Cartoonists and the law: Steve Rude update

www.steverudeart.com 2011 11 4 124058 Cartoonists and the law: Steve Rude update
Following up news of Monday’s arrest of Steve “The Dude” Rude on charges of assault and violating a restraining order, Tom Spurgeon got further details of the night in question from Rude’s wife Jaynelle. It seems that on Halloween evening, Steve was outside, in costume, giving out Halloween candy, when barking dogs in a neighbor’s yard distracted the Dude, which led him to throw rocks at the fence in front of the barking dogs. The owners of the dogs — who had previously obtained the restraining order against Rude — came out and an argument ensued, which ended with Rude physically shoving one of the neighbors and ripping his shirt off. Rude then returned to handing out his Halloween candy until the police showed up and arrested him.

According to Jaynelle, Rude suffered some physical injuries while in police custody — given the Maricopa Sheriff Dept’s rep as giving third world dictatorships a run for their money in the punishment category, this is pretty easy to believe.

To anyone who knows the Dude at all, a mental movie of this incident — with episodes of Rude serenely giving out candy bracketing an angry, violent confrontation — is easily conjured.

Some have wondered if Rude’s actions should be supported by buying art to pay for his defense. It’s no secret that Rude has suffered from depression in recent years, which has severely cramped his ability to make a living. Although we only know Rude’s side of the story, it’s pretty easy to build up a mental picture of the ongoing feud between neighbors as well. It doesn’t sound like anyone is too innocent in this whole story, and Rude would seem to need some kind of anger management therapy going forward, but based on what we know, I’d say that if you like Steve Rude’s artwork, buying a piece now won’t violate the karma police too much.

UPDATE: I screwed up a very important fact in the report from Jaynelle, which is that Rude threw rocks at the FENCE IN FRONT OF THE DOGS, not at the dogs themselves.

Comments

  1. Joe Lawler says:

    I have a dog that barks at anyone on the other side of the fence.She’s small, so it’s not deafening to the whole neighborhood, but it’s annoying. When she does it I apologize, pick her up and take her inside.

    We kept a close eye on her on Halloween because of that.

    However, if someone threw a rock at my dog I would probably flip out. I love his art but I’m not feeling a lot of sympathy for him after hearing this side of the story.

  2. Awaiting more from the Rude camp as to his side of the story, but I agree with Joe Lawler. Hard to feel sympathy for someone who evidently threw rocks at dogs.

  3. George Bush (not that one) says:

    Rude is a Red Lantern !

  4. Tyler Ragan says:

    It’s nice to see concern over the dogs and all, but the actual article link says that Steve threw the rocks at the fence in front of the dogs to get them to back off and be quiet, not at the actual dogs.

    Huge difference in intent there.

  5. Steve and his family seem to be wonderful folks. I’m so sorry to hear about this – but I am encouraged that the comics community at large are supporting this great talent.

  6. Dipsodian C says:

    I live in Phoenix, and I get pretty tired of the “rep” that is given to the entire Maricopa Sheriff’s Department because of Joe Arpaio. That kinda bullshit went out with the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929…

  7. traci says:

    Throwing rocks at a fence with the expectation of silencing dogs is like screaming at a baby to get it to go to sleep.

  8. Chris Hero says:

    In any situation, you’ll always lose me when the “throwing rocks” card is put on the table.

    @traci

    Really great analogy. I was trying to think of a comparable one, but you nailed it.

  9. Raymond Rose says:

    I’m not PARTICULARLY thrilled with The Dude’s throwing ROCKS at the dogs…Dogs BARK. That’s what they DO! It’s their FIRST line of defense in protecting their territory.
    But I did not know about the mental problems he’s been having. I guess they prevented him from doing something as simple as just going to the neighbor’s door, knocking, and registering his complaint about the the barking dogs with the neighbor.
    Plus, he could have ALWAYS called the police himself on his neighbor, with a ” disturbing the peace ” charge.
    This NEVER should have happened THIS way…

  10. Lannie says:

    Yeah, I was pretty pissed when the call first started making the rounds on all the sites about how we should buy art to support him. Support someone arrested for assault. With no full story. And then later on, instead of the full story the implication that we should help supplement his income because he doesn’t work on projects he doesn’t believe in. That’s his choice, as an adult, with dependants to make, not ours to clean up after. I’m pretty sure most of the people working at McDonalds don’t believe in what they’re doing, but at least they’re not begging. Or throwing rocks at dogs.

