Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 27 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Family argument over liquor turns violent
Published Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Crawford
An argument between brothers-in-law over a bottle of liquor almost turned deadly Tuesday evening.
Police arrested Gregory Baldwin Crawford, 51, of Selma and charged him with first-degree domestic violence assault.
“An altercation began in the 1600 Block of Martin Luther King Street over a bottle of whiskey,” Sgt. Doug Stewart said. “Mr. Crawford beat his brother-in-law with a hammer, resulting in a skull facture.”
Authorities said the victim also suffered injuries to his eyes and several other places.
Police placed Crawford in the Dallas County Jail under a $60,000 bond.
Care Ambulance transported the victim to Vaughan Regional Hospital. The condition of the victim was unknown at press time.
“The case was turned over to the criminal investigation division,” Stewart said. “They will be looking after the matter.”
The Code of Alabama defines assault first degree as a person or persons who seriously tries to physically injury another person with a weapon or dangerous instrument or attempts to disfigure another person permanently.
The charge is a class-b felony and conviction could mean imprisonment from two to 20 years. A guilty verdict could result in a fine of up to $30,000.
Comments
Posted by leo71 (anonymous) on November 19, 2008 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Another black male mugshot--this time of an older one over a bottle of whiskey no less-- sad,very sad.
Posted by talt007 (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 12:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
here we go again...something so stupid...over a bottle of liquor...my God what is next...
Posted by concerned (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 5:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Editor, please note that the correct use of the plural of brother-in-law is brothers-in-law.
Posted by getitreal2008 (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is shameful and goes to show you what any type of disease including alcoholism can do to you.
Posted by mccrary36703 (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, this is truly sad, so sad.
Posted by eyeonyou (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow. A $4.00 bottle of whiskey means so much that you could attack someone with a hammer causing a skull fracture. Another one bites the dust.
Posted by outoftowner (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
come on; did you really expect anything more
Posted by Clarissa49 (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have never understood why people allow themselves to become addicted to anything. I never have had the desire to use alcohol, drugs, and tobacco, and my life has been far from a bed of roses. I do realize sometimes people become addicted to medicine prescribed for them; I can sympathize wilth those individuals.
Posted by selmablander (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
wow thats just plain crazy !!!
Posted by delta (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who said it was a $4 bottle of whiskey?
Posted by eyeonyou (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok...I guess it was a $50 dollar bottle of Crown Royal...or a $250 bottle of vintage wine. Get real!!!! Take a wild guess and use some common sense.
Posted by tiredofthistown (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It was probably MAD DOG 40/40. It is only the 20th and they won't be getting their government checks for another week and a half. Fight to death guys.....Fight to the death. It's really worth it. Losers
Posted by mccrary36703 (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 3:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is only the 20th and they won't be getting their government checks for another week and a half. Please explain? Who are they? (tiredofthistown)
Posted by eyeonyou (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"They" are the people that get checks on the 1st of the month. It's simple as that. You decide who gets the checks. Go stand out by the mail box in your neighborhood. Do "THEY" get checks? If no, then there is your answer. If yes, then there is your answer. Sounds like tiredofthistown hit your "Check Nerve".
Posted by mccrary36703 (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No because I don't receive a check on the 1st or 3rd I am on student loans. However I wanted to know about are there a special group of people or what? That he is talking about? Maybe you can answer that?
Posted by sel36703 (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 4:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just wanted to add that welfare checks are not the only checks that are distributed on the 1st and 3rd. The implications are obvious. However, retirement checks and social security checks for the elderly come on these days as well. Are you suggesting that hard working retirees live in your neighborhoods? BTW, I am not implying that these two meet any of the suggested criteria. Maybe they work M-F and suffer from stupidity and alcoholism.
Posted by delta (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Eyeonyou, what you call common sense I call presumptions that border on prejudice.
Plus, it can't be a bottle of vintage WINE because the officer said whiskey.
I don't think anything at whatever cost means someone should beat their in-law with a hammer, but they don't deserve your predisposition.
Posted by sel36703 (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just wanted to add that welfare checks are not the only checks that are distributed on the 1st and 3rd. The implications are obvious. However, retirement checks and social security checks for the elderly come on these days as well. Are you suggesting that hard working retirees do not live in your neighborhoods? BTW, I am not implying that these two meet any of the suggested criteria. Maybe they work M-F and suffer from stupidity and alcoholism.
Posted by mccrary36703 (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MY point (delta) this predisposition comming from (eyeonyou) send out a negative spirit. I mean come on everybody look at the photo on this article. That is what I mean. Don't do that because that is what start race WAR!!
Posted by sel36703 (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mccrary, the photo in the article does not represent me and while I see the underlying predisposition from eyeonyou and others, I address the stereotypes and not the ignorance of either the blogger or criminal. Hell, based on what this man did and I use the term man loosely, I have my own predispositions about his character and backgroud. Does that mean I'm a racist?
Posted by delta (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What I think is a bigger problem everywhere is classism. I'm sure everyone at least once in their life, me included, has had a negative thought about someone less fortunate than you.
Example, you see a homeless person and automatically think he or she is a drunk. Actually the vast majority of homeless people have mental problems they could not manage.
It's easy to bend things to fit your idea, but it's harder to actually learn what is really going on.
Posted by mccrary36703 (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No you are not a racist. I didn't get that far in my thoughts. It is his character, I just wanted to use the photo to get a point across.
Posted by ChangeSelma (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 5:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It obvious that this man is suffering from alcoholism . Drug addictions will make people do all kind of negative things . I hope the victim recovers and this man gets some help .
Posted by tiredofthistown (anonymous) on November 20, 2008 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BTW, (THEY) means the two jackasses that were fighting.
Posted by eyeonyou (anonymous) on November 21, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I didn't say anything about RACE. That was your inferiority complex kicking in. Your assumption should be replaced by something more logical. I love how people can assume something racial because the subject matter descibes a "black man" attacking someone with a hammer....and "I" make a comment about the "Whiskey". Thanks for clarifying that Wine is different than Whiskey. I just couldn't make it through life without that clarification. You must be a Newspaper Editor.
Posted by getitreal2008 (anonymous) on November 21, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would like to point out to anyone who has the assumption that some comments are directed towards black people in a racist manner. If you live in a city that is 80% black and 20% white, most likely, 80% of the crimes committed will be by black offenders. That has a lot to do with why people a lot of times will jump the gun and assume it is a black person who comitted a crime. Is it fair?No, but assumptions are what EVERYONE does. When someone is murdered pretty much anywhere, we automatically assume that a man committed the murder because most murders are commited by men.It is no different here.
Posted by delta (anonymous) on November 21, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Eyeonyou, I hope the first part of your comment was directed at someone else. Because I didn't say anything about race either.
The only reason I corrected you on whiskey vs wine is because you are always quick to correct others. (I checked your other posts before correcting you.)
Another correction to one of your assumptions, I'm not a newspaper editor. I don't work for any kind of media outlet. I'm simply someone who is from Selma, moved on, and reads the website to see what's going in my home city.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)