"Bubbles" charged with battery; DeCoutere resigns from TPB

38 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture
"Bubbles" charged with battery; DeCoutere resigns from TPB

ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I had no idea where to put this.

Trailer Park Boys actor Mike Smith, who plays Bubbles, arrested in L.A.

Quote:
Mike Smith, the actor who plays Bubbles on the Trailer Park Boys, is disputing allegations against him related to a misdemeanour domestic battery charge.

Smith, 43, was arrested in Los Angeles early Friday morning at 1:15 a.m. local time in the 7,000 block of Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles Police Department Officer Matthew Ludwig said Friday night.

And...

Lucy DeCoutere resigns from Trailer Park Boys after Mike Smith's arrest

Quote:
Trailer Park Boys actress Lucy DeCoutere tweeted Saturday she was resigning from the show, only hours after her colleagues released a statement in support of actor Mike Smith, accused of domestic battery in Hollywood.

"If I find out that somebody is abusive, I cut them out of my life. It's very easy," DeCoutere tweeted earlier Saturday afternoon.

Paladin1

I have a feeling she was looking for a way to remove herself from the show and this presented itself. Reading the story it hardly comes across as a case of domestic abuse.

quizzical

Quote:
Bystanders heard the woman holler, “You’re choking me,” a source told The News.

Upon entering the room, witnesses allegedly found Smith pinning the woman against a bathroom wall before she emerged with a ripped shirt and no pants.

Smith apparently fled the scene, but police arrested him after he returned to the room as they were interviewing the woman.

Slumberjack

Quote:
Cast member Lucy DeCoutere, who plays Lucy, resigned from the show Saturday, saying on Twitter it was because of the allegations against Smith. She later deleted that tweet.

Quote:
Publicist Shelia Roberts said DeCoutere told the show's producer a few weeks ago that she would not be returning next season. "This does not come as a surprise to us," Roberts said in an email.

Quote:
If I find out that somebody is abusive, I cut them out of my life. It's very easy.

Hmm, not good.  Hopefully the charges get sorted out in a court of law.  Violence against women should be roundly condemned.  But DeCoutere has a real issue with keeping a story straight doesn't she?  It's like when a politician re-announces a spending initiative that they announced just last month, in order to get as much political mileage out if it as they can.  Also, she needs a better email filing and bring forward system to reduce the risk of contradiction whenever she speaks.

Paladin1

quizzical wrote:

Quote:
Bystanders heard the woman holler, “You’re choking me,” a source told The News.

Upon entering the room, witnesses allegedly found Smith pinning the woman against a bathroom wall before she emerged with a ripped shirt and no pants.

Smith apparently fled the scene, but police arrested him after he returned to the room as they were interviewing the woman.

Quote:

Ling, the woman who the statement identifies as the victim, said someone who overheard the argument called police.

"Mike and I did indeed have a heavy argument, but it saddens me the way things are being reported and the way it was handled by the police," Ling said in the statement.

"At no point did I feel I was in danger, otherwise I would've called the police myself, which I did not. The police were called by others not present in the room who mistakenly perceived the argument to be something other than what it was.

quizzical

you think this is definitive of what happened?

her clothes were ripped. conent?  what about his and him running away? there's a reaon why police can lay charges without the woman doing so.

gawd apoogists for violence against women.

Paladin1

quizzical wrote:

you think this is definitive of what happened?

her clothes were ripped. conent?  what about his and him running away? there's a reaon why police can lay charges without the woman doing so.

gawd apoogists for violence against women.

Oh I know Quizzical.

If a woman says she was assaulted by a man and I say I don't believe it then I am a misogynistic apologist for womans abuse.

If a woman says she wasn't assaulted by a man and I say I believe her then I am a misogynistic apologist for womans abuse.

I'm tracking Wink

 

I realize why police now take it upon themselves to lay charges. I also realize sometimes an argument is just an argument that gets misconstrued by others overshearing it.  Ripped clothes?  Quite possible though at the same time I'm leary when it comes to the media citing unnamed sources.   In this case the victim is saying there was no assault. Should we consider her a liar and assume she's trying to cover up the attack?  I'm okay with believing her until there is solid evidence that she is lying.