  11. Matthew Southworth says:

    I’m a big-time dog lover, and I agree with Joe way up top–if someone threw rocks at my dog, I’d go completely nuts. If he was throwing the rocks at the fence, that may not be rational, but it’s a totally different thing.

    Not to mention that it’s Halloween–if kids are coming up your walkway to get candy, and the neighbors’ dogs are going apeshit, you’d certainly get incensed. Surely the neighbors could put the dogs inside on Halloween?

    But this incident doesn’t appear to be based on the dogs’ behavior but on a long-term dispute between neighbors. Maybe Steve’s the asshole, maybe the neighbors are the asshole–most likely, everyone’s acting like an asshole at this point. That’s how domestic disputes develop.

  12. Matthew Southworth says:

    @Lannie–

    My own reading of the posts to support Steve Rude were basically this: we’re being given notice that a fantastic comic artist is in trouble, and if you love his work, you might consider helping him out.

    I have had friends who did stupid stuff, some have gone to jail, one threw a flower pot at a girlfriend, lots of horrible behavior (fortunately no one was ever physically harmed). I still support those friends as people–I love them even though I think they’ve done things I find objectionable.

    Steve Rude’s choice not to do work he thinks is crap is his own choice and one he’s made some financial sacrifices for, certainly. But he’s not begging, either. He continues to work, and he got himself in a bind a year or so ago but was able to get out of it. Begging is asking for handouts, not selling your work at bargain-basement prices when there’s a crisis.

    The point all along was, if you admire Steve Rude’s work, now’s a time he could use some extra income, so you might consider this a good time to buy.

    Or, alternatively, to judge.

  13. @Dipsodian C, Since Sherrif Joe and his tank are in charge of the Maricopa Sheriff’s Department, it’s pretty easy to see why his unconsitutional actions, racism and antagonistic actions is given to everyone who works for him.

    But I have no idea what you meant by “That kinda bullshit went out with the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929…”

  14. Who the heck leaves their dogs in the yard on Halloween? That’s a recipe for a cacophony barking, and I say that as the owner of three dogs.

  15. Matthew Southworth says:

    @Chad–right on!

  16. Guy throws rocks at dogs and puts his hands on someone who already has a restraining order. He’s looking at getting jail time over this. You cannot just ignore a restraining order, let along put your hands on the person.

    He might make pretty pictures, but I’m really glad Steve Rude doesn’t live next door to me.

  17. John Smith says:

    Rude didn’t throw rocks at the dogs. According to the link, “Rude responded to the barking dogs by throwing rocks at the fence behind which the dogs were barking.” Perhaps Jess Lemon is reporting again, and hence the confusion?

  18. How does throwing rocks at a fence quiet barking dogs? All that would do is rile them up even more. It’s not like they would know someone is throwing rocks at them. They would hear the sound of rocks hitting the fence and bark even more.

  19. Lannie says:

    @ Matthew ~

    Yes, I do in fact reserve the right to do what you call judging when someone goes out of the way to broadcasts their situation on the internets. That is, in fact, the flip side of publicity.

    What I really have an issue with here, is that all of the articles I saw, on many sites, gave the implication that we should all help bail out an arrested artist solely because he’s part of our community – one of our own – with none of the backstory even being deemed relevant.

    I don’t really see how your choosing to back a friend who likes to throw flowerpots at his girlfriend is relevant to that.

  20. Matthew Southworth says:

    @Lannie–

    The relevance is that if you like Steve’s work, or for that matter, like him personally–as I do, having met him at conventions and talked to him a bit–that you might consider it a good time to help him out. When I’ve had friends who’ve gotten themselves into trouble, I still considered them friends, and so I tried to help them even if I believed what they’d done to be wrong.

    Whatever, I don’t care whether you buy Steve Rude’s art or not. Only you can make that decision; I just choose not to judge the guy since I wasn’t involved in what is obviously a complicated incident and I don’t know anything about it except the little snippets I’ve read.

