Pa. State Trooper Charged With Child Endangerment After Allegedly Pepper Spraying Girlfriend’s Son

don't pepper spray me broReasonOne more story about a cop facing charges before 2013 comes to a close.

From WTAE:

Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Ernest Boatright is charged with endangering the welfare of children and harassment after police said he shot pepper spray into the bedroom of his girlfriend's 13-year-old son.

According to court papers, Boatright found the teen still in bed when he was supposed to be in school, so he discharged his pepper spray in to the bedroom.
The criminal complaint said that the boy immediately began to cough, sneeze and suffer from runny eyes and nose. Police said that the boy knew he had been pepper-sprayed because Boatright had pepper-sprayed him before.

Boatright was suspended, without pay.

More Reason on police abuses here.

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • mr simple||

    Boatright was suspended, without pay.

    Just wait until his union rep hears about this!

  • VicRattlehead||

    Its kosher he didn't have any vacation days left to take

  • Raven Nation||

    OT: What happens when Piers Morgan mouths off to an Australian:

    http://www.foxsports.com.au/cr.....6792734667

  • John||

    I saw that. As much as I can't stand Morgan, I have to give him credit, he took it like a man. I never thought he would have such defiance in him.

  • Raven Nation||

    True.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Karma's a bitch and she hates liars

  • Hopfiend||

    And Brett Lee becomes a minor hero in the US.

  • John||

    The best way to put your kid at risk of being abused, is to have him or her out of wedlock or get divorced. Biological parents can certainly be abusive. They are, however, less likely to be abusive and when they are abusive less likely to be seriously abusive than lovers and step parents.

    It is funny how everyone in this society is all about "the children" and how men are presumed to be child predictors but no one ever says a word about women who divorce their husbands and allow a stream of strange men access to their kids.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes, and that reminds me that it's time for predicting facts about the coming new year.

    Fact #1: For the first time in history, more men will marry strippers than women in other professions.

  • John||

    Did you see the interview with Camille Paglia in the WSJ I think it was? In addition to slamming on the neutering of society, she said the reason why so many men are turning to porn is that feminism has created this sexless society and porn is the only place where men can see women act like women sexually. It was a provocative point and I think one with some truth to it. So, yeah, I could see men marrying more strippers. Strippers at least know what men want.

  • Pro Libertate||

    And, as the economy continues to decline, more and more young women will turn to stripping.

  • John||

    And prostitution.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I thought I said that.

  • John||

    Strippers are not hookers. Strippers are just enterprising single moms with nice bodies. There is a difference.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I defer completely, of course, to your superior knowledge about strippers.

  • John||

    Everyone has to know a lot about something Pro.

  • Pro Libertate||

    We learn a lot about strippers and stuff like that in Tampa, just because the sex industry is one of our principal businesses. You know, like fishing.

    I have a friend who gets involved with strippers who take lots of his money then go away. It's an interesting dynamic.

  • John||

    I knew a fair number of strippers when I was younger. I think doing that sort of work either does something to them or only a certain kind of woman is willing to do it in the first place.

    The bottom line is that women in that line of work look at life as one big business transaction. Dumb men always think they are the special guy who is really going to get them to put out emotionally and not just for money. It never works out that way. If they are willing to take their clothes off and get groped by any and every guy for cash, pretty much everything else in their life is going to be some form of cash transaction. There are exceptions of course, but not many.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm surprised there isn't some sort of girlfriend rental business out there. Not prostitution--at least, not in the way people normally think about it--but the renting of a girlfriend for weeks or months at a time. Plenty of hopeless guys out there would use this service, I'm sure.

  • John||

    They sort of have started that with those "sugar daddy' websites where dumb rich men pay for young women's college in return for them pretending to be their g/f for a bit.

    But yeah, I could totally see doing that on a wider scale and for shorter amounts of time. I bet you could get around the law by making it clear up front that your girls do not have sex with their clients and will be fired for doing so. That assurance would not stop pathetic and desperate men from using the service, I guarantee you.

