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.
Patty C
I know. I was married, briefly, to a ‘Regional Counsel’, once…
________________________
And we all know why:
I bet you did not have to worry about be just sprayed with a water hose. I am sure that this would have been from a lot of folks. This I am sure.
I’d also like to say state that I find it continually amusing to see that most of those who criticize me, hold off in expressing their opinions until I have expressed mine and some
then continue on, more often than not, to agree with me.
It’s validating and most satisfying!
Thank you, to the few…
p.s. And thanks, JT, for backing me up on Sonia Sotamayor the other night on KO…!!!!!!!!
Actually, as a former fed LEO, you should know that “deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
—
Thank you yet again, Bob, but you should also recognize this to be one of a few long standing problems often associated with governmental ie Federal enforcement types – from there perspective.
‘Deserve’ has every bit to do with moat of their existence. 😉
I know. I was married, briefly, to a ‘Regional Counsel’, once…
Marriage vows are for better or worse, not batter or worse.
FFLEO: “Seriously, the hosing was not the issue; it was the follow-up of the husband elbowing his wife in the mouth.”
FFLEO,
I distinguished the elbow to the mouth in my very first post on this topic:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/06/30/overspray-or-assault-florida-man-charged-with-battery-after-drenching-wife-with-garden-hose-for-smoking/#comment-64799
And I continued to distinguish it, even conceding the issue, throughout the thread.
“the hose spraying was part of the record, but not the basis for the battery charge”
That’s what I’m thinking. However, there seems to be plenty of people here who think otherwise.
“you appear to be more upset at this than warranted. Now no need to git riled-up at me because you are one of my favorite regulars here, but pard, you are leapfrogin’ over the law in this ‘sheer’ instance.”
Sorry, I have a low threshold tolerance for bullshi+.
“Did the wife deserve the water sprayin’; yes, I think so. Did she deserve an elbow to the mouth; definitely not, and therein lies the legal rub.”
Actually, as a former fed LEO, you should know that “deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
SIYOM,
Bob
Bob Frog Esq.
Vince Treacy, Mike Appleton Esqs. “hosed” your legal argument.
Seriously, the hosing was not the issue; it was the follow-up of the husband elbowing his wife in the mouth. Any affiant–the wife in the case–must give the full details leading up to the battery and the hose spraying was part of the record, but not the basis for the battery charge. As an attorney/Esq./lawyer you know much more about what happens after the LEO work is done and yours—as an Esq.—begins.
Of course, since you are a frog, we expect you to like water and overspray, and why, as a man, you appear to be more upset at this than warranted. Now no need to git riled-up at me because you are one of my favorite regulars here, but pard, you are leapfrogin’ over the law in this ‘sheer’ instance.
Did the wife deserve the water sprayin’; yes, I think so. Did she deserve an elbow to the mouth; definitely not, and therein lies the legal rub.
I wish to emphasize that while this case is male on female violence, it would not matter if it were male on male, female on female or female on male.
—
Well, that’s certainly VERY magnanimous of you…
See you next Tuesday!
If you want to stop clogging the courts with domestic violence cases then the best way to do so is to take it seriously as the criminal offense it is.
—
Jill, your statement makes NO practical or justiciable sense and has no basis in reality with regard to this case, in particular, or most others brought these days.
Women no longer automatically qualify for greatest consideration simply because of their perceived delicate female sensibilities as they once were. Not by a long shot, from my observations. Nor is my statement to be taken as fodder to stick it to women whose male abusers wish to abuse further because they can and/or have decided sorely ‘deserve’ it, anyway.
By accepting such frivolous complaints, as serious, in the form of the ceremonious granting of restraining orders, only serves to ‘up the ante’ in domestic abuse cases, as well as divorce and child custody cases, whether or not they are staged.
The system we have in place is both necessary AND totally ripe for abuse – unfortunately, JILL…
As to Vince Treacy’s post, technically, ‘assault’ is ANY touching which is unwelcome and declared as such – much like sexual harassment and coercion under threat, which is something I know more than a smidge about from experiences with a particular DA when I was in school and working as a paralegal and doing research in the local law library in my early twenties
– thank you very much…
I left the state, continued my studies elsewhere, accepting an entry-level job and then getting a HUGE promotion within six months in the process of legally administering CGL Insurance cases for four offices in New England!
