Turns out WI Justice Ann Walsh Bradley was the one with the anger management problem
I have focused from the beginning of the scuffle between Wisconsin Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and David Prosser on Bradley’s accusation that Prosser used a “chokehold” on her. As I have detailed before, “chokehold” is a very specific term recognized by Wisconsin courts as being inherently dangerous because it puts significant pressure cutting off the flow of blood and/or oxygen, and therefore is legally justified only in very limited circumstances.
That accusation was made publicly in a press statement by Bradley in June:
“”The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold ….”
Internally at the Supreme Court, Bradley demanded that Prosser undergo anger management therapy.
Initial investigation by The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel found that there was reason to doubt Bradley’s story, at least according to some witnesses, because there was at most incidental contact with Bradley’s neck as she rushed Prosser and he put his hands up in defense, but that there never was any chokehold used by Prosser.
Nonetheless, Bradley’s public statement that Prosser used as “chokehold” was understood, quite logically, to mean that Prosser had choked Bradley. Based on the allegation of choking, there were widespread demands for Prosser to step down, and the supposed choking became the subject of protests.
OneWisconsin Now organized a petition drive for Prosser to resign based on the use of a chokehold:
Justice David Prosser must resign.
According to Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, fellow Justice David
Prosser of put her in a chokehold during a dispute in her office earlier this
month. According to Bradley, “the facts are that I was demanding that he get out
of my office and [Prosser] put his hands around my neck in anger in a
chokehold.”Prosser’s temper and abusive conduct has been tolerated long enough.
Prosser charging at Tim Carpenter on the Assembly floor when the two served
together – footage One Wisconsin Now obtained and made public in March. Prosser
calling Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson a “bitch” and threatening to “destroy”
her. And now this.Prosser has to go. Sign here to join thousands and thousands of your
fellow Wisconsinites in demanding Prosser resign.
Yesterday, the special prosecutor decided not to prosecute.
Today the investigative file was released, and confirmed that there was no chokehold used on Bradley by Prosser. As summarized by The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, both Prosser and Bradley when interviewed by investigators confirmed that Prosser never choked Bradley much less used a chokehold:
In interviews with a detective on July 8, Prosser said that during an informal argument between two groups of justices Bradley “charged” him with her fist raised and he put up his hands to defend himself.
“Did my hands touch her neck, yes, I admit that. Did I try to touch her neck, no, absolutely not, it was a total reflex,” Prosser said.
Bradley said during the argument that she wanted Prosser to leave the suite of offices that serve her and her staff and confronted him to tell him to leave because she felt he was being disrespectful to Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. Bradley said she was “in control” and denied that she had raised her fist, saying instead she had pointed to the door.
“ ’Buddy, get out of my office,’ ” Bradley said she told Prosser during an interview with a detective on July 12. While saying that, she said in a June 28 interview she was “standing face to face to confront (Prosser).”
She said she specifically remembered using the word “buddy” for a reason.
“Buddy puts me in control and them in the diminutive,” she told a detective.
Later, Bradley said, she could recall the contact of Prosser’s hands on her neck but no pain or pressure that affected her breathing. She did, however, say that she had become emotional after the incident.
The notes of the interview with Prosser reveal that Bradley had her fist about six inches from Prosser’s face, and the defensive contact with her neck was a “split second” with no pressure asserted.
Justice Michael Gableman confirmed in his interview that Bradley was about a foot from Prosser with a fist raised, in a punching motion which came within an inch of Prosser, and that Prosser raised his hands in a “defensive move” and gave a non-violent push in the area of where Bradley’s shoulders met her neck. Similar accounts were given by Justice Patience Roggensack. Justice Annette Ziegler did not see enough of the incident to comment on the choking allegation, but confirmed that Bradley “walk[ed] quickly” towards Prosser and “got in his face.”
Even Chief Judge Shirley Abrahamson confirmed that Bradley approached Prosser, and that she did not believe Prosser placed any pressure on Bradley’s neck, although she denied that Bradley has raised a fist to Prosser.
The notes of the interview with Bradley reveal that Bradley admitted approaching Prosser”to get close to him to make sure he knew she meant it” [to leave the office], and then used the term “choke hold.” But Bradley in her statement to police, unlike her statement to the public, stated that she “did not recall” Prosser “squeezing or applying pressure around her neck.” Bradley later described what happened as “kind of a choke hold” but again did not recall any pressure applied.
