Guy touches girls arm, faces 10 years for sexual assault

Boggles · 10-10-2019 7:50pm

HorrorScope wrote: »

He touched her arm - what do you think there was to report in this case? I’ve had female colleagues touch me on the shoulder and even waist sometimes when they are speaking - should I make a complaint and get them fired for sexual harassment?? The world is gone ****ing soft in the head

Because that is exactly what happened in this case.

El_Duderino 09 · 10-10-2019 7:51pm

HorrorScope wrote: »

Creepy for sure but the guy sounds like a harmless soul with a couple of screws loose. Not making excuses for him at all but he hardly sounds like a lecherous rapist flicking his tongue in the hedges. Seems like a complete overreaction by the “offended” lady in my eyes.

l

Too hard to tell with the information we have. Stalker behaviour escalates really quickly. The bloke is odd (not a crime) but what he did has been deemed a crime.

Pity there wasn't an effective intervention before now to give him the support he needed.

We're all precluding the possibility that he's just a wrong'un. We don't know whether he's a harmless fool or a deviant be abuse we don't have enough information.

lawred2 · 10-10-2019 7:52pm

spodoinkle wrote: »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7557947/Shy-awkward-student-19-faces-JAIL-sex-assault-conviction.html

the world is officially f*cked. My previous life of chatting up the ladies could have me facing the death penalty, I touched more arms than I can remember.

Has this kids life been ruined for touching a girls arm? How can she seriously have reported this?

One thing's for sure - at least we can all rely on the source here to not present this story in a jaundiced manner to encourage website hits.

So that's good at least.

HorrorScope · 10-10-2019 7:52pm

Boggles wrote: »

Because that is exactly what happened in this case.

She told the hearing: 'I saw him facing a hedge and I thought it was really weird. As I walked towards him, he suddenly swung round so he was facing me.

'As soon as he moved I moved and said: 'stop' and he touched my arm. I sort of jolted out of the way and went into the road to avoid him and he very quickly walked away.

'I think it would have been on my breast had I not moved. When it first happened I didn't think much of it. I forgot about it because I had my exams and just thought it was weird behaviour.'

This is an assumption it is not fact. Back to my example I could make a complaint that a female coworker touched my arm but I for sure thought it would have touched my dick if I didn’t allow it - it’s nonsense, absolute nonsense.

mosstin · 10-10-2019 7:54pm

Suttree wrote: »

I'm going to go out on a limb and say this lad is not actually going to get 10 years in prison.

Careful now.....

Boggles · 10-10-2019 7:54pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

l

Too hard to tell with the information we have. Stalker behaviour escalates really quickly. The bloke is odd (not a crime) but what he did has been deemed a crime.

Exactly, I don't buy the shyness.

His actions were predatory.

Shy people don't move out from a hedge and try to grab / touch young girls twice.

I imagine there is a lot more to this that hasn't been reported.

splinter65 · 10-10-2019 7:54pm

Guys really need to know that you must not even look in the direction of a girl you don’t know now because you may end up in serious trouble.
This guys life is destroyed because he touched a girls arm in a crowded night club.
And her mother, who wasn’t there, said he was “going to”touch her breast?
It’s only a matter of time before males will have to keep their eyes on the floor when in public spaces in case a girl claims that she was terrified because a man looked at her.

10-10-2019 7:55pm

HorrorScope wrote: »

He touched her arm - what do you think there was to report in this case? I’ve had female colleagues touch me on the shoulder and even waist sometimes when they are speaking - should I make a complaint and get them fired for sexual harassment?? The world is gone ****ing soft in the head

It's not the legal aspect of "arm touching" that's the issue here. It's the fact that:

a. The girl was alone- she was a school girl- you do know that don't you?

b. This happened on 2 separate occasions

c. The assailant didn't say anything on either occasion.

d. He approached her in a manner that was concerning to her

e. She didn't bring the prosecution - the authorities did. She just reported what happened to her.

Now, let me spell this out for you as you're obviously in need of a little help here understanding the situation, for whatever reason that may be.

A 17 year old girl is accosted in a strange manner, by an adult male she doesn't know on 2 separate occasions. If you were her father, what would you recommend to be the next action?

splinter65 · 10-10-2019 7:56pm

Boggles wrote: »

Exactly, I don't buy the shyness.

