the statute. If you want to parse “any”, be my guest, but you’d be missing the forest for the trees. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-charged-for-stealing-free-milk/755625/124 "2016-05-27T15:08:32Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The officer is an idiot. He’s assigned to keep the piece at a middle school cafeteria. That’s a step down from traffic control at a park jogging trail. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2016, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-charged-for-stealing-free-milk/755625/125 "2016-05-27T23:35:17Z")
> [@yellowjacketcoder](#): > > Clearly we disagree. Of course, you’re also disagreeing with most of the teachers, mentors, and other authority figures **I had growing up** , and I managed to graduate high school without getting arrested, so it’s not like I mind disagreeing with you. \Oh wow its 2016. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2016, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-charged-for-stealing-free-milk/755625/126 "2016-05-28T01:22:48Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > So what law is defined so broadly that **any disagreement or displeasure** becomes an arrestable offense? That law is so vague that the average person upon reading it would assume the law reaches further than it actually does and submit to the officer’s request rather than risk being arrested based on an ordinary meaning of the words. That in turn means that a person who disagrees or expresses displeasure would assume, on a plain reading of the vague law, that the law reaches further than it actually does, and submit to the officer’s request rather than risk being arrested on an ordinary meaning of the words of the statute. If you want to parse “any”, be my guest, but you’d be missing the forest for the trees. [/QUOTE] No. The vast majority of Americans understand that the First Amendment protects their right to offer disagreement or displeasure in that circumstance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/student-charged-for-stealing-free-milk/755625.md?page=6)