  21. Jim Engel says:

    I had a neighbor whose dog barked all the time, and no matter how much I asked him to keep the dog quiet, he wouldn’t. So—I STOLE his dog and put him in MY yard, so he could see how HE liked it!

  22. Lannie says:

    @Matthew – that’s exactly my point. None of us DID know the situation. I just don’t think it’s right that comic fans are hit up for bail money like that based on fandom only – with no additional disclosure.

  23. faboofour says:

    “The owners of the dogs — who had PREVIOUSLY OBTAINED THE RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST RUDE — came out and an argument ensued, which ended with Rude physically shoving one of the neighbors and RIPPING HIS SHIRT OFF.” (emphasis added)

    How very odd that the majority of responses are discussing Rude’s behavior towards the dogs!

    Can you imagine the headlines if this was the 1950s? “CRAZED CRIME CARTOONIST COMMITS MAYHEM UPON NEIGHBORHOOD AFTER WARNING BY LAW OFFICIALS! — ‘We need to protect our children from these perverts by registering them!’ says local parent.”

    Personally, I wouldn’t contribute to support this “gentleman”‘s legal fees unless assurances were made that he gets himself into some serious rehab. While I recognize as a given that all news reports are sensationalized these days, if these two points — that a restraining order was already filed against him and that, after he was legally warned, he physically assaulted another human being — are true, he really should be locked away until his alleged emotional issues are resolved.

    Or are you all so besotted by fantasy stories about vigilantes that you really can’t see how obviously dangerous this person has proven himself to be to others and to himself (again, if the reporting herein is accurate)?

  24. Tom Spurgeon says:

    I don’t see what the big deal is. If you wanted some story as to roughly what he did when you saw the initial posts, then you could wait. If you want more, wait some more. If you don’t think he deserves support, don’t support him.

    I think the real story here is how incredibly lame Arizona is if they could spare four cars on Halloween night for a dispute between neighbors.

    Also to whether or not throwing rocks at a fence is effective or not, I’ve kicked a fence to get a barking dog’s attention, mainly when their bark is giving me a headache. But most importantly throwing rocks at a fence is not throwing rocks at dogs.

  25. Arizona is lame? The cops got a complaint someone with an order of protection was assaulted by the person named in the order. Four cop cars seems like a typical response.

  26. Tom Spurgeon says:

    That was a joke, Rick. Sheesh. See, I’m saying that on Halloween night… oh, never mind.

    If you’re going to take yourself so seriously, maybe you could spend some of that grim, moral, judgmental tone into being gentlemanly enough to apologize for publicly misstating above what Rude did to the dogs rather than shift what should have been your brief “my bad; I can’t read” into a whine that throwing rocks at a fence wouldn’t work the way Rude says he wanted it to.

  27. Tyler Ragan says:

    Before anyone else comments on how Steve must be “worst neighbor of the year” or a “psychopath”, take into consideration what his neighbors may have been doing to get him to this state. For all we know, they could’ve been egging him on that evening in hopes that he would do something to break that restraining order.

    In my opinion, anyone who would leave a couple of braking disruptive dogs outside on Halloween night, are probably disrespectful to the whole neighborhood and a pain in the butt to deal reasonably with.

    Steve generally doesn’t come off as the hot-headed type and has been well-respected in the comic community. That’s why an immediate plea for assistance was reported by many sites. While Lannie makes a good point, the people who would want to help Steve would be the people who know him well enough to want to help. I would have if I coulda afforded it. I know Steve is one of the good guys here.

  28. If you have a restraining order against you, don’t throw rocks, lay hands and rip shirts. I’m sorry Steve had to spend time in a holding cell on Halloween with drunk werewolves and Draculas. Hope it all works out.

  29. Tom Spurgeon says:

    As for “faboofour,” taking shots at people that want to show some compassion as if they’re demanding everyone do the same and equating that to being besotted with vigilante comics is only funny in that you’re the one sporting a wacky nom de plume and attempting to apply a specific ethical judgment.

    Look, people fuck up, including people that draw comics. I know I do. Nothing Rude is said to have done here is outside of the bounds of pretty common human experience, and is certainly far less than the frequent exploitation and cheapening of people’s lives to which many comics fans will leap to some sort of might-makes-right defense without thinking. Expressing some sympathy for what happened — through the simple acknowledgement that some people might want to lend a hand or, hell, just learn about a sale from a talented artist and profit without thinking about the reasons why for two seconds, doesn’t sign anyone on into a comprehensive moral defense of any and all actions, and certainly not to the degree that they are somehow compelling you to sign on in support of that same thing.