  • Rasilio||

    It's funny becuase if I ever found myself single and desperate enough to hire a prostitute I'd be much more likely to pay her to come over hang out and play XBox or MTG with me than have sex with me.

    I mean if I just needed to get off there is a world of porn available on the net and in the long run a Real Doll would be far cheaper than dating or prostitutes but companionship and a pretty face are much harder to come by

  • John||

    That is not odd at all Rasillio. I used to have friends who loved strip joints. Whenever I got dragged to them, I would try to make it in the afternoon when it wasn't busy and I would buy the strippers drinks and chat them up while my friends blew money on lap dances. To me, hanging out and talking to them was more entertaining than some lap dance.

  • tarran||

    The best way to put your kid at risk of being abused, is to have him or her out of wedlock or get divorced

    I remember when the realization of this danger hit me; it was about a year and a half ago when I started dating again.

    The question was what kind of monster would my ex settle for next?

    I actually broke out in a cold sweat considering it.

  • John||

    It is true. I hope your ex is not too crazy or that you can at least be close enough to keep tabs on things.

    It amazes me how people delude themselves. If you are a no kidding pervert child molester, you don't indulge your perversions by going down to the park. You do it by becoming a little league coach or a youth pastor or a school teacher or if all that fails, by dating a single mom who is too stupid or neglectful to notice what is going on.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Or you stick a gun in your mouth and end a threat to little kids.

  • John||

    That too or maybe you realize that you shouldn't act on every urge you have. I have a real urge sometimes to ride my motorcycle like a maniac. Since I don't want to die or kill someone else, I forgo the pleasure that comes with riding that fast.

    If for whatever reason I was wired such that only little kids got me off, I would just give up sex. Sex is great and all. But if having it meant victimizing some kid, it is celibacy for me. People who do molest children have more than just odd brains that only get off on kids. They are also narcissistic sociopaths.

  • tarran||

    by dating a single mom who is too stupid or neglectful to notice what is going on.

    ... or too desperate.

    Some single parents confront the real threat of becoming homeless because kids are expensive, and they are working a low wage job with little chance to improve their skills (can't go to night school and stay home to watch the kids at the same time).

    A skeevy guy can seem like a godsend when compared to being out on the streets.

  • John||

    So sad and so true. If you have minor kids, I just don't understand how you can get a divorce absent abuse or the spouse being a complete degenerate drunk/drug addict. How people can get divorced because "they just don't feel fulfilled anymore" or other such selfish reasons when they have kids is beyond me. Suck it the fuck up and provide a safe home for your kids and get divorced once they are 18 for God's sake.

  • tarran||

    I'm of the same mind, and I am a divorcee!

    I remember the court ordered parenting classes I took when I filed for divorce (it's automatic; everybody is required to do it). I was appalled at the number of people who said that they were friends with their exes and had a good parenting relationship with them etc. I guess it's good in that the kids will have a better approximation of a good family life, but come on! If you were lovers and are still friends, you can make it work! Instead the kid has to shuttle between two bedrooms, have his life routinely disrupted, and good luck going on a christmas skiing trip with your best friend's family when they invite you, because it's dad's turn to have you for Christmas, and he isn't going to pass up that once every two years' chance.

  • John||

    In those cases where the parents are still friends and they have minor kids, I don't know why they just don't stay together and quietly see people on the side. If you are just dying to screw someone else, go ahead but keep your home together for your kids. That is not perfect but it is better than the situation you describe.

    But they are at least better than the really evil people who use their kids as weapons to destroy their exes. One of my friends from high school is a divorce attorney. The stories he tells about his clients will make you lose faith in humanity. A lot of people are so nasty and self centered they care more about destroying their ex than they do about their kids.

  • Raston Bot||

    Boatright found the teen still in bed when he was supposed to be in school, so he discharged his pepper spray in to the bedroom

    I am sympathetic to the officer's cause.

