Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Man squeezes woman's boobs too hard - it ends up in court - should it have?
Options
Comments
-
I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.On reading that article I wonder what would have happebed if he hadn't left? It appears based on this account that she didn't want him to leave, based on the continued consensual sex, showering and then requesting him to stay and talk (tad unusuall )
I’d say once their relationship ended, she would have gone to the coppers about something/anything. She seems a woman scorned.0 -
if a person is assaulted they call the cops they dont wait an indeterminate amount of time have a discussiin with friends and family and then call the policeWell, unfortunately for him, you weren't in the court listening to the testimony and the cross examination. This may come as a surprise to you, but when decisions are made in court they tend to be based on considerably more information than appears in the subsequent newspaper stories.
Yes, given the nature of what we are talking about, it will come down to "he said / she said", but clearly the court believed what she said, and not what he said.
Whilst you might believe she was not intimidated, or that she told him to stop mashing her breasts, the court did. I would like to think that is because the court had access to considerably more information than you do, and would hope that had you access to the same information you opinion might be different.
With respect to whether or not it should have been in court at all... Clearly it should have been. She reported it to the police, and they, unlike Outlaw Pete and a few other posters, believed that an offence may have been commit ed. They will then have interviewed both parties and formed a view. They would have then discussed the matter with the CPS. The CPS will have looked at the evidence gathered and made a decision on whether or not to charge and proceed with the prosecution. In making this decision they will have made a qualitative assessment of the evidence to decide if they believe an offence was committed, as well as assessing their chance of securing a conviction and if the prosecution is in the public interest. Of course, the CPS do get it wrong sometimes, but the next stage would tend to indicate they got it right here. It went to court and the court found that guy guilty. He was found guilty because the court believed her, and not him.
MrP
the stuff you about the process is almost as pointless as the signiture you put after it
Tigger0 -
weldoninhio wrote: »I’d say once their relationship ended, she would have gone to the coppers about something/anything. She seems a woman scorned.
why was he named before the appeal process has finished
why is she not named ?0 -
No it shouldn't, are you mad!Outlaw Pete wrote: »You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You keep asking me questions and saying 'I know you don't believe her, but...' as if I am answering only in that context. How many times do I need to say that I believe ALL sexual assaults should end up in court and so that should tell you that I don't believe that what this woman claimed happened amounted to one..
I was paying attention alright, I just wanted you to say the words rather than me assume what you meant by implication.Outlaw Pete wrote: »I'm saying that it should never have went to court even if her version of events is 100% accurate..
That's what I was after.
I literally could not disagree with you more.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Nope, cause he had consent to squeeze her breasts. She just didn't appreciate the 'degree of force'..
This is disturbingly mental.
Say for example someone you know brought your kid to school for you. You tell your kid - now hold so and so's hand crossing the road. But you get a phone call from the school, little Pete is crying and bruised, he's having trouble moving his arm because so and so squeezed them so tightly, little Pete tells you that he asked them to stop because it was hurting, but they just wouldn't.
Would you say that's grand, sure I told them to do it, it's just because I didn't specify the degree of force to be used!
She told him to stop, a few times, she was bruised, she was crying - he knew full well he was doing wrong.
You're still ok with this because at the start, before he started to hurt her, she was ok with him touching her. She didn't specify in advance that she didn't want to end up bruised and crying!Outlaw Pete wrote: »He would have had to have used an unreasonable amount of force for it to qualify as an assault given that they were both sexually consenting to one another. An injury of some kind that required medical treatment perhaps. Or anally penetrating her against her wishes. But a bruise? Don't be ridiculous...
Assault is defined by medical treatment?
A few years back I got into a row at a house party - got the living shít beat out of me by 4 or 5 blokes. I didn't go to a hospital, so was that not an assault? Cos it certainly bloody felt like one!Outlaw Pete wrote: »If he was walking past her in a crowded pub and squeezed her breast causing the same bruise, sure, that's a sexual assault but it's not when you've invited that man into your bed. Merely telling that person that they are being too rough does not suddenly make further contact of the same kind a sexual assault.
You view an invite into someones bed as containing an invite to hurt them as you see fit? They can't tell you to stop at any point, even if something is hurting them?
