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

Guy touches girls arm, faces 10 years for sexual assault

18911131425

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,873 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Boggles wrote: »
    She didn't buy his BS excuse and neither do I. Because it is nonsensical.

    Neither of those dismiss the idea that he's socially awkward. You've got totally wrong end of the stick.

    Do you think the judge would have said "not guilty because you are socially awkward"?

    It was the second incident was Premeditated. It was very suggestive of stalking. We all know that. That means they guy poses a risk.

    Whether he is socially awkward (read unable to understand social interactions) is a separate point. But you seem to have confused it with the main point.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,466 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    I thought I'd place the UK definition of sexual assault in case it can throw some light on how this conviction came about-

    Was the psychological nature of the impact on the victim the key reason for the conviction, based on the definition? Is it the fact that the girl believed the approach and touching were sexually motivated, (even though the touching was confined to an arm and the waist)- was this enough to meet the definition of sexual assault?

    It would be interesting to hear from people with an English or Irish legal background to get their view. Certainly, the girl believed that her breast would have been touched had she not moved- coupled with the repeated attempts (two) of the assailant, him putting his arm around her waist and his strange and concerning demeanour, I'm assuming that all of this together constituted a sexual assault under the legal definition.




    The overall definition of sexual or indecent assault is an act of physical, psychological and emotional violation in the form of a sexual act, inflicted on someone without their consent. It can involve forcing or manipulating someone to witness or participate in any sexual acts.

    https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rsa/rape-and-sexual-assault/what-is-rape-and-sexual-assault/

    Been touched anywhere can be construed as sexual assault, if the assailant is getting sexual gratification from the touching and if the motivation for the touching is sexual.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,466 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Neither of those dismiss the idea that he's socially awkward. You've got totally wrong end of the stick.

    Do you think the judge would have said "not guilty because you are socially awkward"?

    It was the second incident was Premeditated. It was very suggestive of stalking. We all know that. That means they guy poses a risk.

    Whether he is socially awkward (read unable to understand social interactions) is a separate point. But you seem to have confused it with the main point.

    No. This isn't hard TBF.

    His sole defense was based around being shy or socially awkward, she dismissed it out of hand.

    She concluded he was predatory who orchestrated a premeditated assault on girl which was sexually motivated.

    Now if it were just the first occasion you could write if off to social ineptness maybe, not the second one, the second one proves he was confident enough to touch a girl again who had made her feelings pretty clear the first time.

    There is no suggestion he has a low IQ or some mental retardation, he has / had friends, a job and has since gone to college, he was also well able to stand up in court and play the "I googled how to make a friend" nonsense.

    Predatory traits with a massive sense of entitlement = red flags.

    It would be no harm if he was placed on a register.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,466 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Who said he was getting sexual gratification?

    Nobody. Please keep up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,873 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Boggles wrote: »
    No. This isn't hard TBF.

    His sole defense was based around being shy or socially awkward, she dismissed it out of hand...

    I'll stop you there. Unless you were there you have no idea what his defence was. What you mean is it was the sole defence mentioned by the single Daily Mail article you read. The defence probably had lots of defences which were long and boring and wouldn't fit in a 400 word article on the topic.

    In case you didn't get it up to now, being socially awkward wouldn't have made his behaviour OK. Nor would he have been found not guilty of he is socially awkward. The trial wasn't about whether he is socially awkward. It was about whether he committed a sexual assault as defined by the law.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 39,466 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    I'll stop you there. Unless you were there you have no idea what his defence was. What you mean is it was the sole defence mentioned by the single Daily Mail article you read. The defence probably had lots of defences which were long and boring and wouldn't fit in a 400 word article on the topic.

    In case you didn't get it up to now, being socially awkward wouldn't have made his behaviour OK. Nor would he have been found not guilty of he is socially awkward. The trial wasn't about whether he is socially awkward. It was about whether he committed a sexual assault as defined by the law.

    This was tried in a lower court with no physical or forensic evidence, he admitted to doing what he did (all though he "thought" he touched her arm), this case did not drag out that long.

    Again though. Being shy or socially awkward does not mean a person is stupid, they know right from wrong.

    Like I said the first incident maybe, the second one absolutely no way.

    After the first incident where she made her feelings pretty clear and shouted at him, he would have regressed further into his shyness and the 2nd incident would never have taken place.

    The article is scant on detail, so that is why you have to Trust the Judge.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭Salary Negotiator


    Boggles wrote: »
    Been touched anywhere can be construed as sexual assault, if the assailant is getting sexual gratification from the touching and if the motivation for the touching is sexual.