  • John||

    I could be if he was the kid's father and not some scumbag boyfriend.

  • Raston Bot||

    You can't say he doesn't care. Maybe he just lacks finesse. I've pondered this dilemma in my head. If you model a problem, then you're better prepared. I came to the conclusion that a bucket of ice water was the best option.

  • John||

    This is true. Maybe I should be on the cop's side. Certainly the kid is an out of control little jackass or it never would have come to this. And as I say below, having a kid that doesn't go to school can be a crime.

    The kid sounds like the typical out of control son of a single mother who doesn't physically fear or respect his mother and thus acts out and does self destructive and stupid things like not going to school. So yeah, the cop probably wasn't that in the wrong.

  • ||

    You keep saying this shit:

    "Certainly the kid is an out of control little jackass" and "The kid sounds like the typical out of control son of a single mother who doesn't physically fear or respect his mother and thus acts out and does self destructive and stupid things"

    How the FUCK do you know this? Your assumptions now mean pepper-spraying a kid is OK? Jesus fuck, you are some bloodthirsty sick mother fuckers.

  • John||

    I don't know anything. But I do know the kid refused to go to school. That is at least some evidence that he was not exactly a model citizen.

    Maybe the kid was doing nothing and the cop sprayed him just like he apparently sprayed the cats. If so, then yeah, he committed a crime. Or maybe, the kid was a mouthy little shit who refused respect his mother or any adults and told the guy to go fuck himself and did any number of other things to provoke it. I don't know and neither do you.

    But unlike you, I will at least admit it is possible that the kid was in the wrong here and that our family court laws put parents in the impossible position of being held criminal liable for their kids not going to school but also making it crime for them to engage in any physical coercion to get them to go. That is insane. Either declare that parents have no responsibility for their children after age 12, or allow parents to physically deal with unruly teenage children.

    The bottom line is that if the kid really did refuse to get out of bed or go to school, I really don't give a shit if his mother had pepper sprayed him. My only issue here is that this clown wasn't the kid's parent.

  • ||

    So pepper-spraying people--kids, even--for non-violent non-compliance (and that's just based on an assumption by you with absolutely zero evidence) is okey-dokey?

    Awesome. It's good to know where your standards lie.

  • John||

    So pepper-spraying people--kids, even--for non-violent non-compliance (and that's just based on an assumption by you with absolutely zero evidence) is okey-dokey?

    It might be. But what do you want to do about it? If you make it a crime then we can have a world in which the government tells parents how they can and cannot deal with their kids and create thinks like CPS to ensure they do it as prescribed. How is that working out?

    I am really to the point that short of sexual abuse, starvation, or injury requiring hospitalization, I think the government has no right to tell parents how they can and cannot treat their minor children. Yeah, that will result in some asshole parents getting away with a few things. But I will take that harm over the harm created by trying to stop it.

  • ||

    ---"But I do know the kid refused to go to school."---

    You don't know anything of the sort. The article says "Boatright found the teen still in bed when he was supposed to be in school." Did the officer just arrive at the house? Was the kid home from school with his mothers' permission (sick?)?. The article doesn't say.

    ---"That is at least some evidence that he was not exactly a model citizen."---. Why not just assume the kid was planning to kill somebody and the cop made a good judgement call?

    ---"maybe, the kid was a mouthy little shit who refused respect his mother or any adults and told the guy to go fuck himself and did any number of other things to provoke it. I don't know and neither do you."---
    Reread you're last line there. You don't have any idea what you are talking about and are just spewing shit.

  • Agammamon||

    I have to say its not like spraying a little in the air is going to 'hurt' the kid. What're the other options - beat the kid until he submits?

    Especially since this is a *cop* doing it, I'd say the guy used tact and restraint in dealing with what is probably a surly teen having trouble dealing with the lack of attention he feels he deserves since his single mother is too busy actually putting food on the table (along with the normal teen drama).

