Overspray or Assault? Florida Man Charged with Battery After Drenching Wife with Garden Hose for Smoking

250px-Zwei_zigaretten180px-Garden_hose_pistol.JPGJohn 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.

144 thoughts on “Overspray or Assault? Florida Man Charged with Battery After Drenching Wife with Garden Hose for Smoking”

  1. Jill posts hateful things about me and takes pot shots aimed at her perception of my ‘elite’ status as a descendant of the Pilgrims and an ever present Constitutional advocate all the time. She is neurotically obsessed with me and my lineage. What’s funny is that I don’t use it to my advantage for anything. I never have.

    I responded to that crappola, once again, just as I did with Bartlebee, who Jill welcomed with open arms and who ended up getting himself kicked out because of his hateful behavior toward me, all the while being egged on by Jill, mind you.

    I spotted him as a loser the first day he showed. Because of Jill, he succeeded in taking up space and aggravating turlees for months. The soap opera continues as long as she remains! My question is, why is SHE still here?

    It’s not rational and I will never make the argument that is, but whenever I see her f’n name, it’s like nails on a chalkboard for moi. Like this:

    I can’t stand her ass, generally, and much less in light of what she did online to my (our) friend and fellow turlee, DW
    – before he passed away last summer from a recurrence of his cancer… 🙁

  2. Patty,

    I was being polite. I know you are capable of doing the same without being backhanded. You used to be anyway. While I am capable of speaking for myself, AY’s summation was not totally incorrect. I’ve agreed to stay out of your ignorance so agree with me or not, please leave it out of our interactions. Feel free to substitute “irrational vendettas” for ignorance if you like as it is more accurate and less incendiary since I do not think you are a technical ignoramus, but rather an intelligent and educated woman who has perpetually declined into unreasoned, and I choose this word carefully based on the recently deleted post, RAVING.

    Seriously.

    You quote me, say “Zactly!” and then it was off to the races, wasn’t it? If you were a troll, I’d be whipping out that Mel Brooks classic line about frontier gibberish for that little display. That was pure vitriol with no value but venting your whatever it is you’re venting. It had NOTHING to do with the discussion you just agreed with me upon. Nothing. As in zero. I’m also pretty sure Jill doesn’t have editorial sway with the Professor too. That’s paranoid. Anyone who read the post knows EXACTLY why the Prof. would pull it. It was the kind of purely personal attack that he’s deleted before and warned you about. And seriously, if you’d said what you said about Jill to a flesh and blood woman in a bar? I used to bounce – I know a fight brewing when I see it and that goes for cat fights too. It was pure trash talk. Your next step would have been to attack her personal hygiene and pull her hair. Your perpetual pissing match with Jill and AY is between you and them. They can fend for themselves. You said you were free to do what you wanted when I and others tried to mediate and I agreed. That includes the choice to behave badly should you choose to make it. Just leave me out of it. As a courtesy. You know, like the one I’ve just extended to you twice now and got the spit of your condescension on me for my efforts even as you agree with me.

    I respect our host and his rules even though I may push them at times. You clearly do not as you’ve just been edited out for pure ad hominem bile in what’s this? The second or third offense now? I loose count. Yet you fall back on your pedigree again to be dismissive of me – this time as an “original” – for a rationalization for ungraciousness in the light of proffered courtesy. Not content to vent on Jill and AY, you instead try to spread a little bile to me too. Well . . . perhaps less bile and more like childish snottiness, but it’s all derivative. For someone relying upon pedigree like that to be so blatantly and repeatedly disrespectful of the very lenient rules of our host? Well I’ll just let others draw their own conclusions about your credibility based upon your actions. I sure miss the Patty that had something valuable to say. Let me know when you let her out of the closet. Until then, show a little decorum. I don’t care if we agree on a topic or not, but seeking to spread your bile to me is also a bad tactical decision even if it’s just snarky dismissiveness, Patty. Out of respect for the Patty I like who has gone into hiding, I beg you to back off the bile. Escalation with me is never a winning option. I’m not where you want to go with whatever it is you’re going with in your vendetta against AY and Jill. I’ve been staying out (at your request), so don’t drag me back in again also means don’t seek to expand on to third front. Much like the instant case, it won’t end well. I promise. So you make sure you keep your promise. Next time, separate your personal war with them from our interaction.