It does not appear that Bradley lied to the police, because she tempered her use of the term “choke hold” with an admission that no pressure was applied (which means that there was no “choke hold”).
But to the public, a very different image was presented, that of a “chokehold” being used and of a Supreme Court Justice choking another Justice. That was false and misleading, and forever has tarnished David Prosser.
Ironically, the account by almost all of the Justices present reveals that Justice Bradley charged at Prosser with fist raised, to get in his face, and to intimidate him, but Bradley demanded that Prosser undergo anger management therapy.
When will Justice Bradley be held accountable for the fact that she falsely and misleadingly told the public that David Prosser used a “chokehold” on her? And when will she undergo anger management therapy?
Update: Ann Althouse has links to some of the anti-Prosser protests using the choking allegation.
Comments
Since we all seem to agree that something incredibly untoward happened that day, and according to Bradley, criminal, why not have an open investigation in the state House? Bring all the parties in, subpoena the relevant documents and correspondences, and get everyone to testify publicly, under oath, under professional questioning? Perhaps as part of an joint impeachment investigation? Abrahamson had ample opportunity to confirm all of Bradley’s story, and seems not to have done so. Perhaps she’s like another chance, under oath?
Me, I try to imagine a scenario where in a group of male and female co-equals, a male member begins choking (or strikes) a female member, and 1) the police are not immediately called and 2) said male doesn’t have his ass immediately kicked. Outside of some collective criminal enterprise, I’m coming up with nothing.
I have an even more difficult time imagining such when the parties involved are are state supreme court justices.
And that’s why the story failed the smell test from the very beginning- its utterly implausible.
“So, the lesson is to grab the baby by the neck?”
It was pure battery. No assault, as my eyes were closed and I didn’t see it coming. No assault meant no natural reflexive reaction on my part … and I got clobbered.
After I finally got the bleeding to stop, I sat with her and read her the weapon, er, I mean, book. I affectionately put my arm around her, or, as you would call it, a chokehold.
Look what she did was commit assault. A person is allowed to take reasonable measures to ensure they are not the victim of an imminent assault.
Whether her blow landed or not (and she admitted rushing him with her fist raised), she still committed an assault and must take the consequences of such. He put his hands forward in an entirely understandable and predictable defensive reaction. You see it in court cases all the time.
Get over it Zach, you are in the wrong. It doesn’t matter how big or small the adults in the assault are, the victim does not need to allow the attacker a chance to strike them if they believe that is going to happen.
She needs to be impeached. She knew she wasn’t in a choke hold. She knew she lied to the press if not to the authorities.
Zachriel | August 27, 2011 at 3:49 pm
. . .
Quoting to: Awing1: Bradley’s size is fairly irrelevant to whether or not Prosser was allowed to defend himself when Bradley accosted him.
You opined as follows: There is no evidence Bradley “accosted him”. She berated him.
Well, it appears that you are wrong on that point.
The first and most relevant definition of “accost” is as follows:
Based on the statements she made to investigators, she intended to and did approach and confront him; she intentionally called him buddy; and, as she confronted him she waived her closed fist in his face. I’d bet that even Justice Bradley herself would own up to having accosted him!
Another interesting question to me (and to a few others above) is whether she committed an assault in the common law sense – an act intended to cause another person to apprehend a harmful or offensive contact.
It appears that Wisconsin has abolished all common law crimes, including, from what I can tell, the common law of simple assault. They have also created several statutory categories of battery, along with other more serious assault-related crimes, none of which are really relevant here.
However, the general concept of simple assault is quite relevant in the sense that there are some unique circumstances in this case, including the specific fact that it involved a judge.
Wisconsin also has a statute that makes it a serious felony to threaten to cause bodily harm to a member of the judiciary including, of course, a Supreme Court Justice. Moving toward someone in a confrontational manner and putting your fist in the person’s face is a threat of harm.
940.203(2) provides as follows:
“Whoever intentionally causes bodily harm or threatens to cause bodily harm to the person or family member of any judge under all of the following circumstances is guilty of a Class H felony.” (my emphasis added)
The conditions are:
(a) At the time of the act or threat, the actor knows or should have known that the victim is a judge or a member of his or her family.