It's like letting a vampire into your house - once they're in that's it, they can do whatever they like now. If you invite them in, don't go whinging when they bite you!0 -
No it shouldn't, are you mad!
Plenty of people don;t go to the cops until some time after they have been assaulted. It is extremely common, please don't try to make it sound like what she did is in anyway unusual.if a person is assaulted they call the cops they dont wait an indeterminate amount of time have a discussiin with friends and family and then call the police
Meh. Not sure what you not liking my signature has to do with anything... Besides that, i posted the process as part of the answer to the question, should this have been in court in the first place, to which I think it is pretty relevant.the stuff you about the process is almost as pointless as the signiture you put after it
Tigger
He was named because he has been found guilty in a court of law. She has not been named because victims of sexual assaults have anonymity by default.why was he named before the appeal process has finished
why is she not named ?
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
she should have told him to stopsbsquarepants wrote: »I was paying attention alright, I just wanted you to say the words rather than me assume what you meant by implication.
That's what I was after.
I literally could not disagree with you more.
This is disturbingly mental.
Say for example someone you know brought your kid to school for you. You tell your kid - now hold so and so's hand crossing the road. But you get a phone call from the school, little Pete is crying and bruised, he's having trouble moving his arm because so and so squeezed them so tightly, little Pete tells you that he asked them to stop because it was hurting, but they just wouldn't.
Would you say that's grand, sure I told them to do it, it's just because I didn't specify the degree of force to be used!
She told him to stop, a few times, she was bruised, she was crying - he knew full well he was doing wrong.
You're still ok with this because at the start, before he started to hurt her, she was ok with him touching her. She didn't specify in advance that she didn't want to end up bruised and crying!
Assault is defined by medical treatment?
A few years back I got into a row at a house party - got the living shít beat out of me by 4 or 5 blokes. I didn't go to a hospital, so was that not an assault? Cos it certainly bloody felt like one!
You view an invite into someones bed as containing an invite to hurt them as you see fit? They can't tell you to stop at any point, even if something is hurting them?
It's like letting a vampire into your house - once they're in that's it, they can do whatever they like now. If you invite them in, don't go whinging when they bite you!
she implored him to stay
did you implore the lads that bet you to stay and talk about it ?0 -
i thinknit boils down to this
i do not believe that she was intimidated
i do not believe that she told him to not touch her breasts
i believe she allowed him consentually to keep on ploughing away and that she said ow or stop that and that he got confused
and that she decided after he got his but and made like a tree
that he had assaulted her
maybe im wrong but if l am why didnt she tell him to stop the sex
i stated i dont believe herWell, unfortunately for him, you weren't in the court listening to the testimony and the cross examination. This may come as a surprise to you, but when decisions are made in court they tend to be based on considerably more information than appears in the subsequent newspaper stories.
Yes, given the nature of what we are talking about, it will come down to "he said / she said", but clearly the court believed what she said, and not what he said.
Whilst you might believe she was not intimidated, or that she told him to stop mashing her breasts, the court did. I would like to think that is because the court had access to considerably more information than you do, and would hope that had you access to the same information you opinion might be different.
With respect to whether or not it should have been in court at all... Clearly it should have been. She reported it to the police, and they, unlike Outlaw Pete and a few other posters, believed that an offence may have been commit ed. They will then have interviewed both parties and formed a view. They would have then discussed the matter with the CPS. The CPS will have looked at the evidence gathered and made a decision on whether or not to charge and proceed with the prosecution. In making this decision they will have made a qualitative assessment of the evidence to decide if they believe an offence was committed, as well as assessing their chance of securing a conviction and if the prosecution is in the public interest. Of course, the CPS do get it wrong sometimes, but the next stage would tend to indicate they got it right here. It went to court and the court found that guy guilty. He was found guilty because the court believed her, and not him.
Meh. Not sure what you not liking my signature has to do with anything... Besides that, i posted the process as part of the answer to the question, should this have been in court in the first place, to which I think it is pretty relevant.