    And might also I suggest in the future – agree or disagree on a given topic – you save your condescension for an enemy, Patty. Your list of friends here grows shorter every time you post something like your last, and might I add practically insane, attack on Jill and AY. I’m a better friend than enemy, Patty, and I’m trying to be your friend even now, but if you heap on enough condescension, I’ll eventually stop trying – too much and I’ll attack at some point. Ask mespo for his opinion on that last statement since he’s the only one who seems to have any sway with you anymore. What I say is true. The amount of pure anger your deleted post displayed was unhealthy. Don’t steer it at me. I don’t know why you’re angry, I don’t know why this is how you’re expressing it, but I do know it’s bad for you no matter the cause. Anger eats your soul, no matter how well contained. Your soul is looking a bit chewed on lately. You don’t want to add to the misery of the world in general or yours specifically by testing who between the two of us can be meanest for the sake of being mean.

    Now is the part where you’ll either agree that we should be nice to one another in addition to leaving me out of “The War” or you’ll tell me since I’m not an original I should go fornicate myself in some geometrically improbably configuration or something to that effect. Your choice. Just remember that every choice has a consequence. Carrot or stick? I got plenty o’ both. I’d rather you take a carrot. They’re good for you.

  3. I am not familiar with your brand nor the point you are trying to make, but then again I usually don’t.

    You are an ass AND a fool-congratulations!
    p.s. I have call tonight, so I am up…

  4. Go away until Tuesday like you said or I will find my own water hose you hear me please? Good now go finnish that MD2020 or Annie
    Greensprings. They still come in twist off caps?

  5. 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.

    No AY and SM, you have been requested by two people not to because sharing a common experienc e related to the blog is not what you two were doing. You were having private conversations having nothing to do with anything posted here when you have other opotions not available to the rest of us because we don’t know each other.

    Jill, shut the f’up!

    You have no authority here, much less one to override my requests that posters adhere to ‘turlee’ self regulation.

    Mind your own business. Your interference is neither required or appreciated.

  6. But then again, it really not about Jill. Its about you. Is it not?

    No, it’s about Jill. You also should not attempt to speak for me.
    You haven’t a clue. I sincerely doubt you are a lawyer – now or in the past.

    In fact, that you can’t even articulate a complete thought much less construct a complete grammatical sentence makes me question if you ever graduated high school much less college or law school.

    Take an English class, why dontcha?

  7. But then again, it really not about Jill. Its about you. Is it not?

    No, it’s about Jill. You also should not attempt speaking for me.
    You haven’t a clue. I sincerely doubt you are a lawyer now or in the past.

    In fact, that you can’t even articulate a complete thought much less construct a complete grammatical sentence makes me question if you ever graduated high school much less college or law school.

    Take an English class!

  8. ‘The Water is Wide’ is an old Trad favorite of mine. The songstress here has a beautiful voice and the instrumental accompaniment is perfectly harmonious and sonorous.

    Pardon Me, the overspray from the Wide Water must be wide indeed; however, this song was more like a fresh spray of roses on a summer morn…

    Thanks for posting this classic by a new artist (to me, at least)

  9. Is it Tuesday already? But then again it feels like Friday and I know its not. I did not complain, never will.

    I think alls Buddha was trying to say is you are going to be ignorant just leave him out of your ignorance. Then you go insulting him again. You say you have all of this class, is it not time to show it?

    But then again, it really not about Jill. Its about you. Is it not?

  10. Patty,

    If you’re going to agree with me, I’d really appreciate it if you’d better segregate it from any anti-whomever ravings. In that last post you spent exactly one truncated word agreeing and more than I feel like counting to bash Jill and AY.

    Fine. Next time I will separate them. My agreeing with you was never an important part of my contributions to the turlee blawg. I was here long before you, as well…

    I said what I needed to say to the cretans who have unfortunately assembled here – along with Jill.

    Obviously, Jill went’wahhh-waahh’ing again to JT, per her usual wide ‘victim’ stance.

    Remind you of anyone…?

  11. Buddha,

    I thought I had missed the 4th of July again and here we were at Tuesday already. I read it on my cellphone and agree that these type of things are counter productive. However in defense of the right to debate so long as it is clean and no real personal attacks are used against others I am fair gamed about it. Know what I mean Buddha? The big large alien looking person.

  12. Patty,

    If you’re going to agree with me, I’d really appreciate it if you’d better segregate it from any anti-whomever ravings. In that last post you spent exactly one truncated word agreeing and more than I feel like counting to bash Jill and AY. I wouldn’t mind so much if the bashing furthered the contention. This didn’t. It served no purpose to further our mutual point. It had no impeachment value. It was borderline counterproductive. After several failed attempts as mediation between you and Jill, I’ve stated I’d stay out of your anti-Jill rants (for various reasons) and I have since then and to this point. Now I expect you to reciprocate and keep your rants out of my arguments. It’s only polite. Thanks.

