Massachusetts paraplegic charged, attempting citizen's arrest on alleged molester [Archive]

Feuer Frei!

04-05-11, 08:17 PM

I would have done a hell of a lot more than hit him with a baseball bat! :nope:
Awesome display of the justice system. AGAIN!

A US paraplegic was charged with assault after he attempted to make a citizen's arrest of a three-year-old girl's alleged molester. Frank Herbert, a 57-year-old Martha's Vineyard computer salesman, says his girlfriend's three-year-old granddaughter began asking for protection from her stepfather in December, the Boston Herald reports.

Herbert lured the stepfather, 27-year-old Joshua Hardy, to his computer sales and service shop in February while Herbert's girlfriend took the three-year-old to talk to police. Herbert - who lost the use of his legs and only has partial use of his arms as a result of a car accident - brought a baseball bat to the meeting.
Herbert says he pointed the bat at Hardy and ordered him to stay seated until state police arrived, but says Hardy stood up and laughed at him. Herbert then hit Hardy with the Louisville Slugger.
It was not until after Hardy was charged in connection with the alleged abuse that Herbert was summoned to Edgartown District Court in Martha's Vineyard on March 25 and charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.
"I'm not a hero, that's for damn sure," Mr Herbert told the Herald. "I'd do it again tomorrow, knowing the consequence. I didn't have a choice … This is not about me. This is about a tiny child."
Mr Hardy was arraigned on February 23 on three counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, one count of enticing a child and one count of disseminating obscene material. An investigation into separate accusations from another victim led to two more counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14.
Mr Herbert is due in court for a pretrial conference on May 2.

SOURCE (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_0405paraplegic_faces_jail_in_violent_citizens _arrest_victim_charged_with_child_abuse/srvc=home&position=0)

Platapus

04-05-11, 08:59 PM

Good glad he was arrested. Sounds like he was more interested in emotionally taking revenge then actually being concerned with the law.

Why didn't he just call the police and give a real good description?

The concept of "citizen's arrest" can be a tricky one especially when dangerous force is used. It often opens up the "citizen" to liabilities depending on the state. Each state has its own laws concerning Citizen's Arrest and they can vary widely.

"Herbert says he pointed the bat at Hardy and ordered him to stay seated until state police arrived,"

Herbert does not have the authority to "order" anyone to do anything. That is the tricky part about Citizen's Arrest in many states. What can you do if the person being "arrested" says "no"? Some states you can do a lot, some states you can't do much.

I am sure Herbert will play up his disabilities in court, but I hope the judge/jury does not buy it.

Since this took place in Mass, let's look at the law

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/criminal.html

Commonwealth v Harris, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 165 (1981). Citizen's Arrest. "In Massachusetts a private person may lawfully arrest someone who has in fact committed a felony... The stricter requirement for a citizen's arrest -- that the person arrested be shown in fact to have committed a felony -- is designed to discourage such arrests and to prevent "the dangers of uncontrolled vigilantism and anarchistic actions." ...Generally, the person arrested must be convicted of a felony before the "in fact committed" element is satisfied and the arrest validated. If the citizen is in error in making the arrest, he may be liable in tort for false arrest or false imprisonment."

Herbert lured the stepfather, 27-year-old Joshua Hardy, to his computer sales and service shop

This luring is what will bite him in the butt. :nope:

Gargamel

04-05-11, 09:13 PM

And charged does not mean guilty. The police and DA would be worse off by NOT charging him, as they would then be encouraging vigilantism.

I would hope at worst they would put him on probation for a few years, and without putting a felony on him. Let him plea to some misdemeanor 1 or something. What he did was illegal, but it was well intentioned. It's all about context.

Chad

04-05-11, 09:16 PM

Platapus I respectfully disagree.

While I am in support of the law fully, and due justice, molestation, or any injustice to a child of 3 years old is not tolerable.

