Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Turns out WI Justice Ann Walsh Bradley was the one with the anger management problem

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 RoggensackJustice 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.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

If Justice Bradley had lied to the investigators that would be a crime. Lying to the press and the people is legal.

File under: Lying leftists and the liars who lie for them.

Even the CLAIM of something untoward is enough for an outcry by leftists that a conservative or Republican ‘must resign’ but strangely silence is all we hear when it’s PROVEN some leftist Democrat has committed a crime or violation.

The insanity of the left is destroying the country.

Since we are so recall crazy in Wisconsin, I’m all for Bradley & Abrahamson recalls. Would be a hoot to see their campaign centered on this stuff.

Wow, so Judge Bradley gets away with it but her false claims will be used forever to defame Justice Prosser.

Well, what else is new? Now Judge Abrahamson’s call for so-called for court discussions to be open to the public is but another effort to turn the Wisconsin SC into a “people’s court” just like good old Stalin did so many years ago. Bradley’s effort has to be seen as a side effort to achieve the same result.

Speaking of Wisconsin Crazy…

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/128458763.html

“Locks superglued prior to protests of Governor Walker at local school”

They just won’t grow up.

Cowboy Curtis | August 26, 2011 at 6:24 pm

Prosser should bring a civil suit against Bradley, have a thorough discovery and deposition process, then drop it. I’m all for being a gentleman, but these women have proven they are anything but ladies, and they will come after him again, and the left will attack him with this. He’s a fool if he doesn’t take this last step to protect himself.

Now this is definitely enough evidence to argue Bradley should step down. It’s clear by her own admission that her claim of a “chokehold” was false and knowingly so. Even if one applies a less legalistic definition of chokehold (which, considering her position, we shouldn’t have to), her description wouldn’t amount to any common usage of the word. I’d have to imagine there is some form of professional conduct requirement for Wisconsin judges, it’s time to invoke that.

Professor, on my momitor the text below is a quoted in its entirety from the ad that appears between the end of your piece on Judge Bradley and the comments section. Honest. Ain’t the internet grand!

“Binghamton Psychologist http://www.adamkrantweiss.com Therapy for adults and adolescents Openings for new clients”

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Owego. | August 26, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    It’s you, not me!

      Dopubt it’s either of us. Now the pitch is “Earn Your On Line Marketing Certification.” Perhaps it’s Judge Bradley, first an opportunity for counseling, now one to polish her image. She should give the first a higher priority.

In my misspent youth I spent 10 years in law enforcement both as a line officer and as an instructor at the state police academy. Granted this was about 20 years ago but at that time the “choke hold” (actually properly called the carotid submission hold) is done from behind and uses the crook of your arm at the elbow to place pressure on both carotid arteries cutting off oxygenated blood to the brain. This is done by forcing the head, using your shoulder, forward and against the crook of your arm making sure not to crush the voice box.

In other words, it is an obvious maneuver that could not be confused with any other actions. One would think a judge who and any criminal justice experience would have seen it acted out in front of juries several times.

So what Bradley did is exactly to the point of all Progressive/Leftist activists…and Obama, “…get in their faces”. It’s just always a shock to these personality types when someone reacts in a way, other than their planned capitulation and/or even joining them in their own demise, and defends themselves.

We should not be surprised to see this at the highest levels. They have been schooled well in the elite education institutions, not the least of which is the UW of Madison, and are the ones teaching the Progressive ethos of Cloward and Piven, Alinsky et all. And honestly, we on the conservative, libertarian civil side have been like “enablers” in always taking the high road. After all, it doesn’t pay to get in a pissing contest with a skunk, right?

But, when the skunks are allowed to move in, and we run from every confrontation to avoid their stink on us…well, eventually they take over the farm. So confront we must, hold our noses, stock up on tomato juice and march to the voting booths.

Far be it from me to go throwing silly analogies around, but if Justice Prosser played lacrosse, wouldn’t Justice Bradley be a stripper?

Partially because they are only elected once every ten years, and, therefore, are only accountable to the people on such occasions, judges who deceive the public, particularly when they do so inappropriately and to the significant detriment of others (including another judge), ought not be included amongst the class of public officials whose misleading utterances might otherwise be excusable, or perhaps even justifiable.

The bigger part of her infraction is simply that all of us have a legitimate expectation that judges are simply not permitted to publicly lie, at least not in the way that we sometimes allow other politicians to, shall we say, slide a bit in that regard.

The French have a phrase that addresses the question of whether it is okay, in circumstances, for a public official to deceive the public . . . “S’il peut etre utile de tromper le peuple.

So, there may be no basis for a criminal or quasi-criminal charge against Justice Bradley, particularly if (as seems to be the case here) she did not lie to a police investigator.

