Woman Charged For Wielding 'Tower Of Bees' To Ward Off Eviction, Which Is Admittedly Kinda Badass

Oh, honey, no.

honeybee gavelFor the record, you shouldn’t release a swarm of bees upon police officers, but, if we’re being honest, it is some incredibly cool superhero shit, right?

In a gritty origin story, police charged an anti-eviction protester in Massachusetts with multiple counts of assault for unleashing bees upon authorities trying to serve an eviction notice.

According to law enforcement, Rorie Susan Woods (hereinafter “Queen Bee”) arrived on the scene of an eviction last week in a blue SUV (the “Buzzmobile”) and threw the lids off multiple bee hives seemingly in an effort to thwart the state from deploying its monopoly on violence in defense of the landed class.

“A Sheriff’s deputy tried to stop her, but as the agitated bees started getting out and circling the area, he pulled back,” the release said.

I don’t think he was ready for this (royal) jelly!

No? Fine then.

But everything ticked up a notch after police say Queen Bee donned beekeeper gear and took out a “Tower of Bees” (Rare, Two-Handed, High DPS Output, -10 Opponent Stamina).



Hampden, MA, County Sheriff’s Office

The cops charged her with four counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, and disorderly conduct.

Are bees dangerous? Assuming none of these deputies were going to go all My Girl on us, this feels like an overcharge. The “Tower of Bees” — I’m never going to tire of that term — certainly seems to fit the description of a dangerous weapon because it sounds like a baseball bat with bees on it.

But the battery charges, at least based on the coverage, appear to stem from people being stung by the bees just flying about.

And that’s definitely battery, but are bees a “dangerous weapon” in this situation? It’s not like she, you know…


Bees aren’t “designed for the purpose of causing serious injury or death.” Would bees just living their truth become an item “reasonably” capable of causing serious injury or death? Is it reasonable to assume loose bees would cause serious injury? Civil liability recognizes the eggshell plaintiff, but should criminal law consider it “reasonable” to assume someone refusing to withdraw from a swarm would be one of the sliver of people out there allergic to bees?

It’s an interesting question, but it just seems like the battery with a dangerous weapon charges should come down to run-of-the-mill battery.

Ultimately, the cops managed to arrest Woods. I guess bees weren’t enough. Perhaps if she had combined the bees with something else?

HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.