Runner that slapped reporters ass, is facing criminal charges

16-12-2019 12:37PM

Ironicname wrote: »

I accept that. It's the use of the word sexual which is causing the issue.

This point I haven't seen adequately explained yet.

When does smacking someone go from assault to sexual assault?

Is any contact with the arse sexual by default, or is it how the victim perceives it?

Because it is dangerous to let the victim be the person who decides the severity of the crime.

The law may define the act as sexual battery, but do people think this is correct?

As we have said, context is key, but what in this context makes people think this is sexual rather than just assault?

threeball · 16-12-2019 12:37PM

Sarahdunners wrote: »

No I don't think so.

Instead I think that people who have been sexually assaulted will be very proud of her for standing up for herself

Really? Because a poster you quoted as having been raped in thread thoroughly disagreed that this was sexual assault and that charging him was madness.

You claim to have been sexually assaulted multiple times but set the bar for sexual assault at such a low level that no one knows just how serious or damaging those assaults were. When everything is classed as sexual assault then the term loses its meaning. You devalue the hurt that women with real stories have gone through and you do the people you claim to speak for no favours at all.

ohnonotgmail · 16-12-2019 12:39PM

threeball wrote: »

Really? Because a poster you quoted as having been raped in thread thoroughly disagreed that this was sexual assault and that charging him was madness.

You claim to have been sexually assaulted multiple times but set the bar for sexual assault at such a low level that no one knows just how serious or damaging those assaults were. When everything is classed as sexual assault then the term loses its meaning. You devalue the hurt that women with real stories have gone through and you do the people you claim to speak for no favours at all.

It is the law that sets the bar for sexual assault, not individuals.

threeball · 16-12-2019 12:40PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This point I haven't seen adequately explained yet.

When does smacking someone go from assault to sexual assault?

Is any contact with the arse sexual by default, or is it how the victim perceives it?

Because it is dangerous to let the victim be the person who decides the severity of the crime.

The law may define the act as sexual battery, but do people think this is correct?

As we have said, context is key, but what in this context makes people think this is sexual rather than just assault?

A good point. What if he had given her a right belt or a punch in the arse. Is it now assault only. A far less serious crime even though the physicality involved was much more robust.

threeball · 16-12-2019 12:41PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is the law that sets the bar for sexual assault, not individuals.

It is the victim who gets to decide whether they felt there was a sexual intent. Great law that is

blade1 · 16-12-2019 12:44PM

threeball wrote: »

A good point. What if he had given her a right belt or a punch in the arse. Is it now assault only. A far less serious crime even though the physicality involved was much more robust.

What if he put his hand inside her pants and grabbed her ass.
Same as what the guy did?
Ridiculous!

ohnonotgmail · 16-12-2019 12:46PM

threeball wrote: »

It is the victim who gets to decide whether they felt there was a sexual intent. Great law that is

Can you point to the relevant legislation that says it is the victim who decides that there was sexual intent?

this is the legislation that applies in Georgia. https://statelaws.findlaw.com/georgia-law/georgia-sexual-assault-laws.html

I cant find anywhere it says that the victim decides it is sexual. Perhaps you will have more luck.

16-12-2019 12:46PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is the law that sets the bar for sexual assault, not individuals.

Ok. But the law sets precedents.

If someone gets hit on the backside without their consent, it can be deemed as sexual assault. What are the deciding factors?

threeball · 16-12-2019 12:48PM

blade1 wrote: »

What if he put his hand inside her pants and grabbed her ass.
Same as what the guy did?
Ridiculous!

He must have hands like the flash to have pulled that one off. Was he **** with his other hand while he did this?

Sarahdunners · 16-12-2019 12:51PM

blade1 wrote: »

Any rational thinking person should be able to see there was no sexual intention in what the guy did.

He doesn't have the right to touch her bum.

She was upset by him touching her bum.

And actually , how does touching a random lady's bum not have a sexual intent? He is touching her bum because it gives him a thrill right?

I know not to go up to a man in a shop and rub his bum. I know that I have no right to do that.

I am really glad that this story is an education to some people

ohnonotgmail · 16-12-2019 12:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok. But the law sets precedents.

If someone gets hit on the backside without their consent, it can be deemed as sexual assault. What are the deciding factors?

that can only be answered relative to the law applicable in the place it occurred. In the context of this thread this is applicable

Sexual battery occurs when a person “intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of the body of another person without the consent of that person.” The Code defines “intimate parts” as the “primary genital area, anus, groin, inner thighs, or buttocks of a male or female and the breasts of a female.” Enhanced penalties for sexual battery against a person under 16 years old.

For a first offence in Georgia it is a misdemeanor.

16-12-2019 12:52PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Can you point to the relevant legislation that says it is the victim who decides that there was sexual intent?

this is the legislation that applies in Georgia. https://statelaws.findlaw.com/georgia-law/georgia-sexual-assault-laws.html

I cant find anywhere it says that the victim decides it is sexual. Perhaps you will have more luck.

Jesus that is more frightening than enlightening:

"Sexual battery occurs when a person intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of another person's body without their consent. The Code defines “intimate parts” as the “primary genital area, anus, groin, inner thighs, or buttocks of a male or female and the breasts of a female.”
Here, there isn't an age or gender requirement. Consent can be a defense."

So a parent spanking their child for misbehaviour (regardless of your opinion of physically discipling a child) can get charged with sexual battery? A parent encouraging their child to run out onto a football pitch by giving a pat on the backside could be charged with sexual battery?

threeball · 16-12-2019 12:52PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Can you point to the relevant legislation that says it is the victim who decides that there was sexual intent?

this is the legislation that applies in Georgia. https://statelaws.findlaw.com/georgia-law/georgia-sexual-assault-laws.html

I cant find anywhere it says that the victim decides it is sexual. Perhaps you will have more luck.

So if she said she felt there wasn't a sexual intent they would still pursue a sexual battery charge or would it be reduced to assault?

magic_murph · 16-12-2019 12:52PM

He took my power.... such BS.
He shouldn't have done it but shes over playing the victim card.

ohnonotgmail · 16-12-2019 12:53PM

threeball wrote: »

So if she said she felt there wasn't a sexual intent they would still pursue a sexual battery charge or would it be reduced to assault?

Sexual assault in that jurisdiction is much more serious than sexual battery. As it stands Sexual Battery sounds like the relevant charge.

threeball · 16-12-2019 12:54PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Jesus that is more frightening than enlightening:

"Sexual battery occurs when a person intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of another person's body without their consent. The Code defines “intimate parts” as the “primary genital area, anus, groin, inner thighs, or buttocks of a male or female and the breasts of a female.”
Here, there isn't an age or gender requirement. Consent can be a defense."

So a parent spanking their child for misbehaviour (regardless of your opinion of physically discipling a child) can get charged with sexual battery?

You can't even change a nappy according to that well thought out junk. Babies can't give consent.

threeball · 16-12-2019 12:56PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Sexual assault in that jurisdiction is much more serious than sexual battery. As it stands Sexual Battery sounds like the relevant charge.

Plenty of laws written that are nonsensical tripe. A paper never refused ink. I assume you agree with stoning adulterers too? It is a law in certain parts of the world.

ohnonotgmail · 16-12-2019 12:57PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus that is more frightening than enlightening:

"Sexual battery occurs when a person intentionally makes physical contact with the intimate parts of another person's body without their consent. The Code defines “intimate parts” as the “primary genital area, anus, groin, inner thighs, or buttocks of a male or female and the breasts of a female.”
Here, there isn't an age or gender requirement. Consent can be a defense."

So a parent spanking their child for misbehaviour (regardless of your opinion of physically discipling a child) can get charged with sexual battery? A parent encouraging their child to run out onto a football pitch by giving a pat on the backside could be charged with sexual battery?

threeball wrote: »

Plenty of laws written that are nonsensical tripe. A paper never refused ink. I assume you agree with stoning adulterers too? It is a law in certain parts of the world.

well clearly you are incapable of discussing this like a rational adult so i'll leave you to it.

dubstarr · 16-12-2019 01:00PM

rustynutz wrote: »

Do you think referring to this incident as sexual assault devalues the experience of people who have actually been sexually assaulted and will carry the scars for many years after?

Do you not think its up to the woman to define it as sexual assault.Its not up to you or me to define it.

I was groped,manhandled by older men when i worked in a pub.I consider that sexual assault.They touched me in private areas and without consent.When i said anything it was meant as a joke,or he "only brushed past me".