And in most American jurisdictions, probably including Wisconsin, there is no general crime of “lying to the public.”

Also, I suppose that in a twisted sort of way, as a judge she is probably also immune from any possible tort action for an offense against reputation (slander), even though her public account about the “intra-judicial” kerfuffle differed in key ways from her statements to investigators.

Her public “chokehold” allegation seems to have been purposefully false, and was intended to wrongly damage both the reputation and livelihood of Justice Prosser.

But that may not be the final word on the incident. There are also rules of proper judicial conduct in Wisconsin. And on that count, she may be vulnerable.

Just for starters, one of the first rules of judicial conduct addresses the question of the avoidance of inappropriate personal conduct on the part of a judge.

SCR 60.03, specifies that, “A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities.”

And the first subsection specifies:

“(1) A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

. . . .

That second clause in particular, and the accompanying commentary, suggests to me that it may well be applicable in this case. It is difficult to imagine that rule having any meaning at all if it does not proscribe her behavior — engaging in a threatening physical confrontation with another judge, and then making false public statements about the incident, ones that are quite contrary to what she and others said to investigators.

She was quoted making statements which were patently false and/or misleading, including ones inappropriately and falsely stating that another member of judiciary had engaged in violent criminal or quasi-criminal behavior.

So, if the rules of judicial conduct should somehow come into play, she may not be out of the woods yet.

    JayDick in reply to Trochilus. | August 27, 2011 at 9:23 am

    Ah, but who is responsible for enforcing these rules? The Court itself? The legislature? That could be key, although a conservative majority on the court would help some.

Awing1 | August 26, 2011 at 6:33 pm . . .

I was writing my lengthy comment, and after posting it I saw the following portion of your prior comment.

I’d have to imagine there is some form of professional conduct requirement for Wisconsin judges, it’s time to invoke that.

I think you are right, and my comment above lays out one basis for a charge against her under the rules.

Cowboy Curtis | August 26, 2011 at 9:31 pm

What are the criteria for impeachment in Wisconsin? If I were in the legislature, I’d be checking it out. Bradley and Abrahamson are both a disgrace.

The morning guy in Milwaukee (Charlie Sykes) had a very good take on it.

It’s his opinion that the Special Prosecutor’s decision NOT to file charges against Prosser means that the prosecutor did not think she could get a jury to believe Bradley’s story.

So yes, she could lie to the public. But when it counted, the public would not believe the lies.

    Merlin in reply to dad29. | August 26, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    Sykes is intimately familiar with the inner workings and personalities on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. His wife Diane served as a Justice for roughly five years before GW Bush nominated her for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The friction between Bradley and Prosser is rooted in the fact that Abrahamson and Bradley have absolutely no use for fellow Justices who come from outside the judicial system. David Prosser is just the latest example of Justices who haven’t met their standards. Prosser came out of the state assembly where he served as both Speaker and as minority leader for the Republicans. Being both Republican and from the legislature makes him next to worthless as far as Abrahamson/Bradley are concerned. Other past Justices have chosen to simply move on rather than tolerate Abrahamson’s pettiness. Prosser is a pretty mild mannered guy, but he’s been around the block a few times in the legislature and sits in the majority on this current court. He’s about as standup a guy as you’ll ever find in politics. Both Abrahamson and Bradley are going to have to deal with the fact that they represent the new minority. Democrats all over Wisconsin are struggling with this same reality. Let’s hope they’ve learned that choosing to play public politics with Prosser is not wise.

    dad29 in reply to Merlin. | August 27, 2011 at 9:42 am

    …all of which means that the Diktatorship of Shirley has crashed and is now in the process of burning.

    Proving that the Wizard of Oz movie was wrong: it’s not water that destroys the witch; it’s votes!

Is there no legal remedy for Prosser against the false accusation Bradley made in public? I would hope he would pursue those.

Prosser remembers that that his hands were open and remembers how warm her neck was. That may not be criminal assault, but that is certainly enough to threaten a woman smaller than himself. There is simply no excuse for putting his hands on someone.

    dad29 in reply to Zachriel. | August 27, 2011 at 9:43 am

    Oh, yes there is. It’s called “self-defense,” and your girly spin is flat wrong.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Zachriel. | August 27, 2011 at 9:44 am

    Quit digging. Bradley by several accounts charged him with a fist inches from his face and he pushed her away. His hands made momentary contact with ther shoulders/neck and that’s it. Yet she went public and claimed he put her in a “chokehold” and then sat back as Prosser was vilified for choking her, when she knew it never happened. If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty, you would be demanding she resign. And by the way, she is larger than he is, not that it really matters.

dad29: It’s called “self-defense,” and your girly spin is flat wrong.

Everyone agrees that Prosser was never touched, and that she was pointing him to the door.