MrP
the question i asked was why not tell him to stop0 -
As a wise man once said
"Don't put your d*ck in crazy"0 -
As a wise man once said
"Don't put your d*ck in crazy"
thing is that crazy likes crazy sex
i had a lady repeatedly bite me like hard after i repeatedly told her to stop but as we continued what we were doing i dont think she thought it was not ok
if i had mived away and she had come over and bit me then that would be assault
however i didnt like it and ended the liasons soon after
i never told anyone that before
that was well over 20 years ago 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
No it shouldn't, are you mad!i stated i dont believe her
the question i asked was why not tell him to stop
She did tell him to stop. Here is some relevant part from the story in the OP, as you appear to have missed them...The Magistrate wrote:
I am sure that she withdrew her consent for him to grab her breasts; but he knew this and continued to do so forcefully, causing her severe pain.
This was an assault. He touched a sexual and intimate part of her body in a sexual manner without her consent.
Irrespective of her consent to other sexual conduct, I am sure that the touching was in circumstances of indecency and thus he is guilty of indecent assault.
I found her to be a compelling, coherent and honest witness.
Some aspects of her evidence might be thought to be illogical, specifically why she would continue to consent to sexual intercourse with a man who had hurt her and why she would plead to him to return to the flat.
She gave credible reasons for her actions which I accept are true.
She felt she was falling in love with him. She thought they were at the beginning of a relationship; a relationship she wanted to continue.
I find it credible that she wanted to continue sexual intercourse but that she tried to put a limit on his conduct and asked him not to grab her painful breasts again.
And we also have...The Magistrate wrote:
'I conclude that he was untruthful when he said that she had not complained to him and asked him to stop touching her breasts; that nothing unusual had happened and that they had parted on good terms.'
We, we have a magistrate that heard testimony and cross examination form both parties and on the basis of that made a decision, as they are trained to do, that one was truthful and the other was not. Then we have you that may, or may not, have read an article with fairly scant detail... Hmmm, who to choose...
MrP0 -
-
Consenting to sex is not consenting to everything that might mean.
Aye, which is why I said as much in the OP and indeed many times throughout the thread.Anal might not cause any injury at all. Why would that be an assault but mashing her breasts in a way she does not consent to, even after she has asked for it to stop, wouldn't be?
Because, that would be rape. A little more serious than a bruise.Again, consenting to sex is not consenting to everything that might possibly happen, and even if it was, consent can be withdrawn in whole or in part.
Like I said:Merely telling that person that they are being too rough does not suddenly make further contact of the same kind a sexual assault.Or, is it your view that once consent for sex is given then it cannot be withdrawn, in whole or in part?
MrP
Another point I've already addressed. Read the fecking thread maybe.
No, that is not my view.
For example: had she told him to get off her, that he had hurt her breast and and that she wanted him to leave, but instead and he got on top of her and started having sex with her again, despite her protestations .. that would be rape, even though she had just consented moments before.
So you'll now ask: why is withdrawing consent to sex different than withdrawing consent with regards to the degree of force used when boob squeezing..... and my answer is: because one is a serious issue and the other not. The penalty for the rape should be a jail sentence and for squeezing boobs too hard it should be a slap, a nipple twist, deletion of your number from the girl's phone etc etc etc.0 -
No it shouldn't, are you mad!
OK, but this does not seem to be what you are arguing…Outlaw Pete wrote: »Aye, which is why I said as much in the OP and indeed many times throughout the thread.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Because, that would be rape. A little more serious than a bruise.
Fair point, I missed the “against her wished” in your post. That said, bruising someone against their wishes is assault… So if a woman initially consent to anal, but it hurts and she asks the guy to stop anal, but not vaginal sex that is ok. But if there is implied consent to touch breasts, but it is being done in a way that the woman disagrees with and is causing her pain and distress, then she is unable to withdraw consent. Is that what you are saying?
Um, yes it does, as the defendant in this case is now very well aware. This went beyond “merely telling someone that they are being too rough…”, she withdrew consent for this particular act.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Like I said:
Merely telling that person that they are being too rough does not suddenly make further contact of the same kind a sexual assault.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Another point I've already addressed. Read the fecking thread maybe.
No, that is not my view.
For example: had she told him to get off her, that he had hurt her breast and and that she wanted him to leave, but instead and he got on top of her and started having sex with her again, despite her protestations .. that would be rape, even though she had just consented moments before.
So you'll now ask: why is withdrawing consent to sex different than withdrawing consent with regards to the degree of force used when boob squeezing..... and my answer is: because one is a serious issue and the other not. The penalty for the rape should be a jail sentence and for squeezing boobs too hard it should be a slap, a nipple twist, deletion of your number from the girl's phone etc etc etc.