    Can I ask where you’re getting that from? The sexual assault offense as posted by one eyed Jack a few pages back states that the contact must be sexual not that the assailant derived sexual gratification from it.


  • Posts: 17,381 Grace Dry Tightwad


    He googled how to make a friend and probably found articles about a touch on the arm being a sign of interest or genuine friendly affection. Sad story.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,466 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Can I ask where you’re getting that from? The sexual assault offense as posted by one eyed Jack a few pages back states that the contact must be sexual not that the assailant derived sexual gratification from it.

    A "professional" in their work may have to touch someone intimately. The intimate touching is not a crime because they have to do it, but if they are gaining sexual gratification that is sexual assault.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭Salary Negotiator


    Boggles wrote: »
    A "professional" in their work may have to touch someone intimately. The intimate touching is not a crime because they have to do it, but if they are gaining sexual gratification that is sexual assault.

    Is that your opinion and if so what are you basing it on?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 39,466 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Is that your opinion and if so what are you basing it on?

    It's not my opinion.

    Someone may give a doctor full consent to touch their Breasts for example on the pretext of examination.
    In R v Tabassum [2002] 2 Cr App R 328 where the defendant conducted breast examinations for his own sexual gratification, on the pretence that he was collecting data for a cancer screening programme there was no genuine consent because the complainants had consented only to an act of a medical nature and not for any other reason.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,466 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    The court determined he succeeded as defined by the law.

    I don't think the guy knows the law -nor do I TBH. I think he transgressed the law because he doesn't know the law or understand social Interactions.

    He was trying "make a friend" by which I presume they mean he was trying to meet a woman. He ballsed it up to the point that he caused harm to the woman. It's fairly simple. The law should be obeyed and if the law doesn't fit modern understanding, the the law should change.

    The law evolves largely through legal precedent. Previous Cases.

    It has evolved to a point where touching a person anywhere even outside clothing with the absence of consent can be sexual assault.

    What he did wouldn't have been classed as sexual assault before 2005 in all likelyhood.
    Touching is widely defined and includes with any part of the body, or with anything else, and can be through clothing. In R v H (Karl Anthony) [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. 9, the Court of Appeal held that the touching of an individual's clothing was sufficient to amount to 'touching' for the purposes of section 3. Where touching was not automatically by its nature sexual, it was possible to ascertain whether the touching had been sexual by determining whether by its nature it might have been sexual and if so whether in the circumstances the purpose had in fact been sexual.

    It is a modern thinking which has evolved to include that sexual assault is far more ranging than touching someone on their "private areas".


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,873 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Boggles wrote: »
    This was tried in a lower court with no physical or forensic evidence, he admitted to doing what he did (all though he "thought" he touched her arm), this case did not drag out that long.

    Again though. Being shy or socially awkward does not mean a person is stupid, they know right from wrong.

    Like I said the first incident maybe, the second one absolutely no way.

    After the first incident where she made her feelings pretty clear and shouted at him, he would have regressed further into his shyness and the 2nd incident would never have taken place.

    The article is scant on detail, so that is why you have to Trust the Judge.

    OK. If you're being honest you'll admit you don't actually know much about psychology. As I said earlier for "socially awkward" read "doesn't understand social interaction.

    In that case then they wouldn't simply get that they were rebuffed. If you don't get the nuance of social interactions, you rely on learned rules. And he rules are that people do t always mean what they say, they change their mind too. So people who have to rely on rules for interactions instead of understanding the interactions, often end up in trouble.

    I live with someone who works in forensic psychology. They work with people who have been convicted and found to lack capacity to know what they have done wrong for example. They go to a forensic hospital where they have therapy to develop their understanding of social interactions and right from wrong.

    We're talking about people who are often reasonably normally functioning people, they just don't get social interactions.

    Being "socially awkward" doesn't absolve them of the crime they committed. But it does inform the punishment.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭Salary Negotiator


    Boggles wrote: »
    It's not my opinion.

    Someone may give a doctor full consent to touch their Breasts for example on the pretext of examination.

    This makes sense, but the difference is that the doctor actually touched her breasts AND derived sexual gratification from it. Griffiths didn’t.

    So it’s still based on his intentions, which is confirmed by the judges statement, and not actual sexual touching.

    Is there a similar case of someone being convicted not for their actions but for their intentions?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,873 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Boggles wrote: »
    The law evolves largely through legal precedent. Previous Cases.

    It has evolved to a point where touching a person anywhere even outside clothing with the absence of consent can be sexual assault.