    I appreciate the Rudes’ candor. You might not. I can sympathize with what is said to have happened. You might not. That doesn’t mean you have to argue as if someone is twisting your arm because they don’t have your exact moral outlook. If nothing else, it makes you sound super-defensive in taking those positions. “Wow, I can’t support that” would pretty much suffice. Believe me, the vast majority of the people that are sympathetic to Rude understand your position, too.

  30. Tom Spurgeon says:

    Like Ian Boothby just did, yeah.

  31. The Beat says:

    I would also like to point out that people are not being asked to donate ANYTHING. They are being offered the chance to PURCHASE outstanding artwork at a discount price, and by so doing help an artist out of a tough spot.

    If anything can be held against Steve Rude, it’s his sheer productivity — as anyone who has ever seen his sketchbooks know, he can turn out technically amazing pieces every hour on the hour.

    You are getting value for your money here.

    And of course, anyone who does not want to make a purchase because Rude was mean to them or their dog…well that’s fine.

  32. @Tom – Apologize for what? Heidi originally wrote that Steve threw rocks at the dogs. My first comment was in reference to that. She’s since retracted that, as well adding an update to the post stating that she “screwed up a very important fact” that Steve thew at the fence and not the dogs.

    Instead implying that I can’t read, maybe you should go re-read the above post.

  33. @The Beat – They did ask for donations on Facebook, but they did say they would rather have people buy something.

  34. Tom Spurgeon says:

    Heidi’s statement was corrected in the comments two and a half hours before you posted.

    If only you were half as rigorous looking into Steve’s explanations as you demand people be in putting together one on your behalf.

  35. Tom Spurgeon says:

    BTW, I think the reason an explanation wasn’t given right away as Lannie complains about is that Jaynelle didn’t know what happened, not even her husband’s side. As soon as she knew and got back to me I ran that update piece, and I’m glad people like Heidi updated with pieces of their own.

  36. @Tom – Corrected in the comments? My comment was made in reference to what Heidi originally wrote, not something posted by someone else in the comment section.

    And I haven’t read Steve’s explanations. Like most people, I’ve read only his wife’s explanations about the incident.

  37. >> I just don’t think it’s right that comic fans are hit up for bail money like that based on fandom only – with no additional disclosure. >>

    Then don’t pitch in.

    People ask for money (or have sales) for all kinds of reasons, but it’s voluntary. You don’t think it’s worth your buying something, hey, it’s voluntary. Don’t buy.

    But not everyone will share your stance; surely it’s permissible to ask for help (or have a sale) even for things you don’t support.

  38. Tom Spurgeon says:

    Rick, you suggested in your post that it’s perfectly logical for me to have re-read Heidi’s comments and infer from a construction of her new post and her old post that what you said was misinformed — thus no apology from you is necessary. Now you’re suggesting that in addition to that I believe you wouldn’t read anyone else’s posts before commenting even though most people do and you’re reading them close enough now to split hairs over semantics.

    That just seems silly to me, and a clear double-standard concerning the rigor you demand of others and the rigor you demand of yourself.

    I actually bet you did read them — most people do — but the thought of you scrolling past potential corrections and blowing off checking the original piece in a hurry to get to the comments box in order to pass judgment on someone is equally hilarious, made sad only by a refusal to say “my bad.” I like to think you held your hand up to block the screen.

    When I pass along bad information I try to apologize for doing so; I hope I don’t count on people having more rigorous reading habits than I’ll admit to having. It’s fine you disagree. I’ve had my say. Best to you.

    Busiek’s right. Just don’t give. No one’s tried to convince anyone beyond a polite request for consideration, and reacting as if they’re endorsing anything other than that consideration, or pushing a stance on you, says more about the odd, not-the-boss-of-me pathologies of comics fans than it does about anything else.

    As I’ve said elsewhere, I hope that the Rudes receive a just outcome, and that through their own actions and beneficial circumstance never face another incident like this again.

