Saturday, August 22, 2009

Woman Marjorie Burgess arrested for allegedly injuring son

It's Mother of the Year Marjorie Burgess. Maybe the Times Standard headline writer is new, and doesn't remember lavishing her with front page stories only a few short years ago. One son dead, and looks like another on his way. But don't worry, she probably has some of his baby pics at the ready.

Woman arrested for allegedly injuring son

A Fields Landing woman was arrested Wednesday for allegedly fighting and injuring her juvenile son.
Margorie Burgess, 42, allegedly struck her son in the face with an iron, hit him in the head with a shot glass and bit him, according to a Humboldt County Sheriff's Office press release.

Deputies responded to a reported physical fight and arrested Burgess. She was booked into Humboldt County jail for one felony count of inflicting unjustifiable pain on a child.

Her bail was set at $50,000.

Margorie Burgess is also the mother of Christopher Burgess, who was shot and killed in 2006 at age 16 during an altercation with a Eureka Police Department officer.


Some kids start life with the deck completely stacked against them. And no way of turning away from the dark side.

23 comments:

Carol said...

This is a very sad situation. Let's hope this family gets the help and guidance they need.

Anonymous said...

Genius Carol... Guidance my ass.... Marjorie chose to be a welfare whore years ago and all of your hard earned money that she got to help her raise a healthy family went up her nose or in her arm or down her fat gullet. You need guidance on the real world - some women are not good mothers and we need to stop them from doing so - her children should have been removed from her care years ago - hell, I bet you even have a spare room for kids that need tender loving care; after all you took Greg in.

Anonymous said...

That would be whatever remaining offspring she has access to being taken away for foster care until they are adults, and large marge going to prison before she can ruin any more lives.

Anonymous said...

10:23: Touche'.

Rose said...

Geez. Can we have ANY discussion without the attacks?

We'd come a long way if we could recognize what unites us rather than divides us.

On the surface, Greg and carol and I don't seem to agree on much, but when you really sit down and start talking, you find we all care about the same things, we just have different ways of getting there.

Honestly, attacks on Greg and Carol, Mresquan, Stephen and Eric Kirk are completely and utterly unnecessary. And unproductive. they're your neighbors, people, and you wouldn't treat them that way if you met them in person.

Let's talk about what really matters.

Anonymous said...

Rose,I can agree with you general but when it comes to the constant BS spewed by Greg, one must always call it for what it is.

Carol said...

Wow, I took Greg in? That is a misrepresentation of the truth.

Have some compassion for breakfast, anonymous.

Rose said...

Hey, Carol! Good to see you.

You know - it's ok to differ on OPINIONS - no need for people to get personal.

Anonymous said...

Rose, haven't you sometimes gotten personal towards Paul Gallegos?

Anonymous said...

Paul and Greg are both ZERO's

Rose said...

Well, I like to believe that elected officials who file lawsuits on behalf of campaign backers is an issue crosses party platforms and ideologies.

I like to believe that, Democrat or Republican, we care about things like the Victim Witness Program, and the benefits of that program for those who are victims of crime who are thrust into the otherwise uncaring system.

I like to believe that helping make the onerous court procedures easier on kids who have to testify against the worst kind of abusers is IMPORTANT to people like Greg and Carol, and to people of ANY party or persuasion.

I like to believe that we all understand that a DA's job is to put BAD GUYS away for as long as possible, not to plea bargain, or let them off - and that includes drunk drivers, dope dealers, murderers and their accomplices as well as abusers and burglars. NOT to persecute an innocent man like Sean Marsh.

I like to believe that when someone fucks those things up the way Gallegos has done, that people will stop babying and protecting him and will hold him accountable - EVEN IF he is pro-pot, and EVEN IF they hate Palco.

Some things matter. And they aren't about whether you checked a stupid box on a stupid voter form.

That's why this blog is here. No other reason.

And that is why you should welcome even those whose professed ideology differs from yours, or mine. And why there is no need for name calling. On certain key things, we all agree.

We can argue about the rest later.

Anonymous said...