If a child is scared to go home, and asks protection from someone who is living with them behind closed doors, something is not right. The fact that the 3 year old was smart enough to know the difference between right and wrong at such an early age, shows that she is already capable of being traumatized, and with our court system as screwed up as it is, drastic action had to be taken.

I don't believe the crippled man was right in doing what he did, but he HAD to do it.

Feuer Frei!

04-05-11, 09:39 PM

Good glad he was arrested. Sounds like he was more interested in emotionally taking revenge then actually being concerned with the law.
Yes, good. He's a scumbag who deserves the book thrown at him and the prosecution should push for the maximum sentence, 10 years.
Sure, his 'emotions' got the better of him, he over-reacted, but, is it emotions based on pure agression or is it emotion based on morals?
It is easy to defend such a person.
It is even easier to attack or punish such a person because we are all humane, moralistic persons who wouldn't hurt a fly and have respect for all human beings.
/ sarcasm off.
It is easy to judge from behind a pc monitor, with absolutely no emotional ties or personal ties to this case.
I for one would have belted the SOB, had i been either indirectly or directly involved in this case.
The report says he is a repeat offender.
Child abuse is wrong. No matter how you look at it.
Doesn't matter which way you twist and turn it, wrong.
Yes, yes, two wrongs don't make a right. I know, if that's the best excuse one can come up with for not emotionally getting involved in this, especially when the victim allegedly is a family member, then i'm Neil Armstrong.
I know if it was my daughter, or my partner's daughter, then my emotions would have gotten the better of me too.
The spotlight has been taken away from the person (if you want to call him that) that should be tried and quartered (if found guilty).

Why didn't he just call the police and give a real good description?
Who knows?

I am sure Herbert will play up his disabilities in court, but I hope the judge/jury does not buy it.
What makes you say that? You know this guy?
Yea, let's hope not, because then we will have even more ammunition to fire at him.
What a terrible thing he did.
Let's hope he confesses to everything and gets 10 years in jail.
He deserves it :nope:
/ sarcasm off.

This luring is what will bite him in the butt. :nope:
Perhaps, i'm sure the prosecution plans to put the spotlight fully on this criminal man in a wheel chair and who knows, maybe the media didn't have a role to play in this story, of how the choice of words or the context was chosen with the usual BS, to sell the story, rather than reporting in a proper, professional and non-biased way.
Ahhh the media. :nope:

And charged does not mean guilty. The police and DA would be worse off by NOT charging him, as they would then be encouraging vigilantism.
Very true. And that is/will be the dilemma for the Justice system.
Don't charge, it will send out a message that this sort of behaviour is acceptable, that taking the law into your own hands is acceptable.
Charge, and that keeps all the goody two shoes happy, because hell, no-one wants to see this sort of behaiviour in our society.

I would hope at worst they would put him on probation for a few years and without putting a felony on him. Let him plea to some misdemeanor 1 or something. What he did was illegal, but it was well intentioned. It's all about context.
This really would be an appropriate ending to his situation.

Let me just say in closing that i do not condone the 'taking the law into your own hands' method as the correct one.
However, who are we to judge someone who has emotional ties to a case such as this?
Have you ever experienced a loved one or a family member being abused, either sexually, mentally, or both?
I know i haven't, and thank God for that.
How would we react to such a situation?
We would all react differently i would think, however, what we love and cherish we protect and defend to the last.
I know i would. And you know what?
Throw the full book at me if i were to take matters into my own hands and take a "Louisville slugger" to someone who deserved it.

CCIP

04-05-11, 09:44 PM

Whatever happened to due process? I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Platapus here. Though something serious was obviously going on, there's no evidence that the baseball bat was nearly the only means nor the last resort for him to use in this situation.

If anyone can be judge, jury and bat-smack dispenser and get away with it, then that would make me worry about the state of law and order in the country. So I sympathise with the cause, but legally condoning this would set a dangerous precedent.

Feuer Frei!

