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

[Feuer Frei!]

I would have done a hell of a lot more than hit him with a baseball bat!
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

[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.

[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.

[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!

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!]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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
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]

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).

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]

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