Rose

I'm confused. And I don't really want to argue. But at times I have been offended by comments by mresquan (you call him Mark)and respond. In doing so I noticed that I have not been alone so I guess there must be others that feel the same way. You obviously know "Mark" and like him. I don't know him and almost always dislike or am offended by what he writes. I'm sure he writes what he writes speciffically to offend people verus share an idea or a different point of view. Oh well.

I am not a Gallegos supporter and feel pretty much the same way you do about him and that is why I check your blog.

Now I have the list of the protected species/no negative comments; Greg and Carol Connors, Steve (I'm assuming it's the Steve that doesn't care for Jewish people or Israel), mresquan, and Eric Kirk.

Time for work ............

Rose said...

I don't know them particularly well, and, as I have said, I don't generally agree with them either. Sometimes I vehemently disagree - such as with greg and carol on the subject of "revenue enhancement and 2/3 majority rqd to spend the state into oblivion... or with Stephen on the subject or Israel and Palestine...) But I don't find the fact that they hold different views offensive. I can appreciate that they have different views and have reached different conclusions - that doesn't change the fact that they are still good people.

You're free too disagree, but disagree on the points, without resorting to calling them assholes - at least not every single time.

And, for what it's worth, you may well be on the list of protected species too. I don't want them calling you an asshole either. I would rather see them disagree with you on issues than give me a rundown on your personal faults and grooming habits - make sense?

mresquan said...

Well I don't specifically intend to offend anyone I disagree with.Just happens sometimes I guess when I have to be open and truthful about things.On this blog in particular,I more often than not,am put on the defensive,with accusations,or with my general liking and defending of leftie groups such as DUHC,and I at times need to point out some hypocrisy when attacks are made against them or Gallegos when the attacking side engages in the same way,or when the attacks being made are even blatantly false.Virtually all attacks on me here come from anonymous posting,with the posters having knowledge of me,obviously a reason for that most of the time,as a poster likely wouldn't want to be caught personally mischaracterizing something or someone.
And I am not all that pleased with Paul either,and wouldn't mind seeing a different DA in office,but I did vote for him last time around because I felt that Dikeman would have been much worse,and was awed at the hypocrisy coming from his camp in regards to string pullers.The same string pullers who pulled him aside at the onset of the recall after he stated that he stood with Paul against it.Why did he change his stance,then opt to become a politico?I'll assume it was advice and support coming from string pullers.

Carol said...

Yes, Rose and I may not always agree on political issues, but we respect each other. We also have found that there are many things we agree upon.

Anonymous, anyone can type anything they want when they are anonymous. I do not care to know what your beef is with either myself or Greg or Steve or Mark. But can you stop the personal attacks, please?

Thanks!

Rose said...

ONe thing I can categorically state, mresquan - Worth Dikeman did not have any strings that were pulled by anyone. Period. One hundred percent. He simply is not that kind of person.

What he was, and is, is a man who cares about the rule of law, who takes his profession and his responsibilities in it, seriously. He is a man who others came to for advice, who gave up his lunch hours to counsel others to help them be better at what they do - a man with a wealth of knowledge, someone you would love if you took the time to know him.

He wasn't - and isn't - a man who aspired to things political - but he was, as many are, dismayed by the degradation of the office under Gallegos.

His mistake was - he thought people would care.

I guess the system just has to break entirely before people will fix what they have done.

Anonymous said...

Dear Carol

Thank you for sharing that with me. And say hello to Greg for me.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mresquan

Your reprentation of Worth Dikeman is totally inaccurate. I say this because I have known him for 20 years and think he is an honest and decent persons. I do wonder what caused you to bring up Worth at this point but thank you for sharing that with me.

Anonymous said...

Huggles, Rose! Huggles Stephen!

Anonymous said...

Sorry that I missed you. Thanks for the reminder of your foolishness. mresquan you are also a ZERO!

robash141 said...

Rose I might not hardly ever agree with you or your right wing anonymice about anything.

But as far as this ardent lefty is concerned mresquan is really a gigantic piece of crap and a thoroughly untrustworthy individual.

Rose said...

Blast from the past! How ya doin' robash?

robash141 said...

I was doing fine until the name "mresquan" popped up.
Let's just say that he's earned my enmity in a way you never could.