What Was the Claimed Sheen Weapon and Who Had It?

By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 05:54:23 PM EST
Tags: Charlie Sheen (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As I wrote last night, the charges for which actor Charlie Sheen was arrested signal the use of a deadly weapon.

Now, ET says the Aspen Police Department spokeswoman has confirmed that some kind of weapon was allegedly involved. TMZ and OK report the same.

I'm calling first dibs. The question now: Was he trying to get the weapon away from her or was he threatening her with it? Given his lawyer's statement that he believes it will be shown that no criminality was involved, his wife's BAC being over the legal limit while his wasn't, and his wife's refusal to continue speaking with police, I won't be surprised if he's ultimately cleared. The Aspen District Attorney has not yet decided whether to file charges and has this to say:

“I am hearing the same rumors as you are hearing about Ms. Mueller being the aggressor, but I don’t have that evidence yet,” Mordkin speaks of Charlie’s wife to OK!, “I do know she is not speaking to the police for now. She may be compelled to cooperate.”

But, what if her testimony would incriminate her with respect to falsely reporting a crime? Surely, her lawyer would tell her to take the 5th at that point, unless she's granted immunity. If that happens, and it's still a big "if", her cooperation would help clear him.

Update; The tabloid rags are so clueless. One reports they are filing for divorce, another quotes his lawyer saying they are undergoing counseling and love each other very much. One publication that first says the wife was choked now says she was choked. And Radar trumpets with a huge headline Sheen's wife took out a restraining order against him after the incident.

It's called a protective order and while it operates as a restraining order, it had nothing to do with her request for one. The law mandates a protective order as a condition of bail in offenses where an allegation of domestic violence underlies the charge. She could have begged for one not to be imposed and it wouldn't have mattered. CRS 18-1-1001:

(1) There is hereby created a mandatory protection order against any person charged with a violation of any of the provisions of this title, which order shall remain in effect from the time that the person is advised of his or her rights at arraignment or the person's first appearance before the court and informed of such order until final disposition of the action. Such order shall restrain the person charged from harassing, molesting, intimidating, retaliating against, or tampering with any witness to or victim of the acts charged. ....
.....(5) Before a defendant is released on bail pursuant to article 4 of title 16, C.R.S., the court shall, in cases involving domestic violence as defined in section 18-6-800.3 (1), state the terms of the protection order issued pursuant to this section, including any additional provisions added pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, to the defendant on the record and the court shall further require the defendant to acknowledge the protection order as a condition of any bond for the release of the defendant. The prosecuting attorney shall, in such domestic violence cases, notify the alleged victim, the complainant, and the protected person of the order if such persons are not present at the time the protection order is issued.

< Terrorism Charges Filed in Detroit Airplane Incident | Saturday Night News and Views: Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

What Was the Claimed Sheen Weapon and Who Had It? | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Is it illegal to be over the (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 06:05:18 PM EST

legal blood alcohol limit at home? Strict!

"over the legal limit" (none / 0) (#5)
by Peter G on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 08:03:48 PM EST

... is just a figure of speech. It really means "too drunk to drive legally." I'm quite sure that it is not illegal to be sh*t-faced at home in Colorado -- and I say that without having even tried to look it up. Jeralyn's point is that Sheen's wife was quite drunk, while he wasn't, which is relevant to analyzing the situation, especially the reliability of any complaint she made about him to the police.


: Perhaps Mr. Sheen is more alcohol- (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 08:11:14 PM EST

tolerant than his wife. Also, 3-hr. delay in obtaining BA for testing--as to him. Assume she was not tested.

: Peter's correct (none / 0) (#9)
by Jeralyn on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 09:04:28 PM EST

thanks!

: "She was drunk, he wasn't." (none / 0) (#11)
by shoephone on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 09:56:48 PM EST

So what, I say. I once witnessed a man smacking his wife across the face so hard she fell over. She was drunk at the time, he wasn't. It was still abuse.

Outrageous: (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 06:07:59 PM EST

but I don't have that evidence yet

(Emphasis added.)

I stand by my earlier speculation - (none / 0) (#3)
by scribe on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 07:41:28 PM EST

that someone was waving a fireplace poker.

Those can do a lot of damage - enough to qualify under the statute.

Anyone ever take the time to actually watch "Two and a Half Men"? As sitcoms go, it's actually pretty bad, and Sheen's chaacter is a one-note pony - a reprobate womanizer whose behavior goes on in full view of his nephew. AFAIK (from reading gossip sites), the "reprobate womanizer" part of his TV character might not be that much of a stretch, and not require toomuch acting skill. (Just sayin').

I suppose that's as much a commentary on the lousy quality of TV in general, but still. They pay him for this?

perhaps, (none / 0) (#4)
by cpinva on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 08:00:41 PM EST

the question is, who?

isn't this kind of a constant with mr. sheen, the whole domestic violence thing? which begs the question: if you know this about someone, what loose mental screw would cause you to wed them?

i'm betting the whole thing gets tossed, and both parties contact their respective "domestic issues" attorneys.

