Image 01 Image 03

Charges Against Houston Area Councilwoman Accused of Berating Trump Shirt Wearing Teen Dismissed

Charges Against Houston Area Councilwoman Accused of Berating Trump Shirt Wearing Teen Dismissed

Recall petition has an impressive 700 signatures

West University Place councilwoman Kellye Burke was charged with disorderly conduct after she yelled obscenities at a Trump shirt wearing teenage girl. It’s worth noting that Burke is also a Mom’s Demand Action activist.

The girl and her friends were waiting in line at a bake shop when Burke yelled, “Grab her by the p**** girls!” and “MAGA!” repeatedly, according the girls.

She later issued one the worst sorry, not sorry apologies ever, saying:

“I have repeatedly apologized for the bad judgment I used and making the statement I did, but I do not believe repeating the words of the president of the United States is a crime.

However, I will apologize again on behalf of myself, the president of the united states and all the media outlets who repeated his words both electronically and in print.”

A few weeks after the incident, the misdemeanor charge has been dismissed.

From local news:

The misdemeanor case against West University Place city councilwoman Kellye Burke has been dismissed, according to Harris County Justice of the Peace Court 1.

“I don’t have any comment, thank you though,” Burke’s attorney David Adler said when asked about the dismissal.

Harris County Constable’s office initially charged Burke with disorderly conduct abusive/vulgar language, a class C misdemeanor.

Burke allegedly yelled, “Grab her by the p**** girls!” at a group of teenage girls, one of whom was wearing a “Trump: Make America Great Again” T-shirt. Burke and the girls were in line at Tiny’s Milk and Cookies in West U.

The girls also said she yelled “MAGA! MAGA!” at them while shaking her fist. MAGA is an acronym for “Making America Great Again,” President Donald Trump’s campaign slogan. The girls left without responding and were terrified, according to the father of one of the girls.

Burke initially apologized to the parents of one of the girls, they said.

She then pleaded not guilty to the charge and asked for a jury trial, which was scheduled for August. On Monday, the judge dismissed the case.

Burke’s actions prompted a handful of citizens to begin petitioning for a recall election. So far, they’ve received a whopping 700 signatures.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


So then I guess it would be okay for all of those 700 citizens to say exactly the same thing to her, each and every time they see her about town? No?

Well, it’s not entirely clear that displays of behavior appropriate in nobody more than four years old, accosting minors on the street, and being an all-around liberal jerkwagon should be actual crimes.

For anyone out there defending this cretin on First Amendment grounds, yelling profanities at young teens is the equivalent of screaming “fire” in a crowded theater. Not all speech is protected, and in this case, one girl’s father said that she made them afraid.

    tom_swift in reply to Redneck Law. | April 30, 2018 at 12:18 pm

    one girl’s father said that she made them afraid.

    Are you seriously proposing that as the standard for legal protection of speech?

    It seems indistinguishable from pernicious concepts like “triggering” and violation of “safe spaces” to me—i.e. rampant Leftism, not civil rights.

      It’s not a standard, but it’s a factor. For example, if the councilwoman was yelling at 4 teen aged boys, I doubt very much that the boys reaction would be the same as the minor girls.

      So the young minor girls don’t deserve legal protection from this type of harassment?

        rdmdawg in reply to Redneck Law. | April 30, 2018 at 12:39 pm

        For criminal speech, there must be a call to action. Yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater is a crime, not because you’re yelling but because you’re calling for a dangerous stampede.

        At the most, this women is guilty of disturbing the peace, and possible criminal tresspassing assuming she was booted out of whatever establishment that is.

          forksdad in reply to rdmdawg. | April 30, 2018 at 2:16 pm

          She clearly and emphatically told the girls to grab someone by the pussy. Which of course is a crime. The pussy grabbing and exhorting them to do so is a major crime as they are minors. She should be lucky to get a misdemeanor.

          Milhouse in reply to rdmdawg. | April 30, 2018 at 6:08 pm

          No, she did not. She did not tell them to do anything; she quoted Trump at them.

          In any case, even actually exhorting someone to commit a crime is also protected speech, unless it’s both subjectively intended and objectively likely to cause that person to act on it immediately, without taking time to think about it.

          The fact that they’re minors is completely irrelevant. I have no idea where you’re getting these crazy ideas from.

          forksdad in reply to rdmdawg. | April 30, 2018 at 6:21 pm

          She told them the president told them to grab a girl or woman by the pussy? Or she said, “Trump says, ‘grab them by the pussyfooting girl?”

