Thank you for providing that.
Sure.
Recently having moved to TX I was curious what the law might be too.
It would appear that the officer may have been incorrect, since no where does the law mention offending someone...
May have been.
May not have been.
The beauty of our criminal justice system is that at this point this fella has only been accused of breaking the law.
There's always the possibility that upon review by an authority more competent in interpreting the law the charges will be dropped.
...however if he wanted to say that the guy used "fighting words" or had in fact incited a breach of the peace the officer would have been on firmer ground...
Agreed.
The officer could have made a better argument on the scene for citing the guy.
But the cop doesn't have to remember the why and what-for behind each and every word in the penal code.
It would be ridiculous for us to think that he would have either that responsibility or even the ability to do so.
I think it's sufficient that so long as the cop can reasonably articulate for a judge the circumstances under which he issued the citation, and those circumstances warrant the charge, the exact words he used to explain the citation to the accused are largely irrelevant.
Whether the reasoning is that the words are "offensive" or that they "tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" the bottom line is that the words tend to piss people off and create a disturbance which could escalate.
I would submit that "being offended" doesn't necessarially mean that the offended party is going to crawl off to his or her safe place, suck on a pacifier, and cry.
The offense could also result in a verbal confrontation which might escalate.
It could also result in the offended party caving in someone's skull or drawing a gun and killing someone.
I mean, if I'm walking down the street with my wife and some idiot starts telling us what kinds of creative things he wants to do with his penis and my wife's anus there's a good chance that I'm going to be offended.
Under similar circumstances but assuming I'm walking down the street with one of my boys rather than my wife I can imagine statements being made that would result in an immediate and violent response on my part.
...but even the statute that you quote says the language has "to incite an immediate breach of the peace ..."
The law actually says:
"...language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace which this situation seemed to have not done ..."
That doesn't mean that it has to result in a breach of the peace in this circumstance or in every circumstance, just that it is language that is offensive enough in nature that it has, on frequent enough occasion, led to a breach of the peace.
I think the guy cited could probably win this in court on 1st Amendment grounds.
I certainly see that as being one possibility.