  39. Chris Hero says:

    This debate is weird. The guy threw rocks, shoved a person, and ripped off a shirt. If people want to give him money to defend himself, power to them. It’s their money, they could burn it for all I care.

  40. From the story we’re getting, it’s pretty hard to justify Steve’s actions. But aside from him being a magnificent illustrator, consider for a moment his family. Jaynelle is a wonderful lady, and their bright, lovely children are just entering their “tween” years (I met them at Mike Baron’s wedding back in 2009). They need to have papa at home, working, not languishing in some cage.

    If you have some cash to spare, buy a freakin print or painting from the Rudes for chrissake.

  41. svenj says:

    tom and heidi, you can argue away all the criticisms you want—and isnt it interesting that this has drawn more comments from tom than any story in recent memory.

    fact remains that many folks find this creepy.

    we are allowed to feel that way, btw…

  42. svenj says:

    “the odd, not-the-boss-of-me pathologies of comics fans than it does about anything else”

    tom, you include YOURSELF in this grotesque generalization, don’t you?

  43. svenj says:

    “surely it’s permissible to ask for help (or have a sale) even for things you don’t support.”

    —yes, kurt it is.

    just as it should be permissable to question this when the supporters keep coming back and trying to re-justify their rights.

    look, i am not the only reader to feel the creepiness here. disagree with us and then shut up about it already, ok?

  44. Yeah, one need only look at how Comics Alliance wrote up this sweet, sympathetic article praising Rude and his artwork to see there’s something wrong when comics news sites aren’t going to wait for the full story to break before picking a side.

    I would’ve been sympathetic to him if the story hadn’t turned out he defied the restraining order against him. Thankfully I waited.

    It’s not wrong for sites to offer people the chance to help him out. It is rather sketchy when the resulting message is, “Hey, now you can buy discounted pretty artwork by a creator who may or may not have major anger issues, we don’t know yet!”

    I don’t remember Justiniano getting this much sympathy when he was arrested for possession of child pornography.

  45. Matthew Southworth says:

    @Michael Aronson–

    Re: Justiniano–first of all, I do sympathize with that guy, because A) we don’t know the full story, only the legal accusation, and B) if he’s exonerated, his comics career is obviously tainted forever. And I’m not a fan of his work at all.

    And I’ve looked for updates on that situation and been able to find nothing.

    There’s nothing sketchy about suggesting that if you like someone’s work you might buy some of it. I have news for you: Kurt Cobain was a HEROIN ADDICT! HP Lovecraft was a xenophobic RACIST! Lou Reed is famously an ASSHOLE! Picasso was a WOMANIZER! William Burroughs killed his wife! Blah blah blah. . .I don’t do heroin, I am not a racist, I try to be a nice person, I don’t cheat on my girlfriend, and I’ve never killed anyone–but I do like all these artists, and I can have sympathy for them as people.

    On top of which, Steve Rude simply got in a fight with a neighbor. I’d say (and I bet he and his family would also say) he handled it poorly, and he shouldn’t have done it, but let’s not turn this into some ridiculous false equivalency with child pornography or Capital-C Crime.

  46. >> look, i am not the only reader to feel the creepiness here. disagree with us and then shut up about it already, ok? >>

    You want people to shut up.

    Lannie doesn’t think it’s right to ask for help in the first place, because he doesn’t like what he’s heard.

    I think the problem’s on your end, here — the idea that people shouldn’t talk unless you approve of it doesn’t make much sense. If Lannie doesn’t want to help, he doesn’t have to, but it doesn’t mean it’s wrong to ask for help in the first place. If you think it’s creepy, you’re entitled to, but it doesn’t mean I can’t say Lannie’s mistaken.

  47. Matthew Southworth says:

    Oh and Svenj–

    First of all, your assumption that this thread has gathered more comments than any other in recent memory is faulty. Unless your “recent memory” extends back about a week. There are a half dozen threads in the past month that have garnered more attention than this–October 27 is the whole “controversy” about whether people should give a dollar to Jack Kirby, for god’s sake (46 comments); Oct 21–layoffs at Marvel (88 comments); Oct 20–another layoff thread (43 comments), etc. etc.

    The thread immediately under this one features the complicated moral issue of “how do you feel about the Young Dr Doom miniseries being canceled!?” and it’s at 37 comments.