His actions were predatory.

Shy people don't move out from a hedge and try to grab / touch young girls twice.

I imagine there is a lot more to this that hasn't been reported.

I don’t think you’re in any danger boggles, somehow....

Salary Negotiator · 10-10-2019 7:58pm

splinter65 wrote: »

Guys really need to know that you must not even look in the direction of a girl you don’t know now because you may end up in serious trouble.
This guys life is destroyed because he touched a girls arm in a crowded night club.
And her mother, who wasn’t there, said he was “going to”touch her breast?
It’s only a matter of time before males will have to keep their eyes on the floor when in public spaces in case a girl claims that she was terrified because a man looked at her.

Did you even read the article? Obviously not.

Boggles · 10-10-2019 8:00pm

splinter65 wrote: »

I don’t think you’re in any danger boggles, somehow....

You didn't even read the article did you?

:rolleyes:

pinkyeye · 10-10-2019 8:01pm

splinter65 wrote: »

Guys really need to know that you must not even look in the direction of a girl you don’t know now because you may end up in serious trouble.
This guys life is destroyed because he touched a girls arm in a crowded night club.
And her mother, who wasn’t there, said he was “going to”touch her breast?
It’s only a matter of time before males will have to keep their eyes on the floor when in public spaces in case a girl claims that she was terrified because a man looked at her.

You see, you just made all that up. There was no night club involved. :rolleyes:

HorrorScope · 10-10-2019 8:03pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's not the legal aspect of "arm touching" that's the issue here. It's the fact that:

a. The girl was alone- she was a school girl- you do know that don't you?

b. This happened on 2 separate occasions

c. The assailant didn't say anything on either occasion.

d. He approached her in a manner that was concerning to her

e. She didn't bring the prosecution - the authorities did. She just reported what happened to her.

Now, let me spell this out for you as you're obviously in need of a little help here understanding the situation, for whatever reason that may be.

A 17 year old girl is accosted in a strange manner, by an adult male she doesn't know on 2 separate occasions. If you were her father, what would you recommend to be the next action?

What nonsense again. The same a-d above applies to my older female co-worker touching my arm, should I point at the doll and show them where she touched me?

And calling him an “adult” male is belittling the absurdity of this story - he’s 19. Shall we dig in to the numerous reports lately of 30+ Year old female teachers having sex with students if you want to go down that road?

pinkyeye · 10-10-2019 8:05pm

Honestly I think there's two very inept students here. One who touched someone and didn't or couldn't speak to explain themselves if he's to be believed but also another one who couldn't just say out loud "what are at?" or "what do you want?".

If ever there was proof of the need for consent lessons this is it.

pinkyeye · 10-10-2019 8:08pm

HorrorScope wrote: »

What nonsense again. The same a-d above applies to my older female co-worker touching my arm, should I point at the doll and show them where she touched me?

And calling him an “adult” male is belittling the absurdity of this story - he’s 19. Shall we dig in to the numerous reports lately of 30+ Year old female teachers having sex with students if you want to go down that road?

In your imaginary scenario you already know your female co-worker and presumably she's speaking when she touches your arm?

If she's not then that's creepy alright.

10-10-2019 8:08pm

pinkyeye wrote: »

Honestly I think there's two very inept students here. One who touched someone and didn't or couldn't speak to explain themselves if he's to be believed but also another one who couldn't just say out loud "what are at?" or "what do you want?".

If ever there was proof of the need for consent lessons this is it.

But Shirley, the UK justice system would have sorted that out and got to the truth of the matter if that was really the case? If indeed, it happened the way you said, Shirley lawyers on both sides would have seen common sense?

It didn't happen in this case.

Quantum Erasure · 10-10-2019 8:09pm

gwalk wrote: »

the exageration of how he was going to touch her breast is a bit far fetched, as for saying it ruined her chaces for Oxford hahaha

honestly, this generation is ruined

#Ibelieveher

10-10-2019 8:09pm

HorrorScope wrote: »

What nonsense again. The same a-d above applies to my older female co-worker touching my arm, should I point at the doll and show them where she touched me?