: "With me, he's different." (none / 0) (#12)
by Upstart Crow on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 10:00:41 PM EST

Hmmmmm...he has a history of violence. (none / 0) (#7)
by Angel on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 08:18:56 PM EST

Does she?

I don't understand the (none / 0) (#10)
by Anne on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 09:47:47 PM EST

"I'm calling first dibs" part of this post. "First dibs" on what?

Is this alleged incident noteworthy because it involves a "famous" person?

I worked with a woman who had been in a relationship with a man who had moved in with her and her 16 year-old daughter. He was much older than she, and eventually, the relationship just wasn't working. She decided she needed to break it off, and wanted him out of the house. He talked her into letting him stay until he could find another place to live, so they became platonic roommates.

At some point, she went to her high school reunion and reconnected with an old boyfriend - nothing all that major, but something that confirmed that she had to be firm about the old boyfriend moving out - she wanted to date and didn't think it right that old boyfriend was still in the house. They had that conversation, and she thought it was all going to end fairly well.

One day while she was at work, flowers from the high school boyfriend were delivered to her - and she took them home. Current boyfriend saw them. Current boyfriend left. A couple days later, when she hadn't shown up for work, she was discovered "this close" to death, lying on a blood-soaked bed with her head bashed in - so severely that her brain was exposed - and the hammer that did the damage was found on the bed. Apparently, enraged current boyfriend waited for the daughter to go to school, then snuck in and tried to kill her.

It's now been almost ten years since this incident. He's in prison, but the woman whose head he bashed in with a hammer, who wasn't expected to survive the attack, has caregivers and therapists and is on medical assistance, cannot walk on her own, has limited speech and will never be the same.

I don't know anything about Charlie Sheen, nor do I need to. Regardless of which one of them - Mr. or Mrs., or both - has the anger/violence problem, we shouldn't indulge the illusion that there's something out-of-the-ordinary about it because it involves people whose names we recognize.

first dibs on reporting (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 01:58:17 AM EST

there may have been a weapon involved. I reported that Friday night based on a review of the statutes the police department cited for his arrest. No one else picked up on that until Saturday.


noteworthy to me because (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 02:05:12 AM EST

it happened in Colorado, there are more than 1200 news articles about it on Google (more than 24 hours later), he was able to get a bond hearing on Xmas day when the court was closed, and, it turns out, his lawyer is a friend of mine. If you aren't interested, please scroll on by. I'll be continuing to follow the case.


oddly enough, (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by cpinva on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 06:36:25 AM EST

i didn't see anything, in either jeralyn's original post, or any of the comments thus far, that gave any indication whatsoever that anyone thought this type of situation was "out of the ordinary".

we shouldn't indulge the illusion that there's something out-of-the-ordinary about it because it involves people whose names we recognize.

sadly, that's kind of the problem, it isn't.


I guess my point - (none / 0) (#16)
by Anne on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 09:17:37 AM EST

and I guess I got too caught up in relating the story about my co-worker and didn't ever really make it - was that there were probably a lot of domestic violence incidents all over the country - and in Colorado - that happened between people not-named-Sheen; giving the famous-people case the headlines and the tabloid treatment makes it out to be something unusual and out-of-the-ordinary, when it is as common as dirt.

And when someone like Sheen or Tiger Woods show themselves to be quite ordinary, succumbing to the failings and foibles the rest of the human population is susceptible to, we pretend like it's not ordinary at all - we end up in some ways glamorizing these failings and assigning celebrity status to them. Hell, you know Leno and Conan and Letterman will be making Sheen jokes about something that just isn't funny - and they'll do it because the people involved have some special status.

It would be nice if this latest feeding frenzy was about the real problem of domestic violence, but it won't be - it never is.


: On the other hand, Anne (none / 0) (#19)
by Cream City on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 08:32:24 PM EST

some workers in domestic violence prevention will tell you that these sorts of high-profile stories can help bring attention to the problem -- and can show that it isn't just something that happens to "those people," other people.

She's changing her story (none / 0) (#17)
by jbindc on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 09:39:34 AM EST

and now she may be charged with filing a false police report.

: your link is to (none / 0) (#18)
by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 11:08:42 AM EST

an Examiner article. They just read what others have written and write it up as if its news. The source is this TMZ article. I didn't write it up because it sounded to me like this statement by the DA,
bq. Mordkin did, however, warn, "I often file [criminal charges] against someone who falsely accuses someone."
was in response to a question, "What if she filed a false report" and TMZ decided to leave out the question to make it more sensational.
Just my reading (and my opinion of gossip sites and Examiner articles) and the reason I didn't quote that portion when I linked to the article here.
Another headline I keep seeing is the one saying they are going into counseling. Pretty hard to do when there's a mandatory protective order in effect preventing them from having any contact. It would take a motion and order by the Judge to allow it.