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

[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.

[NeonSamurai]

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.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.