04-05-11, 10:07 PM

Let's just hold on here a minute:

while he lured Hardy to his Mac PC Sales and Service shop in Vineyard Haven.
His choice of words or the medias' ?
I vote for the latter.

Hebert said “fear” prompted him to bring a baseball bat to the rendezvous and call state police to back him up.
Finally, the media reports in favour of the man.
Some of us seem to be quick to think that he was going to attempt to beat the crap out of the 27-year old scumbag from the getgo.
Not true, it seems, once again, quick to judge.
I for one, don't find anything remotely wrong with bringing some sort of defense to a so-called meeting like this. Face to face with a alleged sex offender, who knows what the guy could do?
Man in wheel chair=vindicated.

Hebert said he pointed the bat at Hardy and ordered him to stay seated until police arrived, but Hardy, he said, stood up and laughed at him — and that’s when he used the bat.
Ok, next point, nothing worong with pointing the bat at Hardy.
And technically, it may be wrong to 'order' someone to wait until Police arrives, but, a criminal act? Err right.
With Hardy standing up and laughing at him, well, considering the personal and emotional ties here, i would have lost it too.
No doubt. Sorry, but losing your cool in a situation like that is well, understandable, i think.

“All I had was a 39-inch-long baseball bat,” he said. “I never intended to hit him. If I was a standing man, I wouldn’t have brought a bat, but without it, I am a bloody ragdoll.”
Excellent, the media is quoting him. And the I never intended to hit him quote is resonating with me. And it should with others.
What he was quoted as saying there diffutes the feeling that this guy meant to beat the crap out of the other guy, that he was from the start out to beat him up.
Seems like a strawman arguement there.
So, in summing up:
nothing seems out of the ordinary here,
guy in wheel chair has a baseball bat because he doesn't know what the other guy is going to do, he never intended to beat the guy up, he wanted to make a citizen's arrest (albeit not tecnically and entirely by the book) and the perp (allegedly) laughed at him, and guy in wheel chair lost his cool because it's his partner's daughter and he has taken her on as one of his own.

Tribesman

04-06-11, 02:27 AM

And technically, it may be wrong to 'order' someone to wait until Police arrives, but, a criminal act? Err right.

Yes right.

Ok, next point, nothing worong with pointing the bat at Hardy.

Isn't that called threatening behavior. So thats another bad move.

With Hardy standing up and laughing at him, well, considering the personal and emotional ties here, i would have lost it too.
No doubt. Sorry, but losing your cool in a situation like that is well, understandable, i think.

You hit the point squarely there, but unfortunately it is the point which shows the fatal flaw in the position you are trying to stand up for.

Feuer Frei!

04-06-11, 04:05 AM

Yes right.
Ok, so 'ordering' someone to sit down is a criminal act?
Or is it only a criminal act when applied with a attempted citizen's arrest?
Please educate me...

Isn't that called threatening behavior. So thats another bad move.Threatening behaviour, pointing a bat at someone? Wow, he must have been terrified then!
Pointing is one thing, waving is another, swinging is another, wielding is another, brandishing is another, in this case, it seems 'pointing' was the method used.
Can anyone honestly tell me that pointing a bat at someone is threatening?
Is this threatening:
http://meetings.sellerinsights.com/files/2010/11/iStock_000003123647XSmall.jpg

Just imagine the guy above is in a wheel chair and he doesn't have a suit on (not that the suit should or does make it any more or less threatening).
Threatening? Nope, more like indicating to me (if he was pointing at me) that he wants his point (s) heard.
Now if that was threatening in anyway, then pardon me, the 27-year old scumbag who is allegedly a child molester was a pansy!

Tribesman

04-06-11, 04:41 AM

Ok, so 'ordering' someone to sit down is a criminal act?

It is if you don't have authority to order someone, just like detaining someone without authority is unlawful detention.

Threatening behaviour, pointing a bat at someone?
Yes. Simple isn't it.

Nope, more like indicating to me (if he was pointing at me) that he wants his point (s) heard.