I have read the thread, and I have read the article, in particular I have read what the magistrate said.
I am really trying to get to the bottom of what you think. From the above it would seem that your view is there is rape and nothing else. If it is rape, then that is an offence, but anything else is fine. Rape is a serious issue, I agree with you on that. I am not sure a woman that has had be breasts squeezed in a manner that has caused her pain and bruising would necessarily agree that it is not a serious issue. Surely we can have degrees of seriousness, perhaps rape at one end and unwanted roughness at the other…? You appear to be saying rape is bad, everything else is fair game.
There really does seem to be some logical inconsistencies in your opinion on this. You have said that consent to sex is not consent to all sexual acts. You have also said that consent can be withdrawn in whole or in part. You are of the opinion that if a man grabbed a woman by the breasts in a bar, causing her pain and bruising, basically exactly what the guy in this case did to the woman, then that is a sexual/indecent assault. But because it happened in the context of consensual sex it is not an assault, even though she specifically told him to stop doing that particular thing, thereby withdrawing consent for that specific act.
So you say it is possible to withdraw consent in whole or in part, but then you are basically saying this woman could not withdraw consent for something that was hurting her. I really can’t see how you can reconcile all these positions.
MrP0 -
sbsquarepants wrote: »Say for example someone you know brought your kid to school for you. You tell your kid - now hold so and so's hand crossing the road. But you get a phone call from the school, little Pete is crying and bruised, he's having trouble moving his arm because so and so squeezed them so tightly, little Pete tells you that he asked them to stop because it was hurting, but they just wouldn't.
Would you say that's grand, sure I told them to do it, it's just because I didn't specify the degree of force to be used!
It would simply be the last time I asked them to take little Pete to school, I wouldn't be reporting them for assault for holding his hand too tight, that's for sure.She told him to stop, a few times, she was bruised, she was crying - he knew full well he was doing wrong.
The level of pain and emotional upset you describe is not consistent with someone who wants to keep having sex. If she was really hurt or emotional distressed, then fcuking would be the last thing she'd want to be doing with the man responsible for it.You're still ok with this because at the start, before he started to hurt her, she was ok with him touching her. She didn't specify in advance that she didn't want to end up bruised and crying!
That's life. Men say don't scratch me anymore, don't bite me anymore, don't jump on it so hard but yet some women will do so anyway as it turns them on. Cuts, bruises, snapped banjo strings all occur to men around the world nonetheless. Should they all get hauled off to court and charged with sexual assault? Course not.Assault is defined by medical treatment?
A few years back I got into a row at a house party - got the living shít beat out of me by 4 or 5 blokes. I didn't go to a hospital, so was that not an assault? Cos it certainly bloody felt like one!
Come on, you're not even trying now. If I thought that, why would I have said:Outlaw Pete wrote: »Had he grabbed her boobs in Tesco, even without bruising, that would warrant reporting and charges being brought.
Oh and the 'I got beat up and had no bruises' argument was made multiple times already.You view an invite into someones bed as containing an invite to hurt them as you see fit? They can't tell you to stop at any point, even if something is hurting them?
Ah here, and this crap got thanked? Read the bloody thread. Resorting to strawmans is a sure sign you have no argument against the actual arguments being posted.
Christ, even in the opening post I made it clear that was far from my views:Outlaw Pete wrote: »Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that if some woman went full Catherine Tramell on me that I'd feel it okay for her to have done so given that I'd consented to have sexual intercourse with her, but surely there is a level of personal responsibility that people need to take for what happens them when engaged in sexual hi-jinks and I don't see that line was really crossed here. If he whipped out some metal nipple clamps and started dragging her round the room, resulting in her ending up in casualty.... of course the guy (or girl) should be charged, and conceivably for some things not so violent too (just using that as a an example).0 -
No it shouldn't, are you mad!Outlaw Pete wrote: »It would simply be the last time I asked them to take little Pete to school, I wouldn't be reporting them for assault for holding his hand too tight, that's for sure.
Even with the crying, the bruises, the trouble moving the arm. It's still all good in the hood. A mere misunderstanding regarding the level of force, no harm done....