    What he did wouldn't have been classed as sexual assault before 2005 in all likelyhood.



    It is a modern thinking which has evolved to include that sexual assault is far more ranging than touching someone on their "private areas".

    OK. That's the law doing its job. It's up to people to keep up. And in the case of people who for get social interactions, they need to learn how to behave so they don't break the law.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,466 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    They work with people who have been convicted and found to lack capacity to know what they have done wrong for example.

    Doesn't apply here, he admitted he did wrong.

    There is no mention of a professional testifying that they examined him and he lacked capacity to understand right from wrong.

    The judge didn't believe his excuse. She determined it was premeditated sexual assault and he knew exactly what he was doing.

    There is a lot of over thinking if this case, it's pretty straight forward in all honesty.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,466 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    OK. That's the law doing its job. It's up to people to keep up. And in the case of people who for get social interactions, they need to learn how to behave so they don't break the law.

    Don't stalk and touch school girls should not really have to be pointed out to a functioning 18 year old male.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,873 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Boggles wrote: »
    Doesn't apply here, he admitted he did wrong.

    There is no mention of a professional testifying that they examined him and he lacked capacity to understand right from wrong.

    The judge didn't believe his excuse. She determined it was premeditated sexual assault and he knew exactly what he was doing.

    There is a lot of over thinking if this case, it's pretty straight forward in all honesty.

    Like I said. If your being honest, you'll admit you don't know much about psychology.


  • Registered Users Posts: 617 ✭✭✭Drifter50


    AulWan wrote: »
    I love men. Not creeps who believe they have the right to touch women and call it flirting.

    If you can't approach a woman without keeping your hands to yourself, you have bigger problems.


    Be careful what you wish for

    Its getting to the stage where ordinary blokes are afraid of approaching women to chat
    We will all end up as Incels
    All the women sitting at home eating ice cream, getting fat and wondering why can`t I meet any men, where have they all gone...............


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,466 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Like I said. If your being honest, you'll admit you don't know much about psychology.

    Of course I do, about as much as yourself I would venture, of course not as much as your house mate.

    But you are trying to equate shyness with diminished responsibility.

    The inability to determine right from wrong, a person cannot be convicted of a crime if that is the case.

    There is absolutely no suggestion this guy did not know right from wrong, his defense was of misunderstanding and shyness.

    Like I said someone with crippling shyness may have indulged in part 1 of his assault, but common sense would suggest not part 2.

    Anyway it doesn't really matter what I know or you know, or who you live with knows.

    The Police the CPS and most importantly the Judge(s) determined he was a creepy sex pest and convicted him as such.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 30,019 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Mod noteClosed for review!


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Beasty wrote: »
    It's not a mandatory sentence. Sentencing has not taken place yet. Sensationalist newspaper headline alongside sensationalist thread title

    Either way it is went to court and ended in conviction. It has affected this young man's life greatly (though if his family approached the press, which I suspect, they partially have themselves to blame for that).

    There is a sliding scale of acceptable behavior, but people seem to be losing this appreciation, and seeing it not as a sliding scale but instead a switch.

    Guy cuts another driver when attempting to exit a junction, which was a bit rude, so naturally the cut-off driver reaches for a weapon. 17 year old girl gets touched on the waist by 19 year old guy who she barely knows, which is not socially acceptable at all, so naturally calls the police and has him convicted for sexual assault.

    Both teenagers in this case seem to be totally unused to normal life, as if both had been kept in boxes up until this point. They both seem incapable of living in the real world.

    His way of trying to get a girlfriend is to randomly touch someone he likes and walk away? She is so fragile that
    He smirked at me, he didn't stop he just touched me and walked off and I broke down crying - it was quite traumatic

    If people don't see all of this behavior as odd, then something is seriously going wrong with, everything, really.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,148 ✭✭✭Salary Negotiator


    Boggles wrote: »
    The law evolves largely through legal precedent. Previous Cases.

    It has evolved to a point where touching a person anywhere even outside clothing with the absence of consent can be sexual assault.

    What he did wouldn't have been classed as sexual assault before 2005 in all likelyhood.



    It is a modern thinking which has evolved to include that sexual assault is far more ranging than touching someone on their "private areas".

    That answers my questions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Boggles wrote: »
    It is a modern thinking which has evolved to include that sexual assault is far more ranging than touching someone on their "private areas".

    Indeed! Naturally it isn't possible for the West to get all the credit for this forward thinking. Touching someone in any capacity of the opposite sex that you aren't related to has been illegal for decades in both Saudi Arabia and Iran.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Reviews and Books Galore


    Indeed! Naturally it isn't possible for the West to get all the credit for this forward thinking. Touching someone in any capacity of the opposite sex that you aren't related to has been illegal for decades in both Saudi Arabia and Iran.

