Paraplegic faces jail time

Remove all ads!

Only in MA (OK maybe there are some crazier states) could something like this happen.

What the hell is wrong with the DA, the police, the courts, everyone involved. I'm not sure I would agree with an investigation if he had shot and killed the bastard. In this case, the police should be admonished for even adding this to a report. Have they no decency? I doubt the scumbag even needed an icepack.

Spoiler

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.

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.

“I’m not a hero, that’s for damn sure,” Hebert, his voice cracking, said last night. “I’d do it again tomorrow, knowing the consequence. I didn’t have a choice. A 10-year-old kid could take me. This is not about me. This is about a tiny child. I would never tell her I took a risk for her. I’d tell her I loved her.”

Hebert, left confined to a wheelchair with only partial use of his arms after a car crash in Falmouth a decade ago, was summonsed to Edgartown District Court on March 25 and charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. He said he was advised by a judge to get an attorney and is due back in court May 2 for a pretrial conference.

O’Keefe refused to discuss Hebert’s prosecution last night, saying only, “It’s a case that will take place in court and that will be the appropriate time for public comment.”

Hardy, meanwhile, is being held at the Plymouth County House of Correction on $125,000 cash bail. Assistant Plymouth District Attorney Bridget Norton Middleton said Hardy was arraigned Feb. 23 in Wareham District Court 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.

A subsequent investigation into separate accusations, Middleton said, led to Hardy being charged last month by Wareham police with two counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14 based on incidents alleged to have occurred Jan. 7 and Jan. 17 involving another alleged victim.

Hardy’s Taunton attorney, Jean Marie Whitney, did not return multiple calls seeking comment.

Hebert’s granddaughter is the child of his life partner’s daughter, but he considers her his kin. The child goes by a different name and her mom married the accused last summer.

Hebert claims it was over Christmas that the tot began asking her grandparents to protect her.

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.

Hebert said “fear” prompted him to bring a baseball bat to the rendezvous and call state police to back him up.

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.

“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.”

 

Unless it was self defense, I'm not sure that he has a case. AFAIK, a private citizen can't use violence in an attempt to detain someone. Not that I don't applaude the guy's actions (assuming that Hardy is actually guilty of what he is charged of), but I think Hebert might have trouble defending his actions.

 

yeah... it is a little hard to defend, in the UK he would get grievous bodily harm for that, regardless of intentions

 

I'm still not even convinced he was able to hurt the guy.

 

Well, I suppose that will come out during the investigation. If he wasn't "able to hurt the guy" (as suggested by the "only partial use of his arms" part), then I agree the whole thing is bogus. But "partial use" doesn't mean "useless", so he might still be able to do (and might have actually done) significant damage.

 

I'm of two minds on this. Obviously, you cannot take justice into your own hands a whack a guy around with a baseball bat. On the other hand, I'm left to wonder if a parapelegic with only partial use of his arms can actually pose a realistic threat to a young, 27-year old man that we assume is at least relatively healthy.

Even if we assume that the guy could actually swing the bat with enough force to cause a significant injury, it still seems like he wouldn't be too much of a treat. The guy can't use his legs, so he can't exactly chase you around the house, and the worst case scenario would seem to be that you could stop any type of pursuit once you found some stairs.

Assuming the guy can actually swing the bat with enough force to do some damage, it's the 27-year old that would have a case for self defense if he fought back.

 

Give the guy a medal. Who cares about the 27 year old...seriously, the guy had been fiddling with kids, he deserves far more than a tap with a baseball bat!

 

Sometimes the world paints a far more bizarre picture than any movie.
Lets say they go ahead and bunk the old man, then what.

Are they gonna put a lock on his wheel. So he cannot roll-away as opposed to the classical run-away.

I hope the Judge is more sensible that the rigid law.
On a side note, how equipped are prisons these days to house a Paraplegic?

 

It's not really a matter of significant injury or not, as you don't have to injure somebody to have assaulted them. Even just shoving a person can qualify as assault, according to the law.

Force would be a better word for it ... a private citizen can use force to detain or subdue someone who has committed or is in the process of committing a felony. This means you can restrain them if they're fleeing, for example, or hit them if they're assaulting you or someone else, for as long as the threat persists. It doesn't mean you can put the boots to them after they're down or anything like that. You're also not at liberty to 'punish' anyone: if a guy has committed a felony and is cooperatively standing there at your order, waiting for the authorities to arrive, you don't get to beat him up while you wait.

 

and you certainly dont get to use a weapon to do it, you cant bring a bat to a fist fight and expect to be backed by the law

 

I'm OK with seeing this guy get charged with something. Assault, after all, is assault. Nevertheless, I think a simple misdemeanor, a symbolic fine, and no jail time would be perfectly reasonable in this case.