    To the issue of telling people to “shut up” because it’s “creepy”, and the asinine, teenage argument of “I’m not the only one to feel the creepiness here. Disagree with us and shut up, ok?”–it’s hard to argue with such an illogical stance in a more intelligent fashion than “go fuck yourself”, but Kurt did a good job.

    Maybe “majority rules” is the guiding principle in your house, but in my house–and I’d argue, here in the comments section of the Beat–responsible moral discussion is worth having, even when intelligent people take different sides. You’re welcome to join the discussion if you have something valuable to add.

    Otherwise, “shut up already”.

  48. Synsidar says:

    And I’ve looked for updates on that situation and been able to find nothing.

    Here’s official information on Josue Rivera’s (Justiniano’s) court proceedings.

    SRS

  49. Lannie says:

    @ Kurt

    >> But not everyone will share your stance; surely it’s permissible to ask for help (or have a sale) even for things you don’t support.

    >> Lannie doesn’t think it’s right to ask for help in the first place, because he doesn’t like what he’s heard.

    If Lannie doesn’t want to help, he doesn’t have to, but it doesn’t mean it’s wrong to ask for help in the first place. If you think it’s creepy, you’re entitled to, but it doesn’t mean I can’t say Lannie’s mistaken.>>

    I think you might be misinterpreting what I said because svenj’s being troll-y.

    I did not tell people not to support Rude. I did not say that things I disagree with shouldn’t exist. I don’t even remembering saying that people who need money for emergencies shouldn’t ask for help, as you seem to think I did.

    What I said is that I didn’t like the way the plea was originally presented, because there wasn’t even enough substance in it to make out a one-sided story, and that since there was an arrest and an assault involved, that this was bullshit journalism. I also said that I think “he doesn’t have a lot of money because sometimes he chooses not to work” is pretty lame as marketing tactics go.

    I did say something snarky about people who throw rocks at dogs, though.

  50. Matthew Southworth says:

    But Lannie, the disagreement here is I think founded on something evident in your sentence “‘he doesn’t have a lot of money. . .’ is pretty lame as marketing tactics go”.

    No one is marketing anything. It’s not shoddy journalism to say “hey, that guy you work with, his family just left him, so you might want to take him to lunch this week” without digging deeper into a (just-developing) story that might reveal he cheated on his spouse. It’s a notification that someone needs a little help.

    There are many here who’ve met Steve Rude, many more who like his work, who might want to help him out. It’s not an advertisement, it’s simply a note that someone’s in trouble.

    So fine, don’t help him. Your unwillingness to do so is duly noted, and no one disagrees with your making that decision. But there was nothing dishonest, shoddy, or lame about notifying others interested in Steve Rude that he’s in trouble.

  51. Matthew Southworth says:

    Just to clarify a clumsy metaphor in my above comment, I’m not trying to suggest that Steve Rude has had any family troubles or that anyone has cheated on anyone. . .I phrased that imaginary example pretty poorly there.

    My point is only that to notify people that a co-worker, friend, acquaintance needs help isn’t marketing, isn’t even really journalism in this case. It’s just simple kindness.

  52. Matthew Southworth says:

    Thanks for stopping in, Steve– Good points all. Your intellect is on display, and you sure put a button on the whole topic!

  53. ken meyer jr says:

    Those of you that ‘flipped out’ at Rude ‘throwing rocks at the dog’ obviously need some reading lessons. Did you not see the clarification that he threw a rock at the fence, not the dog? I imagine it wasn’t a Nuke LaLoosh fastball, but more like a lob in frustration. Me? I am on Rude’s side, having been around him personally, admired him professionally, and felt for his battle with his affliction while trying to support his family.

  54. Chris Hero says:

    I’m so confused. Have the goalposts moved from whether it’s ok for people to spend money in ways others disagree with to whether it’s ok to have an opinion about doing it? Because it sure seems that way to me.

    To everyone sending some money Rude’s way – you’re good people. You’re supporting someone in their hour of need, and even though others and I disagree with you, you’re still good people.

  55. >> I think you might be misinterpreting what I said because svenj’s being troll-y.
    >> I did not tell people not to support Rude. I did not say that things I disagree with shouldn’t exist. I don’t even remembering saying that people who need money for emergencies shouldn’t ask for help, as you seem to think I did.>>

    I was going by your argument that it’s “not right” to ask for help in that way. That would suggest you don’t think it should have been done, as opposed to simply declining to participate yourself, but letting the request go out to others who might not agree with you.