          From what I read she was paraphrasing the president while screaming at them to commit a sexual act. Perhaps you could go to a local park and try out your theory, tell us all how the microwaved French toast was for breakfast at the local hoosegow.

          Milhouse in reply to rdmdawg. | May 1, 2018 at 8:20 pm

          No, you idiot. She did not tell them to do anything. She did not say the President had told them to do anything. She simply quoted the President at them.

          You seem to think that there is magic in words, so that any sequence of words which, taken by themselves, can be parsed in the imperative, is a command, and will be treated as such by the law. That is nonsense. Even if it were unlawful to tell someone to break the law (and it is not), what would matter is (1) whether the speaker intended such an instruction, and (2) whether a reasonable person would understand it as such an instruction. Unless both of these are true, it is not an instruction.

          And yes, anybody could say these things, in a park or anywhere else, to anyone, without being arrested. There is no special law for minors. The only reason this councilwoman was arrested was the volume at which she spoke; if she’d calmly reproved the girls for supporting a president who bragged of grabbing women by the pussy no policeman in the country would have arrested her, and if one had she’d have successfully sued him and taken his house and retirement account.

        Icepilot in reply to Redneck Law. | April 30, 2018 at 1:04 pm

        Thankfully, no.
        The 1st Amendment lets this woman be an obnoxious jerk.
        You, too. And your sons & daughters.

      The Packetman in reply to tom_swift. | April 30, 2018 at 12:34 pm

      Tom, it’s not so much a ‘standard’ as it’s an application of Alinsky the other way …

      ConradCA in reply to tom_swift. | April 30, 2018 at 12:50 pm

      The laws protect children from harassment by potential rapists, kidnappers and evil progressives fascist like this scum.

    Milhouse in reply to Redneck Law. | April 30, 2018 at 1:54 pm

    yelling profanities at young teens is the equivalent of screaming “fire” in a crowded theater.

    No, it is not even remotely similar, and just by making that tired analogy you lose.

    Not all speech is protected,

    Tropes #2 and #3

    and in this case, one girl’s father said that she made them afraid.

    So you’re alleging assault? She wasn’t charged with that, but OK, let’s go with it. Assault requires not only that the alleged victim claims to have been afraid, but that a reasonable person in her position would objectively have had good reason to be afraid; and that fear must be specifically of imminent physical harm, i.e. that she was about to hit her.

      forksdad in reply to Milhouse. | April 30, 2018 at 2:20 pm

      She should have been charged with disturbing the peace, she clearly was, and with sexual communication with a minor. I didn’t write the laws but if you tell a middle school girl to grab someone’s junk over and over again, in fact demand it, I expect you’d go to jail and if you’re unlucky prison.

        Milhouse in reply to forksdad. | May 1, 2018 at 8:27 pm

        Your expectations are only relevant in your padded cell. In this universe and in this country they are out of synch with reality.

        There is no such crime as “sexual communication with a minor”. Soliciting a minor is a crime, as is communicating for the purpose of soliciting, etc. But speaking dirty words to a minor isn’t a crime anywhere I’ve ever heard of. (OK, I think there’s a Michigan law that was in the courts maybe 15 years ago.)

        Disturbing the peace is entirely about the yelling, not the content. It’s the same offense whether you yell “Grab ’em by the pussy” or “Happy birthday”.

      Come on, Milton. My point is there are certain classes of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. Yelling at teen girls and yelling fire in a crowded theater are not allowed (if the girls felt threatened.) Sorry, but a speech crime is a crime.


        Milhouse in reply to Redneck Law. | May 1, 2018 at 8:29 pm

        No. Read the two articles I linked to find out why citing that infamous Holmes opinion automatically loses whatever argument you cite it in. And no, yelling at teenage girls is not a crime. The law doesn’t distinguish between men, women, boys, or girls.

    Unknown3rdParty in reply to Redneck Law. | May 1, 2018 at 9:21 am

    Cretin? Yes.
    Stupid? Yes.
    Taunting? Yes
    Protected speech? Yes.
    Recall? Yes.

Jerk. Jackass. Cretin. Whatever. I don’t think her actions are worth a criminal trial. It’s why God made local elections. Vote her out.