And calling him an “adult” male is belittling the absurdity of this story - he’s 19. Shall we dig in to the numerous reports lately of 30+ Year old female teachers having sex with students if you want to go down that road?

I won't be going down any road with you as i can see what you're about with your posts.

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2019 8:10pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I could imagine some sort of "common assault" charge given the whole "creepiness" of the encounter; or some form of adult caution. But not this- I'm a bit perplexed as to (a) how a judge allowed the case to progress and (b) how the jury reached their decision.

Very open to other perspectives here btw- but newspaper articles on this are leaving me none the wiser in terms of "justice served".

Aye, they tend to do that, especially sensationalist rags like the Daily Mail.

But basically Magistrates Courts don’t have a Jury and the Judges are a panel, They deal with offences on the lower end of the scale, with the idea of restorative justice and reform as guiding principles -

Almost all criminal proceedings start at a magistrates' court. Summary offences are smaller crimes (such as public order offences or most driving matters) that can be punished under the magistrates' courts limited sentencing powers – community sentences, fines, short custodial sentences. Indictable offences, on the other hand, are serious crimes (e.g. rape, murder); if it is found at the initial hearing of the magistrates' court that there is a case to answer, they are committed to the Crown Court, which has a much wider range of sentencing power. Either-way offences (such as theft) will ultimately fall into one of the previous categories depending on how serious the particular crime in question is (a minor theft will be dealt with in a magistrates' court; a serious theft will be dealt with in a Crown Court), although a defendant also has the right in such cases to elect for trial by jury in the Crown Court.

Cases are heard by a bench of three (or occasionally two) lay judges, or by a paid district judge; there is no jury at a magistrates' court.

Criminal cases are usually, although not exclusively, investigated by the police and then prosecuted at the court by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Defendants may hire a solicitor or barrister to represent them, often paid for by legal aid.

....

Often the point is to achieve restorative justice (compensation of victims of crime) and reformation of the offenders. These alternative punishments are called community sentences. A community sentence would usually consist of community payback, a duty to work between 40 and 300 hours unpaid in the community. This is often complemented by some kind of programme or treatment, offering a helping hand to offenders, and engaging them at the same time – ending a drug habit, coping with a mental illness, skills and qualifications for work, and more. Also, the judge (or magistrate) may issue orders with rules such as curfew, restraining orders (cannot go near their victim, for example) and many others. During serving of community sentences, similarly to suspended sentence, offenders usually will be supervised by a probation officer.

Magistrates' court (England and Wales), Wikipedia

Boggles · 10-10-2019 8:11pm

pinkyeye wrote: »

Honestly I think there's two very inept students here. One who touched someone and didn't or couldn't speak to explain themselves if he's to be believed but also another one who couldn't just say out loud "what are at?" or "what do you want?".

If ever there was proof of the need for consent lessons this is it.

I don't think consent lessons would have helped her, self defense maybe.

is_that_so · 10-10-2019 8:12pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

l

Too hard to tell with the information we have. Stalker behaviour escalates really quickly. The bloke is odd (not a crime) but what he did has been deemed a crime.

Pity there wasn't an effective intervention before now to give him the support he needed.

We're all precluding the possibility that he's just a wrong'un. We don't know whether he's a harmless fool or a deviant be abuse we don't have enough information.

I agree on the intervention but there does seem to be a keenness in the UK system to haul everything before the courts and use convictions instead.

is_that_so · 10-10-2019 8:15pm

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

#Ibelieveher

You're into Minority Report territory if someone's belief is evidence of a crime.

bfa1509 · 10-10-2019 8:16pm

spodoinkle wrote: »

I touched more arms than I can remember.

Unfortunately for you, there is no statute of limitations. I have now forwarded your details to the local authorities and more importantly, have drawn the attention of every tabloid newspaper and clickbait news site.

#Justiceforarms #myarmsarenotanobject

10-10-2019 8:18pm

I get more felt up than that on the luas everyday for christ sake. The world's gone mad.

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2019 8:20pm

pinkyeye wrote: »

Honestly I think there's two very inept students here. One who touched someone and didn't or couldn't speak to explain themselves if he's to be believed but also another one who couldn't just say out loud "what are at?" or "what do you want?".

If ever there was proof of the need for consent lessons this is it.

Hold on a second, the girl in this case did tell the guy to stop, and made it clear to him she wanted nothing to do with him. She hasn’t done anything wrong and doesn’t deserve any criticism or consent lessons. It’s the guy who magistrates didn’t find credible who was on trial, who consent classes would make no difference to his behaviour because he tried to say he wasn’t guilty and only made things worse for himself. It was obvious he knew what he was doing.

The complainant has every right to make a complaint when they feel someone has done something wrong, and in this case her complaint was taken seriously by the authorities and investigated and the whole reason for a trial is because he decided to plead not guilty when charged with two counts of sexual assault.

HorrorScope · 10-10-2019 8:21pm

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

#Ibelieveher

Just like the case in Cyprus recently eh?

HorrorScope · 10-10-2019 8:23pm

pinkyeye wrote: »

In your imaginary scenario you already know your female co-worker and presumably she's speaking when she touches your arm?

If she's not then that's creepy alright.

Nope I don’t know her, she came to talk to me about a systems related issue but I’ve never met her before. Should I feel violated? Sorry I’m not up or down with the woke stuff.

bfa1509 · 10-10-2019 8:24pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

tried to say he wasn’t guilty and only made things worse for himself.

But he wasn't guilty! He touched her arm!

Boggles · 10-10-2019 8:25pm

HorrorScope wrote: »

Nope I don’t know her, she came to talk to me about a systems related issue but I’ve never met her before. Should I feel violated? Sorry I’m not up or down with the woke stuff.

Was she a security guard escorting you off the property?

HorrorScope · 10-10-2019 8:26pm

Boggles wrote: »

Was she a security guard escorting you off the property?

Nope a senior to me, should I feel even more violated now that you dismissed it as something to do with me?

Boggles · 10-10-2019 8:27pm

HorrorScope wrote: »

Nope a senior to me, should I feel even more violated now that you dismissed it as something to do with me?

No, you should definitely report this fictional woman and event.

#ibelieveu

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2019 8:29pm

HorrorScope wrote: »

Nope I don’t know her, she came to talk to me about a systems related issue but I’ve never met her before. Should I feel violated? Sorry I’m not up or down with the woke stuff.

That’s a question only you can answer, and either you do or you don’t feel violated. Your answer would have no bearing on whether or not anyone else should or shouldn’t feel violated and you have as much right to make a complaint as anyone else if you feel it’s warranted in your particular circumstances which have no bearing on anyone else’s right to make a complaint in their circumstances.

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2019 8:30pm

bfa1509 wrote: »

But he wasn't guilty! He touched her arm!

He was found guilty on two counts of sexual assault?

HorrorScope · 10-10-2019 8:35pm

Boggles wrote: »

No, you should definitely report this fictional woman and event.

#ibelieveu

And if the shoe was on the other foot and you said that to a female reporting sexual harassment what would happen?? You are nothing but a ****ing hypocrite. Good man

Boggles · 10-10-2019 8:51pm

HorrorScope wrote: »

And if the shoe was on the other foot and you said that to a female reporting sexual harassment what would happen?? You are nothing but a ****ing hypocrite. Good man

A female fabricating stories to act the Edgelord would be told the exact same thing.

Fluorescence · 10-10-2019 8:53pm

It's a tricky one. Like many, I don't know that it necessarily needed to go to trial and conviction for sexual assault. On the other hand, his behaviour was completely inappropriate; the poor girl was understandably freaked out by what seemed like predatory behaviour. I'm surprised the local police went down this route rather than have a chat with the lad about boundaries and give him a wee warning.

What's most concerning is that our modern world is a place where socially awkward young people aren't being appropriately guided growing up... At the risk of sounding like an old fart, TVs and iPads and YouTube influencers are doing more parenting than many busy parents are able to, and PUA/incel toxicity is so present online that it's likely this young fella got some awful tips. Run on sentences aside, I just feel a bit sad about the whole thing. Nobody wins in this scenario.

HorrorScope · 10-10-2019 8:54pm

Boggles wrote: »

A female fabricating stories to act the Edgelord would be told the exact same thing.

You still claim I’m fabricating? What’s to say I’m not telling the truth? Again, you are nothing but a hypocrite.