  56. I don’t recall anyone saying people can’t contribute, or that no one’s allowed to spread this message.

    The whole point is the way in which it’s presented.

  57. Because, you know, there are creators out there who are in need of financial aide, and didn’t violate a restraining order to get to that point.

  58. Vince Argondezzi says:

    Jeez, wait till Fredrick Wertham hears about THIS! (I know, I know he’s dead)

    But I hope this works out for the Dude.

    One thing tho…if the neighbor had a restraining order on Rude…

    …why did he come over on Steve’s property and confront him??? Shouldn’t he have waited for law enforcement?

  59. jjflash78 says:

    Here’s how I picture it.

    Person A and Person B have a history of not being friendly with each other.

    Person A is on his own property.
    Person B’s dog is barking.
    Unknown size of dog. Big dog, small dog. Could be a dangerous breed.
    Person A gets annoyed. Wants the dog to shut up.
    There is a fence between Person A and Person B’s dog.
    Unknown if it is Person A’s fence or Person B’s fence. Unknown if it is a chain link, iron, or wood fence.
    Person A throws a rock to try to scare dog away. Hits the fence.
    Unknown the size of the rock. Unknown what velocity rock was thrown. Unknown if rock (rocks) hit near dog, or a distance away.

    (Have you ever tried to throw a rock through a fence? You’re not going to hit anything even if you try.)

    Person B gets annoyed. Confronts Person A on Person A’s property.

    If Person B had a restraining order against Person A, then why did Person B approach Person A? Why did Person B go onto Person A’s property?

    Person A defends self. While on own property.

    Person A gets arrested?

    ————————-
    To me, if Person A remained on their own property the entire time, then Person A should be vindicated of any wrong doing, especially because it seems that Person B was provoking Person A into action.

  60. Re: JJFlash78

    I’m absolutely with you on your analysis. When a restraining order is issued – it has to be abided by both parties. Person B should have been arrested too if the confrontation took place on Person A’s property. A restraining order is not a two way street.

    I had a similar situation with my neighbor in a apartment complex who was working in the adult film business. We dated for half a year and along the way the relationship soured and she thought it would be cool to get a restraining order against me. What she also thought was “cool” was to send her ex-husband to bash my head in and he miserably failed to do so when he tried to ambush me on my second floor patio which ended with me turning the tables on him to bash his head in the patio floor, leaving his face as a crater imprint(which I took a photo of and proudly had framed by the way). For the first time in my life, I could’ve gotten arrested, but I think the police were really impressed that a 5′ 4 tall runt like me had the cojones to rush headlong like Wolverine into someone that was a stocky 6 ft something way massive than my size and walked away leaving his face a bloody mess – so they gave me a pass, although technically the ‘patio’ was management property. The police finally came to my reasoning that the ex-husband attacked me for no provocation (other than pissing off his ex-wife) on my own rented property and I was only merely trying to defend myself from bodily harm. So when a court hearing came up, I presented the police report to the court (that I had to obtain for a modest fee) and some copies of rude photos that she had sent to my work e-mail address that (which was Paramount Pictures at the time) – they turned around and arrested her for violating her own “restraining order” and had it thrown out of court. Needless to say, restraining orders don’t favor well on background checks -so that was a big sigh of relief on my part.

    So judging from my experience – this neighbor of Rude’s egged him on. Some are inclined to believe that possession of a restraining order gives you a certain higher power or right over someone who thinks he or she can toy with you or up the ante with needless head games (for instance: my ex-neighbor’s garage was directly beneath my bedroom – and she sure as shit didn’t waste multiple opportunities to slam her garage door at 3 in the AM- to violently roust me from my slumbers). That fence would also have been on Rude’s property too and he would have had every right to beam a few peebles here and there at it whenever he felt like it for no reason other the fence serves as a barrier between the two parties and as a impenetrable force field he can’t pass through- unless he were to cause irreparable harm to the neighbor’s fence- then that would be a act of vandalism.