An aside, methinks this leftist would be onboard with her hypocrite flag to champion any type of ‘anti-bully’ initiative in government schools or whatnot.

Because that’s how these jerks, jackasses and cretins roll.

It may be a teachable moment, but the real lesson will not be learned.

    forksdad in reply to alaskabob. | April 30, 2018 at 2:25 pm

    Here’s the lesson. We are rooting for the Washington Generals. Doesn’t matter what the other side does we always lose. And we have cheerleaders telling us how principled and brave we are for our 0 and 2495 record.

When the “justice system” fails, there’s always Karma. Never known to fail.

    oldgoat36 in reply to blah deblah. | April 30, 2018 at 4:45 pm

    Yup, Karma worked so well with the Clintons and Obamas. Or was that a different kind of karma involved?

    Unknown3rdParty in reply to blah deblah. | May 1, 2018 at 9:34 am

    Karma … whatever happened to God? Actually, God who sees all and knows all, will be the ultimate arbiter of these injustices. Justice WILL be served, if not in this life, then in the next when HE judges us and metes out penalties. There are the perpetrators who know full well what they are doing and who knowingly commit evil acts, then there are those who have been mislead and don’t really understand. And when HE passes judgement on each of us, we will each have no recourse but to admit that it’s a righteous judgement, even those who don’t now even believe in God, because every knee WILL bow, some willingly, and others grudgingly.

Close The Fed | April 30, 2018 at 1:09 pm

She didn’t know these girls as I understand it.
And they didn’t know her, even if they knew she was an elected official.

They were minors and she had no right to harass them for what they were wearing, which attire was completely legal.

She should be charged and found guilty of something. She needs to understand boundaries and clearly she does not.

    Milhouse in reply to Close The Fed. | April 30, 2018 at 1:56 pm

    Please explain how one single encounter can possibly be harassment. Or are you just using a word without any idea what it means?

doesn’t texas FAM 261.001 sort of cover this?
although it would be hard to prove mental or emotional injury to the child.
have not read any case history so not sure, just remember seeing it mentioned elsewhere when this all started.

BierceAmbrose | April 30, 2018 at 3:33 pm

So, loudly abusing kids not her won with vulgarities and intimidation in public is not “disorderly? She meant to do it? It was controlled, deliberate, on purpose? A plan? Commonplace because lots of people are doing it now?

That behavior, if orderly is assault. If it’s part of a movement, I’m going with RICH. As a (presumably known) govt official, I’m gonna go with some flavor of abuse “under color of authoritah.”

BierceAmbrose | April 30, 2018 at 3:39 pm

I think govt officials being part of whoever demands whatever policy-that-ain’t-yet-law kinda misses the point.

As officials their role is implement the demands we’ve decided together we’re gonna enforce. (Demand.)

As advocated, they don’t get to “demand” anything with the force of law … until it’s made, you know, a law.

Demanding public officials kinda confuses that. They might even get the idea that it’s their prerogative to berate citizens in public for stuff they don’t agree with.

(BTW, was her outfit brown at the time? Who was the designer?)

Can’t say that I thought anything else would be the result of this. I’m sure it would have worked the same had it been a Republican who went off the rails on adolescents…

Polls only work when you have an informed public, given the scanty amount who signed up for the recall, I would say a lot of not informed.

I dunno that charges were warranted … but certainly some kind of reprimand by the city council is.

    alaskabob in reply to PODKen. | April 30, 2018 at 7:20 pm

    Agree…. hand her a dunce cap next meeting. There may be fallout from the FemProgs but everyone knows the score.

SeekingRationalThought | April 30, 2018 at 7:17 pm

What is wrong with the people of Houston? This woman should be recalled because she is either too unstable or too childish to hold public office. It doesn’t matter whether you agree with her positions or not. She picked on kids. She shouldn’t be allowed to hold any office.

One thing that is being missed here is that the charges were most likely dropped because the parents of the girls in question have said from the beginning that they didn’t want charges filed.

The first amendment protects this woman’s right to be an noxius moronic idiot.

Also, note that the appropriate response has been taken, there is a recall effort in motion, as it should be.

reconsidered | May 1, 2018 at 10:02 am

Just so you all know, West U is a small boutique municipality within Houston. Full of stinking rich people. She wouldn’t be a councilmember of Houston city, but of West University.

Not to say this couldn’t happen in Houston. But people are confusing West U and Houston. 700 people, if they are actually in West U, is a lot.