Paraplegic faces jail in violent citizen’s arrest As a result of 57-year-old Martha’s Vineyard computer salesman Frank Hebert’s unconventional citizen’s arrest, Joshua A. Hardy, 27, of Middleboro, now faces child molestation charges in a second case out of Wareham involving another little girl, authorities tell the Herald.Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O’Keefe is pressing ahead with a felony assault charge that could put a paraplegic grandfather in the slammer for up to 10 years for whacking his 3-year-old granddaughter’s alleged molester with a Louisville slugger after setting a trap for his arrest.
On the one hand, lying in wait for the scumbag is vigilanteism, plain and simple - for once, the media can use the word "vigilante" in the correct context. We are a nation of laws, and have folks employed for the sole purpose of enforcing those laws, and that's the first channel that should have been followed. Waiting for the guy with a baseball bat in your hand (see! MA gun laws work!) isn't the way to go about things. On the other hand, we'd be a much better place if guys who diddled little kids got the ever-lovin' snot beaten out of them with a Louisville Slugger. The best part about the story is that when this POS gets to jail, he's got a double whammy against him - first off, he's a pedophile; secondly, he got his ass beat by a guy in a wheelchair. Once again, let me say: 
While I don't condone folks taking the law into their own hands, I certainly understand it. As the late Sam Kinison was fond of saying, I wouldn't want to be the deciding member on a jury or anything... This is one of those cases where agreeing with the law - that this guy should in fact be prosecuted for assault with a deadly weapon and/or attempted murder - doesn't quite sit right; yet I can't condone folks just deciding that they are now the law. I guess we'll see how the DA handles it - I'm guessing where this is Massachusetts, where our Attorney General says we "discourage self help", the grandfather is up s**t creek without a paddle...
At least when all is said and done, some scumbag got a righteous beat-down - there's some good in the world after all.
That is all.
18 comments:
Jury Nullification
From my understanding he was trying to hold him until the cops got there and it went south. . . I know I could never convict him.
What Freiheit said. Sure, we're a nation of laws, but I prefer justice.
Nuts. I used to tell people, "You don't need a permit for a Louisville Slugger." Looks like that will probably change now.
I disagree with you, I think you've misread the article. He wasn't lying in wait, he went to meet him and then tried to citizen arrest him.
But that's not the point.
Notice they talk about Herbert's "Life partner", not "wife" or "girlfriend".
So triply whammy, a gay guy in a wheelchair.
You Yankees are a strange bunch.
If he can make it to Kentucky, we won't let any child molester loving AG take him back to MA.
Hell we make Louisville sluggers down here. They may just bring out a model with his signature on it.
Gerry
Meh... Down South he wouldn't have 'survived'... and Because he NEEDED killing would be an adequate defense...
I actually encourage this, when the legal system is no longer effective.
Pity he survived.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Hopefully the piece of filth spends the rest of his life with one heck of a headache.
The way I read the article he didn't initially beat the guy, just threatened him, intending to hold him for police. Bad Guy attempted to ignore orders and so Grampa hit him. Not that the cops look at it that way, but that was the way I read the article. Could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time, and I know I'd not convict him if I was on that jury anyways.....
Veeshir,
He had the guy come to his shop:
"On Feb. 22, Hebert said his partner took her daughter and granddaughter, who were visiting, back to the mainland to talk to police, while he lured Hardy to his Mac PC Sales and Service shop in Vineyard Haven."
If he had the time and wherewithal to arrange to meet the guy at his shop, he could have involved the police.
Don't misunderstand me. The guy needed a beating, no question about it. Were I on the jury there is no way on earth I would vote to convict.
I'm just not entirely comfortable with the "extra-legal" means by which the perp was brought to justice.
There's also a potential twist - how likely are the cops going to be to arrest the dirtbag now? He's a victim - if they arrest him without 100% iron-clad evidence, he's going to walk.
The police have no legal obligation to protect you or catch bad guys.
As a logical corollary, if I have the right to be protected from bad guys, then either I or someone else who is not the police must have the right to protect me.
As another corollary, if the guy needs a beating and the government isn't obligated to , whose obligation is it?
Yay for jury nullification.
Judge: How do you plead?
Defendant: Not guilty because he needed a beating, Your Honor.
Well if they're just gonna leave it on the side of the road with the victims then they shouldn't complain when people take it into their own hands.
I think this is a case where the right to remain silent and consult a lawyer should have been used. "My client merely wanted to convince Mr Scumbag to wait for the police, but Scumbag attacked without provocation when he learned the police had been notified."
If I were either jury or prosecutor, Grandpa would not be convicted of more than a misdemeanor, if that.
Citizens "taking the law into their own hands" is a phrase with zero semantic content.
The law never LEFT the citizen's hands - the police are merely employed to exercise each citizen's delegated powers to enforce the law.
Just as a junior manager with delegated authority to approve expenditure does not in any way diminish the CEO's authority to do so - the police exercising delegated powers does not limit IN ANY WAY the rights and duties of the citizens to enforce the law.
Of course, convincing the police and courts to believe that is the hard part.
Three words. "Lesser included offense."
I think that even if he's charged with felony A&B, etc., etc., a conviction for misdemeanor assault would be the most that would be appropriate under the circumstances. As I understand it, in most states a jury has the power to convict on a lesser offense than what is actually charged (IANAL).
Given his reasons, this guy would be nuts not to go for a jury trial.
I think your attitude about this is just wrong.
Post a Comment