  • John||

    Here is the other thing. In some states they can throw you in jail if your kid doesn't go to school. So what exactly is a parent supposed to do with a kid who refuses to go to school? Failing to force him to go is committing a crime and if asking nicely were effective, there wouldn't be a problem.

  • tarran||

    Sanity in family law?

    You might as well ask for a pony in every little girl's bedroom!

  • John||

    When I dream Tarran, I like to dream big.

  • Drake||

    I have a 13-year-old son. As Chris Rock would say; I don't agree, but I understand.

  • Rasilio||

    Mine is about to turn 14 but thank heavens he is generally a good kid and his biggest problem is typical teenage laziness and the inability to understand when it is not appropriate to make jokes

  • VicRattlehead||

    and he forgot to shoot the dog

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm thinking that the officer was not in uniform at the time or it would have been excused.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "Are you sassin' me, boy?"

  • ||

    And the jury recommended 6 years for this guy for premeditated murder, (though the jury thought it was whatever the fuck "voluntary manslaughter" means). I have a second-hand source on this and apparently most of the jury wanted probation. Because he was a cop.

  • John||

    I am all for dealing with angry, belligerent drunks. I am even for shooting someone if they physically attack you. But even I am cannot endorse going and getting your gun and returning and just shooting the guy.

    I would say the cop needs to go down for that.

  • ||

    The cop was off duty, in a strange neighborhood, and he was also drunk and high.

  • John||

    Being drunk and high and in a strange neighborhood shouldn't be a crime. My guess is that they guy who got shot was probably being a first class asshole. But the person being an asshole doesn't make it okay to shoot them, especially after you walk away and come back.

  • ||

    You just said you're all for "dealing with" belligerent drunks. All I was saying was that both parties were drunk, so the victim has just as much a right to "deal with" it as the cop. And the victim was on his own property, so I'm thinking the victim had more of a right to "deal with" it than the cop, who was passing by on the street.

  • John||

    Maybe. Or maybe the guy who got shot confronted the drunk cop for "being in his neighborhood"? Just because you are on your property doesn't give you the right to give me shit because I walk by.

    The jury didn't convict the guy of murder. Not all of that was because he was a cop. What appears to have happened here is that you had a victim who was guilty of pretty appalling behavior and that got the jury to sympathize with the defendant and let him off lightly even though he was guilty of murder. Human nature being what it is, not all murders are equal.

  • ||

    Like I said, I have a source. The jury didn't want to convict him of anything, because he was a cop. A couple of jurors managed to sway them into "voluntary manslaughter" and 6 years in prison. And I don't see any "pretty appalling behavior" on the part of the victim. I see a drunk guy celebrating at his house with friend and family and getting into a dispute with some other drunk guy on the street. How do you know that the cop didn't walk by and make a comment or start the whole thing? Why are you assuming the victim wasn't just defending himself and his friends from some drunk asshole talking shit? And why does this all equate to "not murder"? He went back to his house and grabbed his shit and came back. After a simple street dispute.

  • John||

    I don't know that Kristen. But I don't think the jury's action was totally because he was a cop. Suppose the cop had shot a kid on his bicycle, would the jury have let him off then? No way. If the jury wanted to be that soft, it is because they for whatever reason hated the victim.

  • ||

    Uh, that's premeditated fucking murder, John. Full fucking stop.

  • John||

    That is exactly what I said. The fact that he went back and got his gun and re initiated the confrontation and apparently just shot the guy, makes it murder 1.

  • Raston Bot||

    Obviously this was a very expensive and risky ruse to get a sympathy bj from the mom. Well played, sir.

  • PH2050||

    I lol'd.

  • ||

    I was going to give Ed shit for yet another one sided anecdotal story further promoting his anti-cop fetish about a bad cop which tells us nothing about cops in general, beyond the obviously human fact that some people in authority will abuse it.