Fúck me, that is unbelievable! Disturbing in fact
Thankfully I don't think social services would share your view.Outlaw Pete wrote: »The level of pain and emotional upset you describe is not consistent with someone who wants to keep having sex. If she was really hurt or emotional distressed, then fcuking would be the last thing she'd want to be doing with the man responsible for it.:
You've never heard of delayed onset pain no. Never twisted your ankle say, or banged your arm on something, only for it to be much worse the following day?Outlaw Pete wrote: »That's life.
Maybe for you and the lucky ladies you encounter.
It's not my life, bears no resemblance to my life.Assault is defined by medical treatment?Outlaw Pete wrote: »Come on, you're not even trying now. If I thought that, why would
I have said...Had he grabbed her boobs in Tesco, even without bruising, that
would warrant reporting and charges being brought...
But you see, you also said.....Outlaw Pete wrote: »
Nope, cause he had consent to squeeze her breasts. She just didn't appreciate the 'degree of force'.
He would have had to have used an unreasonable amount of force for it to qualify as an assault given that they were both sexually consenting to one another. An injury of some kind that required medical treatment perhaps. Or anally penetrating her against her wishes. But a bruise? Don't be ridiculous.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Oh and the 'I got beat up and had no bruises' argument was made multiple times already.
There were plenty of bruises, but I thought they didn't count - you're confusing me now!Outlaw Pete wrote: »Ah here, and this crap got thanked? Read the bloody thread. Resorting to strawmans is a sure sign you have no argument against the actual arguments being posted. :
But you also said.....Outlaw Pete wrote: »Nope, cause he had consent to squeeze her breasts. She just didn't appreciate the 'degree of force'.:
You're doing a Donald here. This is fake news - He never had consent to hurt her, touch her yes, not hurt her, she told him to stop - he just didn't give a flying fúck and left her crying and covered in bruises.
That's life you say!Outlaw Pete wrote: »Christ, even in the opening post I made it clear that was far from my views:
It's clear from your self expressed views that you just point blank refuse to accept this woman was in any position to withdraw her consent to a specific act. In for a penny in for a pound.
She told him to stop, he didn't - fúck it, it's her own fault for letting him start in the first place.
I honestly find your views quite disturbing and bizarre!0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Outlaw Pete wrote: »
Nope, cause he had consent to squeeze her breasts. She just didn't appreciate the 'degree of force'.
He would have had to have used an unreasonable amount of force for it to qualify as an assault given that they were both sexually consenting to one another. An injury of some kind that required medical treatment perhaps. Or anally penetrating her against her wishes. But a bruise? Don't be ridiculous.
If he was walking past her in a crowded pub and squeezed her breast causing the same bruise, sure, that's a sexual assault but it's not when you've invited that man into your bed. Merely telling that person that they are being too rough does not suddenly make further contact of the same kind a sexual assault.
I'm finding it really hard to understand your viewpoint.
She consented to sex. She didn't consent to her breasts being squeezed to the point of pain. She made this clear, and he still repeated the action. It is perfectly reasonable for a person to expect consensual sex not to involve pain.
The fact that she invited him into her bed is of no significance. She invited him to her bed for sex. She didn't invite him to her bed to physically hurt her.
The degree of physical damage inflicted is not the only indicator of how serious a sexual assault is. If a woman is having sex with a man, and he purposely hurts her during this, that's an intimating situation to be in. Do you try to get the person to stop, when they've already refused to stop hurting you? Or do you go along with it so that you don't risk them becoming more violent?
I don't agree with the whole trial by social media thing. But in this case, the woman has reported the assault and the man has been convicted. Wrongful sexual assault convictions are few and far between. And still, you see fit to argue with it?
I really think that your attitude towards this is very disturbing and I hope that you'll eventually take pause to think about what you're actually saying here.0 -
I'm finding it really hard to understand your viewpoint.
She consented to sex. She didn't consent to her breasts being squeezed to the point of pain. She made this clear, and he still repeated the action. It is perfectly reasonable for a person to expect consensual sex not to involve pain.
The fact that she invited him into her bed is of no significance. She invited him to her bed for sex. She didn't invite him to her bed to physically hurt her.
The degree of physical damage inflicted is not the only indicator of how serious a sexual assault is. If a woman is having sex with a man, and he purposely hurts her during this, that's an intimating situation to be in. Do you try to get the person to stop, when they've already refused to stop hurting you? Or do you go along with it so that you don't risk them becoming more violent?