Slumberjack

Not knowing anything about this couple, but the concern seems to be that there might be a variety of factors where dependancy might be an issue - financial, professional, etc, aside from the personal relationship itself.  The police are empowered, or at least they should be, to determine independently if an assault had occurred, bearing in mind a potential dependency issue as a possible reason why a woman might say to police that nothing had occurred,

quizzical

Paladin1 wrote:
quizzical wrote:
you think this is definitive of what happened?

her clothes were ripped. conent?  what about his and him running away? there's a reaon why police can lay charges without the woman doing so.

gawd apoogists for violence against women.

Oh I know Quizzical.

If a woman says she was assaulted by a man and I say I don't believe it then I am a misogynistic apologist for womans abuse.

If a woman says she wasn't assaulted by a man and I say I believe her then I am a misogynistic apologist for womans abuse.

I'm tracking Wink

I realize why police now take it upon themselves to lay charges. I also realize sometimes an argument is just an argument that gets misconstrued by others overshearing it.  Ripped clothes?  Quite possible though at the same time I'm leary when it comes to the media citing unnamed sources.   In this case the victim is saying there was no assault. Should we consider her a liar and assume she's trying to cover up the attack?  I'm okay with believing her until there is solid evidence that she is lying.

i like apoogists better than apologists. call it like it is and all.

what you're believing is not her words but there wasn't an assault. hard to do when clothes were ripped and people in the next room heard what they heard. and he ran.

there's reasons why police have the right to charge.

Paladin1

Oh a poo joke! Funny stuff.

Did you see a picture of her ripped clothes or a statement from the police that her clothes were ripped?

lagatta

I am really sick of this.

quizzical

me too!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I realize why police now take it upon themselves to lay charges.

Not exactly.  In Canada it's the Crown that makes that choice, and in L.A. it would be the City Attorney's or District Attorney's office.

Quote:
In this case the victim is saying there was no assault.

She didn't say that.  She said she didn't feel she was in danger.

 

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I realize why police now take it upon themselves to lay charges.

Not exactly.  In Canada it's the Crown that makes that choice, and in L.A. it would be the City Attorney's or District Attorney's office.

Quote:
In this case the victim is saying there was no assault.

She didn't say that.  She said she didn't feel she was in danger.

 

 

You're right on both accounts.

Devogenes

This seems like a weird one.

If the alleged victim is saying (as it seems she is?) that she doesn't view this as an assault and she doesn't want him to be charged, then I don't really see how we can make the argument that he should be.

The state coming in and arresting people regardless of what the woman involved wants does not protect the rights of women. Police interference in people's personal lives is unjust and oppressive. There's nothing liberatory about cops swooping in without invitation to settle arguments between individuals.

Unless Ling's statements have been heavily massaged, it seems clear the she doesn't want the legal system involved in this incident at all. So then it shouldn't be.

quizzical wrote:

you think this is definitive of what happened?

her clothes were ripped. conent?  what about his and him running away? there's a reaon why police can lay charges without the woman doing so.

gawd apoogists for violence against women.


I don't really view it as being apologizing for violence agaisnt women as much as being opposed to unsanctioned police intervention. For me, there are very, very few instances in which I would view it appropriate to involve the police, and I would view it as extremely unjust if other people were to involve them on my behalf.

I'm not a woman, but if, say, a friend or partner of mine were, during the course of an argument, to beat me up or punch me, I cannot imagine wanting that situation to be resolved through police intervention and the "justice" system.

Believe survivors, right?

voice of the damned

Might this be a factor...?

Quote:
Almost half the the states in America have mandatory arrest provisions in domestic violence cases, and it’s widely accepted as an important step in protecting the mostly female victims of spousal or partner violence. Just last month, the legislature in Madison County, Alabama, passed a bill that would strengthen police’s ability to make such arrests.

I'm pretty sure I recall reading somewhere that California is one of the states with those mandatory arrest laws.

[url=http://time.com/12682/when-not-to-arrest-an-abuser-in-a-domestic-violenc...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The state coming in and arresting people regardless of what the woman involved wants does not protect the rights of women.