In what way does a bat increase your audibility?
If a bat has no actual effect on the function of ears or mouth then it has no place there in that capacity.
If it is not there in that capacity and wasn't there as they were playing baseball together then it has no function other than to threaten

Feuer Frei!

04-06-11, 05:06 AM

Yes. Simple isn't it.
Not really. You conveniently snipped my reply down to this and naturally, if i only said that, then yes, it would be simple. But, it's not.
So,
Pointing is one thing, waving is another, swinging is another, wielding is another, brandishing is another, in this case, it seems 'pointing' was the method used.
Can anyone honestly tell me that pointing a bat at someone is threatening?
Is this threatening: (see picture below) in previous post.
Is it really that simple now? And i will conclude the point i am making here, with your next reply, which ties in with this here.

In what way does a bat increase your audibility
Like a pen or a finger or a straw or a twig or a lighter or a match stick does as well, when a person is attempting to make a point, then if that person has the above in their hands then this would be called gesturing,
I have done this many times. In a discussion when i am trying to enforce a point or to emote more feeling into a particular word or sentence.

If a bat has no actual effect on the function of ears or mouth then it has no place there in that capacity
Yes, however the bat was there, for precisely this reason, ie we need to deal with this case as it stands:
“All I had was a 39-inch-long baseball bat,” he said. “I never intended to hit him. If I was a standing man, I wouldn’t have brought a bat, but without it, I am a bloody ragdoll.”
as quoted by the media.
So, that's what the bat whas doing there, unfortunately, wether the bat would have been better served at a baseball try-out or a Yankee stadium is obvious, however, in this case, it is not to be.

If it is not there in that capacity and wasn't there as they were playing baseball together then it has no function other than to threaten
And again, see above.

Now, in relation to feeling threatened by pointing something at someone, sure, if you point a gun at someone then ofc that is threatening. And outright frightning i would imagine.
However, pointing a baaseball bat at someone, because the baseball bat was there for a security measure to that person (so we are told ofc by the infamous media), and also being informed by them that the other person was of an undesirable nature and that the two men were in a discussion of sorts, with the guy in the wheel chair ordering the guy to sit down and wait for the cops to arrive, you would be forgiven for imagining that scenario played out like this:
Guy in wheel chair orders the man to sit down and wait for police, after probably having a heated discussion because the 2 are certainly not friends or amiacable.
The man in the wheel chair, because of his emotions running higher than normal, points the baseball bat at the man, who is standing a short distance away from him and issues the order to sit down and stay there.
The pointing of the bat would have been to hammer home the order.
Motioning for the man to sit down, emoting the order, probably spoken in a more firm and abrupt voice because of what has allegedly happened.
Now, still threatening?
A guy in a wheel chair with a baseball bat, who firstly didn't even have any intentions of using the bat, only for security to himself, and a 27-year old, able-bodied man, who, if he was a pansy, could ourun a man in a wheel chair, or, if not a pansy, could get out of the way of the baseball bat's swings.
It is simple.
To generalise.
It is never simple.
Case by case.

Tribesman

04-06-11, 05:37 AM

Not really. You conveniently snipped my reply down to this and naturally, if i only said that, then yes, it would be simple. But, it's not.

It was snipped down as that was all that counts.

I have done this many times. In a discussion when i am trying to enforce a point or to emote more feeling into a particular word or sentence.

When you pointed with your finger or pen or match or twig what was the useage of the object?

Yes, however the bat was there, for precisely this reason, ie we need to deal with this case as it stands:

But you are not dealing with it as it stands, you have let your emotions get in the way.

as quoted by the media
So if he didn't intend to hit him then the intent was errrrrr.....damn you shot yourself there didn't you, can you see it yet?

And again, see above.

But you havn't seen at all, you have managed to shoot your own arguement to pieces but cannot see it.

