John Jeffrey Murray, 51, is either a fanatical anti-smoker or a reckless hoser. A court will have to decide. Murray was charged with drenching his wife with a garden house for smoking in the house and then wrestling away a phone when she tried to call the police.
Murray insisted in a statement to police that this was merely as matter of “overspray” and that he did not intend to drench his wife. He also elbowed his wife in a struggle to hang up the phone. He was charged with domestic battery.
For the flip side of a case of smokers attacking critical anti-smokers, click here.
For the full story, click here.
Bob,
You first say the law is definitive then you retract that argument. Which is it, because if the law is definitve then Vince’s citations and analysis have settled the issue.
“Unless he’s using it to drown her, a husband spraying his wife with a garden hose does not warrant a 911 call nor any other call for police help. Furthermore, anyone who calls 911 for such a trivial matter would be treated the same as the bozo who makes a 911 french fry call from McDonald’s.”
The husband may not choose the wife’s feelings or actions, he may only choose his own. If she feels threatened and calls the police it becomes a matter for the police to deal with.
I believe that lottakatz is correct when she says:
“…you…seem to think some level of physical intimidation or punishment or ‘acting out’ is OK as long as it’s within the bounds of marriage. Your postings make that abundantly clear…”
Legal and ethical issues often (but certainly not always) overlap. In this case they do. However, should you stick only with the legal issues, the law is settled just as Vince stated.
lottakatz:
good points, although I have to side with Bobesq on this one. If my spouse threw cold water or coffee on me I would be pretty upset. Although I not would call the cops.
The couple has marital issues and needs a counselor not 911. I once almost sprayed a guy with a hose while in college, he was a doctor and was a real horses arse about some work I was doing for him. You know the kind, they like to take advantage of the young and the less fortunate, a real piece of work. You know after all these years I wish I would have had the b….s to do it. I don’t think it would rise to the level of assault, although I am sure he would have called the cops and spluttered and blustered about young rabble.
If I threw cold water or coffee on my wife I would need 911, the ambulance.
Bob,
I use earbuds to listen to music while I play with the computer. My better half does NOT use earbuds because they hurt his ears, he claims. We have our workstations in the same room with our TV and watch TV while we surf the web. The better half will open video files embedded in various blog stories and they will be loud enough to interfere with my hearing the TV or my music. I ask him to turn it down or use his earbuds. It pi***s me off to have to ask.
If I picked up my cold cup of coffee and threw it on him because I was angry, and wanted to punctuate my reminder to turn it down would that be OK? How about if I push him out of the way and turn off his computer?
From your response above it would, although if I did the same thing to a loud cellphone talker at a restaurant it would not be OK.
The problem with your argument is that it sets a higher level of tolerance for getting physical with a spouse than a stranger.
That’s not a new thought- as I recall there were laws on the books that allowed the beating of wives as long as it was with a stick no larger around than a thumb. Just what level of violence or intimidation or punishment for an errant spouse do you think is appropriate? I ask because you (and AY) seem to think some level of physical intimidation or punishment or ‘acting out’ is OK as long as it’s within the bounds of marriage. Your postings make that abundantly clear so I’m wondering just how far you think it should be allowed to go before it rises to the level of battery or assault.
And as I said above,
Elbow to the mouth; POSSIBLY DOMESTIC ABUSE in light of circumstances and intent leading up to the impact.
Jill: “As to the law, the citations Vince provided are definitive. Being a husband bestows no right to break the law. I would hope what Ken said about being a husband would prevail ethically in this matter.”
Ethics are not law and the law is the sole relevant point of departure for the entire discussion on this matter. Personal feelings as to how the husband and wife should have treated each other are irrelevant.
Unless he’s using it to drown her, a husband spraying his wife with a garden hose does not warrant a 911 call nor any other call for police help. Furthermore, anyone who calls 911 for such a trivial matter would be treated the same as the bozo who makes a 911 french fry call from McDonald’s.
But feel free to prove me wrong. Show me precedent that one spouse successfully (and I mean without the judge laughing) prosecuted a case of battery per spraying the other spouse with a garden hose.
Then I’ll show you some serious floodgates wherein millions and millions of children start suing each other for garden hose attacks, water pistol fights, etc.
Vince Treacy got the law right. Legislators have become increasingly sensitive to domestic abuse issues, and the laws are starting to reflect that. Buddha is probably also right in his suggestion that alcohol may have been involved. I agree that this appears to be run of the mill nonsense that got out of hand, but did any of you see “The War of the Roses”?
Bob,
I used the example because people often accept violence and cruelty against/between family memebers that they would know was wrong when done by a stranger to another stranger. Sometimes, people can’t see it unless it’s framed as stranger on stranger violence. Then they get why it’s wrong between/against family members. I also refer you to Ken and Mike A.’s explanation of what is going on here.
As to the law, the citations Vince provided are definitive. Being a husband bestows no right to break the law. I would hope what Ken said about being a husband would prevail ethically in this matter.
Jill: “The only change that I can think of that you mean is the smoking was illegal in the restaurant and not at the home.”
Jill, here’s how you changed it:
“If you went to a restaurant where someone was smoking illegally outside on the patio and you picked up the garden hose and sprayed them with it, do you think they might call the police? If they started to call the police, would you run over and knock the phone from their hand?”
Hint: I’m not part of their family; I’m a complete third party stranger on third party premises. If I so much as kissed the woman I could be brought up on at least civil battery charges. Why? Because the touching is not implicitly permissible.
Husband and wife at home? TOTALLY DIFFERENT STORY.
