quote:

Jim Croce Court Decision: Florida Judge Dismisses Case Against Dorothea Collier In Folk Singer Tribute
07/18/2012

You don't mess around with this judge's decision. Get caught fooling around with a corrections officer's daughter, and you might be the baddest man in the whole damn town.

An 11th Circuit Florida judge drew from the wisdom of the late folk singer Jim Croce in dismissing excessive-force allegations against a cop mom who threatened a young man at gunpoint when she found him in her home with her daughter "wearing nothing but a look of surprise."

"In one of his ballads, Jim Croce warned that there are four things that you just don't do: 'You don't tug on Superman's cape/ You don't spit into the wind/ You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger/ And you don't mess around with Jim,'" Judge Carnes wrote in his decision, referencing Croce's 1972 hit, "You Don't Mess Around With Jim."

"He could have added a fifth warning to that list: 'And you don't let a pistol-packing mother catch you naked in her daughter's closet,'" he continued, according to a document obtained by Courthouse News.

The decision begins with a phone call on Nov. 2, 2009.

"Nineteen-year-old Uzuri Collier called Larry Butler, who was of a similar age, and invited him to her house," Carnes wrote in 17-page report. "Butler responded to the invitation the way most young men over the age of consent would have -- he went. Once Butler was at Uzuri's house, he and she consented to watch television for a while. Then they consented to do what young couples alone in a house have been consenting to do since the memory of man (and woman) runneth not to the contrary."

What Butler did not see coming was Uzuri Collier's mother, Dorothea Collier, a corrections officer with Palm Beach County.

The elder Collier arrived at home to find her daughter getting to know Butler "in the biblical sense," leaving the young -- and very naked -- man only moment to bolt for the bedroom closet, according to the decision.

"Collier discovered Butler stark naked in her daughter’s closet," according to the decision. "She yelled at him and punched him one time. Then Collier picked up her utility belt, put it back on, and drew her gun. She told Butler that if he moved or did not follow her commands, she would shoot him."

Butler pleaded with Collier and explained that he was an invited guest, but the enraged mom maintained that he broke into her home. She forced the still-naked Butler to his knees and handcuffed him at gunpoint.

Collier called her husband and instructed him to immediately return home. She then contacted her supervisor regarding potential charges she could file against her daughter's nude house guest. The supervisor broke the bad news that as an invited visitor, Butler could not press charges.

With her husband home, Collier allowed Butler -- still at gunpoint -- to dress himself and leave.

Following the incident, police arrested Collier and charged her with aggravated battery and false imprisonment, according to the Palm Beach Post.

Butler also sued Collier and Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw, only to have the case dismissed by the judge, who is presumably a fan of Jim Croce.

"Collier was an angry parent who happened to be in uniform, have handcuffs and a firearm, which she used for the private ends of scaring a young man she caught in bed with her daughter," Judge Carnes found.

"Although Collier did use the pistol that she wore as an officer, any adult without a felony record can lawfully possess a firearm (and tens of millions do)," the judge added.

"If the allegations are true, Collier's treatment of Butler was badder than old King Kong and meaner than a junkyard dog," Carnes wrote, returning to Croce's lyrics. "She might even have acted like the meanest hunk of woman anybody had ever seen. Still, the fact that the mistreatment was mean does not mean that the mistreatment was under color of law."

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
I suspect that this corrections officer may have a rather short lived career.
Peter

quote:

Like it or not, the girl in this instance is an adult. That means SHE gets to make the decisions about sex in her life. You don't, and her mother doesn't.

If she was your daughter you could always throw her out of the house and then have NO influence over how she lives her life because you wouldn't be there to counsel her when it is appropriate.

Jim
"Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid"
John Wayne

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

quote:

Like it or not, the girl in this instance is an adult. That means SHE gets to make the decisions about sex in her life. You don't, and her mother doesn't.

If she was your daughter you could always throw her out of the house and then have NO influence over how she lives her life because you wouldn't be there to counsel her when it is appropriate.

