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.
As a matter of law, as Vince pointed out, it was never a question. It was technically battery and there isn’t enough information to tell whether assault occurred, given the scenario as presented, it is not unlikely that some threats were flying both ways. That this wasn’t the case was never my contention. Violation or not, this is a matter of common sense or lack thereof that no court will ever do anything positive to address. Realistically, the best thing a judge could do would be grant these people a divorce if they asked. Anything else within his power is only going to aggravate the situation. One of the purposes of the law is to right the criminal and civil wrongs done to victims in an attempt to make the whole again. This will do nothing to make anyone whole again. State actors NEED to stay out of marriages unless someone REALLY gets hurt. This should have been “if I have to come out here one more time, you’re both going to jail” situations with a healthy dose of “here’s a counselor’s number.” Instead, they are in the grist mill now and the chances of salvaging their marriage (a valid social concern) will rapidly approach zero.
Over a damn water hose.
There was recently a thread where the Right to be Stupid was discussed. While this is a technical violation, it’s an example of wasting systemic resources to address a problem with the courts instead of the ONLY place that might address the problem with some degree of success (instead of further escalation) – at the offices of a marriage counselor or a therapist. This is a case of stupidity colliding with technicality for a resolution I can almost guarantee NO ONE will be happy with in the end. In an attempt to address one social wrong, the courts will use a technicality and create yet another. There is no equity in this. There is no justice in this. It’s meddlesome and counterproductive absent a more substantial violation of the laws. It is possible to violate the spirit of the law while adhering strictly to the letter. If the DA has a lick of sense, he’ll offer them a deal – see a counselor and get your collective act together (or get a divorce) and no one has to talk to the judge, but next time you both get a night in the pokey or worse.
There are unpunished murders and traitors on the loose. Almost every venue has backlog issues that push out court dates many months. Do you really want to waste already taxed court and prosecution resources on a water hose attack? This is inefficient in prosecution and deficient in positive net outcomes now that the court is involved.
Bob Esq makes a lot of legal arguments without ever citing a case or statute. This makes legal argument difficult, so I quoted and linked to the relevant statutes. Bob was initially confused about the distinction between battery and assault. At first, he said “assault with water via a garden hose,” when he described a battery. After the distinction was explained, he kept saying that the law of battery is different when married persons do it, and referred to “possibly domestic abuse” without citing a case or statute.
I have posted the Florida statutes. I did not see any exemption for marital battery. In my view, marriage does not constitute consent by a spouse to physical battery. In my opinion, Jill and lottakatz are right and Bob is wrong. The law of battery is not different for married couples. Mike Appleton, a practicing lawyer, said that “Legislators have become increasingly sensitive to domestic abuse issues, and the laws are starting to reflect that.”
Spouse abuse can be battery, and much worse. It is time to stop excusing people who batter or abuse spouses.
lottakatz
“Technical issues aside I am still of the opinion that the fact that parties are married should not allow a higher level of physical confrontation or threat than would otherwise be allowed.”
I don’t disagree with you. However, a wife smacking her husband is different than a stranger smacking a stranger. Right or wrong, that’s the way it is.
Nonetheless, any attempt to equate brandishing a garden hose with something as threatening as brandishing a knife is simply perposterous.
SIYOM,
Bob
“–I’ve heard a number of versions of the sodium in the toilet story….Your friend did that? -Man, that dude is a legend! :>)”
There’s also the legend of throwing m-80’s into a toilet, doesn’t mean other people didn’t do it.
I’ll say this though, my friend also turned blowing up capacitors into an art.
He also turned a compressed cardboard carpet rolling tube into an enormous Tesla coil. Electrifying!
SIYOM,
Bob
P.S. My friend later went on to work for the defense department in electrical engineering.
Bob: “The phrase “Out of control” denotes something less than intentional. Assault and Battery are INTENTIONAL crimes and torts. ”
The law doesn’t require pre-meditation or a controlled display, only that the act/threat take place and that act be intentional as opposed to accidential; waving your hands around to make a point and accidentially hitting someones sholder. The man in this case probably has a better argument against battery regarding the split lip than the wresling to get the phone away from the wife or the spraying.
Technical issues aside I am still of the opinion that the fact that parties are married should not allow a higher level of physical confrontation or threat than would otherwise be allowed. That was my original objection to a couple of postings here and it remains. If you wouldn’t do it to a stranger or want a stranger to do it to you then marriage shouldn’t make it acceptable or frivolous to attempt to file a complaint about it. If that’s how it actually plays out in court then the legal profession has a problem IMO. Two standards is not a slippery slope DOWN to unaccaptable behaviour but (regarding spousal abuse) something we as a culture are having to climb UP from.
JB,
Shoo, There might be some of up other stoner’s around. Ya never know, nod nod
Bob,Esq.,
I can’t take credit for the description. It was pretty close to cut and paste from the Wikipedia precautions for Sodium. I just added a word here and there to make it flow a little better.
Whoever the original author was; he would make a pretty cool science professor.
–I’ve heard a number of versions of the sodium in the toilet story….Your friend did that? -Man, that dude is a legend! :>)
Stoners from around the world would pay money to see a repeat performance. LOL
Jim Byrne,
Thanks for the elaboration. Not sure I would have been able to describe it like you did even if I dug up my college chem books.
I think, pardon the phrase, the coolest thing about sodium, aside from its reaction to water, was the brief shiny golden color you’d see when someone, in a picture (never did it myself), carved off a piece with a pocket knife.
Funny thing, my best friend’s father taught college chem and it turned out my friend got his hands on his father’s stash of sodium. He knew what it could do, but since it was a modest sample, he thought he’d take it out of the jar and toss it in the toilet for fun.
I wasn’t there, but I’m told it lived up to your description.
lol
Patty C,
I see you for what you are so no need to say or respond to anything I say. Peace be with you.
lottakatz
“Apparently the law does take into account ‘implications’ and logical speculation.”
To be clear, you shifted from a description of battery to pondering the description of some other crime; like reckless endangerment. The phrase “Out of control” denotes something less than intentional. Assault and Battery are INTENTIONAL crimes and torts.
“Your posting: “SIYOM = Stay in your own movie… Think of it as part Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test and part Carl Jung.”
I’ve read both. This forum is the Professors movie, if you’re telling me to stop responding on this thread then you’re out of line, that’s the Professors decision. If you meant something else then you’re not making yourself clear.”
My apologies again. SIYOM is a closing I use in most of my emails and posts. Briefly stated, it’s a reminder to the reader to remain the author and hero of his/her own movie/biography rather than to allow others to write your script for you.
So, uh…
SIYOM 😉
Bob
Bob,Esq.,
“How about you and your husband run a Sodium production company and you happen to have a big block of sodium just laying about on the coffee table. Now the the garden hose can be used to make the house blow up!”
Larger pieces of sodium melt under the heat of the reaction, and the molten ball of metal is buoyed up by hydrogen gas and may even appear to be stably reacting with water, that is, until splashing covers more of the reaction mass, causing thermal runaway and an explosion which scatters molten sodium and lye solution. In addition, did I mention FLAMES? Lots of flames!
I’m sorry, but blow up is unfairly belittling to sodium. HOLY HELL BREAKS LOOSE is a little closer.
BoB, from Vince’s posting:
“.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.”
Your posting: “The law applies to the act; it does not speculate or draw implications.”
Apparently the law does take into account ‘implications’ and logical speculation.
—–
Your posting: “SIYOM = Stay in your own movie… Think of it as part Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test and part Carl Jung.”
I’ve read both. This forum is the Professors movie, if you’re telling me to stop responding on this thread then you’re out of line, that’s the Professors decision. If you meant something else then you’re not making yourself clear.
lottakatz
“If I pulled a hose from my deck into my house (15′) and sprayed my husband with it because I was acting out he should and would feel threatened as would I if the roles were reversed, because it is behaviour that is out of control. It is threatening by it’s nature.”
The law applies to the act; it does not speculate or draw implications.
If you’d prefer to call the ‘out of control’ element a form of ‘reckless endangerment’ etc., then you’re free to do so. But it’ll have to be far more threatening than the garden hose itself. How about you and your husband run a Sodium production company and you happen to have a big block of sodium just laying about on the coffee table. Now the the garden hose can be used to make the house blow up!
And I know you didn’t say ‘hot coffee’ — I did to highlight the point how ridiculous it would be to cry battery after being doused with cold coffee.
