American Mirror – by Victor Skinner A Pennsylvania man was fined $100, plus court costs, for waving a finger gun at his neighbor, who reportedly felt “extremely threatened” by the ordeal.
The incident occurred last June when 64-year-old Manor Township resident Stephen Kirchner was walking in his neighborhood with a female neighbor and a homeowner who had a simmering dispute with the woman flipped him two middle fingers, he told police.
Court records allege Kirchner then “stopped, made eye contact with (the male neighbor) and then made a hand gesture at him imitating the firing and recoiling of a gun,” Fox News reports.
The pretend shooting was caught on cameras installed by the homeowner as part of the dispute with Kirchner’s female companion, who was also the subject of a no-contact order, according to WGAL.
The gesture allegedly made the targeted neighbor feel “extremely threatened,” while another who witnessed the reckless finger firing told police she also felt “insecure” about the situation and called 911.
Police issued Kirchner a citation for disorderly conduct and he was convicted in January after testifying in his own defense. Kirchner did not deny he made the gesture, but said it was in response to the neighbor who “gave (him) the finger with both hands,” according to court records.
Kirchner appealed the conviction and “argued on appeal that the gesture did not cause a hazardous or physical offensive condition, that he did not intend to cause public alarm, and that there essentially was no harm done to the victim or society,” according to a statement from the DA’s office to WGAL.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania on Tuesday disagreed with Kirchner’s argument and concluded he did create a “hazardous condition” when he popped off his finger gun because it “risked an altercation.”
“… Kirchner … approached (the neighbor) in his own backyard, created a gun-like hand gesture, pointed it at (the neighbor), and made a recoil motion as if to suggest he had shot him,” according to the court ruling. “This act served no legitimate purpose, and recklessly risked provoking a dangerous situation.”
The court found Kirchner “did, in fact, cause public alarm, annoyance or inconvenience” because the neighbor “felt extremely threatened and (the neighbor witness) felt insecure enough following her observation of the incident that she called emergency services.
“The (lower) court concluded that Kirchner’s conduct ‘caused the very harm sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense’” and the Superior Court could “discern no abuse of discretion of this analysis,” according to the ruling.
