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

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).

04-06-11, 05:43 AM	#12
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,615 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	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). __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!