Finally,
SIYOM = Stay in your own movie
Think of it as part Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test and part Carl Jung.
SIYOM,
Bob
lottakatz,
You bring up a good point. One that I wish would have been clarified in the affidavit.
Did he come inside and spray her with the hose, or did he spray her when she walked out of the house with a lit cigarette?
I tried to find some other reports of the incident, but none of them are consistent. All of them lack enough information to permit us to determine if this was a childish prank that got out of hand, or was an episode of domestic violence.
I’d be real interested in finding out if this is an isolated incident or the location of regular police visits.
Did she burn a hole in the couch the night before? (I know I’m speculating, but there’s always more to the story)
If someone soaked me with a hose, I’d consider it rude, but not battery. However, as a child, if it happened on Saturday night…I’d try to convince my mother that it should count as a bath. :>)
I don’t think the police would have arrested him for wetting his wife (or anyone), in the summer, in Florida…If the subsequent wrestling match didn’t result in his wife having a split lip. –Under domestic battery laws, I don’t think the police had a choice.
—A friend made a good point. If he would have sprayed the neighbor’s pet for pooping on his lawn, would anyone think twice about it?
Jill:
“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.”
“This is my position. I don’t have to show anything other than what Vince already did. Here is the law and here is how it may be applied.”
Jill, please note Vince’s caveat contained within the last sentence of what you posted; ‘There are also the civil torts of assault and battery.’ The criminal threshold for assault and battery are much higher than the ones under the law of torts. And remember, we’re talking about spraying a garden hose.
Husband holds up garden hose and points at wife. If that constitutes ‘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,’ then it holds just the same for every child whoever pointed a water pistol.
Jill: “I believe we have made ourselves clear. I see no use in reiterating our arguments. Therefore, I will stop my part in this discussion.”
BTW, Vince didn’t even make an argument; so I’m not sure what you’re saying.
Bob, to Jill: “your entire point rests on the threat of being sprayed with a garden hose, at CITY WATER PRESSURE, constitutes threat of violence; and, if actually sprayed, rising to the level of violence associated with the CRIME of battery.”
If I pulled a hose from my deck into my house (15′) and sprayed my husband with it because I was acting out he should and would feel threatened as would I if the roles were reversed, because it is behaviour that is out of control. It is threatening by it’s nature.
I didn’t say HOT coffee- I said cold cup of coffee.
“SIYOM” I don’t know what that means, is it a legal acronym? Define please.
Bob, Here is Vince’s analysis after citing the applicable law:
“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.”
This is my position. I don’t have to show anything other than what Vince already did. Here is the law and here is how it may be applied.
I believe we have made ourselves clear. I see no use in reiterating our arguments. Therefore, I will stop my part in this discussion.
Some of the things I have read about domestic abuse say that women are almost as likely to physically abuse their husbands as men are their wives. The statistics are unclear because most men will not call the police after the proverbial a…. whooping. Something to do with wounded male vanity and the fact that most cops would laugh.
2 references:
http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm
http://www.dvmen.org/
Jill: “If she feels threatened and calls the police it becomes a matter for the police to deal with.”
You’re absolutely right. The husband in this case should have let her call; while refusing to bail her out when the cops took her away like the french fry 911 call guy.
Remember Jill, since I’ve already conceded the point on the elbow to the mouth, your entire point rests on the threat of being sprayed with a garden hose, at CITY WATER PRESSURE, constitutes threat of violence; and, if actually sprayed, rising to the level of violence associated with the CRIME of battery. NOT CIVIL BATTERY, but CRIMINAL BATTERY.
Find me a judge or case law that upholds uour position, and I will apologize for wasting your time.
lottakatz:
“The problem with your argument is that it sets a higher level of tolerance for getting physical with a spouse than a stranger.”
Actually, you’ve reduced my argument to absurdity (reductio ad absurdum)
Throwing HOT coffee on a family member could (and most likely would) be considered battery. Why? Unlike iced coffee (yum yum) hot coffee creates something called BURN WOUNDS.
Per the garden hose, the only thing wounded in a spray attack is one’s pride; and unfortunately the penal system is not designed to handle such matters as ‘hurt prides.’
Finally, I was waiting for the ‘rule of thumb’ analogy; because beating your wife with a stick is in fact domestic abuse.
SIYOM,
Bob