    But this is pretty fucking funny:

    Court papers said Boatright denied that he fired the pepper spray at the boy, and said that he actually pepper-sprayed two cats on his enclosed porch.

    He should be fired just for that alone.

  • John||

    I think pepper spraying a cat is a lot worse crime than pepper spraying a mouthy teenager.

  • ||

    Really, John? That's pretty sick. A cat is a fucking cat. A mouthy teenager is an actual human being, even if they are annoying as hell.

  • Rasilio||

    No, I'll agree with John on this.

    A mouthy teenager is a human to be sure, but that means he has the rational capacity to understand what has happened and why, and in this case the kid was skipping school so it is not like he didn't have some form of punishment coming.

    A cat is not a human which means it has no capacity to understand what has happened or why, pepper spraying it is simply unnecessary and cruel infliction of pain. Whatever goal he was attempting to accomplish by pepper spraying cats could have been accomplished just as well by tossing a glass of water at them

  • ||

    So torturing (hyperbole, but technically true) a teenager for being surly (so, being a fucking teenager) is cool because they're not a cat?

    I'm sorry, but the logic of you people who care more about nasty things done to animals than to humans sickens me. It's really repulsive.

    Not to mention that you've all seemingly assumed the kid was being a dick without any proof. Maybe he felt sick and hadn't gone to school for that reason? Nah, fuck it, PEPPER SPRAY THE LITTLE SHIT!

  • ||

    So torturing (hyperbole, but technically true) a teenager for being surly (so, being a fucking teenager) is cool because they're not a cat?

    It's not cool, but there are circumstances where pepper spray usage on a teenager are defensible.

    Under what circumstances is pepper spray usage on a house cat defensible? When they poop on your shoe?

    I POOP ON YOU!

  • Rasilio||

    Except I didn't say that pepper spraying the kid was cool, I said pepper spraying the cat was worse.

    Spraying the kid was a wrong overreaction but it is not like the kids was innocent and he clearly deserved some form of punishment.

    Spraying a cat is just cruel and completely unjustified no matter what the cat did.

    Again so this is clear, the kid is wrong but the cat is worse.

  • ||

    I'm abjectly curious how you know the kid wasn't "innocent". Did I miss something in the article? How much massive assuming are you doing here? How do you know the kid wasn't sick? Because all your sick rationales seem to rest on the kid "not being innocent". That's extremely fucked up.

  • 904cc||

    I'm abjectly curious how you know the kid wasn't "innocent".

    I'm guessing they're saying he's skipping school, thus not innocent (a stretch).

    I'm abjectly curious why you ignored the fact they you were corrected for claiming anyone thought it was "cool" to "torture" the kid, when no one appears to have said that.

  • 904cc||

    I was fibbing, I'm actually not curious at all, you lied and got caught, and attempted to change the subject.

  • John||

    I'm abjectly curious how you know the kid wasn't "innocent".

    Episiarch, if I walk up to you and tell you to go fuck yourself and what a retard you are and you kick the shit out me in response, am I "innocent"? Is that situation exactly the same as if i were standing on a street corner minding my own business and you decide to play knockout?

  • ||

    I would be charged for assault and you know it. Your question is asinine. You've explicitly stated that you are fine with pepper-spraying kids for assumed--not even known--non-violent non-compliance. Stop squirming and just admit you are fine with that. Because all you're doing is twisting and turning and trying to make it about the kid being a little shit, without the tiniest bit of fucking evidence.

    Holy fuck you people are tiresome. You jump right to assumptions and bloodthirstyness, and when called out on it you shill and shake instead of just admitting that it was stupid, full of unwarranted assumptions, and disgusting.

  • John||

    I would be charged for assault and you know it.

    Sure you would. But that wouldn't make me innocent. I would still be an asshole and my actions would mitigate the hell out of the crime you just committed.

  • ||

    if I walk up to you and tell you to go fuck yourself and what a retard you are and you kick the shit out me in response, am I "innocent"?

    A 'no' answer justifies various lèse-majesté laws.