I don't agree with the whole trial by social media thing. But in this case, the woman has reported the assault and the man has been convicted. Wrongful sexual assault convictions are few and far between. And still, you see fit to argue with it?
I really think that your attitude towards this is very disturbing and I hope that you'll eventually take pause to think about what you're actually saying here.
this isn't trial by social media, the trial is over, there's an appeal on the way. Its a discussion of the merits of the case.
I don't necessarily disagree with you entirely, and I don't disbelieve he did hurt her, or even assaulted her, but there's something a bit "off" about this particular jeremiad. The Magistrate even referred to her behaviour as "illogical."
So after she was sexually assaulted during consensual sex, she went and had a shower, leaving him alone in her room. When she comes out to discuss his behaviour, he's halfway out the gap. She entreats him to stay and discuss her assault, but he bails anyway. She subsequently texts him "imploring" him to return. She didn't exactly want to see the last of him.
Not behaviour you'd associate with someone after being sexually assaulted. (not that there's typical post sexual assault behaviour).
this is the reason she went to the cops IMO, that he bailed out and she looking forward to a relationship.
There doesn't seem to have been much evidence offered, other than oral testimony, and possibly the reason the prosecution got it over the line was he was an absolute cnut, and the judge didn't like the cut of his jib. It happens. If a judge takes a dislike to you, you're on a hiding to nothing.
An offence of "being a total fcuking ****" should be introduced on the statute books, with FPNs and a good kicking by her brothers/father/ nominated friends.
Re wrongful prosecutions, they happen.
There was a heated and emotive Ched Evans thread here that polarised people as well, and it was a substantially more serious incident. Again, there was something "off" about the whole thing. he was acquitted, but his life adversely affected, if not quite ruined.0 -
Roger Hassenforder wrote: »this isn't trial by social media, the trial is over, there's an appeal on the way. Its a discussion of the merits of the case.
I don't necessarily disagree with you entirely, and I don't disbelieve he did hurt her, or even assaulted her, but there's something a bit "off" about this particular jeremiad. The Magistrate even referred to her behaviour as "illogical."
So after she was sexually assaulted during consensual sex, she went and had a shower, leaving him alone in her room. When she comes out to discuss his behaviour, he's halfway out the gap. She entreats him to stay and discuss her assault, but he bails anyway. She subsequently texts him "imploring" him to return. She didn't exactly want to see the last of him.
Not behaviour you'd associate with someone after being sexually assaulted. (not that there's typical post sexual assault behaviour).
this is the reason she went to the cops IMO, that he bailed out and she looking forward to a relationship.
There doesn't seem to have been much evidence offered, other than oral testimony, and possibly the reason the prosecution got it over the line was he was an absolute cnut, and the judge didn't like the cut of his jib. It happens. If a judge takes a dislike to you, you're on a hiding to nothing.
An offence of "being a total fcuking ****" should be introduced on the statute books, with FPNs and a good kicking by her brothers/father/ nominated friends.
Re wrongful prosecutions, they happen.
There was a heated and emotive Ched Evans thread here that polarised people as well, and it was a substantially more serious incident. Again, there was something "off" about the whole thing. he was acquitted, but his life adversely affected, if not quite ruined.
I know it's not trial by social media, that was my point. I was referring to the #metoo stuff which has rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way, and I think it's impacting how cases like this are viewed.
I already explained why I believe she may have reacted as she did. There's a plausible explanation for that in my opinion. See below
Yes, she should have asked him to leave. But it's very normal for victims to try to "normalize" these situations in their heads because they're in shock or just can't process it. The same applies to her asking him to stay and talk about it; if he came out with an explanation for it then she wouldn't have to deal with the reality of it. It's similar to people who stay in abusive relationships for years - they normalize the behavior and stick around because it's easier than acknowledging that they're being/have been abused.
.0 -
Advertisement
-
No it shouldn't, are you mad!
Well, is there or isn't there such thing as 'typical post sexual-assault behaviour'?Roger Hassenforder wrote: »Not behaviour you'd associate with someone after being sexually assaulted. (not that there's typical post sexual assault behaviour).
this is the reason she went to the cops IMO, that he bailed out and she looking forward to a relationship.
