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

[Platapus]

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/subjec.../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.

[Gargamel]

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.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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
/ sarcasm off.

This luring is what will bite him in the butt.

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.

Originally Posted by Gargamel

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]

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!]

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.

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!]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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:


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!

[Chad]

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.