  • ||

    I'm abjectly curious how you know the kid wasn't "innocent".

    Sweet motherfucker. Would you stop obsessing about the particulars of this case and stop assuming the kid's side is correct? You're letting the blind anti-cop fetish that you share with Ed distract you from what we're talking about here.

    Regarding the upcoming point...it doesn't really matter if the kid did enough to instigate the cop into justifiable use of pepper spray.

    UNDER NO FUCKING CIRCUMSTANCES IS IT JUSTIFIABLE FOR A COP TO EVER PEPPER SPRAY A FUCKING HOUSE CAT

    I don't care if you like cats or wish they were all run over dead in the street. Let me repeat...

    UNDER NO FUCKING CIRCUMSTANCES IS IT JUSTIFIABLE FOR A COP TO EVER PEPPER SPRAY A FUCKING HOUSE CAT

    That is an obvious misuse of his arsenal and should be a fireable offense.

  • Rasilio||

    Um, because that is the kids story?

    See the cops story is that he used the pepper spray on the cats on the porch, not in the kids room

    The kid is the one who claims that he was home when he should have been in school so the cop sprayed his room. If the kid were sick he would not have said he was home when he should have been in school.

    Now I suppose it there is some possibility that there was a communications breakdown in there somewhere and the actual facts of the case are the kid was legitimately home sick but even that is irrelivant.

    We have 2 stories presented here. The first is that the cop pepper sprayed a kid who was skipping school. The second is that he pepper sprayed 2 cats for some unknown reason.

    The assertion by John did not deal with whatever the actual facts of the case were but rather the two stories presented, specifically the one used as the defense to the other is worse than the one he was accused of.

    So using only the facts contained in the story and ignoring how closely they do or do not match the actual events do you still have an issue with people having more problem with random pepper spraying of cats for no apparent reason than pepper spraying a rebellious teen. Note this does not mean they approve of spraying the teen, just that the consider spraying the cat to be the bigger offense.

  • ||

    just that the consider spraying the cat to be the bigger offense

    And that is disgusting. I don't care how you spin it, a human is a human and a cat is a fucking cat. Should someone who pepper-sprays cats be evaluated and probably fired? Yes. That's sociopathic behavior. Should someone who pepper-sprays fucking teenagers be evaluated and probably fired? No, they should be charged with assault, evaluated, and fired. Because that's also sociopathic behavior, but it's against a human. Which is worse.

  • John||

    So again Episiarch, you would consider your spraying me in reaction to my telling you your wife is a whore to be a worse crime than my spraying a cat because I like to watch it suffer?

    Sorry but I don't see that. My actions make your actions, while perhaps criminal, much more excusable than my torturing the cat.

  • John||

    So what. The human being is capable of rational choices. It is entirely possible that a human being can provoke someone enough to cause the person to pepper spray them. That may be a crime, but it is a crime with some mitigation. A cat in contrast is an animal. It is not a rational or moral actor. Therefore, there is nothing the cat can do that could justifiably provoke or mitigate the cop spraying it.

    I didn't say spraying the teenager wasn't or couldn't be a crime. I said spraying the cat is worse. Spraying the cat cannot ever be done because of an overreaction to provocation. It is always done out of shear meanness.

    Think of it this way Epi. Suppose I call you a dumb wop and tell you I liked to fuck your wife and you lose your temper and spray me. Which is worse you spraying me under those circumstances or you spraying your girlfriend's house cat because you like to watch things suffer?

  • BSubversive.com||

    Having been one, I can safely state that mouthy, rebellious teenagers are not yet human. They are potentially human, but there is no way a teen is fully human.

  • ||

    As the saying goes: teenagers ought to move out of their parents' place while they still know everything.

  • ||

  • OO=======D||

  • SugarFree||

    Couldn't he just say he thought the kid had a gun? It works for all his pals.

  • ||

    There was a furtive movement around the waistband of his pajamas.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement