Friday, May 29, 2009

Hell Hath No Fury...

The Springfield Republican Reports:

So my friends at the Republican are having a ball with this story--and I'm sure readership is W-A-Y up.

I was a little surprised that the court did not allow the more serious charge of "assault and battery with a dangerous weapon" and that is usually followed by "shod foot". After all, Susan Dawson is the Mayor of Agawam (at least until the next election anyway.)

Not often a woman does not remember what kind of shoes she has on, but the point is any shoe on a foot when that foot is repeatedly kicking a downed opponent to the head is dangerous.

That's why Billy Jack always removed his boots before taking out the bad boys.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Tabloid news. Larry, you've reached a new low.

Sure Agawam and Amherst start with the same letter but I defy you to draw a parallel.

Crap.

LarryK4 said...

I cover journalism nitwit.

And if I had to guess, I would say the Gazette is going to catch some "crap" for today's sympathetic Front Page story on the older women who killed a cyclist on Memorial Day morning over on University Drive.

Anonymous said...

You cover journalism? So now you aare reporting on other people's stories? Yeah, right. So what new thing did you add?

LarryK4 said...

The Billy Jack clip of course you Nitwit.

And as a Martial Artist for over 35 years I kind of know the law (state and federal) when it comes to the rules of engagement.

Anonymous said...

that's why you call people out at 5:30 am

so no one will witness it

Greg Saulmon said...

At any rate, I was curious about the specifics of a "shod foot" charge, so I asked a local attorney what kind of shoes you have to wear in order to commit a felony:

http://www.masslive.com/localbuzz/index.ssf/2009/05/question_of_the_week_what_kind.html

Anonymous said...

I'm glad you posted that Greg, I had wondered about it too! Like, ok, flip-flops would hopefully be a no, but the shoes the mayor was shown wearing into court would be a definite yes. The things we ponder.

Don't listen to the nitwits Larry. It is in the news here, and you gave us a spot to yak about it. ;-)

If y'all dont like his posts, why do you bother coming back, really?

LarryK4 said...

Yeah, there's a BIG difference between steel tipped work boots and my 2-year-old daughter's "Hello Kittie" slippers.

And it's a Hell of a lot easier (even for a neophyte) to do serious damage to an individual prone on the ground after a surprise attack than it is to an upright individual who knows you're coming.

Anonymous said...

Just some observations from the Grumpy Prosecutor (hey, why fight it?) on A & B Dangerous Weapon (Shod Foot):

1) It's always good when the Defendant shows up for trial wearing his Timberlands.

2) Curled up in a fetal position on the ground getting repeatedly kicked is never a particularly good position in which to make detailed observations of your assailant's footwear.

3) The prosecutor, grumpy or not, is always happier when the police collect the arrestee's footwear as evidence.

4) This is a charge that frequently gets reduced by juries to simple assault and battery.

5) If the toes of the footwear are either cute little bunny rabbits or kitty-kats, it's best not to charge it.

Rich Morse

Anonymous said...

Sure Agawam and Amherst start with the same letter but I defy you to draw a parallel.

I will: Both have a corrupt housing authority.....