It already appears the parent is having zero influence upon what the daughter decides to do in her parents home. Geez AC you didn’t buy into Dr. Benjamin Spock’s teachings on how to raise your children did you?

While I have zero doubt that many if not most of my 6 children – 3 of each male and female – had sex before marriage but absolutely none of them would have thought about disrespecting my wife or I by having, or attempting to, sex within our home before marriage.

And for the second part of your question/statement; All of our children have understood before they reached the age of legal adulthood that they were required to live within the rules of our home and should they desire to flex their adulthood beliefs that they were fully free to do so in a residence of their own choice at their own expense. Same holds true today… And yes we’ve had all of them move back in to our home at some point after they first moved out and only one failed to abide by our house rules. And yes I did inform that son that had 3-days to find another place to live and that during that 3-day period he was one wrong step away from moving immediately.

Our children never feared us as children but often complained about our house rules… But their respect us as parents and for our house rules has only grown as they’re raising their own children.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Like it or not, the girl in this instance is an adult. That means SHE gets to make the decisions about sex in her life. You don't, and her mother doesn't.


But one thing you cannot legally do is threaten (assault) or beat up (batter) her guest in YOUR home.

If you think you can and that it is perfectly okay, then I'm not sure you should be able to own a gun.


.

....Mac >>>===(x)===> MacD37, ...and DUGABOY1
DRSS Charter member
"If I die today, I've had a life well spent, for I've been to see the Elephant, and smelled the smoke of Africa!"~ME 1982

Hands of Old Elmer Keith

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Like it or not, the girl in this instance is an adult. That means SHE gets to make the decisions about sex in her life. You don't, and her mother doesn't.


But one thing you cannot legally do is threaten (assault) or beat up (batter) her guest in YOUR home.

If you think you can and that it is perfectly okay, then I'm not sure you should be able to own a gun.


.

The key word here Mr.Canuck is “YOUR” Home! The rights of the home owner trump the desires of others living in that home. In this case the female was a guest in this home as well as the male. The adult offspring does have the RIGHT to make a decision about her sex life! In that you are correct, where you misunderstand she doesn’t have the right to practice the act just anyplace she chooses. I say if you believe they do have that right I'm not sure you should be allowed to own a gun! You are comdemning her for making rules in her own home, while trying to impose your rules on others who are not in YOUR home.

I think you need to go back to Canada where they don't allow you to own a handgun, and surely not to carry concialed. Canadian rule, and if you ignore that rule you will ge handcuffed.

The fact is she nor her invited friend have the right to engage in the act in SOMEONE ELSE'S HOME!

If this had been my home they both would have found themselves dressing on the front lawn, and neither one of them would be living in my home again. I agree that the male was no more responsible than the female,in fact less, they both violated some else’s home.
My home my rules,a guest in my home has no right to invite other guests into my home for any reason without my consent and no adult can do anything they want in my home regardless if they are my children or not and especially after adult hood even when invited there by me!

..................................................................................................................................

No, the key word is "assault". A home owner has the right to tell either or both parties they are no longer welcome there, and to tell either or both to leave immediately, or by some other specified time. A home owner can also call law enforcement and have either or both removed (and possibly charged with trespass) if they do not leave after being told to.

BUT a home owner cannot legally assault anyone, co-resident, or guest, with a deadly instrument just because they have offended the home owner's sensibilities.

This one homeowner may have gotten away with it in a jerkwater small court, but in most juridictions they would quickly find neither their anger nor "property right" claim is an excuse for assaulting with a deadly weapon somone they had not even previously advised to cease and desist such action, or that they were unwelcome on the premises.

As to my going back to Canada, I was born here in the U.S., have lived here likely at least as long as you have, and spent a lot of my life here as a LEO. I have no intention of going anywhere. But I DO respect a citizen's right to not be assaulted by a person who is in a fit of anger and holding a weapon.

If you want to get into suggestions as to anyone going anywhere, I suggest you go back to the 18th century, when property owners were little demigods who could threaten or destroy other's lives at their whim.

But those days, along with the 18th century, are gone forever as the American and French revolutions both pointed out to the "aristocracies".


P.S. You're not too sharp on Canadian gun laws either. Canadian resisdents CAN own handguns, and I owned many there. It is NON-residents who can't own or possess them in Canada.



Edited to add: just to make sure, I contacted one of the top criminal defense attorneys in Houston and asked him...

He responded with a description of "Reckless Endangerment, which you guys might find interesting....

"If you have been accused of reckless endangerment in Houston, Texas or surrounding areas, you are facing a charge that can affect you for the rest of your life. Whether you have been charged with a state or federal offense, the legal choices you make now can be the most important, especially your choice of an attorney. With so much at stake, do not settle for an inexperienced defense lawyer.

Reckless endangerment comprises several types of crimes involving conduct that is wrongful, reckless or wanton. These are acts that are likely or have the potential to produce death or grievous bodily harm to another person. In Texas, a person is said to have committed the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The word "reckless" indicates a type of conduct that demonstrates a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others as a result of the act or omission involved.

An interesting aspect of reckless endangerment is that the defendant need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or even know that his or her conduct is likely to cause the injury. The real question in a reckless endangerment case is whether, under all the circumstances, the defendant's conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.

Reckless endangerment can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. It is also interesting to note that no actual harm to the alleged victim is required to be convicted of reckless endangerment. However, whether it is charged as a misdemeanor or a felony could depend on the harm done. For example, if the injuries are minor or if the victim is uninjured, then it may be charged as a misdemeanor. If the so-called reckless act resulted in major injuries or death, then it could be charged as a felony."

quote:

Edited to add: just to make sure, I contacted one of the top criminal defense attorneys in Houston and asked him...

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Edited to add: just to make sure, I contacted one of the top criminal defense attorneys in Houston and asked him...

Really! I find it interesting that that EXACT QUOTE, word for word, comes off the net. Surprising that said lawyer would answer your inquiry on a weekend, and manage to quote that web page word for word.

quote:

Edited to add: just to make sure, I contacted one of the top criminal defense attorneys in Houston and asked him...

quote:

I didnt ask for legal counsel, just for free info on reckeless endangerment, which it turned out is on his website. Why should he provide more than what he already had "canned"?

quote:

NO MAS PANTALONES!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Edited to add: just to make sure, I contacted one of the top criminal defense attorneys in Houston and asked him...

Oh, I get it, you were fibbing when you said you contacted him. Not to worry, it's a small lie, but it doesn't help your credibility, now does it?

Quit pissing, you're done with that ruse.

quote:

Well, as far as I am concerned, contacting his site and quoting what he says there, IS contacting him.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Well, as far as I am concerned, contacting his site and quoting what he says there, IS contacting him.

quote:

Perhaps TWO crimes were committed in violation of Texas law....Reckless endangerment, AND Aggravated Assault. I also note you so far have no comment on that possibility either

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:

quote:

Perhaps TWO crimes were committed in violation of Texas law....Reckless endangerment, AND Aggravated Assault. I also note you so far have no comment on that possibility either

I'm "irritated" that you flat out lied to buttress your non-existant case about "reckless endangerment" in Texas.

In case you haven't noticed the case in my opening post occurred in Florida, not Texas. Why don't you "consult" a Florida attorney on the web.

Try to keep up while you're tilting at windmills.

quote:

by Alberta Canuck:
P.S. You're not too sharp on Canadian gun laws either.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
[Plain fact is, it is easy to spout off about what one would and wouldn't do...it is easy to be a big macho dude when all one has to do is posture on a keyboard.

....Mac >>>===(x)===> MacD37, ...and DUGABOY1
DRSS Charter member
"If I die today, I've had a life well spent, for I've been to see the Elephant, and smelled the smoke of Africa!"~ME 1982

Hands of Old Elmer Keith