(b) The judge is acting in an official capacity at the time of the act or threat or the act or threat is in response to any action taken in an official capacity.
and
(c) There is no consent by the person harmed or threatened.
Clearly all three of those conditions were met.
And it also seems to be pretty clear that the defensive action taken by Prosser was a quite reasonable response to what any person in his position would take as a threat of an imminent assault by Bradley as she waived her fist at his face.
No wonder Bradley publicly prevaricated by falsely alleging that Justice Prosser put her in a “chokehold.” She knew she had lost it.
ZachrielRevealing of what? You don’t push someone much smaller than yourself away by pushing on their neck, even if you do think they are in your face.
Hey, moron, the human brain has a hardwired instinct to push away what the hindbrain deems offensive. It’s an automatic response, which has been conclusively demonstrated. Prosser could no more have resisted pushing away Bradley than he could have dunked on Michael Jordan.
Jesus, are all leftists this willingly ignorant?
In WI, yes. For so long the leftists have been able to run amok here that they believe whatever is told to them.
Trochilus: Well, it appears that you are wrong on that point.
Which is why we put “accost” in scare-quotes, to avoid the conflation with “approach with harmful intent.” The sentence at issue was “Bradley’s size is fairly irrelevant to whether or not Prosser was allowed to defend himself when Bradley accosted him.” If we take “accost” with the usual meaning, then defense means words or withdrawal, as he should have done, not grabbing her by the neck.
Trochilus: Another interesting question to me (and to a few others above) is whether she committed an assault in the common law sense – an act intended to cause another person to apprehend a harmful or offensive contact.
There is little reasonable doubt that Bradley thought she was forcefully gesticulating, demanding he leave the office, when he grabbed her by the neck. Interesting reflex that. Most people would block the supposed blow. Bradley says she was pointing. Another judge says she had her glasses in her hand. Prosser could have simply left, of course.
Another interesting point is that one of the judges thought Bradley was “hovering over” Prosser, even though she is actually six inches shorter. Shows you how difficult it is to understand the details of such an event. Judges are no better witnesses than people on the street.
No one was hurt, fortunately.
Zachriel | August 28, 2011 at 9:14 am
“There is little reasonable doubt that Bradley thought she was forcefully gesticulating, demanding he leave the office, when he grabbed her by the neck.”
You seem to be every bit as doggedly insistent as is Bradley, particularly in the way you keep predicating your comments by parroting the same false nonsense about him allegedly having “grabbed her by the neck.”
What rubbish. He put his hands up defensively as she was coming at him. She had her fist raised and going back and forth toward him. As has been carefully pointed out to you above, one justice specifically related how: “Justice Bradley’s fist was going towards and away from Justice Prosser’s face in almost a punching motion.” Another Justice said she thought Bradley was about to smack “him in the face with her fist.”
His hands were quite justifiably raised in a defensive manner, and came into contact with her shoulder area and touched her neck as she was waiving her fist back and forth toward and away from his face, with her fist at one point being perhaps as close as an inch away from his face! He did not grab her by the neck, as you so disingenuously put it — his reaction was entirely justifiable and quite reasonable.
Can you imagine if his hands been a bit lower, for example, we would now be subjected to Bradley screeching and making preposterous claims of being the victim of a sexual assault. And if his hands had been just a bit higher, she and all her risible defenders — yourself included — would likely be falsely alleging that he was trying to jam his thumb in her eye. Neither Justice Bradley nor you can ever own up to the obvious truth.
You keep insisting he could have just walked away, as if that was the only legitimate response. But raising his hands defensively and stopping her from further charging at him was entirely reasonable. She was obviously acting out and there was no telling what she might do.
This woman completely disgraced herself with her intemperate behavior, which she then compounded by publicly lying about it. Therefore, she should resign immediately.
“No one was hurt, fortunately.”
Sure. He should just keep a straight face and maintain that having had a fellow justice on the State Supreme Court publicly lie about him by repeatedly making false accusations regarding an incident, all in a concerted effort to damage his professional reputation, is just fine and dandy. I suppose that pursuant to those standards, “no one was hurt.”
@Zachriel
Also, common law is behind the times in assessing what exactly “immediate threat” entails. Human beings are highly social animals, so social status is one of the most important aspects of human existence. Taunting and physically gesturing at someone from a point blank range *is* by definition a threat against one’s social status.
