See, the "special people" simply do not care what their actions mean to others; these are the same people who disregard right-or left-turn only lanes, drive on the shoulder when traffic is heavy, take up two parking spaces because their precious car deserves extra space, think "yield" is for everyone but them, and, yes, don't understand why it's a problem to take up an express line with a full cart-ful of items.

They get mad at you for pointing out their inconsiderate attitude, and will never, ever see themselves as being in the wrong; you just have to "deal with it."

If citations needed to be issued, they should have been issued to the woman who called 911 because of J's words.

While it would be nice if there were something that would teach the special people some consideration of others, I think it's one of those things that is generally an exercise in futility.

Wait for her response and I'll bet it'll completely disarm her. And she may demonstrate that she too is not a bad person by apologizing back.

"Wisconsin Disorderly Conduct Laws

Under Wisconsin Statute 947.01 - Disorderly Conduct - police are given very vague and very broad authority to arrest people in both public and private places (including their homes) for any conduct that may (in the police officer's opinion) be either provoking or causing a disturbance currently, or that has the potential to provoke or cause a disturbance after police leave the scene.

    WI Statute 947.01: Disorderly Conduct. Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.

Police arrest people for disorderly conduct by citing many types of behavior. As well, the behavior that could be classified as being "disorderly" need not be currently obvious. The behavior could have occurred prior to police arriving on the scene. Even if no disturbance appears to be occurring at the time that police arrive on the scene, but it appears to a police officer that there is a potential for the behavior to continue after police leave the scene, an arrest can (and often does) occur."

We have a GREAT Section 1983 case here and a facial challenge to the statute. But better is the "as applied" challenge.

As long as we are playing armchair lawyer, what was the period of time between the 911 call and the arrival of the police officer?

Did an altercation occur?

Did the store clerk finish checking out the other person's purchases before the arrival of the officer?

Did anyone from the store make a statement to the police?

while I commisserate with you on the woman having had some bad behavior to cheat the line,

it still doesn't work to call someone in public fat and ugly--whether or not they are fat and ugly, whether or not they are in the wrong line.

I think you have lost; it is disorderly conduct on your part to make a very large insult to someone who might react badly, and who, in more violent times, might have become more aggressive.

that said, the 911 call was frivolous & the caller, not J, should have received the citation

Me thinks shopper should also get a violation. Her complaint should not have gone past store manager. But, perhaps because she knew she was wrong . . .

wonderful in a completely sad and ridiculous way

hese annoy me for a whole host of reasons, but the point here is that the rule can't really be legally enforced; they're a store courtesty, not the law, and if a non-pregnant woman or a family without kids parks there, there really isn't anything they can do. But if a non-disabled person parks in a disabled spot--that's breaking the law and they can and will enforce it, and the person doing so will face hefty fines.

But that's state law, it's not "store policy."

should you fail to pursue all legal remedies, and have this citation quashed, or tossed. continued legal troubles await you, trust me on this.

take the harsh road: aggressively pursue this issue in court, dig up everything negative, about both the lady in question, and the idiot responding officer. alert the media (personally, i love talking with reporters, they're so..............eager), name names. if possible, include the idiot store manager, as well as contacting the the hq (big corps hate negative publicity).

in short, make yourself the biggest pain in the ass that part of WI, and those involved, have or ever will see. if you are found guilty, make sure the idiot judge's name is exposed for all the world to see, especially his law school classmates. give them a good laugh at his expense.

file a civil suit yourself (heck, a couple of them), against both the woman, and the locality, for violating your constitutional freedom of speech. make sure you sue the cop, police force, city, prosecutor and judge individually. none of them are entitled to protection, for knowingly violating the law. make it hurt personally.

consider contacting the WI ACLU, since this is a free speech issue.

the big thing is, make it as painful, for all parties concerned, as you possibly can, both publicly and privately. be sure to name names, in public, to the media. embarrass the hell out of them.

Although this bit refers specifically to electronic communications, I can't imagine that the same message delivered in person and in front of other people would be any less of an offense:

If the intent was to do something ... such as to harass, annoy or offend another person, then the sending of a message via email or any other communication system is a Class B forfeiture.

Basically as I see it the complain-tent in this matter was in such a hurry that they couldn't wait 5 minutes for such a terribly injustice to be carried out before their eyes.

Rather then walk over and point this out to the manager said person decided to become a grocery store vigilante and take matters into their own hands.  Not saying for a moment that the 60 item person isn't at fault one has to wonder what other issues the complain-tent in this mater has that they feel the need to step in.

Then they got theirs when the obviously rude person over reacted to an insult in the form of a question that I'm sure was said loud enough and for effect so that everyone in the area knew that this person had been called out for their rudeness.

Point being that any form of sympathy I would have for the victim went out the window when they responded to rudeness with rudeness.

If you ever want to see British queuing at its best, go to Victoria Station in London during the rush hour and watch the people filter out of the station and queue for the buses - long snaking queues stretching patiently across the concourse, some with gaps in to allow buses (and people) to go through.

Except, that is, when the Underground Train drivers are on strike. When that happens, every single Tube commuter tries to use the buses instead, and a significant portion seem to decide that the queues obviously don't apply to them because their journey is far more important and must be completed RIGHT NOW!!!11ONEONE.

In other words, they become queue jumpers.

Queue jumpers are generally a weasily and cowardly lot who like to pick on the weak. In contrast, I'm a big stocky bloke with a shaven head. It doesn't matter that on the inside I'm a nerdy bloke who generally wouldn't hurt a fly, when John McQueuejump skulks into view he generally scurries quickly past me avoiding my gaze and looks for better prey.

This was exactly what happened one day, when I found myself part of the aforementioned queuing at Victoria during a Tube Strike......