Mimesis Law
22 October 2017

Sheriff Tracy Murphree Threatens To Kick Any Transgendered Person’s Ass

Apr. 28, 2016 (Mimesis Law) — Career law enforcement officer, GOP candidate, and likely next Denton County sheriff, Tracy Murphree, believes he is above the law. Murphree has threatened to beat unconscious any transgender man who ends up in a women’s bathroom with his daughter.

Turning to Facebook, Murphree expressed his propensity for violence in the name of protecting his kids:

This whole bathroom thing is craziness I have never seen. All I can say is this: If my little girl is in a public women’s restroom and a man, regardless of how he may identify, goes into the bathroom, he will then identify as a John Doe until he wakes up in whatever hospital he may be taken to. Your identity does not trump my little girl’s safety. I identify as an overprotective father that loves his kids and would do anything to protect them.

Within hours, his post garnered more than 500 Facebook “likes” and had more than a 100 comments as people gave him the thumbs up. Violence and hatred towards “lesser” people will likely bode well for him come election time, especially given his Christian law-and-order platform. (Especially true given he has only a libertarian opponent.)

To protect and serve is the motto. But, as for Murphree, he can do as he pleases. Cops. Don’t threaten to treat them like criminals and read their Miranda rights. Don’t disrespect them or their brethren. And, don’t allow transgenders into any restroom their children might use. Maybe not all cops, but cops.

Maybe I’m a bit jaded after almost 30 years of seeing kids assaulted and sexually abused. Maybe I realize that child molesters will use these new rules to their benefit. Maybe, just maybe I have the same right to advocate for the safety of my kids.

Maybe jaded? Maybe preying on fears of the boogie man? Invoke the child molester clause and he has justified his thoughts and threats. It makes you wonder just how many transgender child molesters he has found in his many years of law enforcement.

Yes, I will be the next sheriff, and I will serve all citizens. I will not sit back and not voice my beliefs and opinions. I will not give in to the political correctness police. I won’t be threatened by those who may call me a bigot or ignorant. I have no issue with transgenders. That’s between them and God.

He has no issue with transgenders – unless of course one walks into a public restroom occupied by his daughter. God will sort it out; he will just arrange the meeting. And, to be fair, he did threaten any man, regardless of how he may identify, and not just the transgenders.

This isn’t an anti-transgender issue. It’s a safety issue. I’m not afraid of transgenders. I’m afraid of who will take advantage of the rules to get close to kids. The rights of transgenders do not trump the rights of everyone else.

Oh, it’s a safety issue! Transgenders will no longer be safe under Murphree’s watch as sheriff. He will make sure they end up in a hospital unconscious and unable to harm anyone else.

Responding to the mother of a transgender child, Murphree, likely inadvertently, pointed out his own hypocrisy:

Amber, you have demonstrated part of the problem. You advocate your right to defend your child and state that your child has the right to pee in peace. Yet when I advocate my right to defend my child and her right to pee in peace I’m a bigot and dangerous. … I’m trying to figure out how I’m a bad person for wanting to defend my daughter’s right to pee in peace. Her right to not have a male walk into the bathroom when she’s using it. Nor do I want a female walking in on my two young sons. … I’m trying to figure out when the rights of a very few trump the rights of the very many.

She may be advocating for her child’s right to pee in peace, but he is advocating his right to defend his children by pummeling any transgender who infringes upon their right to pee in peace. So his right to pummel trumps her right to defend her transgender child. Yes, Amber, some rights are more important than others.

In his self-admitted anger over public protests to North Carolina’s passage of a law restricting bathroom use to the gender identified on a person’s birth certificate, Murphree issued an apology for his post:

It was a mistake for me to post that.

Perhaps it was a mistake to post it, making it public and all, but he didn’t necessarily apologize for his statement – or its meaning. All along, he engaged his followers and commenters on Facebook. When asked, via Facebook, if he would arrest another man for defending his girls, Murphree responded, “somebody else is gonna have to arrest you.” And he continued to reiterate the same message.

So, he reserves the right to use violence and won’t arrest anyone else who does the same. Certainly doesn’t sound like the next sheriff will ‘serve all citizens’ as he claimed.

7 Comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

*

*

Comments for Fault Lines posts are closed here. You can leave comments for this post at the new site, faultlines.us

  • Scott Jacobs
    28 April 2016 at 9:53 am - Reply

    Unless I’m greatly mistaken, it would be entirely justifyable if a citizen saw this dolt beating the crap out of someone in a restroom and shot him – in Texas, I can use force or deadly force in defense of a third person…

    Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
    (1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
    (2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

    • Scott Jacobs
      28 April 2016 at 10:01 am - Reply

      Let’s just pain a scenario…

      I’m near the restrooms of some business in the apparently God-blighted county of Denton. I hear the sounds of a fight, and rush towards it, and someone runs out of the restroom screaming “He’s beatings her!”

      I look through the closing door, and see this thug in the process of landing blow after blow on a person, and hear nothing about “under arrest.”

      I draw my legally-carried firearm, push the door open by extending my foot and plant it to hold the door open, and yell “Get the fuck off or I’ll shoot!” I see no badge or other means of identifying that this person is the sheriff.

      Tracy, upon hearing his actions might for once have consequences, reaches for his own gun. This takes that calculation from “get the guy to stop beating the living shit out of someone” to “prevent this maniac from shooting the person they are on to of or me” and I fire twice is rapid succession to attempt to end the threat. Tracy dies, missed only by his family and assholes everywhere.

      Under Texas law, I’ve acted righteously. Bet you money I would still get to enjoy some time in the system.

      • JoAnne Musick
        28 April 2016 at 10:09 am - Reply

        OH, you are clearly likely to enjoy a little time in the system! But, yes, you are indeed correct. Self-defense law is very fact specific, but I see you’ve taken great pains to draw out what appear to be appropriate facts.

        So yes, as my other reply that didn’t quite land as a reply shows – Texas uses an “objectively reasonable” standard for self-defense and defense of third parties. We ask a juror to look at the situation from the actors standpoint at the time (knowing what he knew) and determine if the actor (that’s you) acted reasonably.

      • Scott Jacobs
        28 April 2016 at 10:11 am - Reply

        As one reads my comment above, please understand that my people do not understand editing.

        Good lord, so many wrong words.

  • JoAnne Musick
    28 April 2016 at 9:58 am - Reply

    Yes. As long as it were objectively reasonable, the law in Texas does allow a person to use deadly force to protect a 3rd person.

  • Mario Machado
    28 April 2016 at 12:02 pm - Reply

    Without attempting too much by way of amateur psychiatry, it’s safe to assume that Murphree’s Facebook rant is an unfailing sign of a sick and disordered person, and he has a good chance of becoming the top cop in a county with 600 thousand people in it. Fabulous.

    He would be the belle of the ball at a Trump rally. Pun intended: it’s usually those like Murphree, who are armed with the “breastplate of righteousness,” that are found courting their supposed nemesis in a men’s bathroom.

    • Scott Jacobs
      28 April 2016 at 2:02 pm - Reply

      Murphree’s Facebook rant is an unfailing sign of a sick and disordered person

      To paraphrase the State Farm commercial: “Well, he’s a cop, so…”