So i do know,as do most women as it happened to most women.

Its very hard to explain to somebody who never experienced it,why its wrong on so many levels.And passing it off as "banter" is not ok.

El_Duderino 09 · 16-12-2019 01:02PM

threeball wrote: »

You can't even change a nappy according to that well thought out junk. Babies can't give consent.

I think you’ve lost the plot at this point.

16-12-2019 01:02PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well clearly you are incapable of discussing this like a rational adult so i'll leave you to it.

Hang on a minute, it has been said repeatedly on this thread that "well that's the law" so it is what it is.

What is irrational?

Granted, common sense "should" come into play with the scenarios I have suggested. But by the same token, I would have assumed the same would come into play with a random smack on the backside. But here we are, people saying that they accept the law and it's sexual battery if it fits the description set out in law.

What about the scenarios I have put forward, do not constitute sexual battery by the letter of the law?

This is talking like an adult and questioning the phrasing of the law. The examples are quite ludicrous but also valid because of how ludicrous the phrasing is.

What you are doing is dismissing a valid point and using ad hominem because you don't have an answer.

ohnonotgmail · 16-12-2019 01:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Hang on a minute, it has been said repeatedly on this thread that "well that's the law" so it is what it is.

What is irrational?

Granted, common sense "should" come into play with the scenarios I have suggested. But by the same token, I would have assumed the same would come into play with a random smack on the backside. But here we are, people saying that they accept the law and it's sexual battery if it fits the description set out in law.

What about the scenarios I have put forward, do not constitute sexual battery by the letter of the law?

This is talking like an adult and questioning the phrasing of the law. The examples are quite ludicrous but also valid because of how ludicrous the phrasing is.

What you are doing is dismissing a valid point and using ad hominem because you don't have an answer.

It is irrational to suggest that i support the stoning of adulterers.

threeball · 16-12-2019 01:04PM

dubstarr wrote: »

Do you not think its up to the woman to define it as sexual assault.Its not up to you or me to define it.

I was groped,manhandled by older men when i worked in a pub.I consider that sexual assault.They touched me in private areas and without consent.When i said anything it was meant as a joke,or he "only brushed past me".

So i do know,as do most women as it happened to most women.

Its very hard to explain to somebody who never experienced it,why its wrong on so many levels.And passing it off as "banter" is not ok.

What do you mean explain to people who've never experienced it. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of men have been slapped, grabbed or groped more than once in their life. Plenty here have said as much including myself. Stop pretending like it's a one way street

16-12-2019 01:05PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is irrational to suggest that i support the stoning of adulterers.

Fair enough. I was also quoted in your post. What did I say that was irrational?

threeball · 16-12-2019 01:06PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is irrational to suggest that i support the stoning of adulterers.

Why is an absurd law in one country ok and an absurd law in another not.

ohnonotgmail · 16-12-2019 01:08PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough. I was also quoted in your post. What did I say that was irrational?

that spanking a child is somehow sexual battery. have a think about that before replying not jsut a knee-jerk response.

ohnonotgmail · 16-12-2019 01:08PM

threeball wrote: »

Why is an absurd law in one country ok and an absurd law in another not.

absurd in your opinion. not absurd for the rest of us.

16-12-2019 01:09PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that spanking a child is somehow sexual battery. have a think about that before replying not jsut a knee-jerk response.

As I also said, "common sense should prevail" but according to the law and adhering to the law, is spanking a child sexual battery?

dubstarr · 16-12-2019 01:10PM

threeball wrote: »

What do you mean explain to people who've never experienced it. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of men have been slapped, grabbed or groped more than once in their life. Plenty here have said as much including myself. Stop pretending like it's a one way street

I never said it was a one way street.Anyone who touches anyone without consent,should feel the full force of the law.

And it happened to you,why did you not report it.
That was your choice not to report it.Same way it was the reporters choice to report it.

16-12-2019 01:13PM

If a man randomly ran up to a woman and smacked her across the face, everyone would agree it was an assault an not one person would tell her to just have a sense of humor about it.

A man randomly running up to a woman and smacking her on the backside is just a bit of craic though.

I wouldn't really want him on a sex offenders list, but no one has any business hitting anyone else, anywhere. Male or female.

Runner that slapped reporters ass, is facing criminal charges

Comments