Even in jurisdictions or cases where an alleged victim must "press charges", the police never require permission to make an arrest.  And that appears to be all that's happened in this particular case so far.  Smith was arrested, and released on bail, presumably with a promise to appear.

Whether the City Attorney's office chooses to go to trial or not is another story.  I really don't know exactly how an alleged victim like Ling -- i.e. one who says "nothing happened" -- affects that choice, though it's certainly hard to imagine what material evidence the C.A. would need to counter Ling's (presumed) testimony.

Quote:
Believe survivors, right?

I believe her when she says she didn't feel she was in danger.  But that's not the same as her saying "he never laid a hand on me". 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I'm pretty sure I recall reading somewhere that California is one of the states with those mandatory arrest laws.

Maybe it was my link in post #13.  ;)

That said, the one thing that does kind of stick out as odd to me is that Smith was apparently charged with "Domestic" Battery.  Smith referred to her as a friend, and I haven't seen anything from her to suggest otherwise.

Basement Dweller

The Trailer Park Boys still exist? I mean, I enjoyed it ten years ago, but maybe this is a sign that it's past its Best Before Date. Don't be another Simpsons. Yell

voice of the damned

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I'm pretty sure I recall reading somewhere that California is one of the states with those mandatory arrest laws.

Maybe it was my link in post #13.  ;)

That said, the one thing that does kind of stick out as odd to me is that Smith was apparently charged with "Domestic" Battery.  Smith referred to her as a friend, and I haven't seen anything from her to suggest otherwise.

Hm. The incident apparently took place at the Roosevelt Hotel. I wonder if they were staying there together, and if so, for how long, AND whether those questions have any bearing on whether or not any assault is considered "domestic".

Slumberjack

Devogenes wrote:
If the alleged victim is saying (as it seems she is?) that she doesn't view this as an assault and she doesn't want him to be charged, then I don't really see how we can make the argument that he should be.

Depends.  If there is physical evidence to go on, ie: bruises, bleeding, trauma associated with an assault, then it doesn't seem reasonable for a cop to automatically defer to the person who obviously looks as if they were assaulted if they say they were not.  More of an investigation is required than that imv.

Quote:
I don't really view it as being apologizing for violence agaisnt women as much as being opposed to unsanctioned police intervention.

But that's par for the course, or, de rigueur, here at babble, where all kinds of accusations like that are flung around and no one in charge seems to mind when it does.  The more of this kind of thing the merrier seems to be the accepted practice.  If one doesn't genuflect at this particular altar correctly, or, even if one does, one ultimately risks having accusations of this nature leveled against oneself.  It's a particular type of orthodoxy or exercise in power.  Apparently it doesn't take much of it for certain types to enjoy exercising it against others.

Quote:
but if, say, a friend or partner of mine were, during the course of an argument, to beat me up or punch me, I cannot imagine wanting that situation to be resolved through police intervention and the "justice" system.

Pistols at ten paces?  Hit men R Us?  There's all kinds of alternate dispute mechanisms out there to deal with this sort of thing isn't there?  Is that what you had in mind?

Slumberjack

lagatta wrote:
I am really sick of this.

quizzical wrote:
me too!

Why don't the two of you witnesses for the inquisition take a well deserved break from all of that hard work.

 

quizzical

sj you are jut too damn cute!!! hyfo

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

When I first saw this title of the thread,I really thought Bubbles was charged with a battery.I couldn't figure out if it was Duracell of Ever Ready.

I wasn't around to see what happened but if the alleged victim doesn't want to file charges,then it's not anyone else's business.

And I agree with a comment from above..TPB is something that should have been history at least 10 years ago. They really should give it up.

Do people still watch this show?

Slumberjack

I watched TPB once, for about five minutes.  That amounts to my total viewing time of that series, 5 minutes.  I did watch Bubbles jamming with Rush in a music video.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

I watched TPB once, for about five minutes.  That amounts to my total viewing time of that series, 5 minutes.  I did watch Bubbles jamming with Rush in a music video.

That was my experience with it as well. Not being a wanna-be rounder it had little appeal for me.

