<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Scream at Your Toilet and Get Fined or Put in Jail</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawvibe.com/scream-at-your-toilet-and-get-fined-or-put-in-jail/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawvibe.com/scream-at-your-toilet-and-get-fined-or-put-in-jail/</link>
	<description>International Law News &#124; Lawyer Lifestyle</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:40:40 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: ryan</title>
		<link>http://lawvibe.com/scream-at-your-toilet-and-get-fined-or-put-in-jail/comment-page-1/#comment-14107</link>
		<dc:creator>ryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 17:01:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawvibe.com/scream-at-your-toilet-and-get-fined-or-put-in-jail/#comment-14107</guid>
		<description>A case could be made that she recklessly disregarded a risk of public annoyance based on the fact that her neighbor had previously requested that she quiet down. This warning created an awareness on her part that  her outbursts were disturbing her neighbor, an awareness that she may have disregarded.  In addition, it is irrelevant that her outburst was intended as a communication to her daughter; &quot;The specific intent requirement of [the] statute &#039;may be met by a showing of a reckless disregard of the risk of public inconvenience,&#039; . . . even if the appellant&#039;s intent was to send a message to a certain individual, rather than to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. See Commonwealth v. Kidd, 296 Pa.Super. 393, 442 A.2d 826 (1982).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A case could be made that she recklessly disregarded a risk of public annoyance based on the fact that her neighbor had previously requested that she quiet down. This warning created an awareness on her part that  her outbursts were disturbing her neighbor, an awareness that she may have disregarded.  In addition, it is irrelevant that her outburst was intended as a communication to her daughter; &#8220;The specific intent requirement of [the] statute &#8216;may be met by a showing of a reckless disregard of the risk of public inconvenience,&#8217; . . . even if the appellant&#8217;s intent was to send a message to a certain individual, rather than to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. See Commonwealth v. Kidd, 296 Pa.Super. 393, 442 A.2d 826 (1982).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Self-Destructing Toilet: Woman Sues Trump Taj Mahal</title>
		<link>http://lawvibe.com/scream-at-your-toilet-and-get-fined-or-put-in-jail/comment-page-1/#comment-11522</link>
		<dc:creator>Self-Destructing Toilet: Woman Sues Trump Taj Mahal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:05:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawvibe.com/scream-at-your-toilet-and-get-fined-or-put-in-jail/#comment-11522</guid>
		<description>[...] upsurge in lawsuits involving everyone&#8217;s favorite bathroom fixture. You might recall the lady who screamed at her toilet and was almost put in jail. The brief rundown of that post was that a lady was getting irate and furious about her overflowing [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] upsurge in lawsuits involving everyone&#8217;s favorite bathroom fixture. You might recall the lady who screamed at her toilet and was almost put in jail. The brief rundown of that post was that a lady was getting irate and furious about her overflowing [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