Make up your own mind before you advance a speculative position which you yourself seem unsure of.0 -
I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.Okay. So, let me understand this. A person can withdraw consent to touch any of their body parts during the act of sex, and failure to stop touching is now sexual assault? Or do you have to cause physical pain/damage for it to be assault?0
-
Deleted User wrote: »Okay. So, let me understand this. A person can withdraw consent to touch any of their body parts during the act of sex, and failure to stop touching is now sexual assault? Or do you have to cause physical pain/damage for it to be assault?
Firstly, he didn't simply "touch" her. He inflicted actual pain and bruising. Consent was never given for this.
Secondly, you can withdraw consent to be touched by anyone, in any way, at any time. And if that person continues to touch you in that way, that is an assault. It doesn't matter if you're having sex, shopping in a supermarket, or sitting in a cab.
In this case, he was hurting her and did not stop when asked to stop and continued to hurt her. This is quite obviously an assault.
Some of the comments here are alarming.0 -
I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.Firstly, he didn't simply "touch" her. He inflicted actual pain and bruising. Consent was never given for this.
Not what I asked. I didn't dispute the case. I asked a simple question.Secondly, you can withdraw consent to be touched by anyone, in any way, at any time. And if that person continues to touch you in that way, that is an assault. It doesn't matter if you're having sex, shopping in a supermarket, or sitting in a cab.
Ok. There's my answer.0 -
no i ment stop having sexShe did tell him to stop. Here is some relevant part from the story in the OP, as you appear to have missed them...
And we also have...
We, we have a magistrate that heard testimony and cross examination form both parties and on the basis of that made a decision, as they are trained to do, that one was truthful and the other was not. Then we have you that may, or may not, have read an article with fairly scant detail... Hmmm, who to choose...
MrP
not continue having sex ut with guidance as tonhow tondo it
did you miss my anicdots a bout the biter ?0 -
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »Well, is there or isn't there such thing as 'typical post sexual-assault behaviour'?
Make up your own mind before you advance a speculative position which you yourself seem unsure of.
exactly, there isn't, however there's a range of behaviours victims are reported to exhibit, and 'I cant believe its not Bridget Shaw's' behaviour would seem to be a hitherto unobserved one ( well I cant find one after an admittedly brief review, you might fare better?)0 -
Roger Hassenforder wrote: »exactly, there isn't, however there's a range of behaviours victims are reported to exhibit, and 'I cant believe its not Bridget Shaw's' behaviour would seem to be a hitherto unobserved one ( well I cant find one after an admittedly brief review, you might fare better?)
briget shaw is the magistrate0 -
No it shouldn't, are you mad!Roger Hassenforder wrote: »exactly, there isn't, however there's a range of behaviours victims are reported to exhibit, and 'I cant believe its not Bridget Shaw's' behaviour would seem to be a hitherto unobserved one ( well I cant find one after an admittedly brief review, you might fare better?)
I dunno who told you that speculating on how ppl should behave after they've been assaulted was a good look
Here's a tip: it's not a good look.
Not on you, not on anybody.0 -
I can't decide. I'm on the fence. Perhaps. Maybe. Who's to say really.Firstly, he didn't simply "touch" her. He inflicted actual pain and bruising. Consent was never given for this.
Secondly, you can withdraw consent to be touched by anyone, in any way, at any time. And if that person continues to touch you in that way, that is an assault. It doesn't matter if you're having sex, shopping in a supermarket, or sitting in a cab.
In this case, he was hurting her and did not stop when asked to stop and continued to hurt her. This is quite obviously an assault.
Some of the comments here are alarming.
Would love for someone here to answer this?
Where is the Medical Testimony/Reports/Pictures proving anything she said this pain and assault?? If there was as much bruising as she described where is the proof?0 -
Advertisement
-
I thought no but then I seen his picture and changed my mind. I know, unfair, but life's unfair.Would love for someone here to answer this?
Where is the Medical Testimony/Reports/Pictures proving anything she said this pain and assault?? If there was as much bruising as she described where is the proof?
I have the exact same question, I'm by no means a legal expert of any kind but would physical assault cases even get as far as court without medical documents to support injury claims?
I just feel that parameters change when the word "sexual" is involved, I'm not really sure why because a physical assault can have just as devastating an impact.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement