Guy touches girls arm, faces 10 years for sexual assault

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.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Boggles

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

Boggles

The chan chan man wrote: »

Who said he was getting sexual gratification?

Nobody. Please keep up.

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.

Boggles

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

Boggles

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

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.

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?

Boggles

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

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.

Boggles

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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".

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.

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?

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.

Boggles

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

Boggles

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

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.

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...............

Boggles

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

freshpopcorn

Mod noteClosed for review!

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.

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.

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.

Reviews and Books Galore

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

Boggles

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

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.

Boggles

RandomName2 wrote: »

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".

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

AulWan

The magistrates didn't seem to have any issue with lack of evidence.

It's your bias that is making you question the conviction. It's also making you dismissive of the trauma to the girl involved.

You know, the actual victim here?

Reviews and Books Galore

AulWan wrote: »

The magistrates didn't seem to have any issue with lack of evidence.

It's your bias that is making you question the conviction. It's also making you dismissive of the trauma to the girl involved.

You know, the actual victim here?

:rolleyes:


Women aren't flowers.

Reviews and Books Galore

Boggles wrote: »

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

Why? You have been asked this question many times in this thread and you gaslight (in a really uneducated manner) every time.

Reviews and Books Galore

AulWan wrote: »

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.

Women don't like men to tiptoe around them or treat them as if they are foreign objects entitled to more 'respect'.



It's not the 1500s any more.

El_Duderino 09

Boggles wrote: »

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

An 18 year old who doesn't understand social interactions? Yeah, depending on what that guy already understand, they might not know what's wrong about it. Look at this thread. Loads of posters don't agree it's a crime

wakka12

Im sure theres more it than we know. Nobody will go through the effort of reporting to police for just touching their arm, obviously, she felt she was in further danger , whether that was irrational thought or not is another thing

RandomName2

Boggles wrote: »

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".

Ok

Boggles wrote: »

No.

But why? Physical contact doens't need to be sexual in nature for it to consittue sexual assault, why not verbal interaction. She may have felt threatened by him continually accosting her in such a manner, does that not merit the title of assault, then?

Boggles wrote: »

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

lolz rofl Boggles, that totes 100% merits facepalm. LMGTFY, answer = no.

Cop onto yourself and improve your posting decorum Boggles. Pretending to be too stupid to understand hypothetical scenarios in a failed attempt to portray another poster as weird is unbecoming, and highlights your entire position to be as sexist as I was making it out to be.

AulWan

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

:rolleyes:


Women aren't flowers.

Never said they were. What has that got to do with anything?

AulWan

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Women don't like men to tiptoe around them or treat them as if they are foreign objects entitled to more 'respect'.

It's not the 1500s any more.

Whose asking anyone to tip-toe around them or treat them like foreign objects? I think you are confusing respect with deference.

I don't expect men to open doors for me, or pay for my drinks, or carry my shopping bags. I don't expect men to always make the first move.

I do expect men to keep their hands to themselves. I do expect them to maintain eye contact when speaking to me, or at minimum, their eyes above boob level.

Is that really too much to expect?

Is this really such a hard concept to grasp?

RandomName2

AulWan wrote: »

I do expect them to maintain eye contact when speaking to me, or at minimum, their eyes above boob level.

Is that really too much to expect?

Is this really such a hard concept to grasp?

No, but if they didn't, would you expect them to be arrested?

I think it is worth reiterating, that the man in the OP was arrested and convicted for briefly touching a young woman's waist. It was clearly wrong. Maybe some people are disputing whether or not his behavior was wrong, but I don't actually see that here. The fact of it being wrong does not mean it merits the punitive nature of the response though.

What would have been the sensible thing to do? For him to be given a warning along the lines of "This young woman doesn't want you bothering her. Maybe you think you are being nice, but she doesn't want to talk to you. Please leave her alone. If you don't, there will be consequences"

That would have been sane. The actual response was insane. It's as insane as those Americans who we laugh at who feel mildly threatened by someone and consequently unload an entire magazine into them (maybe arguing 'stand your ground' afterwards).

This isn't an either or situation. It is possible to react to something in a measured way.

Boggles

RandomName2 wrote: »

But why? Physical contact doens't need to be sexual in nature for it to consittue sexual assault,

It does where this crime took place.

RandomName2 wrote: »

why not verbal interaction. She may have felt threatened by him continually accosting her in such a manner, does that not merit the title of assault, then?

Your clear example which I responded to is not sexual assault.

RandomName2 wrote: »

lolz rofl Boggles, that totes 100% merits facepalm. LMGTFY, answer = no.

Everything okay?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Cop onto yourself and improve your posting decorum Boggles. Pretending to be too stupid to understand hypothetical scenarios in a failed attempt to portray another poster as weird is unbecoming, and highlights your entire position to be as sexist as I was making it out to be.

It is extremely weird and quite arbitrary just to throw random moot examples into the mix. Something which you have consistently done since you arrived.

What if he touched a penguin, who gives a fúck. It's not relevant to what happened.

What's your problem with just dealing with the facts we know of this particular case without going down your bizarre rabbit holes and off on silly irrelevant tangents?

You are not that insecure are you?

Is that what this is?

AulWan

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, but if they didn't, would you expect them to be arrested?

I think it is worth reiterating, that the man in the OP was arrested and convicted for briefly touching a young woman's waist. It was clearly wrong. Maybe some people are disputing whether or not his behavior was wrong, but I don't actually see that here. The fact of it being wrong does not mean it merits the punitive nature of the response though.

What would have been the sensible thing to do? For him to be given a warning along the lines of "This young woman doesn't want you bothering her. Maybe you think you are being nice, but she doesn't want to talk to you. Please leave her alone. If you don't, there will be consequences"

That would have been sane. The actual response was insane. It's as insane as those Americans who we laugh at who feel mildly threatened by someone and consequently unload an entire magazine into them (maybe arguing 'stand your ground' afterwards).

This isn't an either or situation. It is possible to react to something in a measured way.

Did you read my original post on this thread? If you didn't, I'll repeat what I said - he didn't deserve to be convicted of a crime. Given his age, I do think he should have been ordered to attend some kind of mandatory therapy /social awareness /consent classes and maybe be kept on a watchlist for a few years.

But what disturbs me about this thread is the number of posters who came in all guns blazing for a 17 year old girl and how they believed she didn't even have grounds to make a complaint. That is truly disturbing.

She and her feelings and how this effected her did not even appear to register. Their attitude is poor guy, she should have simply accepted his unwanted advances, brushed it off and not reported it.

It quite shocking and alarming and frankly goes to show that a lot of work still needs to be done in this area. I was never a big fan of the metoo movement, but after reading the attitudes on this thread, oh boy has my mind been changed on that one.

I'm 99% sure what happened here is he went for her breast and she deflected this by turning her shoulder towards him so his hand landed on her arm. I'm sure many, many women would be familiar with that particular evasive action.

Remember, it was his actions that put him where he is today, not hers.

joseywhales

So if the alleged victim was male, would the case have resulted in a conviction?

AulWan

Skittles10 wrote: »

I would surmise that you're one of those bitter old women who had some bad experiences with men in her past. Your bitterness and resentment results in a hatred of men, you interpret men's actions in the worst light possible. Deep down you don't love yourself, so in the past when men only wanted sex and not a relationship it made you bitter that you couldn't find the love to fill your empty soul.

Then you surmise completely wrong. And the rest of you post couldn't be more wrong either.

But I don't have to defend myself or my relationships with men (and by men I don't just mean my husband but also my father, brothers, son, nephews, platonic male friends, co-workers etc) and I have no intention of doing so.

Its sad you really find it so hard to accept that what happened here was completely and 100% this boy's fault, and that to defend him, you have to attack a 17 year old, completely innocent girl.

If anything, what he needs is a decent man who knows right from wrong to mentor him.

LenWoods

Next dogs will be put down for trying to hump a leg

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I can see where both parties are coming from. Ultimately it doesn't look like it should be before the court. This isn't a sexual crime.

ohnonotgmail

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ok



But why? Physical contact doens't need to be sexual in nature for it to consittue sexual assault, why not verbal interaction. She may have felt threatened by him continually accosting her in such a manner, does that not merit the title of assault, then?



lolz rofl Boggles, that totes 100% merits facepalm. LMGTFY, answer = no.

Cop onto yourself and improve your posting decorum Boggles. Pretending to be too stupid to understand hypothetical scenarios in a failed attempt to portray another poster as weird is unbecoming, and highlights your entire position to be as sexist as I was making it out to be.

Given how many posters here have an issue understanding an actual case perhaps you should concentrate on understanding actual cases before trying your hand at hypotheticals.

joseywhales

LenWoods wrote: »

Next dogs will be put down for trying to hump a leg

but it wasn't even close to that from what I read, we can't be convicting people because of what we think their motives are without any evidence. And I don't think "if I hadn't moved he would have touched my breast" works as evidence either, it's an opinion on a hypothetical situation that never came to fruition. I must be missing some facts.

If a man touches a woman's arm without speaking that can constitute sexual assault? Does is follow that when a woman gives consent to being touched on the arm she is also consenting to a sexual encounter? Obviously the law is gender neutral, so if this had been two men, the result would be the same?

I hate myself for reading a daily mail article.

joseywhales

Maybe this kid just had the worst defense barrister in history, I'm confused

AulWan

Skittles10 wrote: »

Never said it wasn't his fault, the fact you are 99% certain he was going for her breast is ridiculous.

Well, we're all entitled to our opinion.

Maybe you're over the top reaction to my post and subsequent attack on my character and relationships is because I hit a nerve and you recognise the maneouver?