Take, for example, the young leftist whack-jobs you run on-stage and throw whip-cream pies in the faces of prominent conservative speakers. A common-law doctrine consistent with a rigorous understanding of human nature would allow that speaker to respond with physical violence. If I were a conservative speaker and that happened the law should allow me to give that person a good solid punch to teach them a lesson.
@ Zachriel
Hey, ignorant jackass, Bradley’s size is utterly irrelevant, as that is not how the hindbrain decides on threat assessment. I’m 137 and 5’6 and if I run at a world champion MMA fighter and start pantomiming physical attacks his hindbrain assesses that as a threat.
Jesus Christ, you’re an idiot.
“Yes, that’s what Roggensack believes, but that’s not what actually happened. Roggensack also says Prosser’s thumbs were in contact with the front of Bradley’s neck. There’s still no excuse for Prosser to put his hands on another person, much less a much smaller person.”
Zachriel
Why didn’t you say you were there and witnessed the whole thing? You keep harping on Bradley being smaller. Does that mean, in your opinion, that a smaller person has carte blanche to attack someone bigger any time they want and get an out because they are smaller? You really are ridiculous.
There will be a detailed post Monday morning with even more details from the investigative report.
Sounds like that liberal broom-riding hack Bradley may have misused the criminal justice system in a politically-motivated agenda against a conservative colleague on the court. Does Wisconsin have any way of removing her kind of rotting garbage from the court, save impeachment or forced retirement?
Those who have spent time in schools, especially middle schools and high schools, will know that the aggressor is not always the bigger person. Often a physically smaller person will try to provoke a bigger one. My observation is that the bigger person is usually more comfortable with themselves, and doesn’t have anything to prove.
The song is, “Short People Ain’t Got No Reason To Live.” Includes a line about them going around telling all those great big lies.
Short is great where there is a potential for dramatic drops in nutritional intake, in both quality and quantity.
Yep, I’m 5’7, 137 lbs.
Zachriel: There is little reasonable doubt that Bradley thought she was forcefully gesticulating, demanding he leave the office, when he grabbed her by the neck.
Trochilus: You seem to be every bit as doggedly insistent as is Bradley, …
Probably because that is really how Bradley saw the incident.
Trochilus: He put his hands up defensively as she was coming at him.
Like we mentioned, that’s an odd reflex to push someone by the neck. Most people would block the blow, or simply turn away.
Trochilus: His hands were quite justifiably raised in a defensive manner, and came into contact with her shoulder area and touched her neck …
He did more than “touch her neck.” Both his thumbs were on the center of her neck, and he admits he could feel the warmth from her neck. Now, try to figure out what that means in terms of the position of his hands.
Trochilus: his reaction was entirely justifiable and quite reasonable.
It’s certainly reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt as no one was hurt, and he immediately desisted.
Trochilus: He should just keep a straight face and maintain that having had a fellow justice on the State Supreme Court publicly lie about him by repeatedly making false accusations regarding an incident, …
She never touched the man. And then his hands were on her neck. She is clearly telling what she believes to be the truth.
AsherJ: Taunting and physically gesturing at someone from a point blank range *is* by definition a threat against one’s social status.
Heh. Seriously, “a threat against one’s social status” does not justify a physical response. A pie in the face, on the other hand, is a physical attack.
BarbaraS: Does that mean, in your opinion, that a smaller person has carte blanche to attack someone bigger any time they want and get an out because they are smaller?
No. Keep in mind that she never touched him, but says she was gesticulating.
@Zachriel
Hey, moron, answer the entire substance of my comments. Yeah, most split-second human actions are not governed by the frontal lobe. This goes for all people.
Yes, the human brain interprets Bradley’s actions toward Prosser as a threat.
Ignorant jackass.
[…] I challenge anyone to make a similar case for Bradley, from the 70 page Sheriff’s report. Note that this was a Democrat Sheriff’s Office report from a Sheriff who supported Bradley in her election. Note that some portions of the report were blacked out, and that investigator’s original notes were destroyed by the Sheriff’s Office before handing materials over to the Special Prosecutor. If a report coming from this supporter’s office could be so damning, imagine the case that could be made if evidence was not missing. Already, evidence is beginning to surface that it is Bradley, not Prosser, who has the anger management problem. […]