Now, in relation to feeling threatened by pointing something at someone, sure, if you point a gun at someone then ofc that is threatening.
How is pointing someone a gun threatening? its only being used to point to emphasise words....unless of course it is being used there in its capacity as a weapon.
Hold on what did you say he had the bat for?
You said it was there as a weapon didn't you:yep:
So it is no different from "pointing" a gun at someone or "pointing" a knife at someone.

Now he might have a the legal defence of self defence in regards the actual hitting of the nonce with the weapon he had brought to threaten with.
But according to your article he used it because the nonce laughed and I don't think laughter constitutes an actual assault does it so that self defence angle doen't run?

Jimbuna

04-06-11, 05:43 AM

Not taking sides here and in no way condone sex offences against children...

If this had happened in the UK the possibility is Mr Herbert would be charged with Unlawful Arrest (a civilian only has a power of arrest if they KNOW A CRIMINAL OFFENCE HAS BEEN COMMITTED unlike a police officer who only has to REASONABLY SUSPECT/REASONABLE SUSPICION).

The other charge would be Assault with a weapon (either ABH Actual Bodily Harm or GBH Grievous Bodily Harm - depending on the degree of medical treatment required by the victim afterwards).

The only defence for Mr. Herbert would be able to offer would be self defence and for that to be accepted he would need to prove he was in fear for his life, or the life of another. This has to be an immediate fear, not something that occurred in the past and something in this instance "Hardy stood up and laughed at him" I doubt was the case.

All said and done I wish the gentleman well and hope the court take all the mitigating facts into consideration and in so doing act as lenient as is within their power whilst handing out the stiffest/strongest possible penalty to the child offender (should he be found guilty).

Tribesman

04-06-11, 06:51 AM

All said and done I wish the gentleman well and hope the court take all the mitigating facts into consideration and in so doing act as lenient as is within their power
No one would argue with that, the only problem is that some people think he either didn't do anything wrong legally or that the laws should be completely ignored.

whilst handing out the stiffest/strongest possible penalty to the child offender (should he be found guilty).
As for that, he has apparently put his hands up to the original child molestation charges and is now facing some new allegations over a different child.
That is why I called him a nonce instead of an alledged nonce(unless of course if at a later date his admittance of the offences is shown to be false in which case I will just call him an alledged nonce)

August

04-06-11, 07:24 AM

Unless there are aspects to the case that have not been released i'll bet he doesn't get convicted.

Jimbuna

04-06-11, 07:40 AM

No one would argue with that, the only problem is that some people think he either didn't do anything wrong legally or that the laws should be completely ignored.

As for that, he has apparently put his hands up to the original child molestation charges and is now facing some new allegations over a different child.
That is why I called him a nonce instead of an alledged nonce(unless of course if at a later date his admittance of the offences is shown to be false in which case I will just call him an alledged nonce)

Aye that......nonce it is then.

We have a different term that I couldn't post here.

NeonSamurai

04-06-11, 08:04 AM

Frankly I also side with Platapus on this. The man acted inappropriately, and frankly I think with calculation in that he planned things to go down that way. Pointing a baseball bat at someone in that situation is definitely a threatening action, and a baseball bat is a dangerous/lethal weapon (as would be many other sporting items like a hockey stick, croquet mallet, etc).

As for the supposed crime, I would be very careful with this case. The crime is an awful thing, but it happens far too often that the allegations are false. Without direct physical evidence, I am very reluctant to believe what the child says for a huge host of reasons having to do with cognitive development and capabilities of a child that age (bluntly the child's testimony is utterly unreliable). As such unless there is physical evidence of sexual assault, it is entirely possible that the man is innocent.

Keep in mind that child molestation / sexual assault is one of the worst things you can be accused of. Even if you are proven innocent, even if there is no evidence what so ever and you are never charged, your life is ruined as almost everyone will still believe you are guilty. You all here are doing it right now. It is also nigh impossible to get a fair trial on such cases. Plus accusations of child molestation / sexual assault have frequently been used by one parent to discredit the other (often leading to, or during divorce procedures). I can point to several cases where it is blatantly clear that the molestation did not happen and that the child(ren) was making the story up (often thanks to the parents implanting it, intentionally or not), and yet the accused lives were still trashed.

So, frankly I hope they do prosecute the paraplegic (and if this was premeditated like I suspect, I hope they throw the book at him). As for the accused, I hope he gets a fair trial as he may well be innocent. If he isn't then the prison system will get him.

<edit> of course if he confessed, odds are he is guilty.

jumpy

04-06-11, 11:56 AM

This is why I could never be a solicitor... also why I hold the opinion that there's a special place in hell for most of them.

You can argue the technicalities all you like, but I find a heavily disabled, wheelchair bound man to constitute very little physical threat to anyone. Bat or no. Give him a firearm on the other hand...

Lets hope the prosecution levies the correct attention to the real crime here. And just so we're clear, it's the paedophile. It's not vigilante justice, otherwise the fiddler would have been given a pasting proper like, nor would the police have been contacted to arrest the guy in the first place.

What would you do to prevent a suspected gary from escaping arrest, knowing the police were on their way, when it involved a family member? If you had any decency, you'd do what was right regardless of the cost to you. Had wheelchair man wanted to do the other chap real harm there's much more he could have done than attempt to level the playing field of his disability with a baseball bat.

Gargamel

04-06-11, 02:22 PM

@FF:

Making any type of threatening gesture, ie pointing a bat a somebody, is considered Assault. It's quite often a felony.

Actually making contact with a person is battery. That too is often a felony.

So just making any action that appears threatening to a person is Assault.

We got this drilled into our heads as EMT's. If we do not have consent from our patients to touch, or even approach them, we could get charged.

Him forcing the man to stay in that chair would be unlawful restraint, or even kidnapping. It's another topic we went over ad naseum.

August

04-06-11, 02:43 PM

Him forcing the man to stay in that chair would be unlawful restraint, or even kidnapping.

There is no way that a severely disabled person can force a fit 27 year old to stay in a chair.

Tribesman

04-06-11, 03:05 PM

There is no way that a severely disabled person can force a fit 27 year old to stay in a chair.
Perhaps he can with a threat of violence...oh yeah thats the threatening behavior offence isn't it which comes before the assault offence:doh:

August

04-06-11, 03:26 PM

@FF:

Making any type of threatening gesture, ie pointing a bat a somebody, is considered Assault.

Not quite. There also has to be a reaonable ability to cause harm. I would argue that it will be awful difficult to prove against a severely disabled paraplegic bat or no.

Gargamel

04-06-11, 03:32 PM

There is no way that a severely disabled person can force a fit 27 year old to stay in a chair.

Gun? baseball bat at close range? Deadman switch? Anyways, it's the attempt, not the result.

Not quite. There also has to be a reaonable ability to cause harm. I would argue that it will be awful difficult to prove against a severely disabled paraplegic bat or no.

No, my just acting like I'm going to make unwanted contact is assault. Making contact is battery.

My simply laying a hand on your shoulder could be construed as battery. I've had a colleague go to court over that very thing. Eventually they dropped the criminal trial when the EMS system decided to settle the civil end out of court.

Platapus

04-06-11, 04:39 PM

This is why I could never be a solicitor... also why I hold the opinion that there's a special place in hell for most of them.

You can argue the technicalities all you like, but I find a heavily disabled, wheelchair bound man to constitute very little physical threat to anyone. Bat or no. Give him a firearm on the other hand...

Clearly the disabled guy thought a baseball bat was an appropriate weapon as he pre-meditatively carried one. I think a baseball bat in anyone's hands no matter how young or old or able or disabled can be a dangerious weapon, especially when it is used as such.

Well, the key is to not look at this issue from an emotional viewpoint. That is what Lawyers and Judges have to do. It is very easy to get swayed by the emotional aspects of this case, especially when the emotions involved agree with you.

On an emotional level we have this cripple smacking the crap out of a child molester. On an emotional level this is very gratifying.

