State prosecutors are seeking an injunction against a Poland man accused of harassing his nephew because he’s gay.
The Maine Attorney General’s Office filed a complaint and injunction motion in Androscoggin County Superior Court against Kim Thurlow.
A complaint says Thurlow ran from his home to Sean Stanton’s nearby home, also in Poland, after Stanton threatened to call police one day in early August about ongoing harassment by Thurlow and his brother-in-law over Stanton’s sexual orientation.
Stanton revealed his sexual orientation to his family roughly five years ago.
Thurlow tried to break into Stanton’s home, according to the complaint. He tried to rip a screen door off the back of the house. He tried kicking the back door, punching the glass window in a door and pushing an air conditioner through Stanton’s bedroom window.
Stanton, 29, had seen Thurlow coming toward his house and had locked the doors.
As Thurlow sought to gain entry, he shouted, “Faggot.” Shortly before he left Stanton’s property, Thurlow yelled, “I’ll be back to take care of you later, you [expletive] fat faggot,” the complaint reads.
A deputy from the Androscoggin County Sheriff’s Department investigated Stanton’s call to police. Thurlow told the deputy that, after hearing Stanton was going to call police, he had gone to Stanton’s home where he had pushed an air conditioner through Stanton’s bedroom window and kicked his back door repeatedly.
“He also admitted to calling the victim ‘faggot,’ and explained that he just does not agree with the victim’s being gay. He asserted that the victim deserved what was coming to him,” according to the complaint.
If granted by the court, the injunction under the Maine Civil Rights Act would bar Thurlow from using or threatening to use physical force against Sean Stanton.
A court order also would prohibit Thurlow from damaging Stanton’s property or trespassing, speaking to him, intimidating or harassing him or coming within 150 feet of his home.
And a court order would prohibit Thurlow from encouraging or causing anyone else to engage in those actions.
If Thurlow answers the motion for a preliminary injunction and contests it, a court hearing likely would be set, a clerk said.
If a judge were to order the injunction, Thurlow could be charged with a Class D misdemeanor, punishable by up to 364 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,000 if he were to violate the injunction knowingly.
Assistant Attorney General Leanne Robbin said the Androscoggin County Sheriff’s Department issued a summons to Thurlow for terrorizing, a misdemeanor, for the Aug. 5 incident, but the Androscoggin County District Attorney’s Office hadn’t charged Thurlow with that crime as of Tuesday.
I chuckle at the thought of some impotent numb-buts raging against this guys house and being defeated by screen, glass, and an air conditioner.
Classy act Thurlow……pfffffft.
And gays say they don’t want any special rights, BS.
What? Did you read the article at all? He’s not asking for special rights…he’s asking for the same rights as everyone else (aka people can’t destroy your house/stuff).
Then why is the focus of the story on him being gay? Without that headline this would be a non-story.
The story and the headline are written in a way to get reader attention and to get us on here commenting. The story should be written for what the crime is, harassment, breaking and entering, perhaps terrorizing. The fact that the nephew is “gay” which from what I understand means he is a homosexual, should be irrelevant.
Except it’s the whole “reasoning” for said harassment, breaking and entering, perhaps terrorizing.
It shouldn’t make any difference what the “reasoning” is. If someone, say, were to assault you for being stupid or if they assaulted you for being smart it makes no difference, you probably deserved it. Okay, that last phrase was a joke but you get the idea. :)
As I said, special rights for” special” people.
Irrelevant? Did you not read the article? The reason why there was “harassment, breaking and entering, perhaps terrorizing” was because he is gay. How is that not relevant to the article?
Why do you and billy have issues acknowledging that this is about one man attempting to beat up another because of the latter being (or perceived as being) gay?
Regular Joe, I said that the victim’s being gay is not relevant to the crime. Read my reply to Todd Foster. I don’t care what the writer injected into the article. The article is written poorly. It should be saying that the victim “claims” that the reason for the harassment was because he was gay, and not be stating it as fact. Read this part carefully: It doesn’t matter what the reason was. He still committed a crime or crimes and should be punished for that crime or crimes, NOT some other punishment based on who the victim has had sex with. Geeesh
It shows unk’s motive. Nothing more.
xfactorbilly has a history of ridiculous comments regarding gays, so it’s no wonder that he’d think expecting the same level of protection from harassment, threats, bodily harm, and property damage would be “special rights” for gays.
Except that those comments and attitudes now make them “hate crimes” which elevates the severity and sentencing possibilities.
Well, I am still not totally convinced that “hate crimes” are a good idea. The behavior listed in this article is all about hate and would still be about hate if the nephew were a straight man. Someone getting beat up, whether gay or straight, is still someone being the victim of hate.
I agree you with you Joe. The state should prosecute the crimes committed: property damage, harassment, terrorizing, whatever. Being a homophobe or a bigot, while sad, shouldn’t be criminally actionable.
A family squabble settled by the state seems special to me !
Oh yeah? A family squabble that leads to destruction of property and threat of physical harm is a matter for the authorities.
Ya, like beating your wife could be considered a ‘family squabble’, is that what you are saying?
You seem to get pretty wound up about this stuff. My guess is you’re hanging out in the closet.
Nope not me,I would be afraid you would be in there (_*_)
“A court order also would prohibit Thurlow from damaging Stanton’s property…” Isn’t that already against the law?
I could hardly wait to get down here to the comments section to say what you already said. Duhhhh..
He was harassed because he is gay.
What’s your issue with this? Are you condoning this behavior?
Uncle D-bag needs 90 days in jail with Bubba as a roomy.
What a wonderful and supportive bunch that family is. Uncel needs a shrink, and Stanton needs a course in Smith & Wesson.
It’s been my experience that people that VIOLENTLY harass gay people, usually have a little something hidden in their own closet. Think anti-gay legislators with “wide stances”.
Years of stifled leanings (and possible laughter at your first name) just might blow up when seeing someone else able to go public. Yup, sounds more than plausible to me. Otherwise, he’d ignore it.
“Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALnDV8HsaXk
not funny ha ha funny queer mmhm
Nowhere in this article does it state that Thurlow engaged in this illegal behavior because Stanton has identified himself as a homosexual. The writer has written the article in an attempt to imply that, but nothing indicates that was the case.
Did Stanton do something to set off his uncle? Was Thurlow upset at Stanton for a reason other than his chosen lifestyle? The reader has no way of knowing. The writer sure wants to make the reader think that, but as others have pointed out, Stanton’s sexual choice is irrelevant.
“ongoing harassment by Thurlow and his brother-in-law over Stanton’s sexual orientation.”
And…“He also admitted to calling the victim ‘f***ot,’ and explained that he just does not agree with the victim’s being gay. He asserted that the victim deserved what was coming to him,” according to the complaint.
That sounds like you’re wrong.
Why are you denying this?
If the dude admitted he went off over his nephew being gay, then why is he not being charged with a hate crime?
What is the court waiting for, the gay man to be killed? I’m sure an injunction will stop this crazy guy from carrying out his threat. [yea right!]