Just like that! Snap! Win-Win.
And THEN I went to Med School…
Bob,
In re mens rea:
I’ve been dancing around it with Jill. I agree it’s an issue.
Buddha,
“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,”
Forgot this one.
Mens rea; where is it?
Are you truly contending that the intent to spray someon with a garden hose rises to the level of criminal intent to do harm?
I say you’re not contending that; evidenced by your sarcastic expression per the patently deminimus level of offense involved:
To wit:
“Over a damn water hose.”
Yep, the weapon of choice among kids on a hot summer day.
SIYOM,
Bob
Buddha,
Just for the record, I agree with everything you’ve had to say on this subject. However a little more righteous indignation, dare I say outrage, at the idea that spraying someone with a f’n garden hose rises to the level of criminal battery would have been appreciated.
Not for nothing, but can you imagine how many kids & cases would be clogging up the civil courts as well as the criminal courts & juvinile detention ….
Ah F)( it. Just chalk it off to being more proof that mankind has not evolved an inch from the slime that spawned him.
SIYOM,
Bob
Vince Treacy:
“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.”
Actually, I’ve never been confused about the distinction between assault and battery. By mentioning the “assault” in describing a battery, I’m attempting to shed light on the complete lack of that ‘criminal thingy’ known as MENS REA.
You copied and pasted the Florida criminal code on the subject, yet you make no argument. At the moment, you seem to be joining in the opinion that brandishing an ordinary garden hose and spraying someone with water is CRIMINAL assault and battery. I say that cops and judges on the whole would consider that horseshi+. Your argument necessitates that the act of brandishing pointing a f’n garden hose at someone else contains the requisite mens rea to rise to the level of criminal assault simply because you’ve already done an end run and deemed the resulting battery as criminal–you know, when you posted the statute and pretty much said “hey, that’s what happened.”
Did you know that you can’t bring a charge for criminal battery in New York unless you show the ADA evidence of substantial physical injury? Do you know why the courts and the D.A.’s office won’t prosecute just anyone an alleged victim points his/her finger at? Care to guess? Here’s a hint; why don’t we have the D.A.’s office and all the courts spend their time prosecuting everyone in the state of New York who brandishes a garden hose and sprays anyone — just for this summer?
And per the marriage distinction, you can file that under implicit consentual touching allowed under given circumstances; like a marriage. Another form of implicit consent would be a visit to the doctor. Do we need to consult Prosser on this one?
Finally, do you really think I’m going to run a Lexis search just to please you in this little dialogue?
“complete with the breast hardware”
_________________________________
We *Do Not* want further details.
Buddha,
I do not find this man’s actions trivial. I do find them threatening. Just from a practical standpoint (setting aside the legal rights of the woman pointed out by FFLEO) this case is not a waste of public resources. This man believes it is his right to batter his wife and control her actions through the use of force. For too long our society has tolerated a man’s idea that he may do such things to his wife. Yet, he legally may not and morally should not. If you want to stop clogging the courts with domestic violence cases then the best way to do so is to take it seriously as the criminal offense it is. There are good studies to back this up. Once a man knows he will have legal consequences to harming his wife he tends to stop being violent, quickly and permanently. It is when the harm keeps being ignored and trivialized that it tends to escalate. So I am saying, from a practical standpoint, swift and certain legal consequences are some of the most effective tools for ending domestic violence (which will achieve you end of saving public resources).
I wish to emphasize that while this case is male on female violence, it would not matter if it were male on male, female on female or female on male. A person who is in control of themselves would leave the scene and resolve this matter in a sane and reasonable matter. A person who feels they have the right to harm their partner in order to achieve their aims is engaging in both unethical, dangerous, and unlawful behavior.
Just communicate with the people who are sincere letting Patty’s hate-speech speak for itself.