    ~

    Coat

  61. Vince Argondezzi says:

    I don’t think person A (Rude) can be totally cleared of charges, but person B (neighbor) has a lot of explaining to do as to why he went over to the Rude’s property and confronted Steve.

    In another words, I’m no lawyer, but a restraining order works both ways. If you ask for a retraining order, and it says “person A, stay 50 yards away from person B”, you should be bound to observe it too, unless person A makes an approach to B, and B can’t avoid it. (I say “should be” because the law would tend to favor the person filing the restraining order. Not saying the neighbor was right or wrong, but the legal document was filed and those are the rules)

    I mean, as I also said above, why would the neighbor go onto Rude’s property if he (the neighbor) filed a restaining order?

    Technically, in black and white, could the neighbor’s action be construed as a form of assualt? Blatent assault, if he also is ordered by the court to keep his distance? Was the neighbor threatened by a clear and present danger by Rude giving out candy, on his doorstep, to kids in the neighborhood? (I betcha no candy to Rude’s neighbor with the restraining order…!)

    Perhaps the neighbor felt his property (the dogs or even the fence) were damaged or theatened by the rock thrown by Rude, But is that enough to violate the order and confront Rude, who was stationary and on his own property? Who threw the first punch? How big is this neighbor? If somebody with an animus comes on to your property, with your family there, ( even if you should not throw a stone at his fence)and trys to intimidate you, what do you do, in front of your house?

    This calls for more investigation.

  62. Matthew Southworth says:

    To clarify: I can’t find any statement saying that the neighbor came on to Steve’s property, only that there was a confrontation. Which could have occurred from over the fence or otherwise still on his own property, until Steve came on to his property or he onto Steve’s.

    But unless I’m missing something, there’s no assertion that the neighbor crossed on to Steve’s property. Did I just miss it somehow?

  63. JJFlash78 says:

    Ah. I had inferred that the confrontation occurred on Rude’s property.

    The article reads:
    “The owners of the dogs — who had previously obtained the restraining order against Rude — came out and an argument ensued, which ended with Rude physically shoving one of the neighbors and ripping his shirt off.”

    In which case, my post should be corrected to:

    Person B gets annoyed. Confronts Person A.
    Scuffle ensues. Person A gets arrested.

    ——-

    I feel bad for Rude. I’ve never personally met him, and he may be the greatest guy in the world, or he may be an incredible a$$. But I like his work.
    For those that wish to help him out, I don’t see a problem with it. This incident resulted in a torn shirt and some bruised egos.
    It’s not like you’re donating to help out the Penn State coach.

  64. faboofour says:

    RE: Tom Spurgeon: In my personal circle of friends and neighbors, none of them have to my knowledge ever received a restraining order, much less broken one. None of them have ever married their sisters, either, and most have decent dental hygene. YMMV.

    What I said is that *from what’s been reported*, the man is clearly dangerous to himself and to others, that *from what’s been reported* this fact, to me, ought to be patently obvious to others, and that I, personally, would insist that the alleged (*from what’s been reported*) guilty party voluntarily place himself in some kind of rehab before I’d consider purchasing something from him to support his defense.

    And, yes, I’m genuinely astonished that this is not virtually unanimous opinion *from what’s been reported*.

    While I’ve fond enough of Richard Wagner’s work to be called by some a “Ringhead”, *from what’s been reported* about the man’s opinions, I’d have wanted to know exactly what I was supporting before I’d have purchased one of his works being specifically sold to support one of his personal causes, too.

    Why is this not obvious?

    In Wagner’s case, the only answer I can come up with is that a person who would support one of Wagner’s causes sight-unseen clearly has no problem with Wagner’s well-know *from what’s been reported* anti-Semitism.

    In Rude’s case, the only answer I can come up with is that a person who would support Rude’s legal defense sight-unseen clearly has no problem with using outside-the-law violence as a tool to solve disagreements, as Rude has done *as what’s been reported*.

    Hence the vigilante crack. I know, they ain’t funny if you got to explain ‘em.

    What I usually find is that those that get upset by my bon mots do so because they see themselves reflected in them.

    Again, YMMV.

    (There’s no altruism, by the way, in assisting someone to escape responsibility for sociopathic actions. If there are otherwise extenuating factual circumstances for Mr. Rude’s actions, they’ve not yet been presented in this forum.)

Speak Your Mind

*