Devogenes

Slumberjack wrote:

Pistols at ten paces?  Hit men R Us?  There's all kinds of alternate dispute mechanisms out there to deal with this sort of thing isn't there?  Is that what you had in mind?

Uhm actually no, I don't really believe that incarceration or execution are acceptable methods for discouraging anti-social behaviour, addressing interpersonal conflict, mediatng disputes, or healing wounds. That's sort of my whole shtick here. That's preciesly why I don't believe in calling the cops.

I think that if you were being honest you'd acknowledge that murder and incarceration aren't the only alternatives available.

Take a look at what prisons are like. There's plenty of documentaries you could watch. Or there's the prison writing archive: http://apw.dhinitiative.org/

Committing crimes against people is an idiot's solution to resolving crimes against people.

voice of the damned

I never watched more than ten minutes of it, though that's mostly because I don't do TV(nothing against those who do). But it always seemned to me that the whole "trailer park" humour motif was passe even before they came along.

Then again, I watched the premiere of Friends, and thought to myself "Sheesh, this whole Gen X navel-gazing thing died years ago; don't think THIS is gonna make it to a second episode."

Slumberjack

Devogenes wrote:
Uhm actually no, I don't really believe that incarceration or execution are acceptable methods for discouraging anti-social behaviour, addressing interpersonal conflict, mediatng disputes, or healing wounds. That's sort of my whole shtick here. That's preciesly why I don't believe in calling the cops.

Some of this at least is at odds with the type of reality that someone like Russell Williams, et al, visited upon women.  Since to talk about the virtures of mediation is inappropriate where it concerns such circumstances, and execution is a no-no as well, that does only leave the police and a justice system that can remove the convicted criminal from society as the only safe option for all concerned.

Quote:
I think that if you were being honest you'd acknowledge that murder and incarceration aren't the only alternatives available.

Well, I thought I was when I said that very same thing:

Quote:
There's all kinds of alternate dispute mechanisms out there to deal with this sort of thing isn't there?

Quote:
Committing crimes against people is an idiot's solution to resolving crimes against people.

I would just say that people for whom wrongful imprisonment seems like a just solution are misguided.

Rev Pesky

In that the argument was apparently about something Mike Smith tweeted, it seems to me that there is a least a chance that the assault was committed against him, and that he may have been defending himself.

Paladin1

Rev Pesky wrote:

In that the argument was apparently about something Mike Smith tweeted, it seems to me that there is a least a chance that the assault was committed against him, and that he may have been defending himself.

 

Please take your innocent until proven guilty and wait for all the facts type talk elsewhere.  The news article cited an unnamed source seeing ripped clothes- he's guilty.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Well, it's a mystery why the woman involved would be the one heard saying "you're choking me" and not Smith.

Paladin1

That's presuming the witness actually heard what they thought they heard.

Rev Pesky

Paladin1 wrote:
...Please take your innocent until proven guilty and wait for all the facts type talk elsewhere.  The news article cited an unnamed source seeing ripped clothes- he's guilty.

Right. Is he still guilty?

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Well, it's a mystery why the woman involved would be the one heard saying "you're choking me" and not Smith.

Not necessarily. People do defend themselves, and sometimes when they do, they use physical force. Or had that possiblity not occurred to you?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Holy fuck,Ricky.

Rev Pesky

From the CBC story on the charge being dropped:

 

Quote:

The Los Angeles City Attorney's office said Monday that Smith's charge had been dropped.

...Spokesman Frank Mateljan said the office decided not to pursue the charge "due to lack of sufficient evidence."

Smith had denied any wrongdoing in a written statement issued shortly after his arrest, saying the woman involved in the incident was a friend of his with whom he had a "loud and heated dispute."

"At no time did I assault her. I am not guilty of the misdemeanour charged against me," he said at the time.

...In the same statement, which was issued by the Trailer Park Boys, a woman who was described as the alleged victim in the incident also denied the police allegations.

"At no point did I feel I was in danger, otherwise I would've called the police myself, which I did not," the woman was quoted as saying.

"The police were called by others not present in the room who mistakenly perceived the argument to be something other than what it was."

No case to answer, as the saying goes...