—
Jill, you are one piece o’ work.
Your ‘hate speech’ is yet another thing I object to since you attached yourself here like a leech.
Don’t you dare speak for me, compare yourself to me, or copy my exact original words and try to credit them to yourself.
I’ve posted, at length, a couple of times when JT inquired, about what it is that irritates me.
And you do change your behavior in reaction to my criticisms, despite what you said the other day to Mike A on the Illinois U thread, EVERY time.
You think I’m rude. I think you are uncouth. So there!
For you information, while I am entitled to be a card carrying member of the DAR and the Mayflower Society complete with the breast hardware and shoulder epaulets, I simply don’t have the time!
While I continue to be approached constantly because of my interest in constitutional matters, I leave the leisurely social activity to my mother and my sisters. So you, Jill, in particular, and everyone else can stop taking pot shots at my ‘elite’ status. Also as stated on numerous occasions, my family was not ‘rich’ and certainly not during my lifetime. Any amassed shipping fortunes were lost long ago along with those unsecured textile patents that the DuPonts stole from my grandfather leaving my family practically shirtless… 😉
I have about as much time for that dust as I have for your mountain of sorrow.
FFLEO,
In many states, once the police are called, it’s no longer a personal choice of the alleged victim on whether to proceed with criminal charges, it’s up to the DA. And no DA looking to pump up his numbers has ever gone overboard on this kind of thing instead of pursuing a case that might actually require some work on his/her part to catch and convict serious dangers to society. To be clear, that was pure sarcasm. The civil component? Lack of substantive damage will be an issue and since in civil action the parties have to pay the attorneys, I really don’t care as much about the resource issues as in criminal cases the majority of the expense is in development of the case for prosecution and not the time of the judge – this is true of civil filings as well so the brunt of the cost falls to the fools availing themselves of judicial relief for getting damp. As for the publicly paid for resources of the criminal courts, this is a total waste of time that achieves 1) nothing of value for either party and 2) detracts from more pertinent business. My concern here is pure from a resource conservation standpoint. We only have X criminal judges and prosecutors. I’d expect them to choose their battles with more focus on the legal and social utility of potential outcomes of their prosecutions than this. When they don’t, it’s often called negligence or prosecutorial misconduct. Pick winnable battles with the tools you have at hand instead of picking the low hanging fruit of cases that judicial intervention will not help and will likely only harm. Go after all the high value low hanging fruit you want, but this? This is of limited value. Justice is represented by a scale for a reason. I don’t think this kind of prosecution as a first step helps anyone or serves anyone’s long term interests, public or private. We should also all consider that this is being discussed in a bubble. We have no way of knowing if there are other episodes that may change the scenario. But on its’ face as presented, I still see a technical violation that’s a waste of limited resources to prosecute without taking additional steps to attempt a better outcome than possible once criminal courts become involved.
Amen to that FFLEO!
All of this reminds me of what a colleague who transferred from Alaska to the lower 48 after being up there in a very remote bush location where his only transportation was a snowmobile.
One native Alaskan told him that the world had dramatically changed in his long lifetime. He said “The world is crazy and I don’t know what it’s coming to, Heck, you caint even slap your wife around anymore if she misbehaves, like you used to could…
Folks, the wife had/has every right to seek redress through the law/courts. She did not write the laws, she is simply requesting that her husband be subject to the law, regardless of how petty we *men* think this garden hose incident might have been. Anger over mere words has led loving spouses to die from murder-suicide in momentary fits of rage. If more couples understood the law—albeit perhaps too strict—then such incidents might be prevented.
Remember, it is not our right to judge another person’s right to make civil or criminal charges against another person, even if it seems asinine to some of us, as in this case, or frivolous, as in many lawsuits that occur. The laws and the courts are there for a reason, regardless of our personal opinions of the initial ‘reasoning’ of the accuser, affiant, deponent…
In the end, it is the husband who will be the one “hosed”
“attempt to make the VICTIM whole again”
The grammatical case of missing corpus delicti . . .
http://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/18/the-criminalization-of-america/