On a logical level we have a person setting up another person and smacking the crap out of them because the first person *thinks* they are a child molester.

That is not what the Citizens' Arrest laws were written for.

Was this truly a case of assisting justice or was it a case of vigilante revenge?

The actual facts and evidence will come out in court where they will, hopefully, be examined not from an emotional viewpoint but from a logical viewpoint.

Tribesman

04-06-11, 04:46 PM

The actual facts and evidence will come out in court where they will, hopefully, be examined not from an emotional viewpoint but from a logical viewpoint.
From a logical viewpoint was there any requirement for the man to be involved at all?

Gargamel

04-06-11, 05:31 PM

From a logical viewpoint was there any requirement for the man to be involved at all?

Aside from reporting it? No.

Tribesman

04-06-11, 07:07 PM

Aside from reporting it? No.
He didn't even do that though, his partners daughter made the report to the police about her husband on the mainland.

Feuer Frei!

04-06-11, 07:45 PM

You can argue the technicalities all you like, but I find a heavily disabled, wheelchair bound man to constitute very little physical threat to anyone. Bat or no.
Finally, someone sees the light.

What would you do to prevent a suspected gary from escaping arrest, knowing the police were on their way, when it involved a family member? If you had any decency, you'd do what was right regardless of the cost to you. Had wheelchair man wanted to do the other chap real harm there's much more he could have done than attempt to level the playing field of his disability with a baseball bat.And again, Amen brother!
People should realise that emotions did get in the way, yes we don't deny that, and that this case is what it is.
A man, emotionally involved, for obvious reasons.

Clearly the disabled guy thought a baseball bat was an appropriate weapon as he pre-meditatively carried one.
Appropriate? Hard to say really. That's probably all he had to have with him.
I think a baseball bat in anyone's hands no matter how young or old or able or disabled can be a dangerious weapon, especially when it is used as such. :timeout: Really? Wow! There must be a lot of pansies out there in this big beautiful world of ours then.
And gun crimes should be down too then in that case.
Why is it that we always fall back on this arguement that a baseball bat is a threatening weapon?
Do we really have to derail this thread and start defining what is considered a threatening weapon? And how a object becomes threatening? And how an object must be made up of and held and wielded or cocked and loaded or held in the 2 hands and swung at full force by an able-bodied man who weighs 300 lbs?

Well, the key is to not look at this issue from an emotional viewpoint. That is what Lawyers and Judges have to do. It is very easy to get swayed by the emotional aspects of this case, especially when the emotions involved agree with you.Well i do agree with you there.
It just shows that there are human beings out there with feelings and morals and emotions that get the better of them in situations like that. Does that make us weak? Does that make us criminals?

On an emotional level we have this cripple smacking the crap out of a child molester. On an emotional level this is very gratifying.Hell yea, i'd do the same thing.
And i ask again, is this 27-year old a girl?
A right royal pansie! That should never have been a threatening situation for this clown. I take a guess that the clown thought to himself ill milk this one for all it's worth! What's the bet?

On a logical level we have a person setting up another person and smacking the crap out of them because the first person *thinks* they are a child molester.Yes, it certainly is easy to sit back here, all of us, including me and judge the situation from afar.
Logic, would not be the first action i would undertake in a situation like that either.
And the point about him not knowing the facts, i have to agree with you, but surely there is more to this story than what is told.
More reports of the abuse, marks, etc on body of child etc etc.

The actual facts and evidence will come out in court where they will, hopefully, be examined not from an emotional viewpoint but from a logical viewpoint.Ofc they will, that's one reason why the guy in the wheel chair is going to court.
Oh, and 2 other reasons ofc too, one: the clown that pressed charges, because he couldn't defend himself from a guy in a wheel chair (:haha:) and two: the prosecution who i'm sure informed the clown that one: this would be beneficial to your case and two: let's make some money!

I think at the end of the day we are all going to go around in circles with this case.