Husband sprays wife with hose; not illegal — thus would be as illegal to call 911 about it as calling 911 because the clerk at McDonalds didn’t give you your french fries at the drive through!
Elbow to the mouth; POSSIBLY DOMESTIC ABUSE in light of circumstances and intent leading up to the impact.
I don’t know what more to say.
****** No forum rules?*****
They should put some rules for this forum, so people can act a bit civilized here. This was my first attempt to post stuff on this site, and several people attacked me personally, because they did not agree with my personal views. I never attacked anyone on a personal basis, and I was quite baffled by some of the mean reactions I got.
Vince,
Thank you. I agree with FFLEO. Your reference to the law settles the issue.
A.Y. and S.M.,
Just keep posting. There are many of us here who have, on several occasions posted to each other out of a shared experience.
A.Y.,
I thank you for attempting to stop Patty from attacking me but it won’t work. JT has asked her many times, as have several others to refraim from her personal attacks. None of us has had any success in stopping her bizarre ramblings. I find her behavior disrespectful of JT and others who come here to consider ideas and have fun. I do not read Patty posts. Since she seems to attack you now as well, I would recommend the same tactic for you. Just communicate with the people who are sincere letting Patty’s hate-speech speak for itself.
And in related news:
James Earl Taylor and Mary Childers have been arrested for domestic Cheetos assault.
Wow. Two firefighter stories in the same week.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtbWdzlrbO8&hl=en&fs=1&]
Thanks Vince Treacy, that *is* what this ‘blawg’ is about. I learned something new from your post.
AY,
Why don’t you take a flying leap?!
I was here before you.
Mespo and I post recipes rarely, on occasion, for the benefit of all – including JT who also likes to entertain.
Jill is a big girl and could defend herself. She chooses not to when challenged by me because she can’t-especially when it comes to medicine and other areas of my advanced study. She often does not know what she is talking about, here, and when I’be called her on repeated mistatements of fact, she handled that by falling silent.
I win!
[duplicate post] Since this all took place in Florida (and this is a legal site) take a look at the state criminal laws:
784.011 Assault,
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
784.03 Battery; felony battery.
(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.
784.041 Felony battery; domestic battery by strangulation.–
(1) A person commits felony battery if he or she:
(a) Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; and
(b) Causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement.
(2)(a) A person commits domestic battery by strangulation if the person knowingly and intentionally, against the will of another, impedes the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of a family or household member or of a person with whom he or she is in a dating relationship, so as to create a risk of or cause great bodily harm by applying pressure on the throat or neck of the other person or by blocking the nose or mouth of the other person. This paragraph does not apply to any act of medical diagnosis, treatment, or prescription which is authorized under the laws of this state.
(b) As used in this subsection, the term:
1. “Family or household member” has the same meaning as in s. 741.28.
2. “Dating relationship” means a continuing and significant relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.
(3) A person who commits felony battery or domestic battery by strangulation commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
In brief, the assault is the threat, and the battery is the intentional touching of the person against his or her will. Assuming the facts described by JT, there was a misdemeanor battery under Florida law, and probably an assault. There are also the civil torts of assault and battery to consider.
Take notes, 1L students. This will be on the exam.
Buddha,
I, for one, wasn’t referring to the hosing as qualifying for ‘assault’.
I am slightly more concerned about what sounds like a wrestling match over a phone coming a smidge closer, no matter who he thought she was calling.
I agree with you about possible, perhaps mutual, ETOH factors and I would not be surprised if she stated she was calling the police, even if she was just calling ‘a friend’, just to provoke a confrontation.
Regardless, as you and I have both just agreed, they each have one one!
p.s. SM – ‘thanks for sharing’!
Patty C,
Please do not respond to any thing personally on a post that I say something. This is a kind request at this time. Please do not post any more foolishness regarding receipes. Lastly leave Jill alone. All future responses to you will become less kind and charitable. Is this understood?
This is hillarious! I am not aspiring to be lead “drama queen” on a blog. I am a casual poster here. I will post whatever.
Mike, Jill, et al.,
I think the issue here may be definitional. What constitutes violence as an acceptable threshold for triggering the involvement of the cops and courts? As Patty pointed out, once they are involved, the matter will only get more heated and contentious. I just don’t consider getting wet an attack meriting police response. Maybe some marriage counseling, but it’s hardly a case for SWAT. It was a garden hose. It’s not like he had a fire hose as that would be battery of the first order. As it was, she got wet and decided to what? Call the cops? Yeah. I’ll bet a dollar that alcohol had something to do with that decision tree or the one that led to the spray down. Either way, it shows a level of self-importance that’s simply staggering. Is he a charmer? No, not at all, but this is a exercise in overreaction from ALL parties. They should grow the Hell up. Both of them. And they should be made to pay the costs incurred up to this point associated with neither of them having any sense, but it should end there. Real criminals need to see the judge. These yahoos need to see Jerry Springer.
Jill, have you considered refraining from imbuing the situation with facts and issues having nothing to do with the original event?
—
Thank you, Bob. I noticed just last night that Mike A inquired recently what my issues are with Jill since my responses are,
otherwise, ‘intelligent’. This is one of ’em, for sure!
More later – when I have a few moments.
As for the ‘assault’ question, without knowing all the facts, I only wish I could completely agree with you there. You have NO idea how much 😉
Unfortunately, now that the police and the courts are involved, this situation will likely escalate between these two.
I just hope they are both prepared!
And Gyges, I support your request that AY and SM Text or IM each other if they want to chat rather than take up limited list space available for identifying poster’s responses.