    Good reply.

    Seeing women as weak creatures who are traumatized easily is not in anyway modern or forward thinking.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Reviews and Books Galore


    Boggles wrote: »
    Been touched anywhere can be construed as sexual assault, if the assailant is getting sexual gratification from the touching and if the motivation for the touching is sexual.

    How in the world did they prove it was sexual? Its absurd.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    Drifter50 wrote: »
    Be careful what you wish for

    Its getting to the stage where ordinary blokes are afraid of approaching women to chat
    We will all end up as Incels
    All the women sitting at home eating ice cream, getting fat and wondering why can`t I meet any men, where have they all gone...............

    This is a total over-reaction. My god, you actually sound petulant.

    Here's the thing. Maybe if "ordinary blokes" tried treating women like actual human beings instead of pieces of meat that they can touch whenever they want, then they shouldn't have any need to worry about becoming an incel.

    You don't need to touch a woman to initiate a conversation, nor do you need to corner her in a secluded place. In fact, I highly recommend not doing either of those things, if you to be successful with the ladies.

    You'd be surprised how many women find being treated with respect extremely sexy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,466 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Either way it is went to court and ended in conviction. It has affected this young man's life greatly (though if his family approached the press, which I suspect, they partially have themselves to blame for that).

    They didn't, the story came from a court report.


    17 year old girl gets touched on the waist by 19 year old guy who she barely knows, which is not socially acceptable at all, so naturally calls the police and has him convicted for sexual assault.

    He was 18 and no she didn't convict anyone. That's not how reality works.

    But in your opinion, when do you think she should have reported him?

    3rd time, 4th time, 5th time, or only when the potential assault was of such a "severe" nature you would deem it acceptable to report.

    Again pesky reality doesn't stop and start at your warped convenience.
    Both teenagers in this case seem to be totally unused to normal life, as if both had been kept in boxes up until this point. They both seem incapable of living in the real world.

    Lolz.

    The real world is quite clear you cannot stalk and touch 17 year old school girls with impunity.

    It's a fúcking minimum standard.

    It's beyond creepy that needs to be explained to people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Boggles wrote: »
    They didn't, the story came from a court report.

    Fair enough
    Boggles wrote: »
    He was 18 and no she didn't convict anyone. That's not how reality works.

    She rang the police and I assume pressed charges about a class mate for briefly touching her waist. Granted he ran off when he did it but she could have tried contacting him to ask him to not do it again. He's far from blameless, he acted in a really weird and slightly creepy manner.
    Boggles wrote: »
    But in your opinion, when do you think she should have reported him?

    3rd time, 4th time, 5th time, or only when the potential assault was of such a "severe" nature you would deem it acceptable to report.

    Again pesky reality doesn't stop and start at your warped convenience.

    What about if he said 'hi' to her in a creepy manner, and waited for her a couple of separate occasions to say 'hi', despite her not replying and clearly not being interested in engaging with him. Would that be sexual assault?

    The fact that this behavior is not okay, does not immediately equate it with any and all bad behavior.

    Boggles wrote: »
    Lolz.

    The real world is quite clear you cannot stalk and touch 17 year old school girls with impunity.

    It's a fúcking minimum standard.

    It's beyond creepy that needs to be explained to people.

    I wonder, if he touched a male classmate on the arm and waist would he be convicted of sexual assault?

    If she had touched him on the arm and waist on two separate incidents, without invitation, would she have been convicted of sexual assault? Well, she better have been, it is a fúcking minimum standard, right? I mean, you can't stalk and touch shoolboys with impunity, it's beyond creepy that needs to be explained to people.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 39,466 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    Fair enough
    She rang the police and I assume pressed charges about a class mate for briefly touching her waist. Granted he ran off when he did it but she could have tried contacting him to ask him to not do it again. He's far from blameless, he acted in a really weird and slightly creepy manner.

    It's been explained several times what happened and how it happened. I suggest you read the thread.

    But she reported the incident(s) to the police, the Police with the CPS decided to "press charges".
    What about if he said 'hi' to her in a creepy manner, and waited for her a couple of occasions to say 'hi', despite her not replying and clearly not being interested in engaging with her. Would that be sexual assault?

    No.
    I wonder, if he touched a male classmate on the arm and waist would he be convicted of sexual assault?

    Why are wondering if this young man is touching male classmates inappropriately? That is beyond weird. :confused:


Advertisement