10-10-2019 8:56pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Aye, they tend to do that, especially sensationalist rags like the Daily Mail.

But basically Magistrates Courts don’t have a Jury and the Judges are a panel, They deal with offences on the lower end of the scale, with the idea of restorative justice and reform as guiding principles -

Almost all criminal proceedings start at a magistrates' court. Summary offences are smaller crimes (such as public order offences or most driving matters) that can be punished under the magistrates' courts limited sentencing powers – community sentences, fines, short custodial sentences. Indictable offences, on the other hand, are serious crimes (e.g. rape, murder); if it is found at the initial hearing of the magistrates' court that there is a case to answer, they are committed to the Crown Court, which has a much wider range of sentencing power. Either-way offences (such as theft) will ultimately fall into one of the previous categories depending on how serious the particular crime in question is (a minor theft will be dealt with in a magistrates' court; a serious theft will be dealt with in a Crown Court), although a defendant also has the right in such cases to elect for trial by jury in the Crown Court.

Cases are heard by a bench of three (or occasionally two) lay judges, or by a paid district judge; there is no jury at a magistrates' court.

Criminal cases are usually, although not exclusively, investigated by the police and then prosecuted at the court by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Defendants may hire a solicitor or barrister to represent them, often paid for by legal aid.

....

Often the point is to achieve restorative justice (compensation of victims of crime) and reformation of the offenders. These alternative punishments are called community sentences. A community sentence would usually consist of community payback, a duty to work between 40 and 300 hours unpaid in the community. This is often complemented by some kind of programme or treatment, offering a helping hand to offenders, and engaging them at the same time – ending a drug habit, coping with a mental illness, skills and qualifications for work, and more. Also, the judge (or magistrate) may issue orders with rules such as curfew, restraining orders (cannot go near their victim, for example) and many others. During serving of community sentences, similarly to suspended sentence, offenders usually will be supervised by a probation officer.

Magistrates' court (England and Wales), Wikipedia

Ah, so was this the procedure in this case? Magistrates court and no jury? That does put a different slant on things for me at least.

pinkyeye · 10-10-2019 9:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

But Shirley, the UK justice system would have sorted that out and got to the truth of the matter if that was really the case? If indeed, it happened the way you said, Shirley lawyers on both sides would have seen common sense?

It didn't happen in this case.

Who the hell are you calling Shirley?

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2019 9:24pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah, so was this the procedure in this case? Magistrates court and no jury? That does put a different slant on things for me at least.

Thing is though there would have been no trial at all if he had plead guilty and saved his victim having to give evidence for one thing, and the CPS having to prove their case in Court for another. His victim didn’t ask for any of this crap and she has to put up with it because this guy was put out that she ignored him.

How is that right? Woeful sniff of Elliot Rogers level sense of entitlement off him with that attitude, decided to take his chances at trial and lost. His sentence will be likely to be a lot more than if he had just plead guilty, at least that would have demonstrated to the Court he was genuinely sorry for his behaviour.

10-10-2019 9:44pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Thing is though there would have been no trial at all if he had plead guilty and saved his victim having to give evidence for one thing, and the CPS having to prove their case in Court for another. His victim didn’t ask for any of this crap and she has to put up with it because this guy was put out that she ignored him.

How is that right? Woeful sniff of Elliot Rogers level sense of entitlement off him with that attitude, decided to take his chances at trial and lost. His sentence will be likely to be a lot more than if he had just plead guilty, at least that would have demonstrated to the Court he was genuinely sorry for his behaviour.

Where are you getting all of this from or is it supposition on your part? I haven't read any article that puts that forward as an argument.

I have questioned earlier in this thread the concept that being put on trial for sexual assault in the first place is questionable, given the facts outlined in the newspapers and only the newspapers- but that's only by going with what i read in the few newspapers i've read on the story- I'm still open to being persuaded otherwise, but in the meantime, I don't see how this went to trial, on a charge of sexual assault.

He has a "right" to plead not guilty btw.

10-10-2019 9:47pm

pinkyeye wrote: »

Who the hell are you calling Shirley?

Shirley-PinkEye- has a ring to it :P

Your Face · 10-10-2019 9:51pm

Pair of ****.