William A. Jacobson: And by the way, she is larger than he is, not that it really matters.

“According to the records, Prosser is 5-feet-9-inches tall and weighs 165 pounds. Bradley is 5-feet-3-inches and weighs 131 pounds.”
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/128463653.html

So Prosser felt threatened by a woman who never touched him, who told him to leave her office, someone who is six inches shorter than him, and thirty-four pounds lighter. That he admits he felt the warmth from her neck indicates shows the position of his hands. No one was hurt—fortunately—, but there is no excuse for his behavior.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Zachriel. | August 27, 2011 at 11:56 am

    From Justice Roggensack interview: “Justice Roggensack said if she had not got in between the two of them, she believes Justice Bradley would have “smacked him in the face with her fist .””

    From Justice Gableman interview: “Justice Gableman said Justice Bradley’s fist was going towards and away from Justice Prosser’s face in almost a punching motion. Justice Gableman said he wanted to make clear that Justice Bradley’s fist was not going up and down, but rather in and out towards and away from Justice Prosser during this incident. Justice Gableman said Justice Bradley’s fist was in Justice Prosser’s face and came within about an inch every time she would extend her fist while speaking to Justice Prosser.”

    Look for my post, probably Monday, in which I will quote more extensively from the investigative report. Bradley should resign not just for her conduct in charging at Prosser with fist raised, but also because of how she made a misleading press statement and then cynically and falsely invoked “workpace violence against women” to spin the case against Prosser.

Zachriel: Everyone agrees that Prosser was never touched, and that she was pointing him to the door.

That should read more accurately, everyone agrees that Prosser was not struck by Bradley. Prosser says she raised a fist, while Bradley says she was showing him the door.

    dad29 in reply to Zachriel. | August 27, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    Uh-huh. Althouse, along with every other clear-thinking individual who’s followed the case, notes that Bradley is suddenly demanding a “safe working environment.” That demand was made in her “incident report.”

    So the question: how does Bradley arrogate to herself the judgment of “who’s a bully”?

    Althouse then notes that Bradley deliberately used the term “buddy” in telling Prosser to get out of “her” office. (I might remind Bradley that the Capitol is OUR house…) She used the term to establish control of Prosser.

    IOW, Bradley was the bully here. And that conclusion is backed by not only her own words, but her aggressive attack on Prosser.

    We live in an EEO world. Girls who want to be equal are equal. They, too, get pushed back. Too bad, so sad.

    She needs treatment, I admit; she’s deserving of our pity, not scorn.

William A. Jacobson: From Justice Roggensack interview: “Justice Roggensack said if she had not got in between the two of them, she believes Justice Bradley would have ‘smacked him in the face with her fist.'”

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.

William A. Jacobson: Bradley should resign not just for her conduct in charging at Prosser with fist raised, but also because of how she made a misleading press statement and then cynically and falsely invoked “workpace violence against women” to spin the case against Prosser.

There is little doubt that Bradley was emotionally upset by the incident—everyone was—, and that she thought Prosser had attacked her.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Zachriel. | August 27, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    Fine, next time someone charges at you and punches their fist an inch from your face, don’t push them away. Really, your attempt to excuse her conduct and blame Prosser for pushing her away, with only incidental contact with her neck, is very revealing.

      William A. Jacobson: Really, your attempt to excuse her conduct and blame Prosser for pushing her away, with only incidental contact with her neck, is very revealing.

      Revealing 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.

Prosser probably will not do a thing. It is the republican way to abstain from retaliation for the good of the state and/or the country. Unfortunately, they are dealing with people who don’t care about any of that. They only care about pushing the agenda of the dim party by hook or by crook, mostly crook. Until republicans realize you have to fight fire with fire they will always be losers. They don’t have to sink to the dim level but they do have to vigorously deny lies about themselves and fellow republicans.

Zachriel

Keep on believing that crap. Yours is a case of believing the dims in the teeth of all evidence to the contrary. Did you perchance read that the prosecutor said there was no evidence Prosser was guilty of misconduct? This was a dim prosecutor not up for re-election so was safe in giving a correct verdict.

    dad29 in reply to BarbaraS. | August 27, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    Actually, she was an (R) prosecutor from the neighboring county. No matter. She arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution could not get 12 people to believe Bradley’s story.

    IOW, the case would fail because Bradley lied. Fortunately, nobody died.

Generally, my layman’s view is that videocameras in the courtroom are not a good idea.

But, on second thought, perhaps they would discourage this type of behavior if they were rolling 24/7 in every nook and crannie of the building.

And even if not, we’d have some wonderful “Judges Gone Wild” tapes.

