There is a bizarre case out of New Jersey where Michelle Hurley is charged with choking her husband nearly to death with a lamp cord. The victim, 50, was unconscious when the police arrived and remains hospitalized in critical condition.
The argument reportedly began over a pending divorce. The husband had no pulse when police arrived.
What I found particularly notable from a legal standpoint is that Hurley is charged with not only aggravated assault (which is obvious) but possession of a chain link lamp cord for an unlawful purpose and unlawful possession of a weapon – i.e., the lamp cord.
It is the type of redundant charging that I have long criticized where prosecutors use the same condition to stack up counts. The concept of a lamp cord as a weapon is particularly odd. (Yes, I expect a new campaign that “when lamp cords are outlawed, only outlaws will have lamps”). What is interesting is that there is little need for such bizarre counts when you have an attempted murder.
25 thoughts on “New Jersey Woman Allegedly Used Lamp Cord To Strangle Husband In Bizarre Criminal Case”
Definition of “Inalienable Rights”: The freedom and ability to think, do, or believe something which did not come across the border, legally or illegally, something which was born in America. Because these Rights exist and belong to an individual naturally, and they were not given to the individual by anyone else, they cannot legally be taken away or obstructed by anyone else. These Rights exist regardless of whether the individual and his or her thoughts, acts, and beliefs are considered “Left” or “Right”, whether he or she is a Conservative or a Liberal, a Republican or Democrat, or someone exactly in the middle or above it all. In contrast, Alienable Rights include getting deported back across the border if the individual is not in America legally. “Just looking for a better way of life and a means to support one’s family” is not sufficient reason to cross the border and remain in this country illegally. Those reasons could be used by any criminal, such as a burglar, thief, or embezzler who is in the country legally as a citizen. Those professions are not “Rights” — or right — either. Committing crimes is one way to become deprived of certain rights, Inalienable, or not.
Don’t give ’em any ideas lest “domestic terrorism” be added to the list of charges.
Lamp cord seems the perfect weapon for a New Jerseyan given that’s where this particular method was most likely developed.
Paul C… … the only “right” Ms. Davis has is to resign if she cannot carry our the duties of her elected position…however it changed after she was elected. She is NOT entitled to her $80k per year job by default, she was elected to it. When it became untenable, she should have resigned and made a state’s right case argument. She opted for nonsense.
‘God’s Law” is what she cited and that has nothing to do with her elected duties. This is just more “accommodation” nonsense since she refuses to resign…e.g., she is a coward. She wants her way and will whine to the highest to get it. She’s a classic putz.
Aridog – my information is that early last year Ms. Davis asked the governor or legislator to solve the issue. They did not. She is required to sign every marriage licence (as you may know those who have gotten licences in her absence are asking she be forced to sign them). As part of the job she guarantees that the participants and one male and one female. That is black letter state law. Then comes the SC and legislates from the bench. Well, that still doesn’t change her oath of office which is to uphold the State Constitution and state law.
Her job includes a lot of things and this is one small part. So, for whatever reason, she decides not to do that part of the job that causes her to violate her oath of office. If she did not use this approach she should have.
If they outlaw lamp cords only outlaws will have lamp cords.
BarkinDog – I think there should be background checks and 10 day waiting periods to get a lamp with a cord on it.
“This conscientious right applies only to positions you are forced in to, not those you opt for or are elected to perform. I favor the concept of inalienable rights, constitutionally defined or inferred, but not rights people imagine for themselves, the others take the hind most.
We need a better universal definition of “inalienable” perhaps?”
Hear hear Aridog!
Olly … unfortunately the “unprincipled” crowd seems to have the upper hand on what “rights” are…some are no more “natural” than oranges growing on a cherry tree. Not to beat a dead horse (well, why not?) but Ms. Davis of late fame is a good, if simpleton, example…she asserts “conscientious objection” in an elected position, which she has no right to, inalienable or otherwise, any more than an enlisted soldier or officer. “God’s Law” is not an inalienable right for any of us, particularly if you live where I do among thousands of Muslims. This conscientious right applies only to positions you are forced in to, not those you opt for or are elected to perform. I favor the concept of inalienable rights, constitutionally defined or inferred, but not rights people imagine for themselves, the others take the hind most. No way is it an inalienable right for a person to slaughter innocents due to some personal grievance. Enough examples of that have surfaced today to cause alarm. We need a better universal definition of “inalienable” perhaps?
When in uniform and later as a DOD civilian I had to temper my resistance to absurdities by finding means and ways to cause change inside the system, and usually did so, sometimes with Congressional help. I would have effected no change if I had just ranted on about my “inalienable” rights….I had to exercise them with some discretion and force of law. In short, I had the right to object, but not to obstruct.
Aridog – the law changed after Kim Davis was elected to office. She has every right to be object at every level she can.
It’s no secret I focus on natural, unalienable rights in this blog. We have many people that argue against this “theory” and I find this to be the root to our decline as a culture. I focus on this because it does NOT require a belief in God. It DOES however require the humility to believe WE are not creator of our rights, that we have rights that pre-existed civil society and government. Absent that as a unifying principle, we are condemned to the designs of the unprincipled majority.
This will not end well.
At least we can have some comfort that the anti-gun laws are working. No sign of guns here.
This is FAR from bizarre. A person tried to kill their spouse. Happens every day. Strangling is hardly unusual let alone bizarre. A lamp cord as the choice of weapon is also not rare in the slightest. It is almost a common choice due to its ease of use and access
Fasi – I always thought a lamp cord would be an awkward weapon since the lamp is still attached.
Tyger Gilbert said …
We could be discussing the criminal use of guns in a major multiple death shooting at a school, again.
Lacking a thread on this subject, I’ll comment on it here. You’re correct to say “criminal use of guns”…that’s honest. Thank you. There can also be “criminal use” of other implements, such as fertilizer bombs, big knives, or pipe bombs for example, but they are less “convenient” so to speak.
My concern vis a vis the random violence that seems to be a plague today is that it is a result of too many people, quasi-anarchists, here today who believe they have a “right” to do just anything they dang please for what “accommodation” they feel entitled to even for imaginary things. In short, they believe that if they can acquire a gun, legally or illegally, they may use it however they please without regard to civility or law….they perceive it as a personal extension of their “inner selves.” A form of “expression” of some angst or seeking “fame.” This is a road to ruin.
I wish I knew how to educate people on their civil and legal limitations for such atrocity if they think like anarchists. I don’t even know for certain how this mind set evolved. I suspect it has something to do with the also relatively recent politically sponsored concept of “rights” to do anything you wish, without regard to law or decency, often cited as “human rights” above the law, to be accommodated for your every whim, or your conscience, such as it might be.
We’d best find a solution sooner than later. I’ll listen to anyone’s ideas on how to accomplish this or even whether they think I am off base.
Here in NJ a lot of people in positions of power didn’t go to Montclair State University, but understand the philosophy of MSU* anyway.
*Make $hit Up.
The Prosecutor wants to trump up those charges? How about he gets a set of balls and start charging the “crazy kooky lady” with murder. Yes, murder. If the death penalty’s on the table, keep it if the man dies. If not, charge her with 25 to life.
It’s time for Prosecutors to charge women as they would men. Then those evil-doers, who are women, will recognize that if they do the evil deed, they will do the time the same as a man.
Anyone remember Jodi Arias? I wanted her to be on the death penalty that bad. Yes, I did because the crime was too severe to let her walk. She cried, balked, and whined about not having a child. One juror let her go. Now? Everyone in America, who was familiar with the Arias case, hates that juror. Present-tense, absolutely. They still hate that juror for doing a hang jury, prompting the end of the death penalty for Arias and potential imprisonment for life without parole.
The Alexander family were devastated by the court decision. The sister (who I can’t remember the name) really took it hard after that juror voted Arias out of the death penalty. Know what that juror said? “I’m sorry.” No sorry is going to console and erase the pain the sister has regarding her brother. That case truly warranted the death penalty!
Now, consider this case. A woman is now being charged multiple charges with a prosecutor who would charge men with higher sentencing. But this crazy kooky lady? Oh, no. Just charge her less, get her to plea, and he’ll have a happy field day doing a good service to all womynkind. Unfortunately, this kind of bias will backfire and create more inequalities within the judicial system.
For once in my entire life, I’d like to hear on the news a prosecutor who had balls and is willing to charge multiple women with the same length as a man. That prosecutor should be allowed as long as he remains true to the integrity. That kind of prosecutor is sorely needed.
Most married women want to kill their husbands at some time or another. Strangling them, with a lamp cord, telephone cord, clothesline rope, or anything else is just one of many options for the method of killing the husband. Filing multiple charges against an alleged criminal is not unusual, either. So, why is this a topic of discussion today? Slow morning in the legal gossip world?
We could be discussing the criminal use of guns in a major multiple death shooting at a school, again.
Max, you’re overplaying an already weak hand.
Stacking is routinely used in personal injury auto cases to get to as much insurance dollars as possible.
sorry, I meant, men, not women!
I thought only women were perpetrators of domestic violence!
I did not know that possession of a lamp chain could be illegal. This is a piling on charge so they can deal down.
Quick, make up a religion that fetishizes lamps and claim RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!
Me Shell, my belle, voile moitre ventre bien, treb ben ensemble.
Comments are closed.