  13. Now now, FFLEO.

    Don’t be so quick. Vince provided the text, but it was Bob that latched on to the key word while I was flapping with Jill about judicial inefficiency. If intent is part of the local wording for describing battery, which it can be and in this case is, then mens rea is quite relevant. If it’s a required element of the crime, there it is.

    Your bias that this is a woman in question is showing. Hey, you know I think you’re a stand up guy. I’m pretty sure I know where that chivalrous streak comes from and I appreciate and encourage it, but in this instance it’s not furthering justice, just “protecting the girl” on little more than her say so. You’ve lept from “she was sprayed” a proven stipulated by both parties albeit from differing perspectives, to the “elbow to the mouth” is somehow automatically battery. This is pre-judging despite stipulation on the husbands part in his statements at the time as to his lack of intent – an intent required under FLA law. There are many ways to frame this. Under the FLA law Vince provided, intent is a requisite element of both assault and battery. All kinds of doubt can be raised in court especially in light of the very insubstantial and inconsequential injury and the temporally stated lack of mens rea on the husband’s part. We won’t even mention what could be done with evidence of patterned abusive behavior of any sort on her part. Yeah, dragging that out in court as a defense tactic will probably not be conducive to reconciliation and some lawyer out there is just lazy and sleazy enough to do it instead of focusing on the intent ball and letting the law work to sort out any missing elements of crimes charged. Without a more substantial crime or better evidence, this is still wasteful and inefficient in addition to being not only not helpful, but exacerbating to the underlying situation. The courts may be the right tool for this job someday, but this wasn’t it.

    This current situation helps no one and only ends badly, but it’s nice to see so many people ready to throw the hubby under the bus based on her word alone over an injury of dubious harm. If she had taken a beating and he claimed no intent, it’d be one thing, but honestly, I think both you and Jill are just looking to blame the man automatically. It’s reflex. It’s just bad reflex when it comes to this being a crime worthy of the courts time. DA’s can make deals to forebear prosecution if the potential defendant agrees to take remedial action without court intervention. It happens all the time. This is an instance where making both parties attend counseling or charges be filed is much more conducive to a positive resolution than a trial over dubious charges over an injury that is at best minimal in the array of all possible injury. Even if the trial ends in acquittal or dismissal with prejudice, it creates unhealthy strain on what is already apparently a relationship under some stress. There is no upside to criminal prosecution at this point. The threat of it? Sure. It may keep him from turning Mr. Water Hose in to Mr. Fist, but I go with the analogy of criminal law as the hound of the state. The value of owning a hound, showing you own a hound and releasing said hound are intrinsically different and each comes with unique costs. I’m telling you all of this not just as someone who has seen these kinds of process from the inside as an attorney, but as someone who was personally in an abusive relationship that DID end with criminal court intervention that I instigated, my ex on probation for spousal abuse and an annulment.

    No interpersonal relationship is as complicated as marriage – be it of any sexual composition. The courts need to stay out of them as a putative actor unless there is clearly no other option for intervention. When they don’t, they never improve a situation – all of their remedy are at least partially destructive to the institution of marriage. As a species we have more than one tool at our disposal and indeed many tools, like law, that can serve multiple functions. Personally, I think using a tool intelligently and creatively is just as important as using it at all. It’s the difference between using a hammer to build a house or using it to build a bunch of randomly aligned and attached 2×4’s. It is well proven in these threads that few tools are intrinsically evil, but many are misapplied. Even when I was talking efficiency, the core of my contention was misapplication of the tool in question.

  14. Patty C

    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…!!!!!!!!
    ______________________________

    Is there something illogical in the above.

    1) You find it amusing;
    2) That most who criticize you;
    3: Hold off in expressing their opinions until you have expressed your?;
    4) Then continue on; and
    Its Validating and most satisfying.

    Do they have magic mushroom where you live? Did you take a trip and not return to reality? Are you really Dick Cheney? Did someone leave the cage door open again? Has the Nurse returned to the station and that is why we won’t see you again until next Tuesday? Do you like the nice rubber room that they give you? Is the food that they serve you as good as the other places? Do you have a life outside of the blawg? Please see John Prine’s words for reality. It don’t cost very much.

Comments are closed.