Aramike

04-06-11, 08:05 PM

Much over-complication being done here, I think. Surely it is interesting, but its a mere elementary exercise.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the man was wrong when using force in an attempt to restrain the alleged molestor. That being said, I can empathise completely with what he did. In fact, should I ever be in a similar situation, the molester better hope I'm in a wheelchair or I'd do far worse than strike him with a bat.

I believe this man will get off with what amounts to a slap on the wrist. Vigilantism is wrong, but in many cases laws against such behavior seem to exist to discourage such actions, not to punish those in fairly extreme circumstances or those who are merely "wired" that way.

Gargamel

04-06-11, 08:27 PM

Why is it that we always fall back on this arguement that a baseball bat is a threatening weapon?

Have you ever, first hand, had to pick up the pieces of someones skull that has been shattered by a baseball bat?

I have.

I'd call it a threatening weapon when wielded as such.

Madox58

04-06-11, 08:32 PM

This should teach you several things.

NEVER admit to anything!
(He fell trying to run out the door and is lying about being hit with a bat will back fire! "I want my Lawyer" is all you should EVER say)

NEVER talk to reporters.
(They have a need to make the news and often cause more harm then good. Those 12 that will Judge you? Already saw or read the News before being selected for Jury Duty. And they will hang you just as fast as everyone here has this Guy)

NEVER, EVER, EVER talk to the Law Dogs (Sorry Jimbuna) about a case you are the suspect in!
(It's thier job to prove a case. Open your mouth and you've done thier job for them. You most likely will remove 'reasonable doubt' by yapping and your high dollar Lawyer just pleads you down when he may have actually earned his money and got you off scot free)

Read "The Manipulation of Human Behaviour" just once.
Written in 1961? It's still a main stream study guide in many areas.

Feuer Frei!

04-06-11, 08:52 PM

Have you ever, first hand, had to pick up the pieces of someones skull that has been shattered by a baseball bat?
I have.
I am sorry that you have had to witness such a thing. Truly, i am.

I'd call it a threatening weapon when wielded as such.
No doubt, i would agree.
That baseball bat would have to be wielded by a able-bodied man i would guess.
I know this is being technical now, but how much force could a wheel-chair bound man exert with a baseball bat?
And how much force could a able-bodied man, standing, exert, with a baseball bat in full swing?
I hazard a guess that the latter would be in a better, much better situation to really do a lot of damage.
In fact, lethal damage.
Someone who is standing and swinging the bat would have much more force at their command.

Madox58

04-06-11, 09:09 PM

Probably.
But an unarmed man standing faceing an unarmed wheel chair bound person holds the advantage everytime.

And unarmed does not mean one does not have deadly abilities.
We know nothing of the skills of the one who got tapped.

As Jimbuna said, he was trained to take a knife away from a person.
I was trained to kill a person by any means.
If you were faceing a threat like that?
Would you carry a bat or hope I'd sit my sorry butt down?

Gargamel

04-06-11, 09:19 PM

I am sorry that you have had to witness such a thing. Truly, i am.

No doubt, i would agree.
That baseball bat would have to be wielded by a able-bodied man i would guess.
I know this is being technical now, but how much force could a wheel-chair bound man exert with a baseball bat?
And how much force could a able-bodied man, standing, exert, with a baseball bat in full swing?
I hazard a guess that the latter would be in a better, much better situation to really do a lot of damage.
In fact, lethal damage.
Someone who is standing and swinging the bat would have much more force at their command.

a) Just part of the job.

b) I've been punched by similarly disabled people, you learn quick to never underestimate anybody. IIRC, the article said he paraplegic on the lower half and one arm. I would assume he had full use of the other arm. And electric wheelchairs are fast (especially if you pull the governor). A charging, full swing blow, would do a lot of damage. Enough to break some bones. Think mounted cavalry with a club. But, mounted manwith a bat vs unarmed man, I'd think the guy with the bat would have the initial advantage.

But obviously yeah, a fully functional man would have an advantage with a bat.