AulWan · 10-10-2019 9:54pm

pinkyeye wrote: »

If ever there was proof of the need for consent lessons this is it.

I agree with you completely on this point. I think some of the posters here could do with some too.

The bottom line is NO guy has the right to walk up to any girl and put his hands - or even a finger - on her anywhere, without her invitation - ever.

This girl should have been able to go about her business without being accosted. She didn't invite this guy's attention or his touch - in fact she made it clear the first time he did it that it was unwelcome - and he still did it a second time.

The only thing he is a victim of is his own behaviour - no excuses.

I'm very glad the UK authorities took her complaint seriously - proper order.

ohnonotgmail · 10-10-2019 9:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Where are you getting all of this from or is it supposition on your part? I haven't read any article that puts that forward as an argument.

I have questioned earlier in this thread the concept that being put on trial for sexual assault in the first place is questionable, given the facts outlined in the newspapers and only the newspapers- but that's only by going with what i read in the few newspapers i've read on the story- I'm still open to being persuaded otherwise, but in the meantime, I don't see how this went to trial, on a charge of sexual assault.

He has a "right" to plead not guilty btw.

He certainly does. and the courts have the right to give a more lenient sentence to those who plead guilty and spare the victim the additional ordeal of a trial.

Reviews and Books Galore · 10-10-2019 10:04pm

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Did you even read the article? Obviously not.

I read the article and the sentence structure sounds earilly similar to that exagerated accuser on Big Brother.

And, interestingly enough, the trauma ruined her entrance exams.

ohnonotgmail · 10-10-2019 10:06pm

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I read the article and the sentence structure sounds earilly similar to that exagerated accuser on Big Brother.

And, interestingly enough, the trauma ruined her entrance exams.

take that up with the journalist

Reviews and Books Galore · 10-10-2019 10:07pm

AulWan wrote: »

I agree with you completely on this point. I think some of the posters here could do with some too.

The bottom line is NO guy has the right to walk up to any girl and put his hands - or even a finger - on her anywhere, without her invitation - ever.

This girl should have been able to go about her business without being accosted. She didn't invite this guy's attention or his touch - in fact she made it clear the first time he did it that it was unwelcome - and he still did it a second time.

The only thing he is a victim of is his own behaviour - no excuses.

I'm very glad the UK authorities took her complaint seriously - proper order.

Do you think a woman should put her hand on a man without consent?

Perhaps we should ship all of the continentals off to a prison barge:rolleyes:

One eyed Jack · 10-10-2019 10:10pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Where are you getting all of this from or is it supposition on your part? I haven't read any article that puts that forward as an argument.

From the DM article in the opening post -

'I smiled at her, I was just trying to be friendly. I tried to get her attention and she ignored me. Touching someone's arm to get their attention I would have thought was normal. I was looking for a friend.'

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have questioned earlier in this thread the concept that being put on trial for sexual assault in the first place is questionable, given the facts outlined in the newspapers and only the newspapers- but that's only by going with what i read in the few newspapers i've read on the story- I'm still open to being persuaded otherwise, but in the meantime, I don't see how this went to trial, on a charge of sexual assault.

He went on trial on two counts of sexual assault because he plead not guilty to the charges. There would have been no need for a trial if he had plead guilty. No trial, sentence would likely have been some form of community service.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He has a "right" to plead not guilty btw.

Absolutely he does, and he chose to exercise that right, and that’s why he was on trial, because the CPS had to then prove their case against him before the courts, putting everyone through the ordeal of a trial, including his victim who never asked for any of it nor wanted anything to do with him in the first place.

Salary Negotiator · 10-10-2019 10:12pm

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I read the article and the sentence structure sounds earilly similar to that exagerated accuser on Big Brother.

And, interestingly enough, the trauma ruined her entrance exams.

I wasn’t asking you. I asked the poster who claimed it happened in a crowded nightclub.

I’ve no idea who or what the big brother accuser is.

FWIW I think a sexual assault conviction is harsh but if the girl was right in saying that other incidents had happened in the area and this was the second time he touched her I understand why she reported it.

What happened next is out of her hands.

Guy touches girls arm, faces 10 years for sexual assault

Comments