Art class is not what it
used to be. When I was a student back
in New York in my formative great years, the most controversial thing to take
place in my art class was having our rather heavy-set art teacher sit on me as
punishment. I don’t think that behavior
would cut it these days; however, it is nothing compared to a matter which came
out of an art class in the San Francisco area last year. In this case, a fifteen-year-old high school
student was upset because a police officer arrested him for possession of
marijuana. The minor, who is being
identified as Ryan D. was cited for marijuana possession by Officer Laurie
MacPhail when she found Ryan off campus during school hours. The following month, Ryan had a project due
for his painting class. Ryan did not
submit your average painting. His was
of a young man firing a hand gun at the back of the head of a female peace
officer. Ms. MacPhail is obviously
female. The officer in Ryan’s painting
was wearing a uniform with a badge number 67.
Laurie MacPhail’s badge number is 67.
In this painting, the
shooter looked like Ryan, and it showed pieces of the officer’s flesh and face
being blown away.
It should be noted that
before giving out the assignment, the art teacher told the students that they
could not paint scenes of violence.
Needless to say, the art teacher thought that this command was violated,
she decided that there might be something worth pursuing here, and she
contacted her superiors at the high school.
They then contacted the police.
Ryan was prosecuted and charged in juvenile court with making terrorist
threats. He testified at his trial that
this painting was not a threat; rather it was the way he expressed his
feelings. He also indicated that he did
not expect Officer MacPhail to see it, which indicated that a threat to the
officer was not at all on his mind. The
Superior Court Judge was not convinced, and found Ryan guilty of making the
threat. Ryan appealed, and the District
Court of Appeal unanimously overturned his conviction, as the Justices decided
that this was merely an expression of Ryan’s anger through his painting and did
not constitute a criminal threat. The
Court acknowledges that school administrators had every right to be concerned
about the painting, but the Court concluded that Ryan was not guilty of any
crime. The Court noted that Ryan didn’t
paint this until a month after his arrest, he turned it in expecting to get
credit for it, and he did not expect the officer to see it.
The Penal Code Section
under which Ryan was prosecuted, which is Penal Code Section 422, requires “an immediate and specific
threat.” The Court noted that when the
school administrators contacted the Police Department, Ryan was not arrested
immediately. The Court deemed this
circumstantial evidence that no immediate or specific threat was deemed by the
Police Department to have taken place.
This case was prosecuted by
Deputy Attorney General Harry Colombo.
Mr. Colombo acknowledged the appropriateness of the Appellate
Court’s decision, indicating that, in his opinion, the evidence was pretty
thin. Even he, the prosecutor, thought
that it was a stretch to deem this painting a terrorist threat, and he is not
planning to appeal the Appellate Court’s ruling.
So what do you think? I don’t think a crime was committed here;
however, I do not believe Ryan has exercised good judgement. He skipped school, possessed marijuana and
got caught. He then, rather than take
responsibility for his actions, decided to blame Officer MacPhail.
If you want to skip school
and smoke marijuana instead, that’s fine, but if you make that choice and get
caught, accept responsibility. In my
therapy practice, I have seen a number of teenage boys who have been in similar
situations, and if and when they get caught, they accept responsibility. It’s one thing to do something wrong and
acknowledge that it’s wrong and decide to take your chances anyway. It is another thing entirely to do something
wrong, and then, if you are caught, blame someone else.
Unless Ryan gets it
together, I don’t think he’s going to end up as someone who makes a major
contribution to this society. He is
only fifteen, however, and hopefully, he will grow emotionally in the coming
years.
Dr. Charles J. Unger is a criminal defense attorney
in the Glendale law firm of Flanagan, Booth & Unger, and a therapist at the
Foothill Center for Personal and Family Growth. Mr. Under writes a bimonthly column on legal and psychological
issues. He can be reached at charlieunger @hotmail.com