Zachriel, you want to blame the victim of assault for a reflexive response? Maybe the U.K. would be a better fit for you, where victims who exercise self-defense are considered guilty until proven innocent.

LukeHandCool (who has never once in his life lost control like Judge Bradley did … and who thinks the lesson to be drawn is that either Luke should’ve become a Judge or Justice Bradley should not have … she obviously doesn’t have a dispassionate temperament).

Zachriel
Justice Bradley started the incident because she felt that someone was being disrespectful to Justice Abrahamson. SHE charged at Prosser, SHE initialized a physical attack and then complains she does not feel safe in her work environment. As a former HR Director had this happened in a private company she would face discipline if not dismissal.
The other thing is that the investigation reports show she has been physical with another justice as well(I cannot comment on what Prosser did while in the assembly because I cannot find the video).
She needs to go for the fact that she knowingly misled the voters of WI and has created a work place safety issue.

    dad29 in reply to Lizard. | August 27, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    Further, another Justice testified that Bradley’s anger-management issues are longstanding.

    In 2008, she smacked a Justice upside the head (!!) because that Justice called Shirley by her first name during a SCOWI conference.

    Frankly, this woman needs treatment. Now.

LukeHandCool: Zachriel, you want to blame the victim of assault for a reflexive response?

She never touched him, and cannot reasonably have been considered a threat.

Lizard: SHE charged at Prosser, SHE initialized a physical attack and then complains she does not feel safe in her work

She never touched him, and cannot reasonably have been considered a threat.

    LukeHandCool in reply to Zachriel. | August 27, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    Zachriel: “She never touched him, and cannot reasonably have been considered a threat.”

    Zachriel, I’m not a lawyer and I admit I know no more about the law than your average bloke.

    But I do believe that “assault” is the reasonable fear of being on the receiving end of violence, whereas actual unwanted physical contact is called “battery.”

    Someone with more knowledge in this area please correct me if I’m wrong.

    Still, I have never once in my life acted in any way that could be construed as threatening violence of any sort to anyone. I don’t find self-control difficult at all. Do you? How can you excuse this type of behavior from a judge? I wouldn’t tolerate from our 12-year-old son.

    LukeHandCool (who is thankful is son is a gentle soul).

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Zachriel. | August 27, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    You’re into troll territory, when someone points out facts which contradict your narrative, you simply repeat what you said previously.

William A. Jacobson: You’re into troll territory, when someone points out facts which contradict your narrative, you simply repeat what you said previously.

No one’s pointed to any facts that contradict that Posser initiated physical contact on a woman much smaller than himself.

    LukeHandCool in reply to Zachriel. | August 27, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    “No one’s pointed to any facts that contradict that Posser initiated physical contact on a woman much smaller than himself.”

    Not so small so as to preclude her from bringing her fist within an inch of Judge Prosser’s nose, no?

    Quickly, without taking time to ponder, what part of “reflexive response” do you not understand?

    LukeHandCool (who would remind everyone that it doesn’t take much power at all to inflict severe pain upon someone when hitting him on the nose. Luke was lying on his back on the living room carpet one evening … just starting to doze off … when he suddenly saw stars and screamed out in pain. He opened his eyes to see his then 18-month old daughter standing over him with a big smile, holding a book she wanted Luke to read to her. The spines on those kids’ books are like the edge of plywood. When he arrived at the office the next morning, swollen black and blue, he simply told everyone, “My baby beat me up.”)

    Awing1 in reply to Zachriel. | August 27, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    The fact that has been pointed out, repeatedly I might add, is that Prosser had an affirmative defense to his action, that was not disputed at all by Bradley’s account. As Doctor Seuss said, a person’s a person, no matter how small. Bradley’s size is fairly irrelevant to whether or not Prosser was allowed to defend himself when Bradley accosted him. If you can’t see that, when it’s right in her interview, then I can honestly say I feel sorry for you, because this is probably a hard world for you to live in.

[…] From William Jacobson: 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.” […]

[…] » Turns out WI Justice Ann Walsh Bradley was the one with the anger management problem – Le·gal In… 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. […]

LukeHandCool: “My baby beat me up.”

So, the lesson is to grab the baby by the neck?

Awing1: Bradley’s size is fairly irrelevant to whether or not Prosser was allowed to defend himself when Bradley accosted him.

There is no evidence Bradley “accosted him”. She berated him.

Cowboy Curtis | August 27, 2011 at 5:56 pm

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:

ac•cost (-kôst, -kst)
tr.v. ac•cost•ed, ac•cost•ing, ac•costs
1. To approach and speak to boldly or aggressively, as with a demand or request.
. . . . “

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?

    Lizard in reply to AsherJ. | August 28, 2011 at 5:26 am

    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.

William A. Jacobson | August 28, 2011 at 9:26 pm

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. […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend