Should be Beyonce's sister be impriosoned?

calex71 · 13-05-2014 08:33AM

here nothing you don't see on a saturday night the world over

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWdhX9c_7FA

SusieBlue · 13-05-2014 08:33AM

diveout wrote: »

In the US a kick in the balls is legally a violent sexual assault. And so it should be.

Its not a violent sexual assault unless the victim was fondled or touched inappropriately in some way.

Indeed, it could be classed as a violent assault depending on how much force was used and how much damage was inflicted, which in turn could result in a felony charge, but its not sexual in any way.

Lukehandypants · 13-05-2014 08:34AM

diveout wrote: »

I have no idea, you'd have to ask a criminal lawyer. My guess is yes.

It's just that culturally it's not taken as seriously as a kick in the vagina.

Why isn't it taken as serious as a kick in the vagina?
When we were kids we were alway kicking each other in the balls, does this mean I have been sexually assaulted?

sadie06 · 13-05-2014 08:34AM

ElleEm wrote: »

It is so strange that Beyonce doesn't appear to flinch. The only time she really does anything is when she picks up the train of her dress. Wierd.

Beyonce is so media savvy, I'd say she knew there was a good chance there would be a CCTV camera in the lift. There is also always the risk of the bodyguard selling his story, so I reckon she took a decision to stay out of it.

Then she walked out of that lift looking like nothing had happened, whereas Jay Z looked like a stunned child and Solange looked like she could breathe fire!

Turtyturd · 13-05-2014 08:36AM

Yes lock her up....and Beyonce for crimes against music.

Cazzoenorme · 13-05-2014 08:36AM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Its not a violent sexual assault unless the victim was fondled or touched inappropriately in some way.

Indeed, it could be classed as a violent assault depending on how much force was used and how much damage was inflicted, which in turn could result in a felony charge, but its not sexual in any way.

The assault is sexual as it is aimed at sexual organs. A kick in the balls is most certainly inappropriate.

jimgoose · 13-05-2014 08:38AM

Lucky it wasn't the wife that hoofed him one. With those thighs of hers he'd have ended up on the roof with his 'nads in his ears. :pac:

diveout · 13-05-2014 08:38AM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Its not a violent sexual assault unless the victim was fondled or touched inappropriately in some way.

Indeed, it could be classed as a violent assault depending on how much force was used and how much damage was inflicted, which in turn could result in a felony charge, but its not sexual in any way.

You are wrong. In US jurisdictions, a kick in the balls is a violent sexual assault because it was an attack on a sexual organ. It is also assault and battery depending on the consequences.

You can not just cause infertility but damage the entire urinary and reproductive tract.

diveout · 13-05-2014 08:39AM

Lukehandypants wrote: »

Why isn't it taken as serious as a kick in the vagina?
When we were kids we were alway kicking each other in the balls, does this mean I have been sexually assaulted?

Technically yes. But it was mutual or bi-directional as they like to call it.

SusieBlue · 13-05-2014 08:40AM

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

The assault is sexual as it is aimed at sexual organs. A kick in the balls is most certainly inappropriate.

This is like drawing blood from a stone. Of course its inappropriate, but what I meant by inappropriate touching (assuming you'd read between this lines which you obviously didn't) was fondling, grabbing, stroking...Need I elaborate further?

I'm not disputing that kicking him was inappropriate, it was, but it was not a sexual assault. It is demeaning the very definition of a sexual assault.

umop.episdn · 13-05-2014 08:42AM

Anybody who gives Jay z a kick in the nuts is a hero in my book

diveout · 13-05-2014 08:42AM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

This is like drawing blood from a stone. Of course its inappropriate, but what I meant by inappropriate touching (assuming you'd read between this lines which you obviously didn't) was fondling, grabbing, stroking...Need I elaborate further?

I'm not disputing that kicking him was inappropriate, it was, but it was not a sexual assault. It is demeaning the very definition of a sexual assault.

Yes it is a sexual assault and a very violent one. It could potentially cause a short flow of urine, which then backs up into the kidneys, renal failure and potentially sterility, potentially reconstructive surgery also.

Gyalist · 13-05-2014 08:43AM

LOL. A poster calling himself cazzo enorme is always going to make it all about the genitals.

Arthur Beesley · 13-05-2014 08:46AM

Gyalist wrote: »

Seems that he now has 100 problems.

Did he only have one ball?

SusieBlue · 13-05-2014 08:48AM

diveout wrote: »

Yes it is a sexual assault and a very violent one. It could potentially cause a short flow of urine, which then backs up into the kidneys, renal failure and potentially sterility, potentially reconstructive surgery also.

You clearly have no legal knowledge because a judge would laugh that claim out of court. It is NOT reasonably forseeable that should a man be kicked in the balls, he will have renal failure and need re-constructive surgery. An absolute minute chance of it happening. A judge will not rule on something that MAY happen, or have potential to happen, it has to have actually occurred and I'm sure we'd all have heard by now if Jay-Z had backed up kidneys.

It isn't sexual assault because there was no sexual motive, the motive was to cause pain, (trespass to the person tort, and an assault) therefore you are clutching at straws claiming it to be sexual.

Also if you think those weak slaps and kicks were "violent" I suggest you read up some case files from the criminal court because I've seen a better fight from two pigeons fighting over a crust of bread. You are blowing this way out of proportion.

Boombastic · 13-05-2014 08:48AM

Solange, farewell, auf wiedersehen, adieu

corner of hells · 13-05-2014 08:49AM

jimgoose wrote: »

Lucky it wasn't the wife that hoofed him one. With those thighs of hers he'd have ended up on the roof with his 'nads in his ears. :pac:

Wonder is he to be a single lad , shortly.

diveout · 13-05-2014 08:49AM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You clearly have no legal knowledge because a judge would laugh that claim out of court. It is NOT reasonably forseeable that should a man be kicked in the balls, he will have renal failure and need re-constructive surgery. An absolute minute chance of it happening. A judge will not rule on something that MAY happen, or have potential to happen, it has to have actually occurred and I'm sure we'd all have heard by now if Jay-Z had backed up kidneys.

It isn't sexual assault because there was no sexual motive, the motive was to cause pain, (trespass to the person tort, and an assault) therefore you are clutching at straws claiming it to be sexual.

Also if you think those weak slaps and kicks were "violent" I suggest you read up some case files from the criminal court because I've seen a better fight from two pigeons fighting over a crust of bread. You are blowing this way out of proportion.

I have plenty of legal knowledge on US jurisdictions my dear and you are very very wrong.

Maphisto · 13-05-2014 08:50AM

diveout wrote: »

Yes it is a sexual assault and a very violent one. It could potentially cause a short flow of urine, which then backs up into the kidneys, renal failure and potentially sterility, potentially reconstructive surgery also.

No. That's an assault, if there are the consequences that you suggest it could be wounding. No one, in their right mind, is suggesting that she had any sexual intent by kicking in the nuts.

Cazzoenorme · 13-05-2014 08:50AM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

This is like drawing blood from a stone. Of course its inappropriate, but what I meant by inappropriate touching (assuming you'd read between this lines which you obviously didn't) was fondling, grabbing, stroking...Need I elaborate further?

I'm not disputing that kicking him was inappropriate, it was, but it was not a sexual assault. It is demeaning the very definition of a sexual assault.

You are demeaning assault to the sexual organs and the potential trauma it can cause, perhaps you've watched too many comedies where a kick in the balls is done for lols.

diveout · 13-05-2014 08:51AM

Maphisto wrote: »

No. That's an assault, if there are the consequences that you suggest it could be wounding. No one, in their right mind, is suggesting that she had any sexual intent by kicking in the nuts.

No one said she did have sexual intent.

If you kick someone in their sexual organs, it will be considered a sexual assault in US jursdictions.

SusieBlue · 13-05-2014 08:51AM

diveout wrote: »

I have plenty of legal knowledge on US jurisdictions my dear and you are very very wrong.

No need to be so patronising. If you have plenty of legal knowledge you will be familiar with the eggshell skull rule, which backs up my point that a judge will not rule on a case based on what COULD have happened.

Czarcasm · 13-05-2014 08:52AM

kylith wrote: »

They enter a lift with a second man, presumably a bodyguard, and she immediately gets in Jay-z's face, then starts smacking him. The bodyguard pulls her off and then she repeatedly lashes out with her feet.

Wait a minute............... :eek:

diveout · 13-05-2014 08:53AM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No need to be so patronising. If you have plenty of legal knowledge you will be familiar with the eggshell skull rule, which backs up my point that a judge will not rule on a case based on what COULD have happened.

I never said a judge would rule on what could have happened. I was educating you on your trivial knowledge on the consequences of such an assault.

Furthermore, no one here can guess what a NY judge would rule, which is where this took place.

Cazzoenorme · 13-05-2014 08:53AM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No need to be so patronising. If you have plenty of legal knowledge you will be familiar with the eggshell skull rule, which backs up my point that a judge will not rule on a case based on what COULD have happened.

In that case a drink driver who does no harm should have nothing to worry about in court or an attempted murder would be thrown out too.

Slicemeister · 13-05-2014 08:54AM

Bey u ok hun? U stay strong girl.

xoxoxo

SusieBlue · 13-05-2014 08:55AM

diveout wrote: »

I never said a judge would rule on what could have happened. I was educating you on your trivial knowledge on the consequences of such an assault.

Furthermore, no one here can guess what a NY judge would rule, which is where this took place.

My knowledge is far from trivial. You are saying he could potentially have renal failure and need surgery, I said there is no such evidence, so your point is irrelevant and a judge would not consider it in court.

kylith · 13-05-2014 08:56AM

Maphisto wrote: »

No. That's an assault, if there are the consequences that you suggest it could be wounding. No one, in their right mind, is suggesting that she had any sexual intent by kicking in the nuts.

Would you consider a man grabbing and twisting a woman's nipple a sexual assault?

AlanS181824 · 13-05-2014 08:57AM

Slicemeister wrote: »

Bey u ok hun? U stay strong girl.

xoxoxo

lol ih iz beyonse chic, she grnd

how yhu doin neway?

chat me xox

SusieBlue · 13-05-2014 08:57AM

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

In that case a drink driver who does no harm should have nothing to worry about in court or an attempted murder would be thrown out too.

Its only attempted murder if its premeditated. It would be manslaughter in that case, I think.

Should be Beyonce's sister be impriosoned?

Comments