Brown denounces curling iron comment

[brooklynite]

Source: Boston Herald

GOP U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown said a supporter’s remarks about shoving, “a curling iron up (Martha Coakley’s) butt,” were innapropriate today.

“If I had heard it I would have said something,” said Brown today.

The remark, lobbed at a Worcester rally in refrence to a sex abuse case Attorney General Coakley worked on, sparked growing outrage. Dem operative have heavily circulated a video of Brown smiling after someone yelled the remark and saying, “we can do it!”

Brown’s comment was towards the excited crowd, and he didn’t hear the racy remark, said spokeswoman Tarah Donoghue.

Read more: http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/news/daily_briefing/?p=993&srvc=home&position=recent

---

Hmm...perhaps someone should ask him, if he had heard it, what exact would he have said? I'm sure the teabaggers want to know.

[joeybee12]

1. So, the right-wing rag the Herald is covering for him???n/t

[Robb]

2. "...And that something would've been YEAH!!!" nt

[FrenchieCat]

3. He had a megaphone in his hand at the time.......

But didn't bother to say anything...and he heard what was said.

[onehandle]

4. ...with a wink. nt

[niyad]

5. even if he didn't hear it--it has certainly been known since way before today--what the hell took

im so long.

[dalaigh lllama]

6. They considered that a "racy" remark???

I guess their idea of racy sexual antics differ from most....

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ian David]

9. Thank you, Mr. Ayak for your input. It will be filed in the appropriate receptacle. n/t

[JDPriestly]

12. Are you a lawyer? Have you ever prosecuted anyone in a dependency

court?

The act of which this police officer was ultimately convicted was terrible. But terrible acts are what a dependency court is about. (Coakley handled the criminal aspect of the child abuse case, I presume. I am assuming that a dependency court case preceded the criminal case, but I don't know. I would think they not only prosecuted this man in criminal court but issued orders to keep him away from the victim who was a family member. I could be wrong about this.)

Here is the key paragraph:

Coakley pointed out that Winfield had no prior convictions, had deep roots in his community, and had appeared voluntarily at his arraignment after a 10-month investigation, leaving her office with scant reason to ask for cash bail and little reason to believe that a judge would order it.

Here is another one:

In a recent interview, Coakley said her office acted appropriately at every turn, adding that her office fielded 900 complaints of sexual and physical child abuse each year. She asserted that it was not unusual for prosecutors to require more than one grand jury before obtaining indictments, especially in cases such as Winfield’s, in which there is only circumstantial evidence and the victim is deemed too young to testify.


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2010/01/06/some_saw_coakley_as_lax_on_05_rape_case/

The only question I have about Coakley's handling of this case is that, although she denies that the fact that the suspect was a police officer was a factor in the case, had I been in her position considering that I only had circumstantial evidence against him and might not get a conviction, heinous as the crime was, I probably would have considered the fact that he was a police officer accused of child abuse. I would have considered that his life might be endangered if held in police custody prior to his conviction, and I might just do what she did to make sure that an innocent man would not be lynched by fellow detainees before trial. (I would have eliminated the possibility that the officer was taking responsibility in order to cover up for another family member.)

The criminal was convicted. It was highly unlikely that he would ever commit such a crime again, and he got his due in due time. He probably showed Coakley's office deep remorse and readiness to pay for what he did.

Considering the numbers of complaints about child abuse and domestic crime that pass a prosecutor's desk every day, this case, however sickening the facts may be, may not have been a priority.

I agree with Coakley on this. This police officer did a horrendous crime, but he was probably not a threat on the streets. If her office judged him to be completely repentant and willing to face the consequences of his act, the attorneys were right to prosecute first the many child abusers who refuse to even admit that what they are doing is wrong much less stop doing it.

Because the public is excluded from child abuse hearings, most people have no idea what goes on there. It is all confidential. I have attended a few such hearings (not as a party). The facts are nearly always just horrifying. The criminal trials usually follow the dependency court hearings (in my limited experience). There are technical reasons for that. The child abuser in this situation was not a parent and could have been easily kept out of the presence of the victim. The cases in which the child abuser had easier access to the victim may have been prioritized.

Sorry. Emotional topic. I had to edit a couple of times to get things right. I hope that no DUer ever has to deal with child abuse in any way.

[jonathon]

8. Brown is Romneyesque

Ken doll looks, no character, and empty rheoteric.

[Ian David]

10. If Dennis Kucinich looked like Mitt Romney, we'd own the galaxy by now. n/t

[zonkers]

23. Ding ding ding.

[intheozone]

11. WTF, the remarks were inappropriate today. How about tomorrow, or the

day the remarks were made? Jeez, did a reporter really write that sentence? If so, he/she should be sent to a grammar class!
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[SoapBox]

13. Mr. Brown and his lies...

Just a few reminders of how Mr. Brown would rule:

•Scott Brown wants to be the 41st vote to kill health care reform
•Scott Brown thinks President Obama might have been born out of wedlock.
•Scott Brown voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
•Scott Brown thinks gay couples adopting children is “not normal.”
•Scott Brown opposes late-term abortion.
•Scott Brown thinks hospitals should be allowed to deny emergency contraception to rape victims.
•Scott Brown voted for a lifetime limit on welfare benefits.

And you can keep up on the delightful Mr. Brown's crap at these sites:

http://www.thepoliticalcarnival.net/search/label/massachusetts

and

http://www.dscc.org/brownlies/

...get the word out...this guy is simply a slick Teabagger.

[santamargarita]

14. Well, there goes the shitbagger vote

[madmax]

15. Ewww, how about a cattle prod up his ass.

Nice, real nice.

[Barbara2423]

16. Brown invited this person to speak at HIS rally.

The people should be outraged.

[1monster]

17. Here's the YouTube of the incident. He heard, looked in the direction of the person who shouted out,

smiled, and said, "We can do this," to the delight of the crowd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28u3vPExxp4

[Strelnikov_]

18. Confirmed: "we can do this" was in response to the proposed assault n/t

[Wizard777]

21. Are you absolutely sure it wasn't in response to the guy yelling, "Suicide?"

[1monster]

24. Yes, I'm sure. He said, "No. No." in response to the "suicide" remark. Then the

curling iron guy shouted out and Brown turned to him, smiled, and said, "We can do this." It is obvious. Watch the vid again...

[Plucketeer]

19. See no evil,

hear no evil, KNOW no evil. :grr:

[senseandsensibility]

20. "Racy" remark?

That's hardly the term. And this from the "journalist" writing the article. Try "violent" or "